Why I like T-mobile's royal wedding video - communication planning

Its unoriginal, he doesn't look like Prince William, and my nan has got better dance moves than that!

HOWEVER

A recent campaign that has impressed me recently is the T-mobile royal wedding spoof. This advert is the latest addition to their viral marketing campaigns.

The viral campaigns communicate that life is for sharing with friends and family. It uses this message with extraordinary events in train stations, airports and even the royal wedding being shared with friends and family. The tag line “life is for sharing” reinforces this message but also encourages the audience to share the advert with others.

I’m impressed that the recent Royal wedding campaign communicates the same message but with the tag line “One’s life is for sharing”. This consistency reinforces T-mobiles brand values to its audience. In fact T-mobile are very consistent in their communication and are consistent in the tone that they use.  For example their light hearted approach is also used in their outdoor activities for the "everything everywhere" campaign with Orange. 

In the most recent "everything everywhere"campaign T-mobile also continue to use their pink background. According to the T-mobile website, this tone is used to demonstrate how bold the company is. 


Its all of these efforts which work in the same direction to help create a more impactful campaign

In addition to entertaining the audience and spreading word of mouth, this long-running campaign should also create a high recall. 


T-mobile are not hoping that as a result of the advert people using other networks will instantly cancel their contracts and move to T-mobile. However, they are hoping that when a persons phone contract is about to run out, or if someone is about to buy a Pay & Go phone,  the customer will hopefully recall the advert  and seek further information about what t-mobile can provide.

To summarise, I’m impressed with this campaign because:

•   It understands its audience.
•  It’s a changed execution, but keeps the same meaning of a long running campaign.
• Its tone, communication and execution are consistent which help reinforce T-mobiles brand values,

Advantages of TV Sponsorship over TV Commercials

In 2008 UK television sponsorship was worth £190 million and shows no signs of slowing down. This is a quick post on the advantages of television sponsorship, using television spot commercials as a comparison when appropriate.                                                                          
Television sponsorship works by sponsoring a programme, channel or even a tv genre. For example;
Programme: TalkTalk sponsor X Facor
Channel: Blackberry sponsor Sky Atlantic
Strands of programming: Fosters sponsor original comedy on Channel 4 

Lets dive straight in.The first advantage of sponsorship, and arguably the key difference to tv spot advertising is that it offers brand association.

Brand Association

A brand is the identity of a specific product or service. TV programmes are themselves- brands. Viewers can describe a show how a consumer would describe a product. For example one could describe the show FRIENDS as “lighthearted”, “consistent” and “youthful”.  It is also possible we could use the same words to describe Mars Planets- the shows sponsors on E4.
This example demonstrates that a “shows prestige and popularity can impact on those brands associated with them" (Thinkbox). Ofcourse the association works best when the creative (the sponsorship ad) attempts to align itself with the shows values.

Emotion

So television sponsorship is a great tool to try and associate a brand with the values of a particular tv show/channel etc.  The reason for this is because sponsorship can be used as a tool to tap in to the emotions of your audience. Thinkbox research shows that fans of a show are more likely to have a deeper emotional relationship with a sponsoring brand than less dedicated viewers. According to the study, sponsorship has a greater impact on the emotional/implicit part of the mind than the rational/conscious mind. This then makes sponsorship more memorable and brands more famous. More importantly, studies shows sponsoring a fans favorite show  increases purchase intent.  According to Thinkbox research, intent to purchase can be up to 9% higher for ‘fans’ of a programme than for the normal viewer (the average increase across the sample was 4%).

Isolation

One possible problem for tv advertising is that most tv commercials are 30 seconds and are clustered with other advertisements. This means that marketers have a short amount of time to tell their story and make their brands stand out among the other commercials. If you have a limited budget and can only buy a couple of spots, there is a good chance that the message will get swallowed up by other advertisers or forgotten by the audience.  However this is less of a problem for tv sponsorship, because the sponsorship commercials or “bumpers” work by advertising before the show, in the centre break out of show, centre break in to show, and the end break. Research shows that these bumpers allow sponsorship messages to be received as an isolated message to a more receptive audience and are seen in a more positive light when compared to tv spots. This leads on to my next point, viewer opinion.

Viewer opinion

Viewer opinions and reactions fluctuate towards tv commercials.  For example I imagine the majority of audiences have very contrasting opinions to the story-telling  John lewis adverts, when compared to gocompare.com and that bloody jingle and fake moustache wearing idiot.

Anyway, research shows that sponsorship is very much an accepted part of the television landscape.  Overall, viewers appreciate sponsorship’s role as ‘break punctuation’ and have a more positive view of sponsorship than of spot advertising.  Spot commercials are viewed as a ‘harder sell’ whereas in many cases, sponsorship is seen as separated from the ad break. Research shows many viewers fail to distinguish it from the programme and felt it acted as a marker and set the tone for the coming programme.

Value for money

In addition to all this, Sponsorship can still be a relatively cheap way to start advertising on television or to boost and leverage TV presence. For example, to sponsor an entire series on satellite tv can cost as little as £5,000, this budget would severely restrain a tv spot campaign on satellite TV and in most cases it would not be enough to buy a single  30 second spot on ITV.

On a much Larger scale we can see that even a £20million sponsorship can be good value for money. TalkTalk sponsor X Factor, over 3 years for an estimated £20m (approximately £6.6million a year). This is a huge amount of money, however when comparing it to tv spot advertising it is still demonstrates good value. X Factor runs for approximately 16 weeks, with the live shows being aired on a Saturday and Sunday.  By my calculations, this gives TalkTalk an absolute minimum of 156 sponsorship bumpers. However Just one 30 second commercial in last years final would cost up to £250,000.The deal also includes sponsorship of the tour and rights to exclusive online clips (which gets a global audience and millions of hits on YouTube).  £6million……BARGAIN!

There are other uses of sponsorship such as using it to drive response, and launching a new product, etc- for more on that find another blog. The main advantage and difference to tv spot advertising  is the association, the emotional insight, value for money, and the recall.

Lets finish with a “recall” quiz,

Who sponsors…..

1) Britains got talent

2)The Simpsons (on Sky1)

3) Coronation Street

4) Take Me Out

5) Top Gear (on Dave)

Companies, Brands, and Fair trade. Its just good business....isn't it?

 Slight diversion from television in this post but as fair trade fortnight just passed by I thought I would blog about the increase in fair trade and why we’re seeing the increase in brands supporting fair trade and the much loved fair trade logo. 


This post is a long one so bear with me.

Fairtrade is ‘‘a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equality in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South.’’ (Fair trade website)

Definition-done! But what does this actually mean for businesses?


Not only do Fair trade companies have to pay a fair wage to cover the cost of production, they also have to pay a social PREMIUM to provide funding for social projects.
Now the cynic has to ask why are companies choosing to take part in this costly ethical activity if, by law, they don’t have to?

One argument is that the changing culture and increasing awareness of business practices means companies now want to avoid unethical practices as it can lead to a public back-lash. In today's world the consumer has more knowledge available to them which has led to a culture shift to a consumer which is now more concerned with values and morals. Due to increased media and the internet, consumers have easy access to information about global issues.  The media and the Internet regularly expose unethical business behaviour and it is clear that such information can harm a business's reputation and have a negative impact on sales. 

More and more companies now want to promote a fair, decent and principled company image which will hopefully appeal to their target market. Indeed there is a lot of evidence to suggest that ethical products sell very well and sales are continuing to grow. For example one year after Sainsbury's and Waitrose decided to only stock Fairtrade bananas, UK sales of Fairtrade bananas rose 130 per cent from 2006 to 2007 (The Independent 2008). On a global scale there was an estimated 47% increase in sales from 2007 to 2008 (Mintel).

This then leads to the other motivation as to why more and more companies are practising and promoting fair trade – profits!

Over the past ten years there has been a significant increase of Fair trade products, for example total UK Fairtrade certified products has risen from £32.9 million in 2000 to £712 million in 2008 (source: Fairtrade Foundation). The price of Fairtrade products is usually higher than those which are not sourced or produced through fairtrade.  This can be assumed that the premium price is to cover the additional cost given to fair trade farmers. Customers are effectively asked to pay a premium price to contribute to a social cause. However CQ researcher 2010 states "Fair trade growers generally receive only a small fraction of the extra margin consumers pay".

For example in 2001 Costa Coffee started to offer fair trade coffee, charging customers an extra 10p per cup.  However, it wasn’t until several years later that Financial Times writer Tim Harford investigated the additional charge. He calculated that the real additional cost to Costa was less than 1p per cup. Therefore Costa was using strategic pricing, knowing that some customers would be happy to pay an extra 10p for fair trade coffee, assuming the additional 10p was going to fair trade causes (CQ Researcher 2010)

In addition to profits, companies who support fair trade want consumers to know they’re supporting it by using the Fair trade logo, they want their brands to be associated with the fair trade values.

The Fairtrade logo carries with it widespread popularity and “a certain cachet”, that if a company can associate their brand with the image of the fair trade logo it will enhance their brand image of goodwill with consumers. 

However the Fairtrade logo is certified ONLY to PRODUCTS, not BRANDS, or COMPANIES. Therefore companies and retailers could attempt to enhance their social reputation by adopting a Fairtrade logo for only one product line. This may lead to the situation where consumers may believe a company to be a dedicated fair trade practitioner, but in reality only a small percentage of its product lines are actually bought under the terms of Fair Trade labelling. 

For example in recent years Nestle and Starbucks have begun to produce a small percentage of fair trade products. Both companies offer their fair-trade coffee lines as a new speciality coffee brand, rather than offering Fairtrade in their existing coffee lines.Therefore both companies have associated itself with the “good will” associations of the Fair trade, but have done so with minimal expenditure on a small percentage of new product lines. For example in 2005 when Nestle offered to buy 3000 bags of fair trade coffee a year, this amount only made up 0.02 percent of the company's purchases.


So it seems Fair trade is just good business. Companies are to various degrees, starting to reflect the values of its customers, and are using the FairTrade logo to associate its brands with these values, which are seeing healthy financial returns.

However, supporting fair trade does not guarantee success. Obviously the end product has to meet the customers expectations, and customers have to know about your product. Lets look at the case of fashion company People Tree.

Fashion company "People Tree" was set up in 1991. The founder, Safia Minney had worked within the fashion industry for many years and believed that she could be doing more to help developing countries out of poverty. 

The People Tree supports 50 Fair Trade producer groups, in 15 developing countries. People Tree teaches developing communities to hand weave, hand knit and hand embroidery and pay them a fair wage for their work. People Tree insists on production by hand as it creates more jobs within the community. This is an example of how People Tree go above and beyond the mandatory fair trade standards. In an interview Safia Minney stated that she views fashion as a tool to help developing countries escape from poverty (Fair trade in action: 2008).

People Tree are also registered with the Fairtrade labelling organisation since its launch in 1991, however the cost of certification can cost up to £3000. Safia delayed getting certified because she argued "for the cost of two to three thousand pounds for certification one might want to spend it instead covering the running costs for a school for 300 children in the developing area”. This shows  Safia weighing up the consequences of her actions of whether or not to pay for the Fairtrade logo which is recognised by 70 % of the population, with the cost of knowing the initial amount of money may be better spent elsewhere. However no good deed goes unpunished. In 2008 Safia stated that "People Tree has been running for six years and hasn't made a profit yet"(Fair trade in action: 2008). This isn't helped by the use of People Tress's hand production techniques,which means lead times from design to the shops is 18 months, compared to an average of 3 months for conventional fashion. So in the highly competitive fashion market, the challenges of Fair trade leave an uphill battle for People Tree. 

Keep the Faith

However in 2008 People Tree won the Cosmopolitan Best Ethical E-tailer Award. In 2009 they won The Observer Ethical Awards for Fashion. In 2009 the People Tree founder was honoured with an MBE. They are now stocked in over 50 stores in the UK, including; John lewis, and Peter Jones. They can also be found on Asos. In addition to this they have now got celebrity endorsement from Emma Watson.


In conclusion, due to increased media and the internet, consumers now have easy access to information about global issues. This has resulted in companies promoting a higher sense of social responsibility, and some use the fair trade model and logo to do so. The case of People Tree however shows why the majority of companies who use the fair trade model don't usually go further than the minimal to receive fair trade certification - its expensive.

Admittingly this particular post had very little to do with television.....deal with it.
In the words of Seth Mcfarlane 
" I don't follow the rules, I make my own rules, and sometimes I don't even follow them"

Fair trade facts

In 2008 reports showed that 72% of the UK population recognise the Fair trade logo (Fairtrade Foundation 2009).

Further findings showed understanding of the concept behind the logo has increased, with 64% of the population linking the logo to an improved deal for producers in poorer countries.

Despite the fair trade movement starting over 40 years ago, it was not until 1988 did the additional aspect of the Fairtrade logo appear on products

Since the introduction of Fairtrade certified cotton in 2005, annual sales have risen from a humble 200,000 to a marvellous 7.79 million in 2008

Consumers are spending more on Fairtrade with the average purchase of Fairtrade goods increasing by 5.5% this year.

Sales of Fairtrade are also increasing and  reached an estimated £700m in 2008, a 43% increase on the previous year. 


Starbucks fair trade coffee only comprised 3.7% of the company's purchases in 2009

Product placement: Can it be a success for viewers, television and advertisers in the UK?

Okay, lets give this blog business a go…..

For the 55 years of commercial television in the UK, we have been used to seeing advertising  only during the commercial break. However today sees the start of paid-for product placement for the first time in shows produced in the UK. The first product placement was a Nescafe coffee machine on this morning. The question however is will the attentive, coffee thirsty, This Morning viewer feel the need to go out and purchase this latest offering from Nescafe (available at all good stores, and some bad ones) or will they simply stick the kettle on.

Lets look at our Atlantic neighbours……….

In America, advertisers such as Coca-Cola and Apple pay millions of dollars to place their products in films and TV programmes. Product placement has a long history in America and makes up 5% of television revenues, approximately $1.80 billion (£1.1 million). Product placement can be seen in most, if not all of our favourite American shows, with varying subtlety. For instance there is a clear difference in placement approaches between someone using a HP computer in The Office, to Donald Draper pitching how Heineken can bring its beer to the attention of American consumers in Mad Men (which was paid for by Heineken as an additional part of their advertising on the show).


 A viewer like myself would prefer to think that product placement in the UK will not intrude on the narrative in my favourite shows, and instead will stay hidden in the background for me to subliminally remember when it comes to making a purchase. Guardian TV critic Julia Raeside reassures UK viewers stating "I don't think it's going to muck up the programmes or have an artistic effect at all, It'll be much more subtle than that."

However, for an advertiser there is clear evidence in the US to demonstrate that products and brands which indeed do “intervene” or as a marketer would say “enhance” a story line sees greater and quicker reward.

For example on the American Apprentice the contestants' task on one episode was to design a brochure for Pontiac's new sports car. During the reality show, Pontiac ran a 60-second ad that showed off the vehicle and directed viewers to its Website, where they could register to be one of the first 1,000 owners, who would receive a limited-edition version of the car. Only 15 minutes after the announcement, traffic at the site increased 1,393%. Viewers could take their registration forms to their local dealer beginning at 2 p.m. the next day to pre order; the first 1,000 units were sold by 2:41 p.m.

Another not-so-subtle approach was the infamous Oprah Winfrey Car giveaway on Sept. 13, 2004. Oprah gave all 276 audience members – all of whom had been determined to need a set of wheels – a fully loaded 2005 Pontiac G6. The audience members were also able to customize their cars to their liking. The day before the episode aired, Pontiac had about 33,000 visitors to its Website. That grew to 85,000 the day of the episode and 114,000 the day after. In the six months after the placement, 27,332 G6s were sold, According to Pontiac marketing manager Mark-Hans Richer “the $7.7 million we spent on that product placement was probably the most efficient thing we did all year."

However I very much doubt we will see similar “intrusion” or “enhancement” in the big UK produced TV shows such as Coronation Street or Emmerdale. According to Campaign.com  “ITV and Channel 4 are known to be sensitive to the possibility of a public backlash to product placement, and ITV switched its focus for the first product placement deal from 'Emmerdale' to 'This Morning' last week”

Research from Vision Critical, published today, supports the broadcasters' fears.

In a survey of 2,000 viewers, they found:

61% of people were unaware that product placement will now be allowed.

54% were "comfortable" with product placement.

32% were "uncomfortable" with product placement.

38% thought TV quality would reduce.

31% thought TV quality would improve.

Older viewers were less comfortable with product placement than younger viewers.

Mike Stevens, head of research at Vision Critical London, said: "There's a real lack of awareness that commercial TV will soon be carrying paid-for promotion of brands. It's to be expected that people will feel uncomfortable at first."

Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that initially the broad rating-winning shows will see very little, if any product placement. This will be until there is an increase in awareness and acceptance of product placement. 

In the mean time satellite and cable tv shows with fewer ratings, have a great opportunity to increase and diversify revenues. The Vision Critical research discovered some channels were found to be better suited for product placement. 62% are "comfortable" with product placement being used on E4 and 64% are "comfortable" to see it on Sky Sports. It seems this younger audience (probably raised on American television imports) is more accepting and aware of product placement. For advertisers this will allow them to appeal to a more targeted audience for a fraction of the price it would on ITV or Channel 4 without fear of a public backlash. In addition to this, I believe based on previous research on television sponsorship, that if you placed a product on a show that fits with the brands personality there will be even greater acceptance and more purchase intent.

So for now, product placement can be a success in the UK for viewers, if it doesn't interfere with narrative. It can be a success for shows with younger,more accepting, audiences. It can also be a success for advertisers who can use television shows to target the more accepting demographics for now, until the mass population are more aware and accepting of product placement.