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

Unless you haven’t seen a news site, checked your Facebook or been cornered by the resident IT geek, you would have heard about Apple’s new iPad which was launched today. In essence, it is an enlarged iPod touch with full book reading, Kindle killing features. And I admit, I am a little excited.

But the excitement didn’t start today. The internet has been buzzing with rumours of an Apple ‘tablet’ device for years. Apple enthusiasts have created hundreds of unofficial mockups and predictions which address features, design, functionality and even what Steve Jobs will wear when unveiling. The Apple community created a huge amount of noise in anticipation for today.

But with all this noise comes expectation. And for many, they were let down. From Twitter:

“Quite disappointed with the iPad. (AT&T = terrible, no multitasking, not widescreen, no flash plug-in, no camera, no GPS, can’t write on it)” AlexWorkman

“Not sure whether to be excited/disappointed about ipad at the moment…expected a bit more from Apple” VilleLee

“Very disappointed by Apple’s iPad. So locked down, so proprietary, so limited. We wanted a Mac tablet, we got a giant iPhone.” suprememoocow

“a bit disappointed in apple for the ipad..not as ground-breaking as i hoped…its decent..but nothing i would go out of my way to buy…” smisa

So far, there are 177,000 Google results for iPad and variations of “disappoint”. Just like the spawn of Andre Agassi and Stefi Graf, the iPad was always going to struggle to live up to the expectations that had been set for it.

But here’s the funny part: Apple did not create or fuel this expectation in any way. The production of all Apple products is top secret. Apple never confirmed they were working on a tablet device let alone hinted at the features it may have. In fact, Apple don’t even have a blog, Facebook or Twitter site. They embrace closed communication.

Yet because Apple have such a huge fan base, there was no prompting required. The community set the expectation level for Apple. It is up to Apple to rise to this level. Regardless of whether it sells one or one million, the next couple of months will be full of conversations about whether it hit this mark or not. And so far, it’s not looking good.

What do you think? Could Apple have levelled the expectations of the community by engaging them prior to launch? Or is this irrelevant? Does the existence of such an anticipating, involved community mean that it doesn’t matter what is said, the fans will buy the product anyway?

Nathan Bush is an Interactive Strategist at BCM

Some of you may have been following the recent kerfuffle over Toyota Yaris’ social media experiment. They had a ‘user-generated’ competition to see which idea they would run with – unlimited parameters and seemingly little brief outside of a few guidelines.

While I don’t agree with the ‘throw the brief out there’ approach to social media (and there are several examples out there showing how badly this can turn out), the winning idea in this case certainly has generated its fair share of comment.

THIS IS A BIG WHACKING DISCLAIMER: IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY SEXUAL INNUENDO PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO

…… I don’t know who you are but I suspect you clicked on the YouTube video regardless of my warning.

And you are not alone -- over 100,000 people in the last week have watched the video via rogue YouTube posts (because Toyota took it down after negative feedback started to flood in) specifically because of that kind of disclaimer.

Going through the feedback it works out to be about a 50:50  love it or hate relationship. Even if people have commented negatively on the video, they’ve also passed it on to probably at least 10 friends as the number of views show.

I hate to say it, regardless of their ‘reaction’ -- if they’ve passed it on, they have already engaged with the communication.

And you do have to wonder about human nature. Should we as marketers be looking to the old adage ‘Do what I say, not what I do’ or does social marketing prove that this is a dead and buried approach, and in fact turns it on its head?

Social marketing channels like YouTube and Facebook are becoming measurable research tools in their own right.

The Toyota Yaris ‘experiment’ was specifically targeted for a GenY market where “I’m ready to blow” means I’m out of here. I get it.

Even as a non GenY-er but someone who values getting the message out there I have to think that the winning video is bang on.

It’s a bold and potentially scary world out there. What do you think?

Sarah Ferguson is an Account Director at BCM Brisbane

If life’s a bit of a struggle at the moment just be glad you’re not the decision makers at FINA – international swimming’s governing body.

They’re caught squarely in the middle of a dilemma brought about by technological advancement.

The new polyurethane and neoprene bodysuits being worn by some at the World Swimming Championships in Rome have divided the sport and thrown the chlorine brigade into chaos. These suits streamline the swimmer’s body and add significant buoyancy to help them glide through the water like never before.

To highlight just how much assistance the suits offer, 43 world records were smashed over the course of the championships. People who have previously never featured on the winner’s podium are now smashing world records. One record was broken by 7.5 seconds the other day by a competitor who didn’t even make the Olympic final last time around!

Of course it should be said maybe the winners are training the house down and improving. If so, good luck to them.

But understandably, plenty of people are questioning whether this is good for the sport. Like many other time-reliant races where fractions of a second can be the difference between winning and losing, new technologies and methods have always been a part of swimming’s evolution.

These days it’s expected that everyone shaves down pre-meet. Pools are designed to be faster. And not so long back the Speedo LZR racing suits raised a few eyebrows but they seemed to be accepted as being within the spirit of competition.

However not even Formula 1 racing, whose whole reason for being is supposedly to push the boundaries of technology, has seen such an overnight change.

Those in favour of the suits have claimed it’s no different to the advancements in tennis racquet technology or golf equipment from those of the past. But those sports don’t measure results in thousandths of a second and compare eras in such absolute terms as swimming.

Not surprisingly, past swimming greats aren’t too fussed on the new suits. All that hard work in their youth spent following the black line up and down the pool is being made to look pretty average against the times recorded in the polyurethane suits.

They claim that the new records should carry the asterisk that denotes the time as being ‘suit assisted’, just as track and field records aren’t official if they’re considered to have been wind assisted. Maybe that’s a reasonable solution.

The bigger concern is that cries of cheating are growing stronger every day and the sport is being damaged as a result.

The world’s greatest swimmer, Michael Phelps, has threatened to boycott international swimming competition until things change. His coach claims the suits are worth 1.5 seconds over 200 metres. The previously untouchable Phelps is now easy game for competitors if he follows his ethics and competes without the bodysuit.

A growing number of competitors, officials and supporters are now comparing use of the suits to performance enhancing drugs. And that should probably ring alarm bells for sponsors.

Once upon a time swimmers were the safest bet in terms of sponsorships and endorsements. They were respectful, clean-living and drug-free (apart from the occasional indiscretions resulting in girls with broader shoulders than Schwarzenneger and deeper voices than Barry White).

But that aside, you wonder whether the sponsorship dollars might dry up a little until the issue is resolved. Not many organisations want their brand or service to be associated with a cheat and those who oppose the suits have been quite open in branding the swimmers who wear them as being just that.

No doubt some sponsors will be eagerly watching what unfolds.

At best, the good folk from FINA say it won’t be until next year before the suits can be banned. If they are to be banned. Given their time over, I wonder how differently they might have handled things? Then again, at what point do you halt progress to acknowledge past performance?

In the meantime if you’ve ever pictured yourself on the winner’s dais, blubbing your way through the national anthem, and waving the flowers to a crowd delirious with the news of another world record for Australia, then get yourself one of those suits and head down to the local pool for a few energetic laps. You may never get a better chance.

Alan Kewley is an Account Director at BCM Brisbane

I have to say, I am enjoying the controversy and media attention that has snowballed over the past week as two now infamous viral stunts have unraveled and become exposed.  Tourism Queensland successfully generated free global publicity from their so called ‘mistake’ related to ‘the best job in the world‘, and it’s now official that the Naked clothing line from Witchery are in fact the modern day Cinderella… only after receiving significant prime television coverage, Nationwide press and became the latest hot blog topic to trot.

With the media’s spin that we as marketers should be ashamed for sneaking our brands into the lives of unsuspecting consumers, it has made me wonder; where do we draw the line between developing innovative ways to engage the increasingly indifferent consumer, and propping up the stereotype of advertising seen as simply shallow sales antics?  Are we risking the trust of our bloodline with reckless and deceptive acts? Or is this the evolution of the traditional PR stunt gone viral?

In this technology-driven and busy world we exist in, it is a necessity for survival that we place our brands firmly in the eye of the world where possible, and granted these recent events have done just that, but what are the long term costs which result, if any? Are we helping or hindering our brands? Or will these stunts just become ‘yesterday’s news’?

BCM is very proud to be launching Queensland Transport’s latest anti-speeding campaign, Slow Down Stupid. This is the first in a series of TVCs that you will see on Queensland TVs over the next few years.

Slow Down Stupid was born of a desire to marginalise speeders by making it less socially acceptable. Far too often some drivers see speeding as a way to impress their peers and enhance their self image. The campaign sets out to counter the (perceived) emotional benefits of speeding and demonstrate the consequences that can result.

This first TVC is specifically aimed at getting young men to slow down by making them think about the consequences -- which could be as terrible as being responsible for killing their girlfriend. It encourages them to contemplate the nightmare of losing their partner to something as stupid as speeding.

No doubt about it, Search Engine Marketing is a great tool. And the great thing about its CPC model is marketers only pay for qualified leads. It’s no wonder the growth and outlook for search is so rosy. It’s important to remember though, whilst search is a brilliant lead generator, it’s only the start of things.  Think of it as the girl agreeing to the first date. What happens ‘next’ may determine whether she agrees to ‘coffee back at your place’ or completely writes you off as a dud. Too many marketers spend big on the chase, but not enough on the main event. And the main event, when it comes to search, is where you take ‘the date’ after they click. We’ve all experienced it. We click on the search ad, so full of promise, only to be taken to the home page of a big website, left to haplessly navigate and fend for ourselves. After a few clicks we’re disappointed and no closer to finding what was promised. In the real world when the date screams ‘Stop! Where are you taking me!’, it’s a fair bet another date is unlikely.

The answer of course is to plan search more holistically; plan it thinking specifically about where the clicks will lead to. Ask yourself, is there a high correlation between what is written in my search ads and where we land people? And remember a well developed strategy may mean we have multiple landing pages. What this means too, is that it’s critical that the people planning your search are collaborating closely and seamlessly with the people responsible for building your digital assets. If they’re not, then its costing you lost opportunities. On the other hand if you get it right, you’ll be one step closer to the start of many long and wonderful relationships.

Yeah, yeah there’s a technology fuelled revolution going on in the world of marketing and communication. Unless you’ve been living under a rock you know all about it. The trade press headlines all scream similar themes, ‘The consumer is Control’, ‘Impending Death of traditional Media’ etc. Even the most conservative marketer is responding by insisting that their communication partners are up to speed with the implications and opportunities on offer. And so they should.

But this is only part of the equation.

You see interactive media is well, interactive. And to effectively play in this space means you have to have an appropriate organisational structure to deal with it. Ask yourself this… who in my marketing department is responsible for monitoring and participating in my brand’s facebook fan page? Do I even have a facebook fan page? Who’s job is it to look out for and follow-up on blog commentary? Do I (or someone in my Department) know the top SEM terms generating clicks to my website right now and how they have changed over the last quarter?

I guess the real questions are:

1. Who is dedicated to keeping an eye on how people are responding to our digital activities?

2. Who is dedicated to listening and responding to UGC about my brand?

It seems to me if marketers really want to engage in the social web, as they say they do, then some restructuring is in order. You see whilst many elements of the interactive communications mix can be out-sourced, the actual interactive dialogue consumers want with you can not. As the old saying goes ‘I want to talk to the butcher not his block’. In the future successful marketing departments must define roles and responsibilities for having meaningful interactivity (there’s that word again) with their customers.

It’s all very well to say interactive media is accountable, measurable etc. but it doesn’t amount to much if no-one’s ‘watching the interactive store’.

I’m a big fan of qualitative market research. Done well it can be a great investment. It can be a guiding light for business, marketing and communication strategy; delivering brilliant insight- insight that can lead to a significant competitive advantage. Unfortunately though too much research fails to live up to its potential.

Too much market research does little more than tell us what we already know or parrots (mostly) well intentioned respondent verbatims. Sometimes it’s as if participants are the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom; as if they are the voice of the marketer rather than of the consumer. And let’s face it research should never be used to abdicate marketing decision making.

The good researcher knows intuitively which consumer comments are meaningful and which to rightly ignore. Intelligent market researchers know how to make sense and interpret consumer commentary rather than simply repeat it. To be a truly great qualitative researcher requires intuition, masterful interrogation skills & strategies, empathy as well as life and business experience. So when a ‘big brand’ market research company positions their 20 something researcher (with say an economics degree) as the person to work on your project, it’s reasonable to do some interrogation of your own- ask yourself this simple question ‘will this person add value?’. If not don’t give them the gig.

I remember a few years back being involved in research where a decision was taken not to pursue a particular repositioning strategy. The researcher was convinced it wouldn’t meet with market acceptance. They were wrong. A key competitor of the client undertook the same strategy 12 months or so later and had enormous ‘real world’ success. And herein lies the problem, too often great opportunities are missed because of poor misinterpreted research findings.