The New Consumer Activism

I’ve recently bought a Hybrid – a Ford Escape. And I'm very happy with it. Now I am a bit of an eco-freak. I have a condensing furnace, buy only green hydro from Bullfrog, and am a member of Friends of the Earth. But a Hybrid is not a rational choice even for me. It emits more carbon than a small car – say a Ford Focus; there are concerns about the greenness of the batteries; and I’d have to drive 37,000 km a year to get a financial return. I don’t. http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/105827/article.html.

Now I do like what it says about me and my values, and I do feel smug about it, but that’s not the whole story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5rQM_HAcfA

I did it to encourage auto manufacturers to become greener. My rationale is this. While individuals in corporations are moral the corporations themselves are essentially amoral – they exist to make money. However if they see a profit to be made in being green they will go green. By being willing to pay over the odds for a Hybrid I’m telling them there is a market for green cars. Seeing this they will invest money in developing more products and hopefully ones better than current Hybrids.

This is what I call the New Consumer Activism.

The Old Consumer Activism essentially involved boycotting companies who the activists saw as doing things they didn’t approve of. Some were really quite successful: for example, boycotting Exxon for the Exxon Valdez and Nestle for Baby Milk in Africa. And there will always be a role for this sort of activism. However most were not effective for two reasons. They needed mass coordinated support to work. And because they attacked sales they generated defensiveness in the companies they were targeting, who then did their best to avoid doing anything.

Having worked with many major companies and knowing how they think I believe the New Consumer Activism is a more effective approach.

It creates a positive reaction in companies. They don’t see a threat; they see an opportunity to make money and so they put positive effort and investment supporting it.
It doesn’t need a co-coordinated effort. True it works better the more people are doing it, but it doesn’t rely on a public movement. Each individual makes a statement through their day-to-day purchasing and if enough individuals feel the same way then the companies notice in their sales (which they look at every day, not just when it gets in the papers) and respond.

So everyone, use your dollars to tell companies what kinds of product you want them to produce, where you want them to invest, and what you value.

Clients are from Mars; agencies from Venus.

Clients and agencies talk different languages and frequently fail to understand each other’s point of view.

Most importantly they have different beliefs about how advertising works. Now I apologize in advance to those clients who come from Venus and agency people from Mars. Yes this differentiation is an oversimplification, but I’m surprised how often it plays out.

Clients are at heart business people. They believe that effective advertising persuades people to buy their product. It carries a message which influences how they see the product which increases the likelihood of them buying it. There are of course many ways that these claims can be communicated – product demo, testimonial, metaphor, hyperbole, “news” announcement etc. The creative is incredibly important because it exists to get the message noticed and remembered and so can make or break the ad, but it is a vehicle to convey the message. The message and the claim is everything. Clients will ask:
- “Do we have the right message?”
- “Is our message getting across?”
- “Is our message breaking through?”
- And a concern - “Is the creative vampiring our message?”

Examples of such claims would include:
- Unlike regular soap Dove is pH neutral
- A full serving of vegetables in every can of soup of Campbell’s Soup
- British Airways is the world’s favourite airline

Agency people are at heart see themselves as part of the broader media world. They believe that effective advertising creates a bond with the recipient and people buy the product because of that bond. It engages them and creates an emotional affinity which says this is a brand for me. Here the message is relatively unimportant. What is important is the story and how strongly they relate to the advertising idea itself. Is the idea relevant and engaging? For agencies the idea is everything. Agencies will tell clients:
- “This is a breakthrough idea.”
- “People will love this idea.”
- “This will really get buzz/be talked about/go viral.”

Generally these ads convey lifestyle, values or an image which is attractive to the consumer. Here the creative is a key part of the communication. If the desired imagery includes “coolness” the ad itself must be “cool”.

Examples would include:
- The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty
- The Taster’s Choice Coffee Soap Opera
- Most Nike ads
- And because they are voted for by agencies, most creative award winning ads.
So what happens when Mars meets Venus. Often clients see agencies as self-indulgent, trying to create entertainment for its own sake with no regard to its selling effect. Agencies see clients as narrow minded people who can’t see the big picture. But the truth is they both want the same thing. They both want breakthrough advertising that makes their brand successful and indeed famous. But they come from different planets as to how to achieve it. And the result is often tension.

I worked on the Gold Blend couple campaign (Taster’s Choice here) and the client was always uncomfortable, asking where was the product sell. To the agency the ad worked because it was creating an aspirational image for the coffee which made it desirable and carried implications about quality and taste. It didn’t need to say anything about the product to have that effect. And the agency’s view seemed to hold; it went on to win an IPA Ad Effectiveness Silver Award. I admire the courage of the client to approve an ad they were uncomfortable with and which didn’t talk in their language.

But I also worked on a pitch for George Brown College. There the client had come up with a killer claim – “George Brown College helps you get the job you want” supported by a strong proof point “8 out of 10 grads get a job within 6 months”. I admire the creative team who restrained themselves from doing cool ads that appealed to the cynicism of 18-22s (several other teams who pitched the business showed no such restraint) and “merely” brought the claim alive in a direct and clear way.

Now if this duality is true then it raises more questions:

Which is most effective?

How do you choose which way to go?

How do you (client or agency) learn to speak the other’s language?

How you brief your advertising?

How do you evaluate and research it?

I’ll come back to these later.

Irony in Advertising

Have you seen the ad for the Philips Arcitec razor? It’s the one that says we conquered the sky, showing the Wright Brothers; we conquered Mount Everest, showing a climber on his way to the top; we conquered the moon, showing the landing on the moon; and we conquered the neck, showing the Philips Arcitec.

My wife who was watching with me was disgusted. “That’s ridiculous, comparing a new razor to the landing on the moon.”

But that, I’m sure, is the point. I’ve worked with a lot of advertising creative people and this feels like an intentionally ironic ad. “Of course it’s not as big as landing on the moon. It’s meant to be ironic.”

This new view of irony is when you use irony to excuse something that would otherwise be unacceptable or in this case ridiculous. The first time I encountered this was with the new Men’s magazines – FHM, Maxim, Loaded. These were read by young guys. If criticised for looking at pictures of half naked women they would say “You don’t understand. I’m being ironic. I know they are exploitative and in looking at them I am recognising that. I’m not a dirty old man.”

Applying the same think to the Philips ad the thinking goes. “Of course it’s a ridiculous comparison. That’s the point. We’re being ironic. But it’s still a cool razor and a real advance within razors.” The truth is they would really like us to believe it’s as good as landing on the moon.

The trouble with this sort of irony is that most observers dismiss it as a self delusion. They look and say “Guys who buy Maxim like looking at naked women”. And “Philips thinks its new razor is on a par with landing on the moon”. And react accordingly. Just like my wife.

Great lies of advertising and what they really mean

I advertising we don't always say what we mean. Here is something to help you understand things better. Do let me know ones you'd like to add.

1. We want to use advertising to build the brand

We haven’t got any real point of difference and can’t be bothered to dig deeper so it’s down to the creative. Also “This is a creative challenge”.

2. Our main aim is to sell the product

Our reputation is based on peer recognition within the creative community. That’s what we care about. If we can sell some stuff at the same time that’s great.

3. We want edgy advertising

We are embarrassed that our advertising is so boring. So this time do something good. Of course it still has to beat the norms in the pre-test and we don’t want any e-mails to the president.

4. This will get talked about at the watercooler

Yeah. Only if it’s your watercooler. Seriously how many ads get talked about each year – 4 or 5? Is yours one of them?

5. I really love this idea but I’d like to save it for next year.

I hate it.

6. We’re switching budget to online/WOM/PR

I don’t know if it’ll do any good – I certainly can’t measure it - but its way cool, and besides head office (in the US) won’t interfere.

7. This will make a great viral campaign.

We know there’s no hope of you buying it for traditional advertising. But you’re less picky with online stuff. Meanwhile see 4 above – how many online things have you forwarded to friends that aren’t done by someone you know?

8. This is a totally original idea

Except for the campaign from Thailand I saw in Communications Arts.

9. It’s totally on brief

I actually only looked at the brief this morning when preparing for this meeting. But if I say it’s on brief are you going to call me a liar?

10. Research proves …

I don’t really care what the research says but I know it better than you so you’d better agree with me.

11. Consumer Insights Department

The market research department were unhappy with their low status so they rebranded themselves. c.f. alternate names for account planners and media planners.

12. It sold bucketloads

I don’t really care how successful it was in business terms but I know I’m supposed to, so I’ll say it did without bothering to look up the details.

A Tale of Two Cities

Is Canada really the multicultural mosaic we want to believe it is? Well yes and no.

I moved to Toronto ten years ago from the UK. And there it’s true. My dentist is an Asian from the Caribbean. In my daughters’ elementary school the majority of children didn’t have English as their first language – their friends came from Latvia, Jamaica, Sri Lanka amongst many others. Locally I have a choice of food from anywhere from Poland to Ethiopia. We celebrate the Ukrainian Festival, Caribbana, the Taste of the Danforth. According to the 2006 Census 43% of the population belongs to a visible minority.

But I also have a cottage in Haliburton. There, according to the Census, there are 165 people who belong to a visible minority, or 1% of the population. Yes 1% vs. 43%. As they say, you don’t see too many black faces on the dock. But don’t get me wrong. The people of Haliburton are not unsophisticated – there has been an explosion of high quality restaurants; the local radio station, if sometimes delightfully amateur, is more intelligent than most Toronto alternatives; there is a thriving local arts scene.

But it is not multicultural. Ethnic food is hard to find. The artists are mostly white. You rarely hear other languages spoken.

The fact is there are two Canadas. Not French speaking vs. English. Montreal has its own thriving multiculturalism, albeit not as pronounced as Toronto or Vancouver. The Laurentians are ethnically as white as Haliburton.

The real split is cities vs. rural Canada.

One, the cities, where the majority of the media live, where 96% of all visible minorities live, where the great multiculturalism experiment is happening; and the other, rural Canada, where 2% of the population is a visible minority, where the media visit but don’t live, where non-white people stand out as different.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but we shouldn’t believe our own mythology about Canada being the great cultural mosaic.

Why don’t people hate the Mac vs. PC advertising?

The other day someone was telling me how offended they got by competitive ads that knock other products. Interestingly only 5 minutes before they had said that they really liked the current Mac and PC ads; you know, the Mac ads that knock the PC.
I gently pointed out this apparent contradiction and they countered that the Mac-PC ads were different because in those the Mac wasn’t knocking the PC, the PC was drawing attention to its own weaknesses.
Now my friend isn’t stupid. They know it’s an Apple ad, written by Apple copywriters and using actors employed by Apple. So why the logic failure?
Maybe it’s OK to knock the opposition if you wrap it up, or maybe it’s OK if it’s done humorously, or maybe it’s OK to make fun of and disparage the PC if you’re cool like Apple. Or maybe Microsoft is the marketing equivalent of white males – one of the few ethnic groups you can make jokes about.
Now all that may be true but it does undermine the moral dimension of the criticism of comparative ads. Seems like all is fair in advertising so long as it’s done well. And people don’t apply logic to what they see in ads. Not that’s there’s anything wrong with that. I love the ads too.

The Power of Energy

Apparently energy is everything. Well at least for brands and probably for me too. According to John Gerzema and Ed LeBar in their recent book “The Brand Bubble”, Energy is more important for a brand than awareness, trust, respect or familiarity in determining its future success.

Certainly, if you look at the recent US presidential campaign, that’s born out. An untried relatively inexperienced newcomer looks likely to win the election. While lacking experience and being relatively unknown, he certainly has energy. His speeches are exciting, his message is one of change and he approaches his marketing innovatively and creatively e.g. his recent foray into advertising in video games. The only recent threat was when the older, more experienced but less energetic McCain introduce Sarah Palin as a running mate. Talk about an injection of energy. But I guess that also shows that energy alone cannot sustain growth without some underlying substance.

It’s also been a favourite theme of mine. The first brand I worked on in Canada was Bell at BBDO. We were obsessed with energy, though we called it momentum. That’s because, if, you who remember your physics, it suggests direction as well as motion. Though, in retrospect, a better term might be Velocity, which doesn’t have the connotations of inertia.


At Bell we constantly tracked results on the question “I’m hearing more about them nowadays”. We believed that, like Oscar Wilde, “there is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about”. The result of this thinking was the “People are coming back to Bell” campaign, which was immensely successful in a tough market situation.

According to Gerzema and LeBar many famous brands lack energy, including American Airlines, Midas and Exxon. So if you are involved with a brand like that you might want to ask yourself how to get more energy. To start you off some of the things that help are: differentiation, vision, innovation and creativity (in everything).

Now I’m going to start applying that concept to myself. It’s easier said than done. But if I’m successful, watch out world.

For more go to http://www.toolkitmarketing.ca/