Fearless campaigners in town

There are two new campaigners on the scene, set to shake things up.

One is a free spirited, full of flair, ex-French football player called David Ginola. The other is a spoof middle England pub landlord called Al Murray.

While David is taking on the incumbent FIFA president marred by accusations of corruption, Al is taking on Nigel Farage – the leader of what used to be an outsider anti-immigration political party but has suddenly emerged as a genuine election contender.

The question for the public is - are these campaigners just jokers or publicity stunt front men, or do they have a chance of making a difference?

Making a difference

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think we have true candidates for office on our hands. But we do have two great stories, with two colourful characters, drawing attention to issues that need highlighting (corruption of FIFA, misconceived credibility of UKIP). And judging by the coverage – stories in all national media – they’re being successful in doing this.

David Ginola’s candidacy is backed by Paddy Power – a bookmaker never shy of taking a marketing risk. The concept is that this is a crowd-funded campaign supported and funded by the public. They’re hoping to raise £2.3 million and have already paid David a cool £250,000.

I actually think Paddy Power have got this second bit slightly wrong. By paying David a huge fee and asking for the public to donate, the campaign is seriously undermined, as is David’s genuine interest in FIFA’s presidency. The campaign could have garnered far more support (and less media criticism) if it had simply asked for people to ‘Join Team Ginola’ rather than paying for the privilege (although that would have cost PP an eye-watering £2 million according to their campaign budget).

However, putting this aside, the idea is a good one. If David Ginola turned up on FIFA’s doorstep backed by millions of football fans (who had pledged their support online) on a ticket of “democracy”, “transparency” and “equality”, it might have created some waves.

From reading some of the comments on social media, the campaign seems to have captured the imagination of football fans who recognise the tongue and cheek nature of it while realising there is a valid point to be made.

Let’s turn our attention to Al

UKIP have been causing the Tories and Labour problems. The main political parties simply don’t know how to handle them. To the extent that the Labour party strategy on UKIP (leaked to the media) said they should “move the conversation away from immigration when campaigning”.

The beauty of Al Murray is that by poking fun at UKIP- “It seems to me the UK is ready for a bloke, waving a pint around and offering common sense solutions” – it highlights some of the ridiculous things about them.

I found myself on the way to work taking part in a Metro quiz in which I had to answer questions on which were UKIPs policies and which were Al Murray’s.

What do you think?

• Legalising hand guns
• Bricking up the channel tunnel

There is a similar quiz on the Mirror’s website about who said what.

And while Nigel welcomes Al to the race, all his inclusion seeks to do is make fun of UKIP, undermining their credibility as a genuine political party.

What’s the point?

The most important things about elections is that people take an interest. And - judging by the column inches, the response on social media, and the interest people have shown - these campaigns have certainly done that.

While David Cameron dodges the TV debate – two fearsome campaigners are using the media to call for change! Good on them.

Coffee and communications

One of the strongest qualities of the media is the values that are supposed to underpin it – a determination to tell the truth, be balanced, hold the powerful to account.

But does the world of PR support or undermine this? And how complicit is the media?

Splashed across the front page of the Express last Thursday was: “Coffee Fights Alzheimer’s”. The story was simple – apparently drinking three to five cups a day (described as moderate amounts) may cut your risk of what’s quickly becoming the most talked about disease in the media.

On the front page there was no mention of who funded the study or where the results had been published. But there was a comment from Dr Iva Holmerova, vice chairman of Alzheimer Europe – an authoritative sounding voice.

Buried on page 4, I found the real source - the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee; a non-profit organisation dedicated to the disclosure of scientific information about coffee and health and funded by seven major coffee companies including Nestle and Lavazza.

Interestingly, in the Express’ online story, the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee is mentioned in the second paragraph. If this version of the copy was in the paper, the Institute would have made the front page no problem. I wonder how that happened?

So what?

Despite the temptation, this isn’t to say the findings aren’t legitimate – the Institute’s website says that it supports researchers to disclose results regardless of outcomes and there is credible, published research on the site. But it’s quite difficult to find lay information about the studies that aren’t so favourable of coffee and that’s certainly not reflected in the PR generated coverage.  

In fact a couple of weeks ago, the same Institute of Scientific Information on Coffee put out a story saying that drinking coffee “slashes” your risk of diabetes to mark World Diabetes Day.

This wasn’t based on a new study, but a review of previous research papers. The press picked it up – it was covered by the Daily Mail, and the Huffington Post among others. This was an example of a classic PR tactic - taking advantage of a calendar news hook. 

Legitimate story or savvy PR?

The question is, are these legitimate stories, the product of savvy PR or the result of resource strangled journalism?

I think the answer is a mix of all three…

I’m not opposed to the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, or the fact that it can earn media coverage with strong stories based on proper research. However, I do believe the media has a responsibility to point out the clear conflict of interest of research showing the health benefits of drinking coffee funded by the Europe’s largest coffee companies.

The fact that the research concludes that ‘further research is required’ – a statement backed up by the Alzheimer’s Society - suggests this story is being given more significance than it deserves. I certainly don’t assume there is inconclusive evidence or the need for further research from the headline.  Four paragraphs on page 23 might have been a more suitable location.   

Are we all in it together?

But my overriding sense with stories like this is that the comms and PR industry are sometimes complicit in buying in to the values of the media without really committing to them. I’m certain I’ve benefited from this in my job.

I’m sure the Express would say the story is accurate and balanced – it clearly states who funded the study and it offers a counter comment from the Alzheimer’s Society. But with the Express not making a judgment on the credibility of the research by placing it on the front page, does this really count as balanced, accurate reporting?

I’m sure the coffee companies would say there is no conflict here – the Institute is non-profit and committed to full disclosure. But then, why are Europe’s biggest coffee companies funding an organisation like this and why is it taking advantage of PR opportunities like World Diabetes Day? You have to admit this Institute is well placed to promote the health benefits of coffee.

In this sense, the story is meeting the objectives of both organisastions. For the Institute - it has successfully linked buying more of their its funder's products to protection against a deadly disease. And for the media, well they got an exclusive front page splash served up to them on a plate.

Plenty of food for thought (or maybe coffee is scientifically better)?

Falling for the hype

Last night I was conned.

I was taken in by the story but left disappointed by the ending. 

If you’re not familiar with boxing, then you should probably stop reading now. But last night, Tony Bellew beat Nathan Cleverly in what was the most unspectacular fight I’ve witnessed in quite some time. And to make things worse, I paid £15 for the pleasure of watching it.

This wasn’t a world title fight. In fact, these fighters aren’t even competing at a world class level at the moment. And I wouldn’t predict a big future for either of them off the back of this fight.

There were world title fights on the bill, and some of Britain’s brightest prospects. But these were the support act.

This was a story more important, more compelling than world titles and world class fighters. 

This was a grudge match.

A bitter rivalry built up over months, even years by sound bites, media coverage and press conferences (often punctuated with pushing and shoving, and quick intervention by security guards).

The story so far

Cleverly and Bellew first fought in 2011 as up and coming, and unbeaten super-middleweights. That day, Cleverly won on a split decision, but the scene was set for a great story of two closely matched fighters that hated each other.

Their careers followed each other closely – both rising to the top of their division, both suffering crushing knock-out defeats, both having to re-create themselves in a different division.

The scene was set for another showdown, carefully manufactured by promoter Eddie Hearn – a man who knows how to create the stories that are putting British boxers on a world stage (think Froch vs. Groves).  

Both boxers moved up to cruiser weight. They fought on the same bills. With every win, the other was there taunting and threatening from ringside.It was just a matter of time. 

And then the fight was agreed.

Roll-on months of build-up – television programmes with the boxers growling across a table at each other; press conferences all over the country; features from inside the training camps. And of course, the sound bites…

“I’ve spanked this guy once, I’m going to spank him again,” rattled Cleverly. 

"When I fight Cleverly, I'm going to retire him," said Bellew. 

Over-billing, under performing

Unfortunately, this time, the fighters and so the fight couldn’t live up to its billing.

I’m not saying that the animosity was fake. But you can’t deny that it is key in selling the event and putting it on a far bigger scale.  

If this was a fight purely about ability or about its sporting significance, it wouldn’t have cost £15 to watch and attracted the millions of viewers that it did. That was the price for taking part in the story – who would come out on top of this brutal rivalry?

Unfortunately the last chapter didn’t quite live up to the billing. And I’m not sure I would be so interested in a sequel. But the story telling in boxing is what makes it such a compelling sport to follow, in a way completely different to any other. 

Nothing is sacred

Sitting on the sofa on Sunday last week, I came across a picture of Morrisons' baguette projected on to the Angel of the North.

My girlfriend shook her head in resigned disgust, muttering it was the “end of days” and “nothing is sacred”.

I sympathise. But I’m also from a profession where these ideas are thought up, sold to clients, and every so often actually happen.  

Outwardly despairing, but secretly intrigued, I read the Guardian’s story to find out more.

Writer, Mark Tran, said: "When Antony Gormley devised one of the most recognisable pieces of public art in the land – the Angel of the North – he wanted to create a work that would serve as a connection between our industrial past and the future of the information age. He had not anticipated that someone would try to use it to flog bread."

With my girlfriend’s eyes burning into my head, I tried to disguise my snigger.

But, this is where it gets confusing. When I looked for the cheeky Morrisons’ quote plugging its cheaper bread, all I found was: “Morrisons did not respond to requests for comment.”

That’s strange. Surely that was the point?

In later media stories, this changed to: “A Morrisons spokesperson said: 'We’re sorry if people thought we got carried away by shining a baguette on the Angel of the North and apologise unreservedly to those to whom we have caused offence.”'

Behind the scenes

By the reaction in the press, I imagine that panic was breaking out in Morrisons' press office as they realised that they had offended people, maybe even some of their customers.

But surely Morrisons could foresee this? And surely that was part of the reason it did it?

In every story I’ve read, it’s referenced the supermarket taking on Aldi and Lidl through cutting prices on every day items.

Grace Dent in the Independent explains it best: “The ad has influenced berks like me to write about it, name-checking the supermarket while drawing attention to the fact that while Gormley's angel bestows her silent blessing over the North-East, meanwhile Morrisons is giving us, this day, our daily bread, and at a price more saintlier than Lidl.”

This was the story Morrisons was trying to tell. And to tell this story, it’s created something that’s controversial, humorous and shareable.

This approach doesn’t work for all brands, and perhaps not Morrisons. But the complete surprise and sudden back tracking can only have made things worse.

So what are we to glean from this?

·         Morrisons was probably the wrong brand for this idea. Clearly its culture and identity isn’t prepared to play on the controversy and humour tied to a stunt like this. At least not yet.  I could imagine a PaddyPower or even a Greggs carrying it off far more authentically.

·         There are always two points of view. While Morrisons apologised, plenty of people were seeing the funny side of it (see Mail Online comments, for example). The stunt captured people’s imaginations and made them react, which in my opinion, is far better than boring people. The critics are often the ones that shout the loudest. But it doesn’t mean they represent everyone’s views. Morrisons might have reacted differently if it spent more time considering this.

·         Morrisons' reaction was timid. I hate to see “spokesperson said”, as comes across as nervous and unapproachable. Morrisons’ marketing or PR Director should have come out and talked honestly about the campaign, why they did it and saying sorry for causing offence if it was absolutely necessary.

·         And it should have been prepared beforehand to defend its decision, so that its reasoning fitted with the stunt. For instance, could it have played on the cutting prices narrative? i.e. - “We’re cutting on advertising to pass on the savings”. Or could it have done something that showed its northern roots and its connection to the Angel?

Part of me does share the ‘nothing is sacred’ view. But it’s worth remembering that not many people (apart from the Police) complained when some local Newcastle fans dressed the Angel in Alan Shearer’s number 9 shirt. 

The £8 million approach

At the last count, the #nomakeupselfie trend had raised £8 million for Cancer Research UK’s lifesaving research. Whatever you think it says about us as a society, no one can deny that it’s had a fantastic outcome.  

Although CRUK will be the first to admit that they didn’t start the trend, they did react quickly to take advantage of it by posting the picture below.

Posting this picture wasn’t costly, difficult or time consuming. But it was still something most organisations aren’t set up to do or are too risk adverse to try. And it does represent a relatively new opportunity in the way brands can market themselves compared to even five years ago.

Planning and reacting

In a world where brands can speak directly to their audience and use their own channels as effectively as traditional media, marketing and communication experts are going to be looked at to spot and take advantage of news, events and trends, pretty much instantaneously.

For the best marketers and communicators, it’s not just about well planned campaigns any more – it’s about looking for and taking advantage of new opportunities every day.

This isn’t easy. The bigger the organisation, the more levels of sign-off there are and the greater concern there is about damaging your reputation. Looking at social media or catching-up on the day’s news is also a luxury rather than necessity for many people.

But the organisations that are able to react immediately and often on topics that are sensitive or controversial, will be the ones that benefit most from this sort of approach.

PaddyPower is a rather different example of a brand that is reacting to everyday events in everything from its social media posts to ATL advertising. By making its ads not what you would call ‘politically correct’ only seeks to make them more sharable and reinforce its reputation as a fun, edgy brand. They’re like your mate in the pub that makes the poor taste jokes.

Paddy Power is lucky that this approach sits so seamlessly with its brand. But far more organisations could learn from this bold, quick approach and judgment of what will work and what will be shared.

Investing time in this is difficult, because you don’t know when the benefits will be realised and there is bound to be a lot of failures. But as CRUK have shown, a well timed tweet can be just as effective as a multimillion pound marketing campaign. 

Sneaking in the back door

I got home the other day to find what I thought was a free newspaper in my post box – the Haringey Community News.

Brilliant, I thought, I love a newspaper.

I settled down to read it with a cup of tea. The front page read: ‘Lib Dems taking action to cut CRIME’.

Inside the paper there were stories including:

‘Help for Haringey residents as Lib Dems deliver Council Tax freeze’

LABOUR SHAME: Council’s ‘bonuses for failure’ scandal.

Not all of the headlines were so blatant. But it turns out what I thought was a newspaper, was in fact a piece of Liberal Democrat propaganda.

Cynical

I find this approach deeply cynical. It’s nothing short of dishonest to try and dress-up your 

campaign messages as independent news. I can’t find a single reference to it being a Liberal Democrat publication – it’s just called community news.

More importantly, I don’t think it works. If you need to trick people in to reading your messages, then as soon as they realise what’s happened, they feel cheated and immediately don’t trust you.

It also assumes that your audience is stupid. I take offence at that. Of course I’m not going to fall for this. Anything that’s in Haringey Community News, no matter how valid, has now lost all of its credibility.

Try harder please Liberal Democrats. Earn your right to be talked about in proper media or make your marketing so compelling that I want to pick-it up. Don’t trick your way into my front room, because I will just kick you out. And be sure not to let you in next time. 

'I wish' campaign: Hit or miss?

I’ve been captivated by Pancreatic Cancer Action’s ‘I wish I had breast cancer’ campaign.

From the initial backlash to the tragic death of Kerry Harvey, the courageous face of the campaign, I’ve asked myself, ‘has this been effective for the charity?’

A few weeks ago I said Prostate Cancer’s campaign was ‘brilliant’. However Pancreatic Cancer Action’s campaign would have been run on a far smaller budget and generated far more column inches.

Apparently the ad was only in regional and online media. But the only place I’ve seen it is in national newspapers which tells its own story.

It’s also received 119 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, with people like Gloria Hunniford saying it had made her feel ‘almost sick’.  

My Dad had cancer. And it was awful. There is something deeply uncomfortable about someone saying ‘I wish I had breast cancer’ or ‘I wish I had testicular cancer’.

It’s so uncomfortable, that I don’t think many people would publicly feel confident enough to say, 

“Yes I support that campaign,” or “Yes, I want to donate to that charity”.

But was that the objective?

Writing for the Guardian website, the chief executive Ali Stunt, said: “With a limited budget, it was vital that the advert would stand out and provoke thought and initiate discussion among members of the public, the media and influencers.”

It’s certainly done this. I had never heard of Pancreatic Cancer Action a month ago. Now, I have a firm opinion of them as a bold, courageous charity and I admire them for taking such a risk. I imagine there has been some tense mornings in the office over the last few weeks. 

I also had no idea that the survival chances of someone diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is just 3%. That’s staggering. Regardless of if you like the tactics, many more people are now aware of the devastating ferocity of the disease.

As Stunt says: While the direct criticisms that we have received are in their hundreds, millions of people are now aware of pancreatic cancer who weren't a week ago. And they're now becoming aware of the symptoms.

I imagine more people feel upset and offended by Pancreatic Cancer Action than they did a few months ago. But I also imagine that awareness of pancreatic cancer and its symptoms is significantly higher. And as uncomfortable as it makes me feel, maybe that’s the most important thing.