Whose ads will win the phone war?

In Britain’s fastest growing durables market, operators face a tough time building brand identity. At stake? Their long-term survival. Michele Martin questions current strategies

In Britain’s fastest growing durables market, operators face a tough

time building brand identity. At stake? Their long-term survival.

Michele Martin questions current strategies

It seems hard to believe now, but the jury was out when WCRS unveiled

its ads for Orange nearly two years ago. The launch ad, with its

swimming baby and the line, ‘The future’s bright, the future’s Orange’,

provoked more than a few ‘it’s a lemon’ swipes.

But that was back in April 1994, and things have changed. The ad

strategy that once failed to charm won last December’s Millward Brown

awareness study with a sector-beating score of 90 per cent.

In the cluttered world of mobile phone advertising, Orange has made its

mark by doing what others have not: supported one agency and strategy

with a consistent media spend. Its advertising peaked last year with a

pounds 13.7 million above-the-line spend - the highest in the market.

Orange’s rivals - giants Cellnet and Vodafone and smaller Mercury One-2-

One - have experienced fluctuating budgets, agency changes and new

advertising strategies that have left them with respective awareness

levels of 65 per cent, 59 per cent and 53 per cent.

It is hardly surprising, then, that the competition finds itself having

to congratulate Orange publicly. ‘I suppose it’s done quite a good job,’

Terry Barwick, director of corporate affairs for the Vodafone Group,

concedes. Mike O’Reilly, Cellnet’s account director at Abbott Mead

Vickers BBDO, simply comments: ‘Orange is doing extremely well.’

All four players are gritting their teeth and preparing for what is

likely to be the bloodiest year in the sector’s history.

Last month, Vodafone appointed BMP DDB Needham for its first big

branding campaign (Campaign, 19 January). And with One-2-One currently

analysing the results of its first strategy through Bartle Bogle

Hegarty, and Cellnet emerging from a six-month advertising rethink by

Abbott Mead, the sector is poised for radical change.

The reason is simple. Although the UK’s current 9.3 per cent mobile

phone penetration is projected to reach 25 per cent by the year 2000,

with new subscribers enlisting at the rate of 450,000 to 500,000 per

quarter, the market cannot sustain four networks. The next few years

will not only see a scramble for profits but a fight for the last three

seats in the sector’s game of musical chairs. The two market leaders,

Cellnet and Vodafone, have 2.3 million subscribers each, compared with a

few hundred thousand each for Orange and One-2-One.

Steve Dunn, the sales and marketing director for One-2-One between 1994

and 1995 and now commercial director of Lease Plan, says: ‘There are too

many players in a market, which only has room for three brands, so one

will have to go.’

Merrill Lynch’s telecommunications analyst, Simon Carrington, comments:

‘The question facing the consumer is no longer ‘Do I need a mobile

phone?’ but ‘What sort shall I get?’ The amount of advertising in the

mobile phone sector is going to keep going up in an emerging battle for

brand share.’

The scramble for new agencies and new ads is a long-overdue attempt by

the ‘Big Four’ to build brands in a marketplace where they are sadly

lacking - even though adspend in the sector rose by 42 per cent, from

pounds 39 million to pounds 55.5 million, between 1993 and 1995


The reasons for the branding failures are numerous. The first mobile

licence holders, Cellnet and Vodafone, were cocooned in an effective

duopoly between 1984 and 1992, which meant they could afford to sideline

advertising in favour of dealer marketing. As a result, when One-2-One

and Orange received their licences in 1992 both were faced with the

prospect of targeting a consumer market that had never been approached


But it would be wrong to blame poor branding entirely on circumstance.

In part, the sector’s marketing inadequacies are self-inflicted. Roy

Warman, joint chief executive of Leopard, observes: ‘To some extent,

Vodafone and Cellnet played wait-and-see when One-2-One and Orange came

along. They both underestimated the power of mass communication because

neither of them saw it as the primary driving force in their own

businesses up to that time.’

One-2-One and Orange admit that their initial campaigns didn’t always

capture the imagination. ‘It wasn’t very likeable,’ says Steve

Greensted, the then managing director of Woollams Moira Gaskin O’Malley

and now director of Osprey Park, referring to One-2-One’s Robert Lindsay

and Beatrice Dalle strategy. ‘Orange was mocked and derided at first,’

Will Harris, the account director on Orange at WCRS, says.

That the major players understand the need to rethink what they have

been doing is beyond dispute. A Consumers’ Association report due in

March will show that one in four subscribers regret their choice of


The task will not be straightforward for operators who still have to

pick up the pieces from their first attempts at advertising before they

can start again.

On a collective level, this means clarifying exactly what a network

sells compared with the rest of the mobile phone fraternity, including

service providers such as Peoples Phone and retailers like London Car

Telephones. In 1994, this tier obscured the networks’ messages with

largely retail ads, which contributed 45 per cent to the sector’s total


Here, at least, there is the promise of some change. With increased

umbrella activity by the networks, the middle men seem increasingly

content to bask in the knock-on effect of their efforts, with third-

party adspend dropping to 29 per cent of the total in 1995.

On top of this, the networks are becoming increasingly subtle at

creatively positioning themselves away from the front-end boys. But

everyone, even Orange, has some fall-out to handle. Top of the list is

undoubtedly One-2-One.

WMGO’s launch campaign was vulnerable because it was the first to target

mobile phones at a mass market. But, in the end, it ran into problems

because of tariffing. Its unique promise of free off-peak calls made it

attractive to a down-market audience, who then clogged the network after


Dunn explains: ‘The advertising message that this was a phone for the

Ordinary Joe ended up exacerbating the quality problems we were having.

The overall signal One-2-One sent out was that this was a trivial


The challenge for BBH is to maintain the network’s popularity, while

also boosting subscriptions among heavy users. It is a positioning that

the agency’s managing director, Simon Sherwood, believes is viable: ‘We

still give free weekend calls, but it’s something we no longer focus on.

Cheapness is a downward spiral and you don’t have to drive mobile phones

upmarket to succeed. Telephony is mass market.’

But One-2-One still needs to get its total marketing proposition right

this time around if it is to stay the course. It faces stiff competition

for the broad mass market from both Cellnet and Vodafone.

And while neither of these has the stigma of being a ‘trivial’ brand,

each carries advertising baggage of its own. With a duopoly mind-set and

a tendency towards generic, middle-of-the-road advertising, both will

have to be careful not to hand the competition an advantage on a plate.

Harris illustrates the problem: ‘In a way, it was useful that they did

the kind of advertising that they did. It forced us to do something

different.’ On current showings, both still have some way to go to prove

things have changed significantly.

All of which seems to leave the pip-squeak, Orange, ahead of the race

for brand domination, although the course ahead may not be as smooth as

it seems. Because it pitched itself as relatively mass medium, some

believe it may be heading too far upmarket. Such home truths are

uncomfortable in a sector that still has everything to play for.

Each network faces its own watershed. For Orange, the imminent share

flotation will keep up the pressure to maximise its customer base, while

One-2-One’s roll-out beyond the M25 region and towards the South Coast

will prove make or break. For Cellnet and Vodafone, the switch from

analogue to digital in the coming months will test customer loyalty. It

is brand or bust time for all four and the ultimate price is a place in

the market.


After years of Saatchi and Saatchi handling the print account and

Leopard creating broadcast advertising, Vodafone put the lot into

Leopard in 1994. Then, last month, BMP DDB Needham landed the pounds 15

million branding task for Vodafone. To date, the nearest the brand has

got to having a consistent theme is Leopard’s line: ‘Nobody goes further

to keep you in touch’, which was introduced into its ‘steps’ commercial

and extended into posters. Aside from this, the strategy has otherwise

taken a scatter-gun approach. Last year’s only television work starred

Dawn French in a Cinderella spoof. Irritated by the pip-squeak, Orange,

was Vodafone more concerned last year with taking its smaller rival to

the High Court than signing off new campaigns?


Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO created Cellnet’s genitally-challenged ‘netman’

as an early branding device to illustrate the network’s 98 per cent UK

coverage. But having survived the company’s first personal user ads in

1993 - where John Cleese and Ronnie Corbett squared up in humorous

commercials to Orange and One-2-One - he was scrapped to move the brand

away from issues of geography. New ads, from September 1995, pushed

Cellnet’s everyday uses. One execution showed a policeman on his way

home telling his son a bedtime story; another showed a pregnant woman

talking to her husband as he catches the train home.

Mercury One-2-One

Woollams Moira Gaskin O’Malley’s soap opera series starring Beatrice

Dalle and Robert Lindsay captured the public’s attention as the first

mobile phone campaign to target the consumer mass market rather than

businesses. But ‘The mobile phone for every day, for everyone’ campaign

ultimately lacked charm and the account passed to Bartle Bogle Hegarty

in 1995. BBH’s ads continue WMGO’s popularist tack by featuring users in

everyday situations, including one where girls in a bar summon their

Romeo waiter using a mobile phone.


As the only campaign to have been planned and executed by one agency,

WCRS’s ads have built the fourth mobile phone network on a hi-tech

positioning. Orange was launched in 1994 with a commercial featuring a

naked baby ushering in a new era of wire-free communication - as with

Cellnet’s ‘netman’, the baby’s penis was electronically removed for the

TV watchdogs. Orange added depth to its proposition in later ads. The

summer 1995 and Christmas ads featured Vietnamese cyclists in visual

analogies that intended to illustrate product benefits, such as digital





Company            Spend pounds m    Spend pounds m    Spend pounds m

                       1993              1994              1995

Cellnet                 9.1              11.5              11.2

Hutchison               3.5               7.8              13.7

Mercury 0ne-2-0ne       0.9               7.3               7.1

Vodafone               11.0               4.7               7.2

Total market *         39.0              58.0              55.5

Source: Register-MEAL, 12 months to September 1995, * total market

includes retailers