John Tylee considers what advertising fears about a distance-selling
directive
The defining moment in last week’s debate by Euro MPs on the evils of
distance selling came when a German member complained that she had
arrived home to find 15 advertising messages on her answerphone.
In Britain, it’s unlikely anybody has been subjected to such intrusion,
or is ever likely to be. But that will not stop this country from being
shackled by the proposed Europe-wide Distance Selling Directive
(Campaign, last week).
When EU legislators try to harmonise consumer protection controls across
the Continent it’s rarely a straightforward process. History and culture
vary enormously from state to state. Rules that make sense in one
country may upset a carefully balanced applecart elsewhere.
The reason why the German MEP’s tape was choked with unwanted sales
pitches is because of that country’s highly regulated consumer
protection system. With advertisers banned from using lists to profile
and target prospective customers, many resort to the scatter-gun
approach.
It means that German consumers receive up to five times more junk mail
than their UK counterparts.
‘It’s all the result of a worthy, but befuddled, attempt to protect
people’s rights,’ a senior UK ad industry lobbyist explains. ‘German
direct marketers are forced to leave a lot of messages because they
don’t get many shots at the target - and because they often don’t know
where the target is.’
So it’s not surprising that Ger-man politicians, raised on a diet of
strict regulation, are leading the charge towards straight-jacketing the
direct marketing industry and outlawing cold-calling.
But whether cross-border legislation is necessary to tackle what is,
essentially, a domestic problem is debatable. Certainly, all those
involved in what is generally regarded as a highly developed - and well
policed - direct marketing industry in Britain are aghast at the
possible wielding of the European sledgehammer.
What compounds the problem is the confusion within UK advertising and
marketing circles over whether or not last week’s meeting of the
environment, public health and consumer protection committee actually
demanded a ban on cold-calling.
‘Some people might say that if the ruling isn’t clear that must be
good,’ Philip Circus, legal affairs director of the Institute of
Practitioners in Advertising, says. ‘But if the industry isn’t sure
about what is and isn’t permissible then the threat of a total ban on
cold-calling becomes very real.’
The Direct Marketing Association has already warned that a ban on
telephone sales without previous face-to-face contact with a consumer
would make telemarketing virtually impossible.
DMA chiefs are pinning their hopes on the self-regulatory Telephone
Preference Service. Launched ten months ago, the TPS supplies lists of
people who don’t want to be cold-called. Eighty companies are
participating in the scheme, and 70,000 consumers have asked to go on
the list.
The European Publishers Council, which is petrified by the prospect of
being unable to use the phone to chase newspaper and magazine
subscriptions, forecasts ‘the death knell of the distance- selling
industry’ should the committee’s call win the backing of the European
Parliament.
Others take a more sanguine view. ‘I think the DMA and the EPC are
talking this one up,’ an industry source says. ‘I don’t blame them.
Members of trade bodies are notoriously lazy and slow to recognise the
implications of European legislation, so a little exaggeration may be
necessary at times.’
So what is it trying to do?
Lionel Stanbrook, political affairs director of Britain’s Advertising
Association, believes the EU isn’t targeting direct response TV ads, but
rather companies that try to close deals with customers during a single
phone call.
Although financial services companies would be subject to the rules, few
are getting worked up about it. Stephen Chipperfield, chief executive of
the specialist financial agency, Hill Murray, says: ‘If the ban covered
all calls - even those initiated by the customer - the effect would be
catastrophic. But telemarketing is no longer used by financial services
companies to set up deals. Those that did this have been discredited.’
That begs the question of why Europe’s advertising lobbyists have worked
themselves into a lather over an issue that may yet prove a damp squib.
Fear of a ‘domino effect’ is the obvious answer. If the amended rules on
distance selling are passed by the European Parliament on 11 December
without a fight, how long will it be before reformist MEPs renew their
assaults on alcohol and tobacco advertising? ‘We have to hold the line,’
Circus declares.
For European agencies and their clients, the latest row over distance
selling is seen as symbolic of the increasingly hostile climate in which
they operate. The threats are political and cultural and posed, in part,
by a European Parliament that has shown a growing tendency to intervene
as its power has increased.
The Spanish authorities, exasperated by their failure to stamp out
sexist ads, want the EU to do the job for them. Meanwhile, Germany wants
the EU to get tough on direct marketing. ‘It’s a problem for us,’
Stanbrook says. ‘But if I had 15 companies a day ringing me, I might
want a law passed too.’
Leader, p 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU versus industry position on advertising
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Status Industry position
Tobacco No Europe-wide ban yet, Growing support for
but health ministers industry initiative to
meeting to review test the legality of
situation on Thursday any EU ad ban in Euro
courts
Alcohol Various statutory No evidence to show ad
restrictions. Toughest ban would affect
controls in France. No overall consumption
plans for curbs at
Euro level
Broadcast Directive No major restrictions on Support for a
review ads proposed. May tighten directive, but fear
Euro quota restrictions ministers may restrict
for shows ads in return for
relaxing quota rules
Toy advertising Heavy restrictions or Ban on TV toy ads
bans during kids’ TV would lead to poor
shows in most states. quality kids’ shows
Pressure for more curbs and, possibly, their
disappearance
Sexual stereotyping Spain, with the current No legislation can
EU presidency, is calling enforce sexual equality
for action to outlaw and EU should not
sexual stereotyping interfere
Comparative Allowed in 11 EU states, Concern over moves by
advertising including the UK. Banned Spain to prohibit them
in four other countries in some professional
sectors, e.g. law
Credit marketing Euro Commission Danger too much
considering new code of statutory detail in ads
conduct for credit ads is unnecessary and
targeted at young people blunting its effect
Commercial Commission Green Paper Lobbying needed to
communications expected to be published support cause of free
by the end of this year and responsible
commercial speech
Self-regulation Well established in Vigilance needed to
the UK. Patchy in the ensure growth and good
other states within relationship with
the EU statutory controls
Food claims Commission considering Existing controls are
proposals to tighten up already sufficient and
claims made in food ads no further action is
necessary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
..HL.-
CAM # 01:12:95
CLOSE-UP: LIVE ISSUE/REJUVENATING OLD BRANDS; Can advertising make an
old brand fashionable?
..BL.-
By HARRIET GREEN
..XP.-
Page_14
Photograph (omitted)
Harriet Green investigates how two agencies plan to rescue Spam and
Martini
Take your pick from a few daunting tasks: hold the globe on your
shoulders until the end of time, slay the Hydra, make Martini
fashionable again, or do the same for Spam. Atlas and Hercules landed
the first two tasks some years ago; the others are now with Howell Henry
Chaldecott Lury and Advertising Principles respectively (Campaign, last
week).
The flagging 70s aperitif returns to TV and cinema screens with a
commercial that poses a challenge to viewers: are they sufficiently hip
and good-looking to handle this product? Spam, the butt of countless
jokes about fritters and school dinners, appointed Advertising
Principles in the hope of transforming chopped pork and ham into a
serious premium product.
It’s not the first time Spam has tried to raise its image with
advertising. In 1993 Bates Dorland coined the slogan ‘Wham! Bam! Thank
you Spam!’ in a bid to encourage modern mums to consider Spam as a
healthy alternative to other convenience foods.
But Spam has one big problem - although its owner, Newforge Foods,
claims it provides a healthy meal, the public still believes
otherwise. The entire canned chopped-meat sector is in decline. Is
advertising enough to revive a forgotten product, or are some brands
better left resting in peace?
Rob Lucas, Newforge’s marketing manager, is talking tough: ‘Spam hasn’t
lost its way completely. The chopped pork-and-ham sector is in decline.
But we don’t intend to go down with it.’
Lucas aims to stress the versatility of Spam with a pounds 500,000 TV
campaign addressing its core audience of C2, D, and E housewives with
young children. ‘Spam is the ideal sandwich filling,’ he enthuses. ‘And
it’s great for stir-frying.’
But many in the industry doubt advertising can help Spam. Rupert Howell,
managing partner at HHCL, the agency charged with Martini’s rebirth,
thinks Spam should save its cash. ‘I wouldn’t spend money on advertising
at all. I would bribe someone like Delia Smith or Sainsbury’s to endorse
it,’ he advises. ‘There’s no point [advertising] if the product is
perceived as passe. I’m not sure you could change Spam’s image with a
pounds 10 million ad budget. It’s a cliche, but nothing kills a bad
product better than good advertising.’
Advertising Principles, not surprisingly, disagrees. Its new-business
manager, Phil Hesketh, explains that the advertising will not alienate
current users. ‘Spam may be unfashionable to the people who write about
it, but they are not typical of the socio-economic group that eats it.
About one million housewives buy Spam on a regular basis and it’s not
unfashionable to them.’
And Hesketh insists Spam has many positive associations: ‘When you say
‘Spam’, people smile. They don’t smile if you say ‘BT’ or ‘Sky’. People
remember cutting shapes out of it at school - but that’s not really
negative.’
Howell believes that Martini has positive associations too. He explains:
‘It has a quality reputation and perception. And in taste tests people
still really like the drink.’
Howell admits that Martini’s image had become tacky - epitomised by
mustachioed hunks with chest wigs jumping in and out of speed boats all
over the place. But in most people’s minds, he insists, the brand is
remembered as ‘fun’.
He explains: ‘With Martini it’s a classic case of nudging something
negative into a positive. Martini’s problem was that it was seen as
being too populist. The trick is not to chuck the baby out with the bath
water.’ The latest advertising has chucked the chest wig out but still
plays on Martini’s glamorous, good-time image - using the line ‘the
beautiful drink’.
Martini will hope for better success than that other ‘good-time’ drink,
Babycham, which relaunched with a pounds 7.5 million budget in 1993.
Dubbed ‘project sparkle’, the relaunch started with an extensive
research programme. This revealed 98 per cent awareness of the brand -
but also showed that most people felt that ordering a glass of Babycham
in their local was naff.
The package was redesigned, the frolicking deer was killed off and the
recipe tweaked. Bartle Bogle Hegarty created a stylish TV and cinema ad
that was a major departure from the romantic image Babycham had carried
in the 80s.
But BBH’s efforts did not recruit significant numbers of new Babycham
drinkers. And sadly, all anyone remembers is Saatchi and Saatchi’s cool
dude spouting the unforgettable line: ‘Hey, I’d lerve a Babycham.’
One relaunch which enjoyed greater success was for Skoda. The Czech car
company ran its first TV campaign last year through GGK (now Doner
Cardwell Hawkins). It used the line, ‘We’ve changed the car, can you
change your minds?’, and focused on the car’s VW parentage. Sales
soared, according to Paul Cardwell, Doner Cardwell’s creative director.
Cardwell believes it would have been suicide to dump the Skoda name and
pretend the crappy associations hadn’t existed: ‘We had to meet the
problems head on. There is no point pretending that the Beatles are a
new group.’
Cardwell maintains the trick was to advertise to the existing users who
loved the product’s functional simplicity: ‘It would be humiliating to
end up like a Gary Glitter product - crap, kitschy rubbish.’
So the secret seems to be - don’t aim too high. Products may be
retrieved, brand awareness may be lifted and sales figures may rocket.
But some products can never be fashionable.
