Creative campaign not the solution to smoking issues in Singapore


As with many issues, Singapore has a zero tolerance approach to smoking and in particular, teen smoking. Get caught selling cigarettes to minors and you face a fine of over US$6,000.

Anyone under the age of 18 caught carrying cigarettes, carrying not smoking, and it is an automatic fine of US$30. Get caught again and the fine is US$60. If you don’t pay the fine, your parents spend a night in jail.

Smoking is banned in all public places such as hotels, supermarkets, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, museums, theatres, airports and other public transport places, libraries, indoor and outdoor sports arenas and government and private offices.

If a person serving in the military is caught smoking whilst in uniform he or she is disciplined and fined. Like other countries, cigarette packets carry gruesome images of what smoking can do to throats, mouths, unborn babies and so on.

Little wonder then that according to a recent Synovate survey, Singapore has the lowest numbers of smokers (13%) across a random selection of countries including Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.

Unfortunately many of these smokers started smoking in their teens. According to a Pfizer poll in May 2010, 84% of smokers started the habit in their teens and some started smoking as young as 12.

And although at 9%, Singapore has one of the lowest rates of teen smoking in the world, the Health Promotion Board is keen to address the issue of smoking amongst young adults and teens.

So the Health Promotion Board appointed Ogilvy & Mather Singapore to develop a creative campaign to encourage young people to reject cigarettes and live a tobacco free life that will improve their appearance, fitness, spending power and contribute positively to the environment.

The results are ‘Live it up without lighting up’ and they can be seen ogilvy_smoke-1 and ogilvy_smoke2-1. The campaign featured above the line (ATL), out of home (OOH), digital, radio and events such as the Great Audio Experience, held on 29th May 2010 as part of World No Tobacco Day celebrations.

The creatives feature gorgeous, young, happy, confident people with unblemished skin in semi cartoon like environments. Copy tells readers that “Non smokers tend to look younger than smokers of the same age” and “Non smokers tend to be physically fitter than smokers.” Goals are to communicate a better more beautiful and green world populated by gorgeous young things who are fitter, healthier and generally in a better place as a result of not smoking.

According to Jon Loke, Head of Art, Ogilvy & Mather Singapore, the agency was careful to ensure that the campaign would not talk down to them. “We needed to turn the traditional way anti-smoking campaigns are carried out on their heads to create a message that would appeal to youths. Hence, the campaign encourages, empowers and ultimately celebrates a smoke-free life.”

Now I really like the creatives, I think they are really well executed and I really hope the campaign works. But I sincerely doubt this is the way forward. That’s because a creative driven campaign, no matter how much it turns things upside down, is unlikely to have an impact on the number of smokers in Singapore.

Malaysia spent RM100 million (US$30 million) over 5 years on such a campaign that was inneffective in bringing down the number of smokers in Malaysia.

In the UK, after extensive research of more than 8,500 smokers over a ten-year period, the Institute for Social and Economic research found that the warnings on cigarette packets that smoking kills or maims are ineffective in reducing the number of smokers.

Likewise, chilling commercials or emotionally disturbing programs are also ineffective. The study also discovered that even when a close family member becomes ill from the effects of smoking, the smoker takes no notice.

In fact, according to the study, smokers only reduce the number of cigarettes or sometimes quit when their own personal health is at stake. And even failing health may not persuade a smoker to reduce or even stop smoking because smoking is linked to a lack of psychological wellbeing and often failing health results in psychological decline.

Even before this campaign, Singapore has successfully reduced smoking amongst youths. Statistics released in 2009 by the Students’ Health Survey (SHS) 2009 suggest a downward trend in youth smoking, with the proportion of youngsters who had tried smoking, even one or two puffs, declining from 26% in 2000 to 16% in 2009. That’s an impressive statistic and I would focus more on what drove those achievements rather than new creative campaigns.

I have a hunch that this campaign will not have a dramatic effect on the number of smokers in Singapore. Data shows that traditional marketing tools are even less effective today than they were 10 years ago. Consumers simply don’t listen to mass marketing the way they used to, especially when copy uses vague terms such as ‘tend’.

What is required is a data driven approach to the issue. Specific and comprehensive qualitative research with relevant targeted questions related to each segment (and each segment will be specific and targetted) that are designed to deliver actionable data. I’m sure this information is already available.

It is imperative that the audience is identified and then engaged individually, on a one to one basis. It will be an expensive and long term effort. That doesn’t mean repeating the same one size fits all commercials or messages, this means developing a relationship with these partners through engagement.

Also critical to the development of the strategy will be the buy in from stakeholders such as doctors, educators, retailers and others. Discussions must be held with these key elements to determine strategies. One such strategy might be to find alternative sources of income for retailers. Policing of key stakeholders such as retailers must be ramped up.

Once research is completed and analysed, a comprehensive strategy must be developed featuring a fully integrated program to communicate with all stakeholders with specific emphasis on education at residential level and dynamic, preventative and educational programmes for schools. Existing smokers will be targetted individually through interviews with doctors, rather than one-size-fits all creative campaigns.

Only once the strategic blueprint is ready can the implementation begin. There is no easy way to reduce the number of smokers in Singapore. It’s going to take a long term investment in time, effort and money.

Singapore has done many things right in the past to reduce the numbers of smokers. Investing valuable resources on creative driven campaigns that have not worked in the past is not the way forward.

Top tips for successful city branding


I know I’ve said this before and I am probably beginning to sound like a broken record but advertising agencies do advertising.

And advertising is a tactical initiative driven, on the whole by creativity. Using advertising across one or more channels is a series of tactical initiatives known as a campaign. It is not a brand strategy.

If you want to build a brand, you are not, unless you have extremely deep pockets and are very very lucky, going to do it with advertising alone. This is especially true in the destination branding sector. What is required is a comprehensive, integrated brand strategy that acts as the blueprint that drives multiple interanl and external initiatives, including the very important creative elements developed by advertising agencies and not the other way around.

Bill Baker, author of Destination Branding for Small Cities available here, has written a timely, concise and easy to read set of guidelines for any city or destination that is ready to develop a brand strategy.

The article is here dont_hire_painter-1

I strongly recommend any destination, and for that matter, any company read this article to understand what they need to do before wasting valuable resources on tactical initiatives that will only add to the noise.

Louis Vuitton in a spot of bother over print ads


The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK has received complaints that print ads for Louis Vuitton created by Ogilvy and Mather suggest that the products were made by hand.

Certainly looking at this ad that shows a woman creating the lines for the folds of a wallet

and also this ad that appears to be a woman stitching a handbag

It is easy to see why there have been complaints. Especially as the copy states, “infinite patience protects each overstitch… One could say that a Louis Vuitton bag is a collection of fine details.”

However, according to marketingweek Louis Vuitton defended the campaign by saying that “their employees were not assembling pre-packed pieces but were taking individual handcrafted and hand-sewn parts through a range of hand-made stages to reach a final item.”

Louis Vuitton added that the use of hand sewing machines and associated tasks were “part and parcel of what would amount to ’handmade’ in the 21st century”.

So handmade doesn’t actually mean handmade in the traditional sense?

If that is the case does that mean then that the iconic hand made Hermes Birkin bag that can cost anything from US$10,000 to well over US$100,000 isn’t actually hand made?

Does this mean that the animal skins used in a Birkin bag are not actually spread out on the floor of the processing room and screened by a number of artisans before being measured and cut by hand as required?

Does this mean that the bottom of the handbag is not sown by hand to the front and back with waxed linen threads?

Does this mean that the handle of the Birkin bag is not manually stitched until the shape comes to the fore?

Does this mean then that the artisans don’t use sand paper to smooth rough edges? And does it mean therefore that hot wax is not applied to the handles to protect them from moisture?

And all the effort that goes into the front flap, the metal and lock is not actually done by hand?

Does it mean that the craftsmen in France that all work out of the little lane in Paris don’t actually exist?

And advertising agencies wonder why 76% of consumers don’t believe that companies tell the truth in advertisements. In Malaysia that figure is 86%!

The number one element in any relationship is trust. If a brand wants to build a relationship with a consumer, that consumer must be able to trust the brand.

An element of doubt in communications is not a good way to build trust.

UK Olympics mascots launched


The UK recently launched the official mascots for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. Named Wenlock and Mandeville, they will be on every bit of collateral related to the Olympics to be held in London in a couple of years time. This image is of Mandeville. As far as I can tell, Wenlock looks the same

You may recall that the UK Olympic logo, launched some time ago and costing about £400,000 (RM1,800,000) were ridiculed by just about everyone. Here’s the pink version:

So what do you guys think of the new logos? Will they get the same treatment as the Olympic logo?

Branding states requires integrated strategic initiatives


I believe that traditional brand communications driven by traditional processes such as creativity, placement, repetition, positioning are being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the branding graveyard. Brand communications, as a numbers game of releases distributed, ads run, awards won and so on, that focussed on outputs, not outcomes, are finished.

But this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for superbly executed advertising, as part of a integrated, organisational driven, consumer influenced brand strategy.

When the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership launched a strategic initiative that has at its centre, a campaign developed to remind individuals that wearing seat belts is important, the county realised that repeating well executed advertising on TV was going to be expensive and unlikely to reduce the number of road accidents in the county. However, the ads are good and were viewed over a million times in two weeks. My personal favourite is here

But the ads are only part of the story. The initiative also includes Operation Crackdown, a residents driven initiative developed with the residents of the area in mind. Essentially, the initiative calls on Sussex residents to contribute to the safety of their communities by reporting instances of anti-social/dangerous driving.

These initiatives are part of an integrated strategy that also includes educating businesses by offering companies a complete managers’ safety pack of handbook, driver information and posters to display in public areas. There are also opportunities for businesses to apply for specialist help to devise their own occupational road risk strategy, or to have existing safety initiatives examined by the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership.

There are also other campaigns that focus on children. Schools across the county participate in a quiz. Cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians are also targetted via multiple channels.

Operation Crackdown received 1,608 speed complaints from across Sussex, between March 2009 and March 2010. Extensive data will be collected and analysed on an ongoing basis and used to improve the strategy.

Branding is more than a communications exercise


The most common definition of a brand that I hear is: “A brand is a name, sign, symbol, slogan or anything that is used to identify and distinguish a specific good (product), service, or business” This comes from the respected American Marketing Association. The problem is that this definition belongs to an era of limited competition, limited choice and limited knowledge of consumers.

In the mass economy that no longer exists, it was relatively easy to build a brand and your brand could easily become the name, in your category, on everyone’s lips. And it got to this position by mass advertising via mass media. 50 years ago, a good ad on prime time TV was enough to get someone to write a brand name down and ask for it at the department store the next day.

Quite often, even if the product was unable to deliver value, consumers would still buy it, quite often because they didn’t have a choice or because they were less demanding, and willing to put up with poor quality. In some cases consumers believed they were wrong and the product was good so they continued to buy it.

Today consumers are far more knowledgeable and much more demanding. They have more choice and there is more competition, especially for consumers attention via mass marketing channels. Moreover, a lot of those products with their flashy names, creative symbols and signs have lied to consumers in their slogans and consumers have been let down. It is no longer enough to tell a consumer your product is the best. If they are let down they won’t buy it again.

Instead, they go elsewhere. Today, to build a brand requires a comprehensive investment in organisational excellence. Building a brand is no longer a creative exercise or a communications exercise to differentiate a product. And the key metric must be profitability.

At this stage, most articles give an example of Nike, Coke, Apple or a similar brand. But these companies are exceptions and I’ll explain that in another article. But this time I am going to use Apple as an example because they have adopted their brand better than most.

Apple is a brand but 15 years ago the name, logo, etc that differentiated the good/product was not helping the company gain market share in the computer business. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were thinking of changing the name.

But instead, what happened was a massive investment in operational excellence, R&D, purchasing, supply chain, distribution and strategic alliances in manufacturing, etc plus a complete overhaul of sales processes, customer service, a huge stroke of luck and later, an investment in clever creatives.

The result, the ability to match product attributes to give consumers economic, experiential and emotional value that has built a global brand. I would say that the ads didn’t build Apple, it was the investment in R&D, organisational excellence and a lot of luck.

Another example is PAN AM. PAN AM had a great name, nice logo and spent a lot of money on mass marketing. I’m sure we all remember the tagline “PanAm. We’re flying better than ever”. Where is PAN AM today? PAN AM doesn’t exist.

So the next time someone says a brand is “A brand is a name, sign, symbol, slogan or anything that is used to identify and distinguish a specific good (product), service, or business” Ask them how many products they buy because of the name.

Are we seeing the commoditisation of the iPhone in Asia?


Here in Malaysia it took time for the mobile service providers to agree terms with Apple to offer the iPhone to subscribers. But finally, Maxis signed up and has invested heavily over past year or so in traditional aquisition focussed marketing.

Recently, another provider, the aggressive and innovative provider, Digi signed an agreement with Apple and has started to promote the iPhone.

Last night, I was watching TV and was astonished to see first a Maxis ad for the iPhone, featuring the numerous applications (there’s one for just about everything) and then, I think separated by another commercial but possibly even back to back, the same commercial for the iPhone, featuring all the applications, this time with a Digi logo!

I have a number of reactions to this. Firstly, don’t advertising agencies know how to do a deal with a TV station anymore? If you can’t get an exclusive deal at least ensure no competitor products advertise on the same program.

Secondly, what are these telcos doing slugging it out in public on TV? Do’t they have any understanding of the iPhone and what it stands for and means?

Thirdly, these telcos are commoditising a valuable brand that deserves better. A more sophisticated approach for a sophisticated product that offers value for many people in many ways targetted at existing subscribers and personalised would be far more effective than a mass economy spray and pray approach!

Creating awareness via TVCs is a complete waste of money for a product such as the iPhone. If anyone out there is unaware of the iPhone, the applications and how they can add value to a person’s life, then that person is not the type of customer Apple, or the telcos want!

Integrating and engaging all activities


Back in the day, if a TV commercial was good a consumer might, just might ask a friend for his opinion on the product advertised. If the opinion was a favourable one, then the consumer may have sought the product out the next time he was at the mall. Assuming of course that he remembered it on the way to the mall or his memory was jogged by some effective point of sale promotions.

But today, the consumer has millions of friends with him as he watches the TV commercial. And all of those friends are just waiting to pass on their opinion to our consumer. To ask them, all our consumer has to do is key in a word or two into the search cell on his browser on the laptop that is probably on his lap as he watches the TV.

With this in mind, wouldn’t it make sense for advertisers to create TVCs with easy to remember links or search terms that can be keyed in at the same time as the commercial plays? Of course product sites will have to feature the same image of the same product with relevant content and information on local store opening hours and product availability. Messaging and images as well as content in traditional and digital media must be consistent too but this shouldn’t be a problem.

Surely we should move away from the mass market mass economy one message for all approach to this more instant, integrated and engaged approach. What do you think?

Building a 400 year old brand is a strategic initiative


Shepherd Neame, the oldest brewer of beer in the UK was established in 1608 or 402 years ago! An amazing heritage and the brewer likes to play on this heritage with its advertising campaigns for brands such as Spitfire, Canterbury Jack and Bishops Finger.

The brewer allocated its entire 2006 advertising budget, which was about £300,000 (US$450,000) to one of those, Spitfire a real ale, and all of the budget was spent on the London Evening Standard, an afternoon/evening newspaper in London. This was considered a radical change of strategy. As well as print ads, content and sponsored supplements, the brand also sponsored the Evening Standard’s football World Cup special feature in May of that year. The strategic agency was John Ayling & Associates and the creative agency was RPM3. Promotional support such as free pint promotions were also included.

The really well executed and edgy “Bottle of Britain” campaign ran over six months and is one of my favourite campaigns. Here are some samples of the award winning creative work that was considered controversial and was investigated by the advertising watchdog Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK after complaints about the use of SS insignia. The complaints were later rejected by the ASA. You’ll need to have some knowledge of history, colloquial English as well as WWII jargon to really appreciate the ads.

Spitfire

You can find more examples of their campaigns on the Facebook page here

But Shepherd Neame understands that advertising campaigns are not enough to build and grow a strong brand. As a result, the company continues to invest in state of the art SAP technology and bottling technology, new acquisitions of high turnover pubs and refurbishments of existing properties to create airy, spacious and clean environments.

The company also invests extensively in merchandise including a bottle of Britain book, social media and charity work (Spitfire originated as a charity brew) and will link the brand to the extensive 70th anniversary celebrations of the Battle of Britain due to be held in the UK later this year. Also look out for its campaigns related to the 2010 football world cup.

All these elements ensure the brands offer experiential, emotional and economic value to both new and existing customers.

It comes as no surprise therefore that despite the recession and clouds of uncertainty, red tape and increased taxes and shocking weather in the UK, turnover was up 8.2% to £60 million in the last six months of 2009 proving that investing in brands is not just about edgy and controversial advertising campaigns, but a long term strategic imperative to continue to build on a 400 year heritage!