They want to legislate kids thin!

I just received email from the British Heart Foundation informing me about their latest petition. They want the government to ban any form of junk food advertising to kids, and so they set up their little campaign.



To be honest, TV advertising has already been banned, but digital advertising (i.e. banners, websites, online games, etc…) hasn’t yet, so that’s what they are trying to accomplish.

Stories like this one (and this other one) find me very skeptical. I wonder:

1) Why do people attribute so much power to marketing and advertising?
The issue here is that UK children are fed an incredible amount of unhealthy food. As a result they grow up obese, and are likely to develop diseases in their adulthood, dying young and costing the NHS a lot of money. It is much more than advertising: it involves the (poor) food culture of a nation, parent’s lack of time to prepare good food, cost pressures leading school canteens to serve junk food instead of healthy vegetables, AND marketing. So to say that kids are unhealthy because of their exposure to advertising is stretching it a bit.

2) Why do people think that we can legislate the problem away?
Of all the causes underlying poor eating habits, I believe culture is the main one. Italy, my home country, is a good example: we are exposed to the same amount of junk food marketing as the UK, yet our eating tends to be a lot healthier. I believe it comes down to the fact that Italian kids grow up with their mum routinely cooking home food every day. That way we develop a better concept of what is healthy, and we learn how to cook ourselves from a very young age. This is not written in any law, so I believe that legislating food marketing will not solve the problem in the UK.

Nonetheless, healthy eating and healthy living are definitely a big topic out there at the moment, at least in the UK.

Some campaigning -like Jamie Oliver’s for example (here and here) - is in my opinion well done, because it is fundamentally attempting to use media to seed a better food culture into the nation, as well as putting pressure on the industry to adopt a more responsible approach to such issues. My hope is that good businesses will recognise this trend towards health, and will start adapting their offering to a changing consumer demand.

However, some other campaigning, like BHFs, is in my opinion purely provocative and aimed only at the most apparent aspects of the matter: marketing and advertising.
It might get some more marketing activity banned, but I doubt it will help children grow healthier.

-
UPDATE 24/01: kind of relevant: http://www.brandrepublic.com/Campaign/News/778867/Govt-industry-plot-75m-ad-drive/

home alone

I am at home alone tonight and am finally finding some time to blog down a few interesting things that happened last week.

The first was the Brand Management course at LBS, which sadly has gone by very quickly. Absolutely ex-tra-or-di-nary: 30 hours of class to get branding like I never did before, and to realize the job of a brand managemer, providing it's on the right brand, can actually be rather exciting.
The credit goes entirely to the professor, Mark Ritson, who is an incredibly experienced, talented and entertaining teacher. It would be a tragedy if LBS, for whatever reason, was to loose this man.

The second interesting thing was actually part of the Brand Management course, but it was so special to me that it deserves a mention on its own: on Thursday evening we had Emily Richards as a guest speaker.



Emily is an alumna of LBS, currently brand manager on Cadbury Dairy Milk. She told us the story of how the best piece of advertising in 2007 came about, thanks to a very good brand strategy and an extraordinary creative idea. Without going into too much detail, I had literally goosebumps when she told us how close the campaign came to be killed off, and how hard the team had to fight to keep it alive. Chapeau.

Finally, the third interesting thing, at least to me, is that the recruitment season has started again on a positive note. There was an important interview last week, there will be one this Friday and there will be one next Tuesday. All of them with different, super interesting agencies. December was a hard and long month and I was really tired of interviewing, but for the first time in a long while I now am actually quite looking forward to it.

why do the brits grill tomatoes?

We had Russell at LBS last night, showing us some interesting ads and trying to tell us what makes a good ad. One of my goals in organising the event was to see what happens when you bring a very good advertising person in a business school environment.
It turned out to be a bit of a clash of cultures for me, at least semantically: on the one hand we had Russell talking about 'interesting', 'negative emotions', 'cultural phenomena'. On the other hand, you had an LBS professor arguing about 'strategic alignment', 'effectiveness', 'positioning'. On the third hand ( :-) ), you had the students who pretty much wanted to see some ads and have a laugh.
I suspect all parties left slightly annoyed, and I pretty much spent all night thinking about it.



I woke up this morning and I was still thinking about it. I left home to go for an interview with a very intelligent woman at one of my favourite advertising agencies. It was more of a chat rather than an interview, as we both new that they don't have openings at the moment.
It turned out to be a very pleasant experience. We talked a bit about what an MBA is and how it might help in an advertising agency. Also we talked about how advertising is a discipline caught in between art and business (i.e. about the clash of cultures), and how exciting this is.

After leaving the building I got caught in 'severe tube delays on the circle, district, hammersmith and Godknowswhatother line'. It was pounding with rain, so I found shelter in a very British cafe and spent a good half-hour there, meditating over a lovely English breakfast. why the hell do the Brits grill tomatoes?

things that numbers can not capture. or not?

I am studying for one of those super-useful-mega-boring courses these days: Analysis for Marketing Planning and Decision Making (dubbed Anal Marketing). Currently focusing on measuring the effect of advertising on sales.



On the one hand it's amazing to see how much you can figure out with regression analysis, cluster analysis, conjoint, etc... On the other hand, there is a feeling that there are things that this number-crunching will never manage to capture, i.e. the infitite subtleties of how the human mind responds to persuasion. Or perhaps it can? Is advertising an art, or is it a science?

Persil washes whiter ... since always

Went to see the Museum of Brands, Packaging and Advertising in London yesterday. It is essentially a private collection of branded products, although a stunning one, spanning from Victorian age to today.
Interesting to see how many of today's brands were already around over 100 years ago (think Cadbury, Rimmel, ...). Also funny to see how some others haven't changed a whole lot in the past 60 years or so:


(Rolo, ww2 time. The pack hasn't changed a bit since then. Apologies for the poor picture quality)


(a 1950's Polo poster. It was already about mints and holes)


(a Persil pack from the early 50's, with a coupon! wow)

I am impressed

With Orange's work (created by agency Poke).



Not only I like how they execute the concept of Unlimited. I also like how easy they make it for people to borrow pieces of content and disseminate them out there. Consumers become co-authors to the brand: that's something a 30 sec tv commercial can not do in a million years. Hats off! (and thanks to Scamp for making me find this)

shallow post about a fundamental issue in branding and the digital age

My respect for this guy is growing, although I am sure he doesn't need it.

He wrote an article in last week's campaign magazine which I think illustrates a very interesting point about advertising and branding in this 'digital age'. (and for the love of God, I can not find the article anywhere online).

In short, it is about two Unilever brands, Axe and Dove, which stand for two radically opposite concepts of beauty. Axe stands for seduction (i.e. the more you spray, the more you'll get laid), Dove stands for real beauty (i.e. real beauty is within, and every woman is beautiful).

The point made in the article is that consumers are beginning to raise legitimate questions about Unilever's integrity, as a parent company. Thanks to the internet they are able to voice their question: where does Unilever stand in terms of beauty?

For me, the interesting thought is that whilst agencies and brand owners are trying to figure out how to exploit the digital medium from an advertising perspective, consumers are one step ahead, and they are using the digital technology to ask more fundamental questions about branding and business models. How will Unilever react?

--
UPDATE 01/11: Russell kindly posted the article in comments: http://russelldavies.typepad.com/advertising_practitioner/2007/10/dove-lynx-incon.html have a read.

Lynx - Getting Dressed

I was looking through some linx ads. This one for me is kinda where the big idea begun. I remember goosebumps when it came out. Some more are available on bbh.co.uk

I am writing an article. Comments appreciated.

I am currently writing an article to support my own job search in advertising.

In it I argue that an MBA education is very valuable for people who want to work in the advertising industry, because advertising ultimately deals with business problems.

Normally i wouldn't need to write an article to find a job (my cv would be enough). Trouble is that the advertising industry is not used to dealing with MBA candidates, so a bit of explaining is necessary.

The article is currently in draft version, so any comment is appreciated. Have a look.

Estate agents, two good advertising recruiters, and a damn good advertising essay

In the past few weeks I have experienced tons of frustration coming from two different sources: estate agents and advertising recruiters. I found that the two categories share the same arrogance and lack of professionalism, fuelled by an excess of demand and lack of supply*.

Whilst the property side of things remains a source of frustration, I seem to finally be making some kind of progress with recruiters, having finally met two who seem to be taking some time to work with me in a productive way.

Re-ignited with optimism after one such meeting I decided to buy a copy of Campaign on my way back home. In it I found a great little booklet called “what is a Brand”, by Stephen King, the father of account planning. It’s an essay on the importance of branding and the role of advertising.

I normally enjoy reading about advertising, but I have to say most advertising arguments tend to be fluffy, qualitative, vague in their language. King instead uses terms like ‘retailers’, ‘manufacturers’, ‘profit margin’, ‘discount’ … in short he uses MBA language and he really really cracks it!.

I have always believed in the value of a formal approach to advertising issues, and I guess this essay is one rare and brilliant example of it. It was written in 1971, and the outcome is clear, straightforward, limpid, 35 years sooner than anybody else. I find it reassuring.

The only version I found online is here (2Meg PDF, courtesy of The Straufenberg Repository), so I really recommend buying a copy of Campaing this week. There is also a book by King, A master class in brand planning, coming out soon.
--
(* I am debating whether to write a post specifically on estate agents in London)

Not Made From Wheat Made From Oats Instead abix Oatibix

this is a bit old, but i met the woman who did it on tuesday and it reminded how funny it is. enjoy.

consumer insight

I was trying to explain to someone at work today why spending money on market research to gather a consumer insight is something worth doing, but it's hard to explain in words. I guess this ad (a masterpiece, IMHO, although not exactly the latest) does a better job at it.

charities demand ban on baby milk ads - what's wrong with this country?

From BBC news:

"LONDON: Children's charities in the UK are demanding a ban on the advertising of all formula baby milk. They say such marketing is responsible for mothers giving up on breast feeding their infants before the recommended six months. " [...] "The NCT's Belinda Phipps compares the behaviour of baby milk manufacturers to that of tobacco companies in devising ways to circumnavigate restrictive advertising legislation"

I don't get it. why do people attribute so much importance to advertising? and why do they think that banning it will solve the problem?

(full article here)