03 Mar 2015
Ogilvy Dublin has scooped the honour to represent Ireland in the upcoming Young Lions competition at Cannes. Beating out over 30 teams from local agencies, Ogilvy's team of Rob Cummins (copy) and Mickey Chan (art) will head to Cannes in June to tackle a live brief. They will be up against teams from all over the world and will do all they can to bring the winning Lion back to Ireland. Rob and Mickey's winning entry, called Oh My War Cry for MS Ireland, takes a fresh humorous look at a very serious matter and is designed to really spread the word about MS to a mass audience. They are Ireland's Young Lions. Hear them roar!
19 Dec 2014
What would David Ogilvy say on Water Charges?
We all should know that consumer empathy is key in engaging your audience. The Water Charge saga started with a series of government department leaks (excuse the pun).These tactics continually adopted by governments appear to be at the centre of their communication toolkit.
Consumer messages like Bin Charges, Septic Tank issues and of course Medical Cards to name just a few, have had similar symptoms. All these potential consumer issues start with allowing speculation to run rife and create political fodder until the issues find some traction thereby ensuring that the poor voter feels like a victim.
It seems clear that the consumer feels the government see them as sheep. Successful communication requires trust and market understanding at least. Simple isn’t it? The government do not need to do any research to know that their consumers are threatened by uncertainty so adding more is pure folly (but what has that got to do with it, you might say). The objections are founded in the way these things are being developed not just the financial impact.
Being truthful, clear and empathetic and focusing on the benefits, (and there are many) as opposed to losing control of the message and the agenda. Presenting the issue as a genuine problem, not as a suggested Troika based tax, would have had a far greater chance of success and allow the unfortunate company to get on with the important remit they have. Not spending time in the middle of Political chaos. But that requires common sense and understanding
EMPATHY. THE KEY INGREDIENT IN COMMUNICATION SUCCESS AND UPTAKE.
24 Nov 2014
Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR is one of the biggest buzz words around right now. In an age in which environmental and social issues are top of mind for many consumers, businesses can no longer sit in a bubble as consumers pay increasingly more attention to how organisations operate, where and how they source their materials and produce their goods and services. Transparency and honesty should be a fundamental part of a companies DNA and paramount to earning the public’s trust.
Technology has brought about global connectivity and enabled advocacy and awareness for social situations that were once obscure. The use of digital and social channels in daily working routines has changed our access to corporate information and simplified engagement on environmental, social and governance issues as any person can directly reach the biggest brands in the world in seconds with a simple tweet or post. New consumers are looking much more substantially than they have in the past to media to match the purpose with which they lead their lives.
As more companies are taking to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs to talk about corporate social responsibility than ever before, not all of them are getting it right, in fact there have been some spectacular fails . Obvious examples are BP’s experience during the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Unilever’s Dove brand getting ambushed by Greenpeace, and, the #McStories fiasco.
However, the rewards are great if you do get it right. Major brands are finally starting to tap their customers to create a support network for their CSR initiatves. There are programmes like LinkedIN for Good, the corporate social media giant’s CSR programme and their new initiative a Volunteer Marketplace, allowing LinkedIn users to search for volunteer opportunities to fill much needed roles. PepsiCo, through The Pepsi Refresh Project, opted to donate $20 million in lieu of a Super Bowl ad and allows the public to vote on their top picks. One company who pioneered using social media to communicate its sustainability/CSR efforts is Kraft food: it donates six meals to hungry families whenever a consumer joins Kraft’s Facebook page, having resulted in a huge increase in Facebook following.
Closer to home we find worthy initiatives like Arthur Guinness projects and Vodafone Young Social Innovators with its aim to engage 100,000 young social innovators by 2015 by leveraging its people, superior technology and engaging brand; AIB and Lucozade Sport working at community level to develop sporting facilities and Adtruism raising money for a charity of your choice through directing a portion of your website advertising revenue to a charity of your choice. All clever and effective initiatives.
Social media and sustainability are a particularly powerful combination given that both are rooted in the principles of authenticity, transparency, collaboration and community. Consumers are hungry to live their passions. The brands that can satisfy that appetite will reap the rewards. To do that, they’ll need to keep their focus firmly on their brand’s core and how it relates to their consumers’ passions and key to success is to remember the path to purchase goes through the path to purpose.
05 Nov 2014
We’ve all seen the stories about corporate malfeasance lately—Starbucks paying zero taxes in the U.K., or Microsoft handing encrypted messages to the U.S. National Security Agency. So much for the old bromide that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Public trust in corporations is at an all-time low: Fewer than one in five respondents to the 2013 Edelman Trust Barometer said they believed a business leader would tell the truth when confronted with a difficult issue. The conclusion of Interaction Associates’ 2012 Building Trust report was that “trust in business [had fallen] off a cliff.”
And what is the response to this? Rather than getting the message and behaving better, tone-deaf companies are investing record sums to create and maintain brand identities. The management consultancy Accenture paid a staggering $100 million to Landor Associates for its logo in 2000. The firm that redesigned Pepsi’s logo in 2009 justified the expense by citing, among other things, the Mona Lisa, the Parthenon, the Earth’s Geodynamo, and claiming the new design’s “energy fields are in balance.” Mission statements now seem unintentionally humorous—like Enron’s motto of “respect, integrity, communication, and excellence.”
This is the very definition of missing the point. Marketing gurus and branding consultants have misled corporations into believing that such efforts will result in a brand that attracts new business, keeps existing customers loyal, and creates a consistent identity. Then they pour money into massive advertising campaigns—McDonald’s spent $1.3 billion on ads in 2012.
This approach is misguided and sometimes unethical. And the public won’t be fooled by advertising designed to conceal bad behavior or flawed products. Bank of America’s attempt to position itself as “The Bank of Opportunity,” for example, did not prevent consumers from repeatedly voting it the worst company in the United States for its predatory practices and its role in the 2008 financial crisis. Brand integrity is no substitute for real integrity.
Yet companies remain obsessed with branding. According to the annual CMO Survey by Duke University, the size of businesses’ marketing budgets in 2014 grew to 11% of the total budget, up from 8% just three years earlier, and the number of marketing employees grew to 6.3% of total employees from 4.2% over the same period. These departments often become more concerned with protecting their own empires than acting in a company’s best interests, and they breed Kafkaesque “brand guardians” who seem to believe their only job is to prevent others from doing anything new, creative, or productive.
These corporate bureaucracies beget the worst kind of conformity. While we embrace open societies, corporations remain highly undemocratic, creating systems that constrain talent and block innovation. When employees are told to “believe in the brand or else,” they are pushed away or, even worse, fall victim to their own PR. The result is an echo chamber of low-level ideas rather than a breeding ground for diversity and creativity. What is the point of hiring top people and paying them well if they have no intellectual freedom or the ability to question dogma?
These factors can also create an “play now, pay later” ethos, in which employers start to believe they can behave badly today then make it up, or cover it up, with some future combination of PR and CSR. In 2007, even as JP Morgan was selling toxic mortgage-backed securities to investors, the firm launched JP Morgan Social Finance, to generate “positive impact alongside financial return.” And Apple’s awareness that it is a stylish firm with cultish appeal may help its executives justify tax avoidance on a massive scale.
What should companies do instead? First, they should start placing behavior before brand. Good behavior creates a good brand and company. It also attracts talent.
The truth will win out. The best brand in the world cannot cover up a bad product or service, and no lack of PR can kill a good and continually improving one. And customers care more about how a thing is than how it seems.
Getting there won’t be easy. The first step must be to limit the power of PR and communications departments. Executives in these realms have come to sit too close to CEOs and boards, edging out those with more productive functions or challenging insights. Conversely, fashionable but impotent CSR departments need to become more powerful. Today’s corporate social responsibility executives are almost always devoid of any real power to change company behavior. But the way a company behaves is 99% of its social responsibility.
Similarly, marketing departments, especially those with client-facing roles, should be empowered to shape a company’s brand. Employees who interact with customers daily are in a far better position to direct a company than a room of “experts” testing focus groups.
Governments should also be more proactive about shaping the way corporations behave. A tax on advertising whose revenues pay for mandatory consumer-information reports on corporate products or public-interest advertising will directly affect branding strategies. The idea is to create disincentives for misleading or cheating customers. Taxing advertising would also go some ways towards allowing small, service-oriented companies to avoid being overwhelmed by larger rivals.
Finally, business schools and executive education can begin to teach students never to put branding before all else or compromise their intellectual honesty. One suggestion: If a company truly stands for something, every employee working there should be able to tell you what it is. If it takes a highly paid MBA 20 minutes to explain just what a company’s values are, chances are they are mostly for show.
The first wave of changes will have to happen in the face of institutional inertia and vested interests trying to protect themselves. But companies are always talking about leadership—and leadership is nothing if not taking the lead.
By putting checks and balances in place to guard against brand overreach, companies will be in a position to make difficult decisions about substantive issues regarding their business—which is the hallmark of a good brand.
23 Oct 2014
The Great Irish Reset is our name for the cultural zeitgeist in Ireland. It is a term that captures and explains what is going on at every level in this country. Remember how the term ‘Celtic Tiger’ explained why a Panini was €8, why we all worked so hard and how we came have more Mercedes per capita than the Germans? Well, the Great Irish Reset explains why things are the way they are today. Things are in flux. Things are imperfect, but things are changing.
The Great Irish Reset is the period of cultural change we are currently living through, and will continue to live through for the next 5 and even 10 years. The decisions we make now, as a society will have lasting implications.
There is undoubtedly a recalibration happening not just in our economy, but also in our institutions and systems of governance, in our legislation, and in our courts. There is a clearing out of the injustices and inadequacies of the past. We are a nation reforming.
More fundamentally however, every person and household in this country is going through a resetting,of sorts; a resetting of values, of norms, and of behaviours. Some of these resetting trends are not by choice, many homes and lives are affected by unemployment, and emigration for example. However, there is something powerful and palpable happening in this country right now. The balance of power has shifted from the institutions of our country, into the hands of the people. And they want it.
It is an exciting time to be in Ireland.
Visit our website to find out more