Brands need to gain and act upon a more detailed understanding of the way we are living our lives today, after new research from the consumer organisation Which? found that consumers are making greater efforts to waste less food.
Customer insight agency Engage Research says the survey, which says around 14 million people are reducing food waste by cooking with leftovers, making smaller portions and freezing more to save money, should have brands working hard to gain a more detailed understanding of the challenges their consumers are facing.
“This is a very revealing study,” explains Engage Research qualitative director Hetta Bramley. “Brands not only need to be aware that 78% are worried about rising food prices and 45% spending a larger proportion of our income on food compared to a year ago, they need to consider what they as a brand can do to support consumers at this time and, in so doing, create a sustainable brand/consumer relationship.” The Which? report also detailed how 47% of shoppers said they freeze food or cook with leftovers to avoid waste, whilst 39% said they cook smaller portions, so there is less chance of meals going to waste. A third (35%) are buying less food and a quarter (26%) are doing more frequent top-up shops rather than one main food shop.
This, says Bramley, is one of the reason more brands are turning to webnographic research techniques to understand more accurately how people are living their lives. Webnography – an ethnographic style of research that leverages current social media behaviour and smartphone usage to create respondent-driven content - involves consumers providing information about their ordinary everyday activities from within their naturally occurring settings. This allows for a more personal and in-depth view of the participants and their behaviour and choices and will provide valuable insights about how, why and when customers might choose brands or new products and the role that these will play within the consumer’s life.
“Because people can tweet what they are doing, post images, record short videos and so on easily from their smartphones, webnographic research can help brands really get under the skins of their customers. It gives us a window on them as they chat, shop, and get on with the tasks that make up their everyday lives. Thanks to social media, people are increasingly wanting to broadcast their activities and opinions. Our techniques build on this willingness, often adding an additional element of fun via gamification, so that the consumers do most of the work for us – blogging, keeping diaries and sharing photos and video footage online. This all keeps the costs down whilst still giving brands an accurate and holistic view of the consumers’ lives.”
In terms of food research, a webnographic approach enables researchers to observe and monitor anything from preparation rituals to the food storage habits of consumers; which products are given priority position at the front of the cupboard and which are pushed to the back and which products only make it as far as the “back up” store cupboard? It can also reveal how packaging performs in real life - how does it stand up to the journey home, how easy is it to store, how easy is it to prepare and so on - these are all aspects of pack performance that will impact on future purchase & yet so often performance at fixture is the sole focus of pack testing. Webnography also involves monitoring eating occasions, and frequently videoing family eating occasions to look at how, why and when certain foods are included.
Engage Research is a customer insight agency working largely, but not exclusively, in the food, drink and media sectors. Its emphasis is on delivering knowledge and understanding that adds value to a client’s business without breaking their budget. Engage’s innovative approaches to research, already proven in the field, are handled by a team of senior directors with enviable experience and track record; intelligent practitioners delivering intelligent insights which support NPD and help underpin marketing, branding and communications strategies.
Tuesday, 8 October 2013
Friday, 4 October 2013
Repackaging of Hardy’s wine highlights role of consumer insight in setting up expectations of price and quality
The announcement by Hardy’s, the UK's biggest wine brand, that it is repackaging its products to give consumers a clearer understanding of the price tiering within the range, shows the extent to which packaging can set up consumer perceptions of a product.
Hardy’s owner Accolade Wines has said that the new packaging has been designed to better reflect the quality of wine inside the bottle and highlight to consumers a clear progression up the tiers. The redesign, apparently, is also intended to help mitigate the effect of promotional mechanics which could see high-quality wines being sold at the same price as less premium ones.
Consumer insight can play a vital role in creating and redeveloping a product proposition. Price, name and packaging are such an integral part of the product mix that from an early stage of development they should be considered as part of the process. No one wants to stop a great idea progressing because it is tested at too high a price or with a weak name, but conversely the market success of a product will depend on the mix of these elements.
It is a widely seen in research that the same product at a higher price point is expected by consumers to be higher quality (for example, a vodka brand priced at £18 rather than £12 is not only higher quality but seen as being for more special occasions).
More interesting is the evidence that the price also impacts on perceptions of product delivery. In tests those who are told a particular wine is more expensive think it tastes better than those who are testing the same wine but who were told it was less expensive. More interesting still is evidence that not only is the more expensive wine rated more highly but it produces a more pleasurable experience in the consumer's brain when MRI scanned. This is not simply the consumers rationalising their experience; they have been conditioned at a subconscious level by the price.
A key factor in getting the pricing strategy right at launch is where the proposed price point sits relative to competitors. This is because consumers will consider the price in relation to other products, either directly because the prices are displayed together or indirectly by using the nearest available benchmark. This relational way of viewing prices can be exploited by marketers. For example, the launch price may be set at a premium to the competition in an attempt to establish high quality credentials even if the typical selling price would be lower. The idea is to “anchor” a price point in the consumers’ minds and then the lower price will appear good value in relation to the anchor price.
In reality, there may be a number of different price settings for different retail environments e.g. a large discount retailer and a small local shop. Consumers will tend to respond to the relative differences in price between products in the same retail environment rather than differences in absolute prices between retailers. This demonstrates the case for always testing price within a relevant context.
Packaging design and merchandising also provide key consumer cues about the product. In a crowded retail environment, consumers use short cut reference points to navigate through the complexity. For example, where a product sits in store can have a profound impact on what people think about it. The placement of the product and what surrounds it will have an impact on consumer perceptions.
Hardy’s owner Accolade Wines has said that the new packaging has been designed to better reflect the quality of wine inside the bottle and highlight to consumers a clear progression up the tiers. The redesign, apparently, is also intended to help mitigate the effect of promotional mechanics which could see high-quality wines being sold at the same price as less premium ones.
Consumer insight can play a vital role in creating and redeveloping a product proposition. Price, name and packaging are such an integral part of the product mix that from an early stage of development they should be considered as part of the process. No one wants to stop a great idea progressing because it is tested at too high a price or with a weak name, but conversely the market success of a product will depend on the mix of these elements.
It is a widely seen in research that the same product at a higher price point is expected by consumers to be higher quality (for example, a vodka brand priced at £18 rather than £12 is not only higher quality but seen as being for more special occasions).
More interesting is the evidence that the price also impacts on perceptions of product delivery. In tests those who are told a particular wine is more expensive think it tastes better than those who are testing the same wine but who were told it was less expensive. More interesting still is evidence that not only is the more expensive wine rated more highly but it produces a more pleasurable experience in the consumer's brain when MRI scanned. This is not simply the consumers rationalising their experience; they have been conditioned at a subconscious level by the price.
A key factor in getting the pricing strategy right at launch is where the proposed price point sits relative to competitors. This is because consumers will consider the price in relation to other products, either directly because the prices are displayed together or indirectly by using the nearest available benchmark. This relational way of viewing prices can be exploited by marketers. For example, the launch price may be set at a premium to the competition in an attempt to establish high quality credentials even if the typical selling price would be lower. The idea is to “anchor” a price point in the consumers’ minds and then the lower price will appear good value in relation to the anchor price.
In reality, there may be a number of different price settings for different retail environments e.g. a large discount retailer and a small local shop. Consumers will tend to respond to the relative differences in price between products in the same retail environment rather than differences in absolute prices between retailers. This demonstrates the case for always testing price within a relevant context.
Packaging design and merchandising also provide key consumer cues about the product. In a crowded retail environment, consumers use short cut reference points to navigate through the complexity. For example, where a product sits in store can have a profound impact on what people think about it. The placement of the product and what surrounds it will have an impact on consumer perceptions.
Friday, 13 September 2013
Co-op’s student discount initiative shows the value of insight when aiming for customer loyalty
The announcement by Co-op that it is to become the first supermarket to offer a discount for students on food shopping underlines the growing trend for retailers and brands establishing relationships with consumers based on
lifestyle priorities and challenges. It also demonstrates a recognition by Co-op that you can create loyalty through use of customer insight.
It is estimated that up to 600,000 students will be able to claim a 10% discount on their food shopping by using their NUS Extra card. The move also fits well with the Co-op’s position as a business owned not by a small group of shareholders, but by more than five million consumers.
On the face of it, this is a clever move. First it positions Co-op well with students, many of whom are just leaving home for the first time and may be nervous about how they are going to cope; second it represents the brand well in terms of assisting them to eat, hopefully healthily, on a budget and, as importantly, it will sit well with their parents. It may be that not only will Co-op get student business but they may also get some additional parental footfall as well.
There are, though, some caveats. This is obviously going to work best where there are Co-op stores in student areas so that it is convenient for students to take advantage of the offer. Cost-conscious students will make a judgment over whether the cost of shopping at Co-op, even with the deal, remains more favourable than going to another discounter. And, of course, although all the intentions are good, I don’t suppose you will ever stop many students from spending the lion’s share of their budget on alcohol.
However it will be just as important for Co-op to monitor the success of the initiative to see how it benefits them over the medium term, both quantitatively in terms of how much revenue is driven through the NUS card in store but also qualitatively in terms of attitudes among students and, indeed other customers, towards the brand and this initiative.How they manage those relationships over the next few years will be key to retaining the loyalty of their student customers after they have completed their studies. To achieve this they will want to get authentic and valuable insights to inform their planning and to ensure that they know and understand their customers to the extent that they can form proper relationships with them. A qualitative research approach through detailed face to face interaction with students would be one of the routes to take.
This is the age of the informed consumer, who, largely due to the availability of social platforms as a way of disseminating views and comparing one brand against another, has more power than at any point previously and who is increasingly unafraid of using it. Co-op will be hoping that social media savvy students will take to their laptops to promote this initiative on their behalf.
Ends.
It is estimated that up to 600,000 students will be able to claim a 10% discount on their food shopping by using their NUS Extra card. The move also fits well with the Co-op’s position as a business owned not by a small group of shareholders, but by more than five million consumers.
On the face of it, this is a clever move. First it positions Co-op well with students, many of whom are just leaving home for the first time and may be nervous about how they are going to cope; second it represents the brand well in terms of assisting them to eat, hopefully healthily, on a budget and, as importantly, it will sit well with their parents. It may be that not only will Co-op get student business but they may also get some additional parental footfall as well.
There are, though, some caveats. This is obviously going to work best where there are Co-op stores in student areas so that it is convenient for students to take advantage of the offer. Cost-conscious students will make a judgment over whether the cost of shopping at Co-op, even with the deal, remains more favourable than going to another discounter. And, of course, although all the intentions are good, I don’t suppose you will ever stop many students from spending the lion’s share of their budget on alcohol.
However it will be just as important for Co-op to monitor the success of the initiative to see how it benefits them over the medium term, both quantitatively in terms of how much revenue is driven through the NUS card in store but also qualitatively in terms of attitudes among students and, indeed other customers, towards the brand and this initiative.How they manage those relationships over the next few years will be key to retaining the loyalty of their student customers after they have completed their studies. To achieve this they will want to get authentic and valuable insights to inform their planning and to ensure that they know and understand their customers to the extent that they can form proper relationships with them. A qualitative research approach through detailed face to face interaction with students would be one of the routes to take.
This is the age of the informed consumer, who, largely due to the availability of social platforms as a way of disseminating views and comparing one brand against another, has more power than at any point previously and who is increasingly unafraid of using it. Co-op will be hoping that social media savvy students will take to their laptops to promote this initiative on their behalf.
Ends.
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
ASDA’s Chosen By Kids underlines importance of authentic consumer insight
ASDA’s announcement that it is launching a 180-strong children’s food range
incorporating products taste-tested by children themselves underlines the
importance for both brands and retailers of authentic consumer insights as part
of the new product development process.
The retailer has announced that its new line, an extension of its existing Chosen By You range, had been subjected to extensive independent taste testing by young children before their parents gave their own approval.
To get authentic and valuable insights to inform your NPD or marketing strategies, brands and retailers need to know and understand their audiences to the extent that they can form proper relationships with them. A qualitative research approach particularly when the demographic you are trying to reach is so young can help fast-track these insights, by facilitating detailed face to face interaction between clients and consumers.
It is important to ensure that products are tested in as natural an environment as possible for the consumer and to ensure that different aspects of the products being tested are linked to purchase intent. In this way, brands will know which dimensions are driving interest and, therefore, which elements are the most crucial to get right. For example if the crunchiness of a topping is the most important element of a product and is therefore the feature that is driving most purchase interest, it is vital that this is absolutely right.
Although younger children particularly can't necessarily tell you too much, how much they eat and how willingly remains a good indicator. However, even though this is a range chosen by kids, ASDA will be aware that parental involvement is also critical, especially with the Mum’s role as gatekeeper trying to achieve the balance between what she wants in food for her child and what the child will actually eat.
This is the age of the informed consumer, who, largely due to the availability of social platforms as a way of disseminating views and comparing one brand against another, has more power than at any point previously and who is increasingly unafraid of using it. Whilst a relatively small proportion of consumers are as yet moved to post regular product reviews, many more look at them before buying, whilst a quick glance through the supermarket websites shows that just about anything is worthy of comment and expectations are high. Nothing will get parents talking to their friends more – for better or for worse- than the quality of products being sold for their children.
The retailer has announced that its new line, an extension of its existing Chosen By You range, had been subjected to extensive independent taste testing by young children before their parents gave their own approval.
To get authentic and valuable insights to inform your NPD or marketing strategies, brands and retailers need to know and understand their audiences to the extent that they can form proper relationships with them. A qualitative research approach particularly when the demographic you are trying to reach is so young can help fast-track these insights, by facilitating detailed face to face interaction between clients and consumers.
It is important to ensure that products are tested in as natural an environment as possible for the consumer and to ensure that different aspects of the products being tested are linked to purchase intent. In this way, brands will know which dimensions are driving interest and, therefore, which elements are the most crucial to get right. For example if the crunchiness of a topping is the most important element of a product and is therefore the feature that is driving most purchase interest, it is vital that this is absolutely right.
Although younger children particularly can't necessarily tell you too much, how much they eat and how willingly remains a good indicator. However, even though this is a range chosen by kids, ASDA will be aware that parental involvement is also critical, especially with the Mum’s role as gatekeeper trying to achieve the balance between what she wants in food for her child and what the child will actually eat.
This is the age of the informed consumer, who, largely due to the availability of social platforms as a way of disseminating views and comparing one brand against another, has more power than at any point previously and who is increasingly unafraid of using it. Whilst a relatively small proportion of consumers are as yet moved to post regular product reviews, many more look at them before buying, whilst a quick glance through the supermarket websites shows that just about anything is worthy of comment and expectations are high. Nothing will get parents talking to their friends more – for better or for worse- than the quality of products being sold for their children.
Wednesday, 14 August 2013
Neuroscience sounds great but it’s not the panacea for all research ills
There was an interesting piece in Marketing Magazine recently by Mhairi McEwan, chief executive and co-founder of Brand Learning, which discussed the way the world of customer insight is being influenced by two apparently conflicting forces: neuroscience and big data.
In her article, McEwan set out the differences between a neuroscientific approach with its subconscious associations, beliefs and emotional triggers influencing our behaviours, and data, where prediction analytics can be used to predict behaviour. Her view is that “neuroscience explains a quick, more intuitive style, whereas big data can drive a slower, more analytic style”.
As researchers and marketers, we are in the business of understanding why consumers do certain things. This is going to be a mix of rational reasons (which can be accessed by direct questions) and less rational reasons (which can't so easily be accessed by direct questions). The upshot of that is that no one approach used in isolation will give you the rounded findings you need. That's why at Engage we prefer to create bespoke solutions according to the particular brief and then using the tools most to appropriate to that brief, rather than advocating any one tool over another.
There’s no doubt that mention of neuroscientific approaches impresses potential clients. It also gives a clear impression that we as an industry we are progressing, but at present it remains a very small part of research, and actually not used by many. The reality is that the tools at our disposal are only as useful as the questions we ask. The neuroscientific approach is useful in gauging people’s reactions but it does not give any idea of those reactions within any kind of context or if a subsequent conversation with someone else causes you to reappraise your thoughts. The data approach may be lacking in this but it will give you more of a balance view based on the responses of many more people.
We need to achieve some balance and recognise that neuroscience is just another tool if you have access to using it. It is not the holy grail of research, as more than one person has espoused at times "it can tell you what people are thinking even when they can't". As McEwan’s article points out, for most marketers all tools can be useful; no one tool is the panacea. There is no universally conclusive tool for all situations and, as researchers and marketers, we should always keep that in mind.
Ends
In her article, McEwan set out the differences between a neuroscientific approach with its subconscious associations, beliefs and emotional triggers influencing our behaviours, and data, where prediction analytics can be used to predict behaviour. Her view is that “neuroscience explains a quick, more intuitive style, whereas big data can drive a slower, more analytic style”.
As researchers and marketers, we are in the business of understanding why consumers do certain things. This is going to be a mix of rational reasons (which can be accessed by direct questions) and less rational reasons (which can't so easily be accessed by direct questions). The upshot of that is that no one approach used in isolation will give you the rounded findings you need. That's why at Engage we prefer to create bespoke solutions according to the particular brief and then using the tools most to appropriate to that brief, rather than advocating any one tool over another.
There’s no doubt that mention of neuroscientific approaches impresses potential clients. It also gives a clear impression that we as an industry we are progressing, but at present it remains a very small part of research, and actually not used by many. The reality is that the tools at our disposal are only as useful as the questions we ask. The neuroscientific approach is useful in gauging people’s reactions but it does not give any idea of those reactions within any kind of context or if a subsequent conversation with someone else causes you to reappraise your thoughts. The data approach may be lacking in this but it will give you more of a balance view based on the responses of many more people.
We need to achieve some balance and recognise that neuroscience is just another tool if you have access to using it. It is not the holy grail of research, as more than one person has espoused at times "it can tell you what people are thinking even when they can't". As McEwan’s article points out, for most marketers all tools can be useful; no one tool is the panacea. There is no universally conclusive tool for all situations and, as researchers and marketers, we should always keep that in mind.
Ends
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
Lunchbox wars : Navigating the shark infested custard of healthy school meals politics
After a government-commissioned report found that just one per cent of packed lunches were as nutritious as school meals, it is being claimed in some quarters that packed lunches should be banned and free school lunches made available to all primary school pupils.
Whether this is practical – or even desirable – is a matter for others to decide - but what steps can brands take to win over children and mums to healthy food? Can – or should - brands be taking steps to become the champion of the healthy packed lunch, or is their responsibility simply towards selling the products they make?
The report found that the packed lunch bias remains in favour of a sandwich, crisps, drink, chocolate and fruit (which is often returned uneaten). In an ideal world the aim would be to subtly change the 'make up' of a packed lunch, but the vast majority of parents probably want something that is easy to prepare and acceptable to their kids – eating something of indifferent long term health is better than the short term risk of their kids eating not eating anything.
Combining the benefits of convenience and acceptability to children gives us the plethora of "individually wrapped" products to place in a lunch box. However, there are products like Cheestrings, which are undeniably child-friendly in their focus and convenience, which have also tried to leverage their health credentials.
So how might brands develop products that kids will love and parents will approve thus making inroads into this significant territory? How can they get the correct balance between the sometimes competing wishes of kids, parents, teachers, campaigners, the government... One of the problems in this debate is the dissonance between what people need, what they want, what they say they would like and what they subsequently do. It is undoubtedly the case that the children of our nation need healthy lunches (whether in boxes or school meals), however what our kids want is often a different matter. Thus, when asked, parents might say that they would like healthy options but what they then put in their packing up reflects what their kids want rather than need. How can better research help brands navigate this sea of cognitive dissonance.
First of all do involve parents – who will probably remind you that convenience is the elephant in the room in all of this – preparing several packed lunches day in day out can be a tedious and time consuming chore. But don’t just involve them by asking them what they want. Instead a combination of self-ethnography (e.g. via smartphone to capture real behaviour, real rituals) combined with a behavioural economics-inspired quantitative study will provide a far more authentic account of what will work in market, than relying on a more classic approach.
Brands that take this more sensitive approach will understand which buttons to press to deliver the healthiness that many parents would love to provide, in a way which fits with kids wants & with the practicalities of family’s everyday lives.
Whether this is practical – or even desirable – is a matter for others to decide - but what steps can brands take to win over children and mums to healthy food? Can – or should - brands be taking steps to become the champion of the healthy packed lunch, or is their responsibility simply towards selling the products they make?
The report found that the packed lunch bias remains in favour of a sandwich, crisps, drink, chocolate and fruit (which is often returned uneaten). In an ideal world the aim would be to subtly change the 'make up' of a packed lunch, but the vast majority of parents probably want something that is easy to prepare and acceptable to their kids – eating something of indifferent long term health is better than the short term risk of their kids eating not eating anything.
Combining the benefits of convenience and acceptability to children gives us the plethora of "individually wrapped" products to place in a lunch box. However, there are products like Cheestrings, which are undeniably child-friendly in their focus and convenience, which have also tried to leverage their health credentials.
So how might brands develop products that kids will love and parents will approve thus making inroads into this significant territory? How can they get the correct balance between the sometimes competing wishes of kids, parents, teachers, campaigners, the government... One of the problems in this debate is the dissonance between what people need, what they want, what they say they would like and what they subsequently do. It is undoubtedly the case that the children of our nation need healthy lunches (whether in boxes or school meals), however what our kids want is often a different matter. Thus, when asked, parents might say that they would like healthy options but what they then put in their packing up reflects what their kids want rather than need. How can better research help brands navigate this sea of cognitive dissonance.
First of all do involve parents – who will probably remind you that convenience is the elephant in the room in all of this – preparing several packed lunches day in day out can be a tedious and time consuming chore. But don’t just involve them by asking them what they want. Instead a combination of self-ethnography (e.g. via smartphone to capture real behaviour, real rituals) combined with a behavioural economics-inspired quantitative study will provide a far more authentic account of what will work in market, than relying on a more classic approach.
Brands that take this more sensitive approach will understand which buttons to press to deliver the healthiness that many parents would love to provide, in a way which fits with kids wants & with the practicalities of family’s everyday lives.
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
He who shouts the loudest - when brand advertising offends….almost nobody
Britain is becoming a complainant’s society. A report published earlier this year by the Institute of Customer Service reported that Britons are more likely to complain than they were five years ago.
Indeed, it seems, if you are to believe some recent examples, that this complaint culture has been extended to brands and the ways in which they advertise their products. In recent weeks, soft drink IRN-BRU and Lynx shower gel have been among the products whose advertising has been subjected to scrutiny and subsequent decisions by the Advertising Standard Authority based on viewer complaints. In both cases, the complaints were dismissed.
However, closer examination makes for interesting reading. The IRN-BRU case was investigated on the back of 176 complaints; the Lynx advertisement on the back of just seventeen. IRN-BRU is the third best selling soft drink in the UK, after Coca-Cola and Pepsi in a carbonated soft drinks market worth £3.2bn per annum (1). In Scotland the equivalent of 12 cans of IRN-BRU 330ml are consumed every second (1). Yet the brand was held to account on the back of just 176 complaints. Similarly with Lynx, a brand used by more than eight million men across the UK & Ireland every day; equivalent to having the brand in one of every four households in the country(2). And seventeen people complained.
So how representative are these complaints about television advertising, especially compared with market research? And are these complaints a proper barometer for public opinion, or just the dissent of a vocal minority? On its website, the ASA confirms it needs just one justified complaint to begin an investigation into an advertisement. The ASA’s concern is whether the Advertising Codes have been breached rather the number of complaints it receives. In this sense it is judging whether the brand has breached the code rather whether it has caused offence, which can be quite a subjective measurement and may not always be the same thing.
Whilst no brand intentionally sets out to offend in its advertising, brands will knowingly tread the line between appealing to the demographic most suited to its products. A brand targeting 25 year old men is not necessarily going to be thinking about the impact on 55 year old women if they are not its core target audience.
What is perhaps more interesting is that proper market research is being conducted every day on behalf of brands in a scientific and proven manner, to test products, packaging and advertising for the way in which they resonate with their target audiences. There investment in this research will produce, inevitably, some negative comments but this will be fed back into the process to deliver a result that works best for the brand and its consumers. How, then, can it be right that brands can be held answerable to a number of people that are, without being disrespectful, a statistical irrelevance? Even if you accept that the number of people who complain are representative of a bigger, silent demographic, their numbers would still be insignificantly small.
The ASA has long demanded on all our behalves – and rightly so – that advertising be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Three of those are black and white decisions; the fourth – decent – is always going to be a matter of opinion and it remains questionable that the decency of brand advertising should be questioned on a sample as potentially small as one person out of the nearly 70 million who live in the UK.
1Source AGBARR.co.uk 2Source: unilever.co.uk
Indeed, it seems, if you are to believe some recent examples, that this complaint culture has been extended to brands and the ways in which they advertise their products. In recent weeks, soft drink IRN-BRU and Lynx shower gel have been among the products whose advertising has been subjected to scrutiny and subsequent decisions by the Advertising Standard Authority based on viewer complaints. In both cases, the complaints were dismissed.
However, closer examination makes for interesting reading. The IRN-BRU case was investigated on the back of 176 complaints; the Lynx advertisement on the back of just seventeen. IRN-BRU is the third best selling soft drink in the UK, after Coca-Cola and Pepsi in a carbonated soft drinks market worth £3.2bn per annum (1). In Scotland the equivalent of 12 cans of IRN-BRU 330ml are consumed every second (1). Yet the brand was held to account on the back of just 176 complaints. Similarly with Lynx, a brand used by more than eight million men across the UK & Ireland every day; equivalent to having the brand in one of every four households in the country(2). And seventeen people complained.
So how representative are these complaints about television advertising, especially compared with market research? And are these complaints a proper barometer for public opinion, or just the dissent of a vocal minority? On its website, the ASA confirms it needs just one justified complaint to begin an investigation into an advertisement. The ASA’s concern is whether the Advertising Codes have been breached rather the number of complaints it receives. In this sense it is judging whether the brand has breached the code rather whether it has caused offence, which can be quite a subjective measurement and may not always be the same thing.
Whilst no brand intentionally sets out to offend in its advertising, brands will knowingly tread the line between appealing to the demographic most suited to its products. A brand targeting 25 year old men is not necessarily going to be thinking about the impact on 55 year old women if they are not its core target audience.
What is perhaps more interesting is that proper market research is being conducted every day on behalf of brands in a scientific and proven manner, to test products, packaging and advertising for the way in which they resonate with their target audiences. There investment in this research will produce, inevitably, some negative comments but this will be fed back into the process to deliver a result that works best for the brand and its consumers. How, then, can it be right that brands can be held answerable to a number of people that are, without being disrespectful, a statistical irrelevance? Even if you accept that the number of people who complain are representative of a bigger, silent demographic, their numbers would still be insignificantly small.
The ASA has long demanded on all our behalves – and rightly so – that advertising be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Three of those are black and white decisions; the fourth – decent – is always going to be a matter of opinion and it remains questionable that the decency of brand advertising should be questioned on a sample as potentially small as one person out of the nearly 70 million who live in the UK.
1Source AGBARR.co.uk 2Source: unilever.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)