The Men Who Made Us Fat

I watched the final episode of the programme "The Men Who Made Us Fat" on BBC2 last night and did get very frustrated about the continual criticism of marketing throughout it. Whilst in principle I can agree with the contention that the food industry is concerned with making money for shareholders (it is their primary responsibility, after all), I do not entirely agree that is all down to marketing that people buy the high fat foods, and as ever that is using the word marketing for promotion rather than the broader aspects it should cover.

It does seem potentially short sighted of the food companies to produce products which can cause obesity and therefore reduce the life of their customers, however. Surely they should want to help the customers to live longer and therefore make more money from them over a long period of time. But is it really the fault of marketing that people want to buy quick and simple to prepare, tasty food at low prices even if it is very processed? Isn't the marketing response one of providing that to meet the lifestyles people lead rather than convincing people it is what they need?


The problem comes with the potentially misleading labelling which suggest things may be healthy when they are not particularly so, but again, if people want to see that something has fruit in it and it does why not state that? If everything else is on the label is it not the customer's fault for not reading it and seeing the reality? I am a believer in freedom of choice provided the customer is well informed rather than the regulation which was being suggested by the programme, but that does rely on educating customers as to what things really mean and that is where I do think the food producers and retailers are failing. 


But it isn't all the fault of marketing!


For the moment the programme can be viewed here - BBC iPlayer

No such thing as bad publicity?

There is a regularly used phrase that there is no such thing as bad publicity. However, that is not always the case (just ask Gerald Ratner!) and example I heard about via a discussion on LinkedIn emphasises the point. Apparently a UK based supplier of data for direct marketing recently sent the following message via email:

"Subject: Accurate data killed Osama bin Laden (helped by US Special Forces)

The US 'Most Wanted List' has seen a bit of a shake-up.

Accurate information enabled the US to target their attention on a walled compound in Abbottabad. As a direct result, the small group of people called US Navy Seal Team Six have changed the shape of the international terrorist threat. It may yet prove to be an illusion, but many people will feel safer as a result. Yet despite their evident skill and years of experience, the troops would have been powerless to act without good information.

But Al-Qaeda is still in business, and you need to be too!

Accurate information is just as vital for your marketing. You need to target the
* right people with the
* right authority in the
* right organisations

xxxxx xxxx offers you the most accurate B2B marketing data in the UK, that's a fact!
With average data age of just 94 days, and 13 decision makers at each site, you can target the correct decision maker for your campaign.

To ensure your marketing is as effective as US Navy Seal Team Six

We would like to keep you informed of our latest promotions and offers, however, if you no longer wish to receive emails from us, please unsubscribe"

Would you buy data from this organisation? From the comments I have seen in various places it would seem that, for obvious reasons, many people would not despite having previously done so and received just what is being offered - accurately targeted data.

Whilst using topical subjects can be a good hook in many instances, this demonstrates that some thought should be applied to the way you message will probably be viewed!

Vodafone

I was quite surprised, and disappointed, to see this advert for Vodafone in The Sunday Times Business section yesterday (November 1st, 2009). It is disappointing as it is another example which could perpetuate the myth that marketing is just sales, but also very disappointing because it misses the point about what strategy is. Not only that, it must have been approved by someone within Vodafone who is connected to their Marketing function - what a missed opportunity from that person to promote their own profession. In reality they have done themselves and their profession down, whilst demonstrating a lack of strategic knowledge.

Having said all of that, it has to be appreciated that this is just an advert which is meant to be fairly light hearted, which I do understand. However, in terms of reputation I think it is a poor reflection on those involved in the creation and approval. And generally, Vodafone are pretty good at marketing in my view, so not sure what went wrong here.

The Apprentice 2009 - Final

That was a true marketing task - I got worried right at the start when Sir Alan said the two remaining candidates had to produce a marketing campaign, once again he was referring to a promotion campaign. After that, however, it became obvious that this was a true marketing programme. The candidates had to start off with a target market in mind, consider how to position their box of chocolates for that target. They had to consider the price to sell it at and then produce the promotional campaign (Sir Alan's marketing campaign) considering the place where they would sell the product. Both Yasmina and Kate produced great campaigns, although it certainly seemed that Kate had the better product, but well done to Yasmina on being hired.

So who is going to tell Sir Alan what marketing is all about?

As a side point, throughout five series of The Apprentice, I have not seen any real evidence of Sir Alan considering online marketing techniques (there was a brief shot showing that Yasmina had considered a website on the poster for Cocoa Electric in the final) so maybe I should try and enrol him on the CIM e-Marketing Award so he can learn more!

Formula 1 motor racing

As a fan of motorsport I find the current dispute between the teams and the FIA as governing body over the proposed rules from 2010 including a budget cap both fascinating and frustrating in equal measure - fascinating from the perspective of understanding the power struggles in the sport and how it has been run in the past, many details of which are being revealed after years of secrecy and frustrating because the politics is getting in the way of the sport.

As a marketer, however, I noticed an interesting point with regards to the proposals for the budget cap. That is that marketing expenditure is not included within the £40million cap which as I write is in the rules for those teams choosing to run to the cap in 2010. The regulations specifically stating:

Section 5.4 - Relevant expenditure shall include all expenditure, valued in accordance with these Regulations, which, irrespective of its source, is directly or indirectly connected with the CRT’s (Cost-Regulated Team) participation in the Championship save for expenditure : (a) the sole purpose of which is marketing or hospitality;

In my view, and generally accepted within marketing, product development is a marketing activity. The product of a Formula 1 team is the car they produce. Therefore taking the regulation literally, as a marketer, the teams would not be limited on the amount of money they spend on car development which is precisely the area the FIA are trying to limit!

It does say in the rules "In the event that the provisions of these Regulations admit of more than one interpretation, they shall be interpreted in a manner designed to facilitate the achievement of the overriding objective" which I guess would over-rule my thought, as would the rule "The burden is on the CRTs to ensure that they comply with the letter and the spirit both of these Regulations in general and the Cost Cap in Article 5 in particular.". Despite those comments, however, I do get the feeling that the FIA do not understand the term "marketing" and are therefore responsible for another crime against marketing!

The Apprentice 2009

I wasn't intending to mention the programme The Apprentice again on here, but after watching this weeks episode - rebranding Margate - I changed my mind. Prior to this episode the series has had less misuse of the word marketing than previously, but in one episode that maybe changed. There were numerous mentions of "marketing" which should have been "promotion", this coming from the teams, Sir Alan and the clients of the activity - the agencies and the Margate councillors.

This type of use of the word marketing has come to be expected on the programme, but the real issue I had this week was that the task was billed as "rebranding". I don't think it was re-branding, the requirement of the teams was "repositioning". In deciding which market to appeal to they were creating a position for Margate in the holiday destination market, their slogans being designed (hopefully on their part) to make Margate attractive to their selected audience. Rebranding would have required a lot more work than could possibly be achieved in a two or three day activity - true rebranding would involve many of the businesses in Margate and could take two or three years to achieve.

As for the output of the losing team - trying to associate a half empty leaflet and a picture which required, rather than painted, a thousand words as a poster with "marketing" was a true crime against marketing.

Marketing Suite

One thing I see regularly at property development sites is a sign indicating where the "marketing suite" is. I am often tempted to go in and ask them about their marketing strategies and the mix they are using - so far I have resisted as it would be unfair on the sales administrators who work in these suites.

I wonder who they are trying to fool by avoiding the word "sales" in the description. I am pretty sure that all that happens is that the public know it is a sales office, but then add the word marketing as an alternative to sales, leaving the impression that it is still somewhere to be avoided if they want to avoid being pressured. This is another misuse of the word marketing which adds to the negative perceptions of the profession in the eyes of those who aren't fully aware. At the same time it does nothing to overcome the negatives of selling which could be partly resolved through better practices, but largely needs a change in culture for which this is not the right place!!

This is an example of a typical sign seen in Leeds at the development in Granary Wharf.