How to mark “World Awareness of Awareness Days Day”

This is going to be a busy month for me. Not only do I have it in my diary to mark National Organic Month, World Suicide Prevention Day, International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer, International Talk Like A Pirate Day (yes, really), World Reflexology Week and World Alzheimer’s Day, I have also just found out that September is also Oral Health Month.

I know this because of a report that Colgate is launching a £1m campaign this month to drive awareness of dental health care and hygiene. Oral Health Month will, apparently, run throughout September to remind the public about the importance of keeping their teeth and gums healthy.

Whilst improving the oral health of the nation is an important and worthy cause, the fact that Oral Health Month is an annual event created by the Colgate-Palmolive Company itself may raise concerns in some quarters that, at least in part, its creation has a purely commercial imperative behind it. This compares , for example, with National Smile Month, created by the British Dental Health Foundation, the UK's leading independent oral health charity.

There seems to have been a massive proliferation in recent times as brands attempt to cut above the line budgets in favour of “smart” PR/CSR style activity. The risk, of course, is that the sheer number of awareness events gives each of them – even the most worthy – the impact of wallpaper. However if, like any other piece of communications, the event is poorly aligned and badly thought out then the the assumption that just because it’s “Hybrid lawnmower engine Sunday” in your company, consumers will be as gripped, can actively work against the brand.

So normal diligence is the order of the day with research. Good early stage creative development which focuses on connecting the brand and consumer through the idea would be helpful and a resistance to using research to provide part of the story rather than test the story idea. Remember, also, that no matter how many awareness days or events there are, only a few rise to the surface of our consciousness. For instance there are nearly 400 film and TV awards events each year but as a film and TV follower I think most would only recall the Oscars, Golden Globes and the BAFTAs and maybe one or two others.

There are now so many awareness days that brands need to be careful which ones they choose to associate themselves with. Best to associate yourself with an event organised independently and without obvious commercial motive and to do so in a way that fits both the brand proposition and the objectives of the event.

And with that, I’m off to look for a sponsor World Awareness of Awareness Days Day.

TEA & SYMPATHY FOR TWININGS

Tea brand Twinings is facing a high street rebellion, according to The Grocer this week, with apparently “furious” tea drinkers angry at the changing taste of its Earl Grey tea and demanding reinstatement of the original recipe.

More than 150 consumers (not exactly an enormous sample of the tea-drinking public) have expressed their displeasure online after Twinings revamped its Earl Grey earlier this year by adding extra bergamot and citrus and renaming it “The Earl Grey”. And all this despite an increase in sales since the new blend was introduced.

This is not, of course, the first time there has been opposition to a recipe change to a well established product. Probably the most famous example was Coca Cola, whose ‘New Coke’ formula ‘won’ in blind taste tests against Pepsi but the market reaction to which was so poor, that the company revered to its original formula, which it re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", leading to a significant gain in sales. Is this a silver lining for Twinings in the Earl Grey cloud?

So is the message to brands that a dramatic change of recipe to a well-loved product could lead to regular, loyal consumers starting to explore other brands? Is it akin to a form of betrayal from a trusted friend?

There will always be reasons behind such a fundamental product change. Sometimes bringing a revised product to market can be viewed as an exercise in damage limitation to cause as little alienation of current buyers as possible. There can be other reasons though, including a longer term view that the current core buyers are not sustainable. Sometimes, if a brand is deemed to be in long term decline, a decision is taken to target a whole new set of ‘cooler’ and younger core buyers. In this instance, upsetting their current buyers can be acceptable in the interests of longer term sustainability.

From a research standpoint, you need to ensure you understand both the change to the product and the strategy for its introduction, and structure the research accordingly. There is no single answer to the best way to run this type of research – you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. For example, will you tell people it’s a new and improved taste or hope to slip it in under the radar? This would certainly influence how you introduce the product when testing.

This, of course, is not just any old product. There is likely to be more risk attached to ‘tampering’ with a cherished institution like Earl Grey tea than with a lot of other projects. So research should not only focus on innovation but on “conservation” too. This is where semiotics in research can be so important, having an inherent and detailed understanding of category rules, which are sacrosanct and which could survive or even thrive with reinvention.

If the product is changing and offering a tangible benefit which you will communicate – lower salt or fat or sugar ... etc. it is wise to let people know so that they can evaluate the product and the message as a bundle. Or are you changing to make the product appeal to a wider audience or is retention of current buyers a key objective? This would impact on who you would want as respondents to your research.

Change isn’t always dangerous and isn’t always bad, provided you factor in from the outset what you are trying to achieve. If retaining core customers is still the objective, changing both the recipe and the name at the same time might be too much for a devoted consumer. And they are the ones who would be hardest to get back once they leave.

Could corporates really bring brands to market as quickly as The Apprentice?

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece about my sense of disappointment at the quality of business ideas offered up by all four of the finalists in the UK’s version of The Apprentice. This was based on their startling lack of originality and the sense of let down that, if this was supposed to be the cream of the UK’s entrepreneurial talent (which we know it isn’t), it didn’t offer a spectacular return on Lord Sugar’s investment in time and energy.

But now, just a few weeks later, comes the news that Talkback Thames, the makers of the BBC reality show, are preparing to make two food brands, created in the tasks in this year's series, real-world businesses.
British pie brand MyPy and biscuit brand Special Stars have been trademarked by the programme's creators in preparation for bringing them to market. MyPy, which was invented by eventual winner Tom Pellereau and runner up Helen Milligan, focused on British ingredients.
Special Stars, created by Helen and her team in an earlier episode, was a children's biscuit brand, with the slogan "any time is treat time". Special Stars received an Apprentice record order of 800,000 units from one supermarket outlet.

The issue this raises in my mind, however, is not whether these businesses will fly or whether we’ll all be eating pies by the end of the year, but how easy it is for entrepreneurial ideas to win out in many of our larger organisations.

Save for Talkback Thames and the profile boost it received via The Apprentice, would an idea like Special Stars actually stand a chance of coming to fruition? Or would the forensic examination the idea would receive from every department in a cautious corporate – from marketing to manufacturing – render the idea still-born? I know where my money lies. Either way, the speed with which ideas like this are being brought to market are a world away from the months, even years it can take in a larger corporate organisation.

And that’s a shame. In a market that is already suppressed, we want our brands to be bold, to create stand-out and deliver imaginative and innovative brand and product concepts that excite our interests as consumers. We want them to follow the business fundamentals that are needed to successfully bring a brand to market, and we want the brand to embody all of the entrepreneurial qualities that went into its creation. Because if it does, it will capture our imaginations as consumers, we are more likely to purchase, which will allow money to flow and will again help drag us all towards more optimistic pastures.

A matter of convenience

If you tuned in to ITV2 this week for Gordon Ramsay’s new series of Hells Kitchen USA you will have noticed that the The English Provender Company has done the deal to sponsor the series with its Very Lazy ingredients brand.

Their marketing manager, Karen Fowler, is quoted as saying that the sponsorship is being used to promote the speed and ease of using the products, thereby tapping into the growing prevalence of time poor, convenience-driven consumers.

In this context, the sponsorship makes perfect sense. After all, identifying and then aligning yourself with emerging consumer trends is fundamental to long term brand success. Increasingly our eating patterns are being forced to fit around our busy lifestyles. Research has shown that because we are hectic and time poor more and more of us are actively looking to reduce the time we spend preparing meals. But balance this with the economic downturn and more consumers are also cooking at home in order to conserve cash. This is one reason why many of us are opting to buy in fully or part-prepared meals, but also one reason why we are looking for products that enable us to prepare healthy food, more quickly at home.

The popularity of new television concepts like “Come Dine With Me” and “Dinner Date” are testament to our growing interest in eating at home, and are perfect partners for convenience ingredients products.

What is clear, as well, is that although consumers are cutting back on the amount they spend eating out, the convenience of good value restaurants remain a substantial pull. Restaurants are already targeting the time poor, cash strapped consumer. Two for one offers on main meals and sharing platters in some restaurants are beginning to re-define the eating out experience for some, whilst ‘formalising’ a new lower cost route to eating out. Similarly, take-out food, whilst under pressure because of the economy, is also seen by many as a way to continue enjoying the eating-out experience without the costs attached to restaurant dining.

These trends are increasingly reflected in the briefs that clients are bringing to us. There is an increase in the mood for price vs value–based promotions and a growth in the number of innovations that are being considered in the area of convenient but still “good” food. It’s a trend that is unlikely to fall away any time soon.

The Apprentices Make Schoolboy Errors

Were you glued to the television? Were you one of the record 10.7 million people who apparently tuned in to watch Tom Pellereau win the seventh series of BBC1’s The Apprentice, thereby securing himself Lord Sugar as an investor and business partner in a new business which, by the end, I think was about producing orthopaedic chairs?

I say I think, because to be honest, by the end, it wasn’t entirely clear what any of the business plans were given that most had been systematically deconstructed and thrown on the scrapheap by Lord Sugar’s henchmen.

The Apprentice makes great television. Not so much some of Britain’s brightest business brains, but certainly some of Britain’s biggest egos competing for a prize which is, frankly, all about television entertainment and not so much about business. The saddest thing of all is that for many this is their only interaction with entrepreneurial Britain and how sad it was that all of the ideas this year seemed to lack any semblance of innovation.

And part of the reason for the deconstruction of the business plans was because each of the finalists appear to have done little, if any, market research. Jim’s plan for an e-learning business hadn’t involved any market testing among head teachers; Susan’s extravagant forecasts for her cosmetics business were based on what she had achieved from one market stall; Helen ‘s idea for a concierge business hadn’t taken into account what requirements her potential clients would have and whether she had the contacts to deliver on those requirements, and even Tom’s initial idea to go into companies to assess potential for back pain hadn’t been run past any real companies.

Aside from the sadness that here was a group of people, smart people, who had managed to only come up with a collection of dull, unoriginal business concepts, it was more frustrating to see that they had failed to even undertake the most basic form of market research. Yes, we need programmes like The Apprentice to promote entrepreneurialism, but we also need it to enthuse and inform current and future business people. And that requires the show to also pass on some fundamental business tenets – one of which is the absolute need to research your market thoroughly before launching a business, service or product, and that requires you to gain the insights of your potential customers as to whether there is even a desire or a need for what you are proposing to sell.

Failure to do so means you are likely to always remain little more than an Apprentice!

Nifty at 50 may be new brand mantra

They used to say that life begins at 40, but now it would seem, being 50 is particularly cool. Madonna, George Clooney, Michelle Pfeiffer and Denzel Washington have all chalked up their half centuries, and now it seems, the 50 plus age group is the one in most demand for marketers.

Behind the headline figures that a record 28.6 million people in the UK visited Facebook in May and that both Twitter and LinkedIn are also recording unprecedented visitor numbers, is the revelation in a piece of UKOM/Neilsen research that older age groups are more likely to visit Twitter than younger age groups.

Moreover, it seems, Facebook’s growth in the UK is being driven by the over-50s. Since 2009, the number of 50 to 64 year-olds visiting the site has grown by 84%. As a result, the membership of Facebook is now more representative of the overall UK population than it previously has been, whilst under-18s are less likely to visit Twitter than they were two years ago.

So are the over 50s becoming the marketer’s new nirvana? Well, official statistics would suggest that, in an economic downturn, they are a demographic worthy of consideration. The over 50s not only hold 80% of the country’s wealth, but also have a 30% higher disposable income than those under 50. The over 50s also make up over one third of the population and the 55 to 64s have the highest disposable income of any age group.

From a customer insight viewpoint, this has us questioning some of the standard client sample requests for 18-49s or 18-64s, but it also underlines what we have been saying for a long time about the validity of online research for a wide range of demographics. If the social media stats are true and the over 50s are making Facebook and Twitter their natural home, then targeting them online is a great way for brands to tap into their accumulated years of experience.

And there may be a plausible reason why brands will be targeting this demographic through social media. Whilst many brands are keen to target their share of this grey pound, they are wary of being seen to overtly target older consumers by younger people. Brands are trying to ride two horses at once and social media provides a more discreet way of targeting the older consumer, now that they are making the medium their natural home.
But I’m not sure it’s a straightforward as this. The master of marketing to the over 50s is, of course, Saga, which has been selling cruises, insurance and other products for decades. I can think of any number of brands that would love to get their hands on Saga’s database and the information that it contains, but marketing to the over 50s is about tapping into a mindset not just an age.

In addition to minding the sensitivities of the younger consumer, brands also need to be aware that some people just don’t want to be reminded that they are getting older in what is increasingly a youth-obsessed world. Only in recent years have brands like Dove broken the mould and used older people in their advertising.

The key, I think, is not to focus on age but to focus on older people’s desire to stay younger older. If brands can tap into that, then they may well be able to profit from a new kind of grey market.

Howdy partner – can brands really work well together?

Although brand partnerships have been around for years – some successful, some less so – I was intrigued by the news that Heineken and the relatively new national newspaper i are launching a joint hybrid app that will gives readers the chance to read the paper's content in selected pubs and bars.

The initiative forms part of Heineken's Hub initiative, which kicked off in April and involves providing superfast broadband in selected premium bars and pubs across London and Cardiff. The brands will also offer monthly competitions with prizes such as new gadgets and technology.

Brand partnerships in FMCG can work nicely if you are a brand that goes together, although often this is retailer-driven, unless you are Unilever or P&G and you can cross sell your brands by giving freebies or vouchers of one onto another. In the media sector, publishers often bundle magazines to encourage trial but ultimately the partnership has to offer a degree of synergy and consumer benefit.

What’s interesting is that this particular example seems to buck the trend of many brand partnerships, which often adopt the safest route by pairing two brands which have an obvious synergy: luxury and luxury, indulgent and indulgent, active and active. The tie up between Apple ipod and Nike works because there is a direct and beneficial link between the brands through the offer, whilst the link between McDonalds’ McFlurry with, say, Smarties is based on them both being – allegedly - yummy products.

But perhaps more impact can be achieved if you have a surprising juxtaposition but one that works. So i and Heineken – apart from Heineken getting into media relationships that other beers can’t reach - may both benefit from the initially surprising fit. Heineken appears a little more intellectual, but not too heavy – the Volvo/Audi of beers - whilst “i” cements its “more rock n roll than its parent” image.

But who knows where this might lead? After Marks & Spencer threatened Ann Summers with legal action for adapting its “Your M&S” logo and slogan for a promotional deal on lingerie and other goods, I suspect we’re still a way off of M&S joining forces with Ann Summers to launch an S&M range. Or are we?