Thanks to the generosity of my work colleagues I was the recipient of a Nando’s chicken burger today. In fact I had just received the “bonus burger” attached to a 2 for 1 offer – an offer which Nando’s had decided to honour following the decision of their rival Grill’d to pull their latest 2 for 1 promotion to students.

The original 2 for 1 burger offer targeted readers of the print edition of Victorian student publication The Uni Times Magazine, although an opportunistic individual (or individuals) decided to scan and share this offer online.

Updated (7.14pm): It has since been revealed that an electronic version of this voucher was actually available online through the Uni Times Magazine website, although this version had been removed from the site at the time of writing.

In part a victim of their own popularity, Grill’d were quickly on the back foot as people flocked to their outlets (primarily in Victoria) all trying to redeem the offer. Whilst they quickly pointed out that the offer was never intended for anyone other than the Uni Times Magazine readers, the damage was already done. Within no time they were taking a hammering on their website from scores of hitherto loyal fans – many defamatory posts have since been moderated. Twitter also has resonated to the cries of “PR failure” over the last few hours.

The offline to online transfer really does demonstrate just how quickly these things can get out of hand, almost to a viral level – in the context of the intended market. Moreover, it’s a timely reminder for companies to make sure their disclaimers are up to scratch. This exercise in damage control will surely cost Grill’d more than a few burgers and it will be interesting to see their longer term response.

Nando’s response however was swift, and I believe demonstrates their willingness and ability to listen, analyse and leverage this opportunity, as evidenced by their rapid press release and a statement posted on their website. Anyone presenting a copy of the Grill’d voucher to a Nando’s restaurant in Victoria or Queensland would be able to buy a burger or wrap and receive one of equal or lesser value, free of charge.

Kim Russell, Nando’s Australia National Marketing Manager, went on record and empathised.

“This time of year, students are back at Uni, paying for all their books and struggling to make ends meet… Many of our own staff are uni students and so we understand their plight.

“Downloaded, photocopied, scanned, emailed, original, we don’t care where you got them, just bring the Grill’d vouchers in to Nando’s and we’ll honour the Grill’d offer and terms and make sure you’re all well looked after,” she said.

Never shy of controversy, Nando’s delights in running topical ads, such as for the promotion of its Tropico Burger, and its homage paid to Sacha Baron Cohen’s Brüno and the unforgettable “Chips” advert which did the rounds over a year ago. Have a look through YouTube and you will find many more.

So is this timely intervention a great piece of marketing, or is it blatant opportunism from Nando’s? Do you think Grill’d will lose customers over this unfortunate incident? Either way, the famous Nando’s cockerel has good reason to crow!

Steve Jennings is an Account Manager at BCM

I’ve been enjoying some banter on the home front lately about the merits or otherwise of ANZ Bank’s new campaign, insisting it doesn’t have a bunch of ‘Barbaras’ in its institution, but promises to serve you ‘differently’ to the others.

Thanks ANZ, you had my interest – great talent and an injection of humour which carried through right up until the point you delivered your promise – and what a let down that was.  As a new customer, maybe you might get one handshake at the door – I doubt it – but don’t think it’s going to continue after you’ve opened the account.

So here’s my vent -  it ticks me off when I regularly see discounts or incentives being offered to lure new customers (which of course is a marketing strategy which pays dividends), but as a consumer who’s already signed up, these are constant reminders that you are now a member of the ‘forgotten ones’.

And I don’t mean to pick on ANZ.  This happens across the board – insurance, banking, gym and video club memberships and the list goes on.

To a cynical consumer like me, a marketer is probably between a rock and a hard place.  Those personalised letters that appear in the mail box attempting to up-sell me ‘with benefits’, are seen as just that – and end up in the recycle bin.

With Valentine’s Day romance in the air, what’s a marketer to do to get a tough nut like me to feel the love?  Well I’m happy to report that one marketer has found the way to my heart.

Last week I received a letter from a bank thanking me for my loyalty and acknowledging my value to them.  The note informed me that they’d deposited 10,000 reward points into my customer loyalty account – that’s worth $50 in fuel or shopping vouchers.  I didn’t ask for it, didn’t have to tick any boxes, or send any SMS’s to get it.  I felt flattered and deserving.

So what’s the lesson?  Something we regularly talk about here at BCM – remember to surprise and delight.  Although you need to focus on growing your customer base, don’t forget your existing members.  Remember that they have feelings too, and that loyalty can be subtly bought with a surprise that delights.

Gillian Tucker is BCM’s Agency Manager

There is no question that tapping into the power of communities has great potential for marketers. There have never been more opportunities to speak with those who share common interests, tastes, afflictions, friends, occupations, faiths, aspirations, hobbies, attitudes or any other element that might unite them – including brand preference. Collectively they have the ability to influence those around them as their opinion is generally respected by those in their ‘community’.

More often than not these days the communities being targeted are virtual. They might exist as a database, perhaps they’ve opted in to hear more about their topic of interest. Maybe they’re simply friends of friends. Quite often we learn more and more about them over time but in many cases it’s only rarely that we interact with them face to face.

Recently we attended a campaign launch hosted by our friends from Origin. The coal seam gas campaign is intended for the communities of south west Queensland, especially those areas where Origin’s operations are most active such as Miles, Chinchilla and Roma. The campaign materials feature real people who volunteered their time to appear. Local farmers are shown along with the Origin liaison officers they work with as well as an assortment of regular townspeople who are supportive of the benefits Origin’s activities bring to their community.

These people formed the invitee list for the launch. Around 130 real people gathered at a venue in Miles to view the commercials and enjoy the status that comes with being seen as the stars of the show on the big screen. The Origin folks did a great job of rightly making them feel special and galvanizing them as a supportive community.

It was really interesting to see this community come together from all walks of life. From mechanics to motel operators, graziers to junior football mums. Once the commercials started playing real emotions were on show from this community. As people saw images of their family on screen many clapped and cheered. Some even cried with delight. It was an eye opener to see how they responded and interacted with each other given many of them were strangers at the start of the evening.

We can’t always be as fortunate as we were at the launch to actually see and hear the people in the communities we look to develop and nurture as marketers. But it’s truly worth remembering that each community comprises real people with real emotions. I realise this might sound incredibly obvious but every name on the database is someone who is immensely proud of their loved ones. Whether the campaign is considered to be socially based or not.

The strong ties of family might just be an ingredient worth considering more often when we look to connect with communities, no matter what form they take.

Alan Kewley is an Account Director at BCM Brisbane

Today we launched a new eCard for Queensland Transport and Main Roads as part of the ongoing brand campaign, Here for Life.

During the first stage of the Here for Life campaign, we asked people to share their stories of how road trauma had affected their lives. The photos from these stories form the basis of a very personal and powerful road safety message.

Christmas reminds us what life is all about. The special times and the special people in our lives. So take some time today to send this card to those you care about. It just might make a difference.

Sarah Ferguson is an Account Director at BCM Brisbane

Everyday a bunch of digital stuff is uploaded by brands who hope it will strike a chord amongst users. Through social media these same brands hope consumers will share what has been created.

Have you ever asked yourself why is it that some stuff hits pay dirt whilst other stuff withers on the digital vine?

For brands, aside from ensuring that there’s a kick arse traffic driving strategy, we reckon it’s all about content and what we call the WTF barometer. Let me explain.

W is for Whimsy
The viral videos we love are often magical moments that allow us to escape from the everyday; think LED lights on a flock of sheep; think a funny looking Scottish woman transforming from a peasant to a princess when she starts to sing.

It could be a fairytale. It could be something that’s fantastic, say an African American defying gravity thanks to his latest Nikes. So if you want viral start thinking ‘whimsy’.

Zymil Tummy Tuner

T is for Topical
How quickly did news of Obama winning the Nobel peace prize buzz around the net? How quickly did we see all kinds of stuff related to Michael Jackson soon after his  death- some was in good taste some in poor. But in this ‘always-on’ world if you wanna be viral, you gotta be quick. Look to topical news and current events.

Eternal Moonwalk

F is for Free
Want to get some buzz. Then offer something for free. Recently KFC did just that for the launch of their Cajun Chicken Burger. People heard about it and shared the news on Facebook with their friends.

Starbucks in the states do this kind of thing on a regular basis with great results, as do Papa John’s Pizza. Strategic giveaways and sampling spreads like wildfire.  And when it comes to Free don’t just think product… It could be access to valuable information, curated content or some kind of utility that makes a consumer’s life a little easier, comfortable or less stressful.

KFC Cayan Grill giveaway

If you want people to share your branding stop thinking WTF are we gonna do and starting thinking about the WTF barometer.

Kevin Moreland is a Partner at BCM

I was humming to myself as I sprung up the stairs of the Watermark in Circular Quay on the way to hear Patrick Collister’s thoughts on direct marketing and effective communication in the new media age.

For those of you who don’t know him, his CV is rather long and career highlights include winning Gold at Cannes, being a member of the D&AD Executive from 2001-04, editing the Won Report, as well as having been the Executive Creative Director and Vice Chairman of Ogilvy & Mather in the UK.  So basically, he knows his stuff.

Anyway, his opening gambit struck me as a practical one, when he challenged ‘us’ his audience to consider the ‘line’ that has for many years etched a permanent divide between the big shiny and glamorous world of the 60sec TVC or above the line advertising, and the world of direct marketing or below the line advertising.

This got me thinking, having spent time working in both an ATL and BTL capacity in a former life, why do so many agencies still feel the need to rationalise their output in this way?

With the explosion of new media and the digital age now well past its infancy there are now literally hundreds of different channels to deliver a message in the digital space alone.  That would mean if we were to decide that digital’s rightful place is sitting beneath this so called ‘line’, there are now many more channels below the line than there are above it.

Furthermore, what does this mean for the big agency networks and their many sub-brands?  Surely, this would make the sub-brands more potent, financially viable, and future proof than the parent brands from which they derive their equity and notoriety.

When I say this I’m referring to those agencies that have a company called “Brand A” and a direct or digital offering that is often housed in a neighbouring building or even a different physical address altogether named “Brand A Direct” or “Brand A Interactive”.

What I ask everyone to try and answer as truthfully as possible is this:

How can “Brand A” and “Brand A Direct” who have entirely different financial targets, different CEOs, CFOs, ECDs, CDs, as well as different company ambitions and cultures, share a client and offer true integration?

The answer to this question is a simple one, they can’t.

The irony is that some agencies (or at least the smarter and more responsive ones) have been offering true integration for decades, but unlike the big cumbersome networks have not had to invent clever names for it like horizontal integration and put it on their rate cards for their clients to absorb.

What’s even sadder is that there are still many blue chip clients who fork out truck loads of cash for these so-called TTL services only to be let down by their agency who due to their very own organisational structure and politics are incapable of delivering it.

There is much written about the digital revolution, vertical integration and the proliferation of new channels.

Never before have there been so many exciting and unique opportunities for brands to reach the consumer at various stages of the customer experience, from pre-purchase and preference formation, through purchase, consumption, feedback, and around the loop we go.

Who is best placed to handle these opportunities?

One school of thought is that it will be the agencies who’ve already abandoned the antiquated way of thinking, the converged agencies that acknowledge that the ‘line’, as long as it exists, creates and perpetuates conflicts of interest and can never result in a fair result for their clients and business partners.

The other is that it will be agencies that put digital at the heart of everything they do and who are happy to evolve with the changing needs and requirements of the consumer.

Whatever the case it seems most likely that the agencies who decide to walk in a straight line rather than dancing above and below it will reap the greater rewards.

Simon Jarvis is a Group Account Director at BCM Sydney

For those of us who work in advertising we’re living in world that is morphing and reshaping almost before our eyes. A decade ago describing what advertising was, was a pretty simple task.

For a start it hadn’t really changed all that much in the preceding four or so decades. Sure we’d got smarter at targetting and experimenting with research techniques; we had improved access to social commentary to uncover trends to help increase a brand’s relevance; and yes, improved technology meant that the magic of special effects allowed for more ooh-ahhh moments. But all this change could be filed under ‘manageable evolution’- the fundamentals remained pretty much intact.

Advertising (save the occasional under the table cash for comment) was the sponsored stuff that filled the ‘cracks-between-the-content’ on our TV screens and in our printed publications etc.

But in a world of media fragmentation, where it’s not only harder to reach consumers, but harder to keep their attention, the rules of engagement are irrevocably changed. Consumers are savvier. They see many of the old techniques as ‘blunt instuments’.

So what does this mean for agencies and what we do?

The once manageable evolution is quickly turning to revolution. The old paradigm is quickly being blown apart. Technology in the future means a single solution could be an unshapely morphing and blending of part brand activation/PR/stunt/experiential/e-commerce/social/traditional media etc etc etc (you get the idea).

The chameleon nature of modern media is having a profound impact on the way in which we plan, create and execute campaigns. Media convergence and consumer acceptance of it means it’s time to redefine what we do and how we do it.

Fortunately what hasn’t changed is that clients want ideas. Ideas to solve problems. Ideas to deliver a competitive advantage. Ideas to get the cash register ringing. It seems to me that more than ever both agency and client need to be open to possibilities.  We need to be agile. We need to creatively join the dots to deliver clever, innovative solutions.

In the future, successful agencies must work well beyond the stock standard TV campaign, with a bit of radio or online thrown in.

Getting traction will mean creating ideas which are novel and engaging. Consumers will need to see value beyond the obvious brand or product messaging.

They will look for added value in communication – whether delivered through entertainment, through added utility, by delivering social currency, topicality or social esteem. However these extra layers are achieved, at the risk of stating the obvious, setting out to find a more engaging solution is the first, and arguably most important step to finding them.

When agencies look at a brief, it’s incumbent upon them and their clients to do so through the lens of innovation and exploration.

Advertising 2.0 is here.

To borrow from Dr Spock “It’s advertising Jim but not as we know it”.

Bloody exciting if you ask me.

Kevin Moreland is a Partner at BCM

The Internet is great isn’t it? Everything can be measured (apparently). And with all this measurement comes things like new pricing models for advertising which are based on cost per click, cost per acquisition, etc. These approaches do much to position interactive as perhaps the most accountable medium ever. Digital Marketing Evangelists crow on blogs across the net about its accountability and contrast and compare this to a time when a medium was measured against archaic metrics like ‘opportunities to see’, ‘reach and frequency’ and ‘frequency distribution’ (snicker, snicker!!).

Now I for one like measurement as much as the next guy. I think it’s a reasonable expectation that what we do works and works well. But I’ve got to be honest I’m not all that crazy about the potentially obsessive nature of measuring and reporting on a whole bunch of stuff just because we can. Too much information can, believe it or not, prevent good decisions just as sure as too little information.

I fear the path that’s currently being trodden is limiting interactive to being viewed primarily as a direct marketing channel – and if you look purely at click through rates, for the likes of display advertising (average .01%)  not even a particularly effective one at that.

You see the problem I have with obsessive measuring is it doesn’t properly acknowledge:

1. Consumer behaviour and THE PATH TO PURCHASE
2. The size of the available ‘buyer-ready’ market at any particular MOMENT IN TIME
3. The strength of branding and the impact this has OVER TIME
4. The largely untapped potential for the net to contribute to branding objectives

I think Interactive media’s strength, in terms of its ability to immediately measure response, is also potentially its limitation. The measurement zealots want to measure things straight away, in ‘real time’; they want to modify immediately; they want to improve immediately. But advertising and the consumer’s relationship with it doesn’t work nearly so neatly, or perhaps, more to the point nearly so quickly.

Consider these two scenarios for a minute (I’m sure you could add more)

1. A consumer is impacted by an ad they see on the net. They make a decision to purchase 2 weeks later (God forbid) offline. So has the ad been valuable and effective? I would argue strongly, yes. But not if your measurement is click-throughs it hasn’t.
2. A punter decides to fly Qantas for reasons they have trouble articulating (let’s face it they’re hardly gonna say it’s because they saw a youth choir belting out a Peter Allen song are they!?!). But really what impact has said ad had when they go searching for cheap flights on Google and a Qantas deal presents itself? I’m guessing more than they realise. Yet Google, in the eyes of the metric zealots gets all the credit.

I guess what I’m saying is that the impacts and value of various channels is not as neatly compartmentalised as the Measurement Evangelists may have us believe. Longer term the impact of being uber-obsessed with single channel metrics means we may be limiting activities only to those that can prove a reasonable and immediate ROI. Advertising isn’t a perfect science and whilst post campaign analysis is important, over doing it comes with risk. The risk is limiting channel options, stifling brand creativity and missing opportunities. Pretty big risks I reckon.

Randall Rothenberg, CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau in the US, perhaps summed it up best when called for a ‘creative renaissance’ on the internet. He said the net has become an unthinking hostage to a direct-marketing culture and tradition that devalues creativity and its long-term effect on brands.

Do you agree?

Kevin Moreland is a Partner at BCM
*and does actually know how to spell ‘metrics’

Are They Trying to Bore Consumers Into Buying their Brand?

While watching your favourite television programs this week take note of the number of ‘infomercials’ on air.

My observation is that the number of ‘infomercials’ on free to air television has increased fourfold in recent times.

Last night, I counted 9 different infomercials. That’s right nine! One was telling me that I had to protect my child from germs by covering every surface in my house with anti-bacterial liquid. Another was boring me with information about a cold and flu medication. Yet another, let me know, in great detail, about a new cereal that is on the supermarket shelves.

Quite frankly, I’m sick of them. And I bet the average consumer is too.

They’re bland, repetitive, uninspired and just plain boring.

What strategy are these marketers employing? Boring their prospects into buying their product?

Now, they would argue that there’s a role for this type of television commercial. It’s not about brand building, it’s about conveying important information to our consumer’ I hear them say. ‘We have brand TVCs that do that job’

Well, I have news for them.

Mostly, they convey product information to consumers which is a list of product features and benefits in a format which is truly forgettable.

And, the only way to ensure that their brand gets noticed and then remembered is to repeat the infomercial ad nauseam (pun intended!)

For starters, this is a highly inefficient way to spend marketing dollars!

Also, because these formats are very similar (same presenters, sets etc) they all blend into each other and leave very little opportunity for the brand to stand out. And isn’t this one of the key objectives for every brand…to differentiate? To help consumers make a decision to buy your brand over a competitor?

As the world has become more and more commoditised there is even more need to stand out with a brand that consumers connect with. How many products have genuinely unique features? Often, the brand is the only difference.

Don’t believe me? Let’s pick a supermarket category. Tomato sauce. Walk into your local Woolies today and you’ll find Heinz, Fountain, Woolies Homebrand, Rosella, Masterfoods and Woolworth Select branded tomato sauce. 6 choices of sauce and all with almost identical ingredients and similar packs. So, how do you choose between them apart from price? The only way for consumers to differentiate is with the brands. Which brand do I like? which one reflects me? Which brand am I comfortable with in my trolley or on my dinner table?

Will an infomercial help consumers choose between brands? I think not.

Every single dollar spent, even when imparting product information is a brand contact opportunity. And with every brand contact there is the potential to empathize with people, communicate brand values, engage prospects, express brand personality as well as deliver product information.

I think infomercials are at best an opportunity missed and at worst a waste of marketing dollars.

What do you think?

This is the last part of a six part series of behind the scenes blog posts about the making of the latest QUT television commercials.

Mustangs suck.

Sure, they might look cool from the outside, but if you’re over 5 foot tall and jammed in the tiny back seat for 500 miles back and forth across LA, banging your scone on the rear window every time the car hits a divot, no amount of cool is gonna soothe your headache.

We didn’t miss much of LA today.

First up, the madness of Hollwood Boulevard, shooting the freaks and weirdos outside the Kodak Theatre (Oscars central). Those Angelenos sure know how to do tacky. The souvenir shops opposite the Chinese Theatre (handprints in cement of stars you’ve never heard of) flog plastic Oscar trophies in every possible designation. Hamster of the Year, Boss of the Year (sadly, I couldn’t fit three of them in my tiny bag), Second Cousin of the Year, Art Director of the Year, Surrogate Mom of the Year – there must’ve been 500 different kinds.

Next, on to Hollywood Hills, then Rodeo Drive, a chopper ride out of Santa Monica to grab a smoggy aerial shot of the city, a baseball game at Dodger Stadium (in future, I’ll dodge the Dodger Dogs), gawping in Beverly Hills and Venice Beach, and concluding with a grease fix at the charmingly named In-n-out Burger.

Locals suggested In-n-out was one of the better burger chains, but I’m still unsure if the establishment was named thus for the speed of its drive-thru service or the effect of its cheesy comestibles upon the digestive tracts of the clientele.