Make your Message Clear

One of the fundamental aspects of communication is not that you must clearly send the message, but that it must be clearly received as well. 

And yet, despite over a week of protesting, miles of press coverage and extensive discussions on the subject, a significant part of Great Britain is still wondering why on earth people are protesting in tents outside St Paul's Cathedral in London. 

They chose the site, apparently, becuase it was situated near to the London Stock Exchange.  Their protest is supposed to be part of an anti-capitalist protest. However their message has been completely lost in the melee, and it's all down to one fatal flaw in their communications plan: their choice of site. 

Media coverage has been singularly focussed on St Paul's Cathedral, it's requirement to close because of the protestors, the loss of its income in the period of closure, it's leadership (or lack thereof), and the confusion as to why the protestors are there in the first place. 

In fact, it is now unilaterally being referred to by the press as the "St Paul's Protest". As messages go, we could say this one has completely lost its way. 

The protestors should pack up, go home and think again if they want to get their message across without being subject to further ridicule and satire and remember: when you are trying to make a point, communicating clearly is essential. Otherwise it's just noise. 

QR Codes: The Next Big Thing?

Clients have been asking me about QR codes. They are the next big thing, or so I am led to believe.

As a marketer, we've always got two options when it comes to the next big thing: Ignore it until it becomes too big to ignore or jump right in, play with it, experiment with it and maybe get it right (or very badly wrong).

As a consumer, I've downloaded the QR app to my smartphone. And used it. Twice. The second time it just annoyed me as the QR code was just too small to snap.

You see, all these QR codes on posters are all very well but how many marketers are sticking them up there without really giving them much thought? Quite a lot I would say.

That's why there are QR codes appearing on billboards (really? seriously?) and in magazines (which I always read with my mobile phone in my hand, of course) and on business cards (because it wouldn't be the height of rudeness to zap someone's QR code while still talking to them face to face at an event).

In fact, I see the marketing industry making use of this brand new, exciting (and it is exciting) technology in a rather dull and everyday way. Trying to fit it into their existing media. Deploying very little imagination in the process. Very few are geniunely using this technology to combine customer's needs with their marketing objectives. In fact, I can think of only one campaign I've seen to date that actually achieves this dual purpose, and with sophisticated finesse.

Tesco. In Korea.

Their virtual subway store, aside from being genius in its simplicity, has truly put the use ofthe QR code at the heart of the campaign. The marketing part of the campaign is, quite simply, the delivery mechanism. The PR value generated is incredible. In fact it's almost the inverse of other marketers' approaches to using QR codes.

It's engaging, it's effective, it's interactive and, over and above everything else, it's useful. For both the business and the consumer.

So until we can do something useful and effective with a QR code for a client, we'll be resisting the urge to stick them on posters and business cards. Just because.

Is Groupon Past its Sell By Date?

One of the fastest growing tech companies in the history of the planet appears to have lost its shine.

Storming across the US and into Europe in recent years, Groupon arrived in a blaze of glory, a consumer champion promising the customer unbelievable discounts and, for the retailer, unrivalled access to bums on seats.

In the midst of a recession, businesses flocked in droves, discounting their products and services by as much as 80%. Customers followed suit, buying at alarming rates. These bargains were too good to miss.

But they have a fatal flaw in their business model and, I suspect, the cracks are beginning to show.

It's a simple crack, right at the core: No business can afford to discount by 80% permanently.

So in order to succeed and grow, Groupon needs an ever extending supply of businesses from which to draw and they are clearly running out. This much is evidenced by their repetition of deals of seemingly marginal interest. Do we really need another 60x80 canvas print, or an electronic cigarette lighter for £18.99? Hold me back.

Groupon may give businesses access to the discount seeking masses. But who really wants customers like that?

Sure, for a while you'll be really busy, and some will stay as customers for a longer term, but for the vast majority, it will be a one hit wonder.

In an earlier blog I wrote about how discounting can work for the business, as long as a strong degree of planning goes into the deal. And that still remains true.

However responsible and sustainable business is a two way street. It always has been.

If businesses are expected to provide a living wage, then consumers must be prepared to pay a realistic price. This is responsible behaviour for long term sustainability.

As a matter of principle, we are horrified by stories of sweatshop practices and the exploitation of children in the pursuit of even cheaper goods. Then on Saturday we shrug it off, march down to our local supermarket and spend a tenner on four T'shirts, which probably cost 25p to make.

Groupon's approach is pushing us in the same direction.

How long before these businesses, having cut their income by 80%, start struggling to survive?
How long before they start cutting back on staff?
How long before they shut their doors altogether?

Ultimately it's the consumer who pays for the cost of marketing in the price of the goods and services. Groupon has reversed that equation, and now it's the business. However 80% marketing costs is too great a burden for even the most successful of businesses to cope with. And it will be the consumer who pays the ultimate price with less market choice, higher unemployment and gross deflation.

So the next time you grab a bargain, give just a fleeting thought to how you would be affected if you had to give 80% of your income away and consider, even for a moment, that there may just be another way. And if you do go ahead and press the button, enjoy your experience of that business: it may well be your last.

Should Editorial Be Bought?

This week I heard about a change in policy at one of Britain's largest media houses: editorial can now only be about products and services offered by advertisers.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not naive. I'm aware that the brandishing of my marketing budgets has frequently led to coverage where there may previously not have been any. However, I am also aware that many, many businesses simply can't afford to advertise in major newspapers or glossy magazines, but who might be doing incredible, newsworthy things that deserve to be written and talked about.

So what does this all mean and why does it matter?

Well, advertising is a regulated industry. If someone presents something to you in an advert and you believe their claims to be incorrect or unfactual, you have a right to complain and a body to complain to.

Advertorials are up front about being paid for editorials and marked as such so you can decide for yourself if the information is biased or relevant.

However there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to stop a newspaper or a magazine creating a policy like the one I've mentioned above, passing off funded opinions as genuine editorial. This is the media equivalent of back room deals by governments. You, the consumer, the reader, have no idea it's gone on and the outcome is entirely outwith your control.

The net result will, in my opinion, be bad for business in the long term. Smaller, innovative companies who can't afford to advertise will not get the opportunities to be heard that they fully deserve, the customer and readers will not get the opportunity to decide for themselves.

Instead we will be spoon fed a smorgasbord of products and services that can afford to pay and, although they may not be the best, they will be the only ones we can read about.

Magazine and newspaper content will degrade, although perhaps not at first. Readership figures will move with them. And an industry, which has clearly lost its way in the dark, may have just put the final nail in its own coffin.

It may seem like good business sense to look after your paying customers (advertisers) but what about the hundreds of thousands of paying customers (readers) whose rights to unbiased editorial that they are clearly overlooking?  The people that, ultimately, matter most to the paying advertisers?

I'm afraid that while, as a marketer, I like to opportunity to negotiate coverage with publications in return for advertising pounds, as a PR I also like the fact that editorial is NOT something that can be bought.

It's the media equivalent of free speech and should always remain so.