As I pack the last pair of undies into the Fiji kit bag, I pondered the idea of just getting things done - without all the political correctness, sign-off and other paraphenalia that contributes to not getting things done, or at least not getting them done on time.
I don't know about you, but I find deadlines really difficult to meet these days due to the intervention of a whole range of 'stakeholders' who become involved in the marketing communications process because a) the government or regulator says or implies that they have to or b) their misguided belief that their input adds value to the communication (usually it has the opposite effect).
I was at a meeting a few weeks back when one person asked could we make a communications decision without involving two others - neither of whom was relevant to the decision nor, I suspect, would have been really interested in the outcome. Fortunately, their proposed involvement was knocked firmly on the head before it became doctrine. Sometimes I long for a new management 'bible' that proclaims we need to reinstate benevolent dictatorship into the management process. Bring back Tom Roberts' Thriving on Chaos quickly!
Not that I exclusively want to exclude people from my management portfolio. I want to be excluded from endless meetings to which a) I can contribute little or b) I have no interest in contributing to. You see, I respect the professional judgement of experts in fields in which I am unqualified. I can spend my time much more effectively involving myself in marketing and communications projects for which I have the experience and qualifications.
So, as I prepare to fly the coop, I hope I return from my holiday to a nirvana where marketing and communications people can focus on their core business without having unnecessary 'inputs' of well-intentioned amateurs. All it needs it mutual respect for our professional ability from those in the more 'esteemed' professions.
I'm off for a good break. Don't fret. I'll be back!
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
My Fiji holiday - It shows what happens when you damage your brand
I will head off to Fiji next Monday. The few people who traverse this blog over the next fortnight will be devastated at this news. However, this holiday has brought into focus how much a damaged brand can impact margins.
You see, I'm going to Fiji because I was able to get a bloody good deal for my family. It did not require genius, just some issues relating to Fiji's brand. Our package includes: airfares, resort accommodation, free stay and food for my daughter, several tours and, to top it all off, a AUD650 voucher to spend at the resort.
To spell it out, according to my calculations, there are at least five product and service providers slashing their margins to get the three of us to travel to Fiji. I presume there are others attracted to the deal, but I won't know this until I catch the flight out of Sydney.
And why are these providers cutting their own throats to get us there? Because, frankly, Fiji's brand has been pulverised by the nation's military shoving an elected government out of office and the subsequent rejection of the country from the Commonwealth of Nations (now there's a 'brand' that does need refreshment!).
Coups, whether bloodless or otherwise, and being ostracised by other nations is not the natural fodder of tourism promotion, even though you are unlikely to see or hear evidence of unrest while in Fiji. It is brand-tainting material, which has led this leading Pacific destination to price-driven, tactical marketing - the domain of all damaged brands.
But believe me, none of this will likely cross my mind as I take full advantage of this brand malaise!
You see, I'm going to Fiji because I was able to get a bloody good deal for my family. It did not require genius, just some issues relating to Fiji's brand. Our package includes: airfares, resort accommodation, free stay and food for my daughter, several tours and, to top it all off, a AUD650 voucher to spend at the resort.
To spell it out, according to my calculations, there are at least five product and service providers slashing their margins to get the three of us to travel to Fiji. I presume there are others attracted to the deal, but I won't know this until I catch the flight out of Sydney.
And why are these providers cutting their own throats to get us there? Because, frankly, Fiji's brand has been pulverised by the nation's military shoving an elected government out of office and the subsequent rejection of the country from the Commonwealth of Nations (now there's a 'brand' that does need refreshment!).
Coups, whether bloodless or otherwise, and being ostracised by other nations is not the natural fodder of tourism promotion, even though you are unlikely to see or hear evidence of unrest while in Fiji. It is brand-tainting material, which has led this leading Pacific destination to price-driven, tactical marketing - the domain of all damaged brands.
But believe me, none of this will likely cross my mind as I take full advantage of this brand malaise!
The email challenge
I recently ran some research among superannuation fund members. Of those surveyed, over 50% said they preferred to receive newsletters and other discretionary information via email. However, only 7% of the fund's members had subscribed to the its electronic news service.
This isn't due to lack of incentive or effort on the part of the fund's communications team. Over the course of the past 18 months, two recruitment programs for email subscribers have been conducted offering incentives of a flat screen LCD television and a choice holidays to North Queensland or Fiji.
While this doubled participation from 3% to 7% of fund members, it is nowhere near the 50% who expressed a desire to receive information this way. The fact that the second campaign attracted far fewer subscribers than the first suggests that the number of subscribers is approaching a plateau.
Now superannuation (pension fund for overseas readers) is a low-engagement product for many but, nonetheless, how do you explain the fact that it appears some people would rather give you $1000 than yield their email address?
Is there anyone out there who knows the trick/s of the trade for building email databases? And please, no funny remarks about finding a job in a more engaging sector, unless you're willing to offer one with the appropriate amount of remuneration attached!
This isn't due to lack of incentive or effort on the part of the fund's communications team. Over the course of the past 18 months, two recruitment programs for email subscribers have been conducted offering incentives of a flat screen LCD television and a choice holidays to North Queensland or Fiji.
While this doubled participation from 3% to 7% of fund members, it is nowhere near the 50% who expressed a desire to receive information this way. The fact that the second campaign attracted far fewer subscribers than the first suggests that the number of subscribers is approaching a plateau.
Now superannuation (pension fund for overseas readers) is a low-engagement product for many but, nonetheless, how do you explain the fact that it appears some people would rather give you $1000 than yield their email address?
Is there anyone out there who knows the trick/s of the trade for building email databases? And please, no funny remarks about finding a job in a more engaging sector, unless you're willing to offer one with the appropriate amount of remuneration attached!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Observations on Jennifer Hawkins
I knew this heading would catch your attention. It will no doubt also introduce this blog to many new readers (are there any yet?). Unfortunately though, this article is not accompanied by images
I am writing about the Myer group's impending float on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The Financial Review commented today that analysts were probably disappointed yesterday to see Myer CEO, Bernie Brookes (no relation), pitching the float to them instead of the former Miss Universe. I bet the AFR is dead right! They should definitely have featured a catwalk, but not performed by Bernie (I will soon write another blog about brands fronted by people called Bernie!).
The point of this is to ask is it appropriate to use young 'Jen', as she is affectionately known in Oz, to front the float of a major company? Could it be a double-edged sword?
Certainly, paid full page adverts in the AFR featuring the flawless Jen brighten up the publication's otherwise dull pictorial. And Jen does a great job of reminding us that Myer is a retailer with a focus on fashion (they also sponsor Fashions on the Field at Victorian Racing's globally famous Spring Racing Carnival). But what other value does she add to the serious business of attracting investors to the initial public offer of Myer shares?
One could ask is Jen's flawless countenance used to distract us from flaws in the company and/or its investment potential? I'm not suggesting this is the case, merely asking the question about perceptions? Or as a community, have we become so smitten with celebrity and the beauty of youth that we'll basically buy anything that lovely Jen endorses.
Bernie said the other day that he would pay even more for Jen's profile and she would be worth every cent. I bet there comes a day when he regrets that comment! Using Jen to publicise a float certainly attracts eyeballs, some of them bulging, but does it enhance the credibility of the message? And talking brands, will this Jen 'brand extension' from beauty and fashion into huckstering investment dollars from smitten institutional analysts, or even retail investors, work?
My guess is that in our celebrity-obsessed age, it will work, particularly with retail investors, who think Jen can do no wrong. Congratulations to Bernie and the team! By the way Jen, will a big chunk of your fees be paid in Myer shares?
Oh buggar it... you all deserve a reward for reading this far, here's a link to Jen's famous catwalk wardrobe malfunction....
I am writing about the Myer group's impending float on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The Financial Review commented today that analysts were probably disappointed yesterday to see Myer CEO, Bernie Brookes (no relation), pitching the float to them instead of the former Miss Universe. I bet the AFR is dead right! They should definitely have featured a catwalk, but not performed by Bernie (I will soon write another blog about brands fronted by people called Bernie!).
The point of this is to ask is it appropriate to use young 'Jen', as she is affectionately known in Oz, to front the float of a major company? Could it be a double-edged sword?
Certainly, paid full page adverts in the AFR featuring the flawless Jen brighten up the publication's otherwise dull pictorial. And Jen does a great job of reminding us that Myer is a retailer with a focus on fashion (they also sponsor Fashions on the Field at Victorian Racing's globally famous Spring Racing Carnival). But what other value does she add to the serious business of attracting investors to the initial public offer of Myer shares?
One could ask is Jen's flawless countenance used to distract us from flaws in the company and/or its investment potential? I'm not suggesting this is the case, merely asking the question about perceptions? Or as a community, have we become so smitten with celebrity and the beauty of youth that we'll basically buy anything that lovely Jen endorses.
Bernie said the other day that he would pay even more for Jen's profile and she would be worth every cent. I bet there comes a day when he regrets that comment! Using Jen to publicise a float certainly attracts eyeballs, some of them bulging, but does it enhance the credibility of the message? And talking brands, will this Jen 'brand extension' from beauty and fashion into huckstering investment dollars from smitten institutional analysts, or even retail investors, work?
My guess is that in our celebrity-obsessed age, it will work, particularly with retail investors, who think Jen can do no wrong. Congratulations to Bernie and the team! By the way Jen, will a big chunk of your fees be paid in Myer shares?
Oh buggar it... you all deserve a reward for reading this far, here's a link to Jen's famous catwalk wardrobe malfunction....
Monday, September 14, 2009
The financial sector in Struggle Street - You must be kidding!
This brief note is to express my curiosity at an announcement today that might be a truer indication of the state of health of the global financial services sector than all the prognoses of expert commentators.
An avowed fan of Liverpool Football Club, I was interested to see that London-based Standard Chartered bank had signed a new four-year shirt sponsorship deal with my favourite club for a reported STG80 million, about AUD $154 million (if you're working in yuan, yen, US Dollars or other, my apologies for not doing the maths).
This follows a recent deal, of which I don't know the value, but which is more than the Liverpool deal, between AON and Manchester United. Admittedly, AON has replaced fellow financial services company, AIG, which probably believed it could not justify spending public money on the deal as easily as it could justify executive salaries and junkets.
The world just gets curiouser and curiouser!
An avowed fan of Liverpool Football Club, I was interested to see that London-based Standard Chartered bank had signed a new four-year shirt sponsorship deal with my favourite club for a reported STG80 million, about AUD $154 million (if you're working in yuan, yen, US Dollars or other, my apologies for not doing the maths).
This follows a recent deal, of which I don't know the value, but which is more than the Liverpool deal, between AON and Manchester United. Admittedly, AON has replaced fellow financial services company, AIG, which probably believed it could not justify spending public money on the deal as easily as it could justify executive salaries and junkets.
The world just gets curiouser and curiouser!
Friday, September 11, 2009
When is it time to retender your creative?
This question popped into my mind the other day, for no other reason than I received some invoices from my creative agency. I receive invoices from them all the time, so this was not a new event. I still don't know what triggered it. Possibly the amount!
But this question is an interesting one as it comes down to a decision about whether longevity and a solid understanding of your brand, your business and your products trumps a fresh look at, in particular, your brand. Generally, I think there are arguments for both. But...!
I work in the financial services space in Australia - to be specific superannuation, our version of pension funds. Now this is an Australian sector way behind the Usain Bolts of the FMCG sector when it comes to sophisticated thinking about brand and what it means. This is due to generally low consumer engagement with retirement saving, usually until it's too late to rescue a parlous situation. In other words, consumer apathy lulls providers into a false sense of security about their brands.
In Australia, an onerous regulatory environment that wants competition between funds to reduce fees and costs to superannuation beneficiaries, yet doesn't want funds to spend any beneficiary money competing to add scale, also contributes to this brand malaise. The latter can be the subject of another blog!
Believe it or not, the layout and language of some sections of disclosure documents here are prescribed by law and regulations. And guess what? The people determining that are not tuned in to brand or even communications - they are regulatory officials, lawyers and actuaries (probably all working within the presentation compromises of Microsoft Word - refer previous post). Tell me the last time you saw a legal or actuarial document that was comprehensible! The regulators are driving industry uniformity, thereby dumbing down the creative process. What happens if you can think of a better way of presenting your business or disclosing important information? Bad luck, stick to the script!
So, under these conditions, my original question swings heavily towards retaining the existing provider, assuming the business relationship is in good shape. Let me take another look at those invoices.... hmmm, just pay them and get back to the knitting. What's on at the weekend?
But this question is an interesting one as it comes down to a decision about whether longevity and a solid understanding of your brand, your business and your products trumps a fresh look at, in particular, your brand. Generally, I think there are arguments for both. But...!
I work in the financial services space in Australia - to be specific superannuation, our version of pension funds. Now this is an Australian sector way behind the Usain Bolts of the FMCG sector when it comes to sophisticated thinking about brand and what it means. This is due to generally low consumer engagement with retirement saving, usually until it's too late to rescue a parlous situation. In other words, consumer apathy lulls providers into a false sense of security about their brands.
In Australia, an onerous regulatory environment that wants competition between funds to reduce fees and costs to superannuation beneficiaries, yet doesn't want funds to spend any beneficiary money competing to add scale, also contributes to this brand malaise. The latter can be the subject of another blog!
Believe it or not, the layout and language of some sections of disclosure documents here are prescribed by law and regulations. And guess what? The people determining that are not tuned in to brand or even communications - they are regulatory officials, lawyers and actuaries (probably all working within the presentation compromises of Microsoft Word - refer previous post). Tell me the last time you saw a legal or actuarial document that was comprehensible! The regulators are driving industry uniformity, thereby dumbing down the creative process. What happens if you can think of a better way of presenting your business or disclosing important information? Bad luck, stick to the script!
So, under these conditions, my original question swings heavily towards retaining the existing provider, assuming the business relationship is in good shape. Let me take another look at those invoices.... hmmm, just pay them and get back to the knitting. What's on at the weekend?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)