The Flasher

Little Bighorn

Having worked at a (very good) media agency, I am fully aware of the valuable role they can play in creating brilliant communications solutions. I do however wonder what their future will hold, as they feel a bit like Colonel Custer fighting a endless battle on two fronts at Little Bighorn. And I say this not because communications agencies (like us) are stealing their clients, (although we are) but because of the pressures being exerted on them by their global masters.

On the one hand their aspirations in communications strategy are being thwarted by creative agencies moving into this space. (Within WPP, who owns communications thinking, Ogilvy or MindShare?) And on the other end of the spectrum these large multinationals are offering group buying to clients, in the form of GroupM or other entities. So if planning is being done by Ogilvy and buying by GroupM, what is the role of MindShare?

- Ian

My Mate Macca

I have often lamented the fact that a great deal of my university degree and post graduate education has not been useful in the world of business. Serves me right for studying politics and history I guess. But when one of my old textbooks fell out of the cupboard the other day, I was amazed at how short sighted I had been. The Prince by Machiavelli is a famous text and we could learn from in two very real, very practical ways.

Firstly, Machiavelli lived in the era of the Medicis, a rich and influential family who essentially ruled the city-state of Florence. What is interesting about the rich and influential people of this time, is that they spent a great deal of their money sponsoring the arts. They believed being a patron to smart, artistic individuals would benefit society in the long run. If it wasn't for the Medicis, Michelangelo would not have painted the Sistine Chapel. What do current rich and influential people support? Kerry Packer? Cricket. Sir Frank Lowery? Soccer. Russell Crowe, an 'artist' himself? Footy. So anyone who wants to help lobby for greater patronage of the arts send me a note.

Secondly, Machiavelli's assertion that "the end justifies the means" has become a mantra for all those who believe they can get away with evil to justify a greater good. But, I believe this has a very special meaning in the context of communication. Too often agencies are so caught up in the "means" (an ad) that they totally forget about the end (sales). Making a pretty brand ad is fun, but in many cases this is not the right solution. If the end is sales, then surely more than often we should be recommending response-based communications? At Naked we employ our 'Big Tool' to help us better understand the role of what we call 'Do' within the communications architecture. This is one of the reasons our campaigns have been so successful, and certainly justify the means we employ. - Ian

The Corporate Social Responsibility Bandwagon

A favoured route for marketers at the moment is to lead their communications, not with details about their products, but with what they are doing in the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) arena. The likes of Shell and BP are companies who you wouldn't think would want to talk about CSR, but are leaders in this field. This is a perplexing trend when you consider that large national companies are the least trusted of institutions. People are more likely to trust the government or their local newspapers than a corporate press release! (Source: World Economic Forum)

So why the bandwagon? Firstly, brand perceptions are increasingly being shaped by corporate responsibility more than product offering or business fundamentals. (Source: Strategic Communications Magazine) Secondly, there has been a change in business sentiment towards CSR programmes. Ten years ago the business world was dominated by accountants, management consultants and the pesky spreadsheet that decreed the financial bottom line as the only criteria to judge performance. Now we are being introduced to concepts such as the "triple bottom line" which suggests that financial, social and environmental criteria all need to be evaluated. And most importantly, companies are taking CSR seriously now, so they actually have something to talk about.

From a communications perspective CSR marketing has become a very pure science. Information that is being released has to be 100% accurate, because in a Googled world, every detail can be scrutinised by sceptics. Consumers are more likely to check up on cause related stats than regular product information. As a result, any CSR programme has to be based on a genuine and comprehensive company programme, and not merely a financial donation that a company may have made to an environmental charity. The last thing a company can be in CSR marketing is a fake, or superficial. Messages that are seeded and supported with actions are going to be far more believable than those that are shouted from the rooftops.

When it comes to CSR, genuine propagation trumps fake propaganda. - Ian