The Effectiveness Files: Lessons from the 2026 IPA Effectiveness Awards

WEBVTT
00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:13.199
I'm Lawrence Green, Director of Effectiveness at the IPA, and you're listening to the Effectiveness Files.
00:00:13.439 --> 00:00:30.239
This bumper episode comes to you from the IPA's annual effectiveness conference, where we caught up with two of this year's gold IPA Effectiveness Awards winners, Richard Warren from Nationwide, and Stephanie Simon and Ollie Moore, the authors of the Curries Grand Prix winning paper.
00:00:30.480 --> 00:00:42.000
We also took the opportunity to catch up with Les Binett, the IPA Effectiveness Awards GOAT, to hear his take on the broader themes emerging from this year's winners.
00:00:43.520 --> 00:00:56.640
I was very struck by your contribution to our panel just now around optics and language when you have a conversation with non-marketing colleagues.
00:00:56.880 --> 00:00:57.039
Yes.
00:00:57.280 --> 00:01:03.600
And I know that's in the paper, but I think your point was held quite deeply and applies more generally.
00:01:03.840 --> 00:01:04.079
Yes.
00:01:04.400 --> 00:01:07.200
Yes, and I think there are two different points.
00:01:07.280 --> 00:01:10.079
There's the optics and the uh and the language.
00:01:10.159 --> 00:01:19.200
So I think you know, from an optics point of view, you're looking to get maximum credibility with the finance community.
00:01:19.439 --> 00:01:32.959
And I think that the more that what you're presenting is being presented by, you know, particularly people who've got no vested um uh interest in the outcome, the better.
00:01:33.120 --> 00:01:41.760
Um so that's why you know my boss, who you know, Lawrence Catherine Kehoe, set up the marketing effectiveness function outside of my area.
00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:45.439
Because I'm bound to argue for advertising investment.
00:01:45.519 --> 00:01:49.280
Um, they are not bound to, and they're dispassionate and independent.
00:01:49.359 --> 00:01:55.120
And that was a very important organizational principle for her in terms of how we set up.
00:01:55.359 --> 00:02:05.040
And then I think moving to the language point, you know, I've I've, you know, obviously in our industry, and as you know, I've worked agency side for a long time as well.
00:02:05.200 --> 00:02:10.639
There's a lot of very broad, you know, capacious language that's used in our area.
00:02:10.719 --> 00:02:21.759
And I think what I was saying was that you know what uh gets a lot of traction is if you can be incredibly precise in how you think commercial value is going to be achieved.
00:02:21.919 --> 00:02:35.280
So, you know, what we do is to say, you know, what we're looking for is current account openings and savings account and mortgages, um, and then we work back and say what are the metrics that we need to move uh in order to get to current account openings.
00:02:35.360 --> 00:02:48.879
And what I was saying was that the only language that we allow, but in our internal conversations, when we're working with agencies, when we're uh you know creating packs to be used internally is those metrics.
00:02:49.039 --> 00:02:53.439
You cannot use general language, broad language, it has to be those metrics.
00:02:53.599 --> 00:02:58.080
So I think there's merit in independence and language precision.
00:02:58.960 --> 00:03:07.520
You were um very pointed just now, and indeed very funny, about our inclination to use the word investment.
00:03:07.840 --> 00:03:08.159
Yes.
00:03:08.319 --> 00:03:11.840
Uh uh almost as if it's proprietary to the advertising business.
00:03:12.479 --> 00:03:25.439
Yes, and I think I think that's something I feel very passionate about because you know I remember very clearly when I was working in advertising, everyone was saying, you know, but we're an investment, you know, if only they could see the light that we're an investment.
00:03:25.680 --> 00:03:27.599
And I think there's there's two issues with that.
00:03:27.759 --> 00:03:30.719
The first is that you know, this is a spin word.
00:03:31.039 --> 00:03:36.319
Um, so every single constituency within the company is also going in saying this is an investment.
00:03:36.400 --> 00:03:41.759
So I was talking about, you know, we've gonna put co-pilot on everyone's laptops, that's an investment.
00:03:41.919 --> 00:03:46.960
We're going to invest in more call centre staff so our call waiting times are are reduced.
00:03:47.039 --> 00:03:48.159
That's an investment.
00:03:48.319 --> 00:03:53.599
So these are all investments, you know, double click, double um quote.
00:03:53.840 --> 00:04:00.159
And as I was saying, you know, the marketing industry does not have the divine right to the word investment.
00:04:00.240 --> 00:04:01.919
Everyone is using this word investment.
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:07.919
And then the other point I'm making is everyone is using this word investment to juice up the word cost.
00:04:08.639 --> 00:04:12.479
So they're sexing up the word cost with the word investment.
00:04:12.639 --> 00:04:14.479
Everyone's doing it, not just us.
00:04:14.639 --> 00:04:29.759
And so from a CFO point of view, and I know some people on the previous panel had a different point of view, but certainly we, and we spoke a long time getting our alignment on this between us and my fellow panelists on TUI, absolutely view it as OPEX.
00:04:29.920 --> 00:04:38.079
It's not CapEx because you know I can appreciate in their instance, they're a startup company, it may be a one-off cost to see how it goes.
00:04:38.240 --> 00:04:42.399
But what you want is you want it to be an OPEX because then it's recurring.
00:04:42.560 --> 00:04:44.720
Then every year you're going to be spending it.
00:04:44.879 --> 00:04:51.120
And I think that you know the other sort of language I introduced to the audience was good cost versus bad cost.
00:04:51.199 --> 00:04:53.360
So I think that's how we talk about it.
00:04:53.439 --> 00:04:59.360
Is this a good cost because it has a return versus a bad cost, which is cost you do want to get out of the business.
00:05:00.480 --> 00:05:03.360
I love listening to you about the corporate narrative.
00:05:03.759 --> 00:05:04.079
Yes.
00:05:04.480 --> 00:05:12.639
Tell me a little bit about what you meant by that and perhaps how it's the context for what you've done at nationwide and the context for our the further further.
00:05:13.439 --> 00:05:40.000
I think it's incredibly important because you know, for as much as you know we can be brilliant in terms of our marketing analytics and very precise in terms of our um, you know, the the metrics we're trying to uh um affect and all of the language we're using and it underpowered, we can do all of these good things, but if the corporate culture is not a culture that is looking to grow, it you're always going to be pushing water uphill.
00:05:40.160 --> 00:05:48.399
So I think it's really uh important, you know, particularly if you're in an agency world, to be very uh cognizant of the corporate narrative.
00:05:48.480 --> 00:05:58.000
And it's very easy to be cognizant because you obviously, you know, most companies will have you know results that, you know, interim results and and end-of-year results.
00:05:58.160 --> 00:06:00.560
You can see all of the corporate narrative around that.
00:06:00.720 --> 00:06:13.600
And I think you know that that's again was my recommendation to agencies, and you know, I I know there were some people for who work with uh grocery retailers in the audience, and I was you know specifically speaking to them.
00:06:13.680 --> 00:06:16.959
Um, that I do, you know, I think the grocery landscape is fascinating at the moment.
00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:20.399
So I I think knowing the corporate narrative is really helpful.
00:06:20.879 --> 00:06:25.680
Last Thursday, you were, well not you personally, that will come, I'm sure.
00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:26.800
Personal border.
00:06:27.120 --> 00:06:38.560
Your team was awarded a uh gold award and uh one of our sort of most prestigious uh special prizes uh for new learning for the nationwide campaign.
00:06:38.720 --> 00:06:43.920
Um I'm I'm I'm not I I I'd like you to describe it, perhaps anyone who hasn't even seen it.
00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:45.519
I think it'll be quite hard in the UK.
00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:54.639
But tell me about the campaign first and then tell me about the second half of the paper, which is to do with this independent investment.
00:06:55.600 --> 00:07:08.959
Yeah, so I think um what we do in the first half of the paper, and you know, first thing to say, Lawrence, you know, I cannot tell you how thrilled everyone is by that award, you know, is without question the uh you know the primus inter pares of any award.
00:07:09.040 --> 00:07:14.720
And I've never seen you know people at nationwide be so excited about anything that we've achieved in the last three years.
00:07:14.879 --> 00:07:16.560
So we're extremely grateful.
00:07:16.720 --> 00:07:35.680
Um I think you know what we set out to do and what we talk about in the paper was the fact that nationwide had historically been seen as a building society and it had been successful as a building society, so very successful in the two markets of mortgages and savings, which building society is the most associated with.
00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:44.959
And what the issue with that is that those markets are very susceptible to fluctuations in interest rates because obviously the money you get in in savings you lend out in mortgages.
00:07:45.120 --> 00:07:49.360
So uh the smaller if interest rates are low, the gap becomes very low.
00:07:49.519 --> 00:08:06.399
So to create a sustainable um profitability model, you need to also be successful on banking and current accounts because you pay very little, if any, interest on those, so your margins are much greater if you're using those balances then to lend out on mortgages.
00:08:06.480 --> 00:08:10.720
So, but it wasn't just commercial, I think it's also about purpose.
00:08:10.800 --> 00:08:28.079
So Debbie Crosby, the CEO who came in, she was very um passionate about the fact that there was an opportunity, and this going back to corporate narrative, um, the government are very keen on mutuals providing an alternative business model in as many categories as possible.
00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:49.440
Um, and so you know what they want is that the full provision of retail banking is provided by a mutual as well as by the PLCs, and so that's why we've been very, from a purpose point of view, keen to get more into banking and why we acquired virgin money in order to be allow us to launch into business banking, which we'll be doing in the next 12 months.
00:08:49.600 --> 00:08:51.519
So there's a purpose reason.
00:08:51.679 --> 00:09:04.320
So having having said like the brief is to make nationwide more competitive to the banks, what we then did is to root our strategy in the banking category.
00:09:04.480 --> 00:09:14.559
So rather than the previous um positioning had been called building society nationwide, which was always only entrenching uh the shortcomings of nationwide.
00:09:14.639 --> 00:09:17.919
So what we said is we want to be banking but.
00:09:18.320 --> 00:09:20.320
And the key word there was the word but.
00:09:20.799 --> 00:09:23.759
So we were we were in the banking sector, but we were different.
00:09:23.919 --> 00:09:25.039
And how were we different?
00:09:25.200 --> 00:09:28.080
We were fairer, more rewarding, and for the good of society.
00:09:28.240 --> 00:09:40.639
And so what the campaign does is literally to depict that construct where we're saying we're in this category, so you so we therefore basically assume all the clothing of that category.
00:09:40.799 --> 00:09:56.799
So, you know, the TV campaign features an um archetypal CEO of what we call ANY Bank, any bank, um played by Dominic West, and he is uh up in his uh you know glass tower um somewhere in the Docklands.
00:09:56.960 --> 00:10:18.799
Not that any of our competitors are headquarters in the Docklands, um, and uh so he and he he has a double act with uh his assistant who you know is continually pointing out to him some of the excesses and less customer-friendly behavior uh that his bank is is is um is is um you know propagating.
00:10:18.879 --> 00:10:23.120
And then what he does is to say, well, nationwide don't do it like this, they do it like that.
00:10:23.279 --> 00:10:28.720
And then he says, Well, nationwide are rubbish, um, they don't have shareholders, all my money needs to go to shareholders.
00:10:28.879 --> 00:10:42.320
So that was the sort of construct of the campaign, and that and I think you know, another conversation you and I have had, Lawrence, is you know, next Wednesday we'll be shooting our eighth TV ad in this campaign.
00:10:42.399 --> 00:10:51.440
So this is eight TV ads, and over the last three years, and not one of our competitors has had a campaign that has been continuous across that period.
00:10:51.600 --> 00:10:55.440
You know, loads and loads of campaigns launched, but none continued.
00:10:56.000 --> 00:10:56.639
Wow.
00:10:56.879 --> 00:11:00.559
Um listen to that story, it's like a reverse, it's a wonderful life.
00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:06.080
You're sort of turning from Potterville that that came to Bedford Falls or whatever it is.
00:11:06.559 --> 00:11:11.279
Um yeah, I love that, and I know there's way more than Telly, but that's just really helpful to hear about.
00:11:11.440 --> 00:11:32.879
Partly because wearing my IPA hat, that campaign evidences a lot of IPA learning, not just not just the power of consistency and repetition, which we've heard repeated today, but there's emotion, sure, there are brand very obvious brand assets, whether you treat him as one or your logo as one or humour.
00:11:33.200 --> 00:11:45.039
Tell me a little bit about the the code that you're working to, and perhaps within that, touch on how you've managed to change agencies halfway through that that run of eight.
00:11:45.360 --> 00:11:46.000
Yes, yes.
00:11:46.080 --> 00:11:56.000
So I think yes, I mean the uh taking the second point, the uh ad we are shooting next week will be Mother's Fourth, and the the previous agency NCA also did four.
00:11:56.080 --> 00:12:01.519
So so it will be um uh you know literally symmetrical in terms of the number of ads.
00:12:01.679 --> 00:12:06.559
So uh yeah, we with NCA New Commercial Arts, they conceived the campaign.
00:12:06.639 --> 00:12:17.679
I worked on it very intimately with them, and um, you know, because of a sort of corporate uh realignment that they did, um, we had to look elsewhere.
00:12:17.759 --> 00:12:31.279
And and you know, I was really nervous about this because you know, again, all my experience from advertising agencies was that they want to invent their own um campaigns, and uh and I knew we had to continue this campaign.
00:12:31.360 --> 00:12:37.519
And so my question was, could I get the very best agencies to want to continue to continue this campaign?
00:12:37.759 --> 00:12:47.200
And I remember going to see a gentleman that you used to work with, who was then my boss, and he had said, Oh, of course I would, but you need to speak to the Craig Director.
00:12:47.279 --> 00:12:58.399
So I had a coffee with uh chap called Felix Richter, and I said, you know, this is our situation, you know, if we go to pitch, you know, we we need to have agencies that prepare to continue that campaign.
00:12:58.559 --> 00:13:04.399
There are gonna be lots of other opportunities outside of the TV, but we need to continue this TV campaign because it's working really well.
00:13:04.559 --> 00:13:08.559
And Felix Richter said, Well, we we love it, we think it's we think it's brilliant.
00:13:08.720 --> 00:13:10.879
And then and every agency said the same.
00:13:10.960 --> 00:13:19.519
So all of the Leo Burnett, Uncommon, Neverland, every agency we spoke to uh had no problem continuing that campaign, which I was really surprised about.
00:13:19.840 --> 00:13:20.879
Yeah, I'm glad to hear it.
00:13:21.200 --> 00:13:36.080
And I I I dwell on it only because one of the dangers of a day like today is we just talk about measurement rather than making, yes, and even politics or the you know the human urge to change or all of those other things.
00:13:36.159 --> 00:13:36.879
So thank thank you for that.
00:13:36.960 --> 00:13:48.879
I mean I think the you know, just in terms of the construct of the campaign, what was you know definitely difficult in the first instance is it's not usual to spend you know 90% of the ad depicting the competition.
00:13:49.120 --> 00:13:52.320
And I think I was I was talking to uh the founder, Mr.
00:13:52.399 --> 00:14:09.519
Robert Saville, actually yesterday about this about you know, I think one of the big changes is is people, you know, the people less relying on takeout and inference, you know, because you know I think a lot of narrative is about you know, we've got these messages we need to land, or we've got to communicate these things.
00:14:09.840 --> 00:14:17.600
And you know, the the the the the ad we're about to shoot next week, the only reference to nationwide is nationwide don't do it like that.
00:14:18.080 --> 00:14:23.440
We don't even say what nationwide is, we don't say what they do, we just say nationwide don't think that.
00:14:23.600 --> 00:14:34.320
Um and all of the communication comes from the inference of people thinking in their head, and I think and I think that you know is proved incredibly effective for us.
00:14:34.879 --> 00:14:38.559
It's the um it's one version of completing the sentence, as well.
00:14:38.879 --> 00:14:39.440
Yeah, exactly.
00:14:39.519 --> 00:14:54.960
But I think I think it's I think you know, it was you know, I'm not sure this is for the podcast, but I just was having a great conversation with Robert Saverwist at lunch about different ways to communicate, which is why I really think the word creativity is really unhelpful, because it's just like it's too abstract.
00:14:55.120 --> 00:15:05.360
Whereas I think if you went to people internally and say, you know, what's fascinating about communication is there's all these different ways to do it, and we're gonna look at them all, people would really engage with that conversation.
00:15:06.240 --> 00:15:11.759
So I know there was way more than the TV, and I know there's more than just the creative agency, obviously.
00:15:12.399 --> 00:15:24.000
But um, the the bit that thrilled the judges wasn't just oh, here's this campaign with its very precise metrics and its very obvious um end game.
00:15:25.279 --> 00:15:37.120
Uh it was that point halfway through the paper, which I compare to someone's the the uh IK Awards equipment watching Sinners where the movie suddenly kicks into a completely different space.
00:15:37.440 --> 00:15:46.559
The second half of that paper is all about the way you set up an independent I'm gonna call it a body, the put it the wrong word, I'm sure about your language.
00:15:48.639 --> 00:15:51.679
Sorry, let you you explain the second half of the paper.
00:15:51.919 --> 00:16:00.559
Sure, and I think I think I think we were very conscious that the point of the IPA effectiveness awards is to add to the body of learning.
00:16:00.720 --> 00:16:11.360
So I I think we weren't, you know, yes, we knew we had an effective campaign, but you know, it's a it's a classical campaign, it it's a uh it's an you know an established type of campaign.
00:16:11.519 --> 00:16:39.759
And I think what we what we thought about is what is the thing that we've done which would be most helpful and useful to the um body of knowledge, and and we thought the way that we had worked with the finance team, which we you know knew was a very topical issue, and you see you know, papers and articles and Ian Whisker every week opining about the relationship between uh marketing and finance, and that's something that we had been very sort of fastidious in setting ourselves up for success on.
00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:53.279
So that's why we focused on that, because we thought that would be the most helpful piece of learning for people who read that paper in terms of how to set yourselves up for success, in terms of the relationship between marketing and finance.
00:16:53.519 --> 00:16:57.919
So tell me about actually doing that because you that that's not just something you're reporting on.
00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:02.399
You you were there building it, I presume, breaking stuff in order to build it.
00:17:02.559 --> 00:17:21.519
Yes, so when we when we arrived, um the media agency were doing the uh the econometric modeling, so they they were using um game theory, um, but you know, there was very little trust in the process, so uh um, and it was as I say being done through the media agency.
00:17:21.599 --> 00:17:49.119
So the first thing we did was to say, you know, that needs to come out of the media agency, we need to set up, you know, you could, you know, as Claudia's just been talking about, work directly with you know his kind of company or work with Game Theory Direct, but um you know my boss Catherine and um my colleague Will Rossetti were very, very passionate about the fact that we we wanted to have the best marketing effectiveness capability of any company in Britain.
00:17:49.279 --> 00:17:50.480
That was the ambition.
00:17:50.880 --> 00:17:55.519
And uh and we said, who do we think currently has that title?
00:17:55.599 --> 00:17:57.200
And we thought Skye.
00:17:57.359 --> 00:18:01.359
Um, so you may argue spectators, but uh we thought Skye.
00:18:01.599 --> 00:18:13.759
And so we took the econometric team out of Skye and put them into nationwide, and they're all Greeks, which is uh not surprising when you think about the fact that uh that's where mathematics was invented.
00:18:13.920 --> 00:18:19.920
And these three Greeks econometric, you know, there's obviously a very easy gag of it's all Greek to me.
00:18:20.079 --> 00:18:32.640
Um, but uh we you know, so they and they were all classmates at the same university in Athens, so they all studied maths together in the same class, came to the UK, worked at Sky, and then we brought them over.
00:18:32.799 --> 00:18:42.319
So, you know, and and their boss is this guy, Chris Egan, and you know, I remember when we arrived, he said, I cannot believe people are actually reading my packs now.
00:18:42.480 --> 00:18:50.480
He he said previously no one would read anything I produce, so any of the tracking data that literally would just gather dust, people just didn't care.
00:18:50.559 --> 00:18:52.880
It was just whether they like the advertising.
00:18:53.039 --> 00:19:04.480
Um so so I and I think you know one of the things we're very you know focused on nationwide is you know what what you know who does this the best in the country and how how can we be better?
00:19:04.640 --> 00:19:28.480
So, you know, the marketing effectively have got a capability, you know, a metric about being the strongest and and uh team in the country, which again I think is helps with optics, because if you're going to the CFO and say we are determined to build the strongest marketing effectiveness culture in the country, that is incredibly compelling, you know, because that's something that he in this instance is a he um wants to hear.
00:19:28.640 --> 00:19:54.640
So I think I think that was sort of stage one, making it independent, bringing it in-house, and then stage two was working in a lot of detail, which took a long time, probably about six months, to basically first of all, we had to do the conjoint analysis, so we had to find out what is the role that brand plays in deciding you know where to open a bank account, a savings account, or a or a or a mortgage.
00:19:54.799 --> 00:19:59.680
And so we found that you know, in our case at the time, it was 35%.
00:20:00.400 --> 00:20:08.000
Um, but we also see that the top performers, so Barclays, who have actually even gone up since we've done the paper, are now 86%.
00:20:08.400 --> 00:20:24.160
So 80% to 6% of people who are you know opening a Barclays current account do so because of the Barclays brand, not because you know they've got branches because they don't, because they massively struggle at branch estate, you know, not because they offer incentives because they do very rarely.
00:20:24.319 --> 00:20:32.880
So we were able to find out that that not only you know did brand play a role in the market, but there was massive headroom for us because we were underperforming.
00:20:33.039 --> 00:20:40.480
So then we said, right, what what drives brand, which is what I was um referring to with this gentleman, and we found out there were two metrics.
00:20:40.720 --> 00:20:49.279
So um mental availability, so being top of mind, so when people are thinking about current accounts, which current accounts come to mind, you need to come to mind.
00:20:49.440 --> 00:20:54.960
If you don't come to mind, everything else is relevant, and then consideration is this a brand I would consider.
00:20:55.440 --> 00:21:03.119
And we identified the exact proportion that these metrics operated, so it was 70% mental availability, 30% consideration.
00:21:03.359 --> 00:21:06.640
And the irony was we were brilliant at the least important one.
00:21:06.799 --> 00:21:10.079
So we had this phrase we used to use lovely, lovely nationwide.
00:21:10.160 --> 00:21:13.599
So everyone loves nationwide, but they just don't think of it.
00:21:13.759 --> 00:21:18.000
Um, so so we were brilliant on consideration, but very poor on top of mind.
00:21:18.319 --> 00:21:30.640
So the you know, to my point about the metrics we needed to drive a top of mind uh mental availability, and obviously continue to build consideration because it is 30%, and then together those create the brand contribution.
00:21:30.799 --> 00:21:39.359
So we we we set up all of these metrics so everyone would know exactly what the growth model is, what the metrics, and these metrics we report on every single month.
00:21:39.440 --> 00:21:53.839
So every month, you know, we say, you know, this is the PCA mental availability, this is the brand consideration, and then you know, every quarter we do the ROI and all of the um the results by channel and by campaign.
00:21:54.480 --> 00:21:58.799
I love that it's I hadn't really realized, I love that it's a mutual that has shared.
00:21:59.359 --> 00:21:59.759
Yes, yes.
00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:04.559
A model for uh our wider community that hadn't struck me before.
00:22:05.039 --> 00:22:14.640
And I'm curious to know how you would um encourage some uh an organization that was less mutually inclined, um, more secretive.
00:22:15.039 --> 00:22:17.359
What what is the upside of winning one of these awards?
00:22:17.440 --> 00:22:18.880
Because they're fucking hard work.
00:22:19.200 --> 00:22:19.680
They are.
00:22:19.920 --> 00:22:21.119
Tell me about it.
00:22:21.920 --> 00:22:31.039
Um not only are they hard work, but the way in which the awards are awarded is is very tension, very tension-inducing, um, but we're worth it because of it.
00:22:31.200 --> 00:22:36.960
Um I think it's a really difficult one, and I've been through this journey myself.
00:22:37.200 --> 00:22:46.559
Um and at Lloyd's, um, we weren't as prepared to share our metrics and our outcomes and our ROI as we have been at nationwide.
00:22:46.720 --> 00:22:53.119
And I think, you know, my argument always was I don't think what we're doing is is a complete mystery.
00:22:53.359 --> 00:22:56.480
I think what's difficult is to actually execute on it.
00:22:56.559 --> 00:23:03.200
You know, so I don't think you know we're giving the crowd, you know, so say, you know, we're saying 70% mental ability, 30% consideration.
00:23:03.359 --> 00:23:04.720
That is that our secret formula.
00:23:04.880 --> 00:23:08.640
I don't mind people knowing that because it's bloody difficult to deliver on the 70%.
00:23:09.200 --> 00:23:13.759
So so you know, I don't think these are some mysteries that we're revealing.
00:23:13.920 --> 00:23:18.000
Um I think that the skill is being able to execute against the objective.
00:23:18.160 --> 00:23:41.359
So that's always been uh my argument, and I think that you know what we've gained from it, you know, as I said right at the beginning, is the confidence in belief in terms of that what we're doing has been sort of you know independently and you know rigorously endorsed is is a great sort of shot in the arm, you know, because you know, I I sort of um slightly think, you know, case closed.
00:23:41.440 --> 00:23:44.319
You know, whatever you think of this campaign, case closed.
00:23:44.480 --> 00:23:47.680
This campaign, you know, won a gold in the IPA effectives awards.
00:23:47.920 --> 00:23:48.720
Next question.
00:23:48.880 --> 00:23:52.640
Um and I think and I think that sort of certainty is incredibly empowering.
00:23:52.880 --> 00:23:57.920
I think it makes you very attractive as an employer from a marketing point of view.
00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:08.799
I think it's very uh motivating to all the agencies, including the creative agency, you know, who who I obviously spoke about, you know, where they should focus their energies and not focus their energies.
00:24:08.960 --> 00:24:17.920
I think I think it's you know, in terms of our sort of community of agencies we work with, everyone internally, I think it's incredibly motivating, very inspiring.
00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:19.839
And we know we were like, right, now what?
00:24:19.920 --> 00:24:20.720
Let's get going.
00:24:20.799 --> 00:24:28.160
So well, on behalf of the industry, thank you very much, and thank you for adding lovely, lovely nationwide and the three Greeks in the world.
00:24:28.400 --> 00:24:29.680
Lovely lovely nationwide is in the paper.
00:24:29.839 --> 00:24:30.400
Oh, is that in the paper?
00:24:30.799 --> 00:24:31.119
A title.
00:24:31.200 --> 00:24:32.400
Uh The Three Greeks is not.
00:24:32.799 --> 00:24:33.359
Yeah, very good.
00:24:33.519 --> 00:24:34.480
Well, I'd encourage anyone.
00:24:34.799 --> 00:24:44.640
I was asking the Greeks how did they decide who was going to be because they have a leader, which is Natilla, and uh so I said, at what point in the process did you decide that she was gonna be your leader?
00:24:44.799 --> 00:24:47.119
And they said the two lads, it's two men and a woman.
00:24:47.279 --> 00:24:50.319
They said she was only ever always the leader ever since class.
00:24:50.559 --> 00:24:52.400
So uh and she's awesome, Tilla.
00:24:52.559 --> 00:25:03.519
She's so and she she couldn't come to the awards because she was so nervous, and they were they had they FaceTimed her in she was in her pajamas uh in the in the awards.
00:25:03.680 --> 00:25:05.920
It was it was very uh very touching.
00:25:06.240 --> 00:25:08.240
Very good, thank you very much, Richard.
00:25:09.839 --> 00:25:20.079
One of the things I liked about your paper is that you diagnosed a problem, which doesn't always happen these days, and you gave it quite an interesting billing.
00:25:20.240 --> 00:25:28.559
So I went through the paper remembering the term phrase you use for the problem that needed to be solved, not just we did some adverts and they worked.
00:25:28.640 --> 00:25:30.720
So can you tell me a bit about the problem definition?
00:25:30.799 --> 00:25:30.960
Yeah.
00:25:31.279 --> 00:25:32.720
The crisis of unassisted selling.
00:25:32.799 --> 00:26:07.279
So it sort of was a behaviour that we're starting to see more people going online, but then it was really exacerbated through COVID that we started really losing out to Amazon where people had been driven online, but then we were seeing that tech was the third most returned item, and that's largely down to being overspected where you'd end up assuming that if you spent more money you'd get the best product, or under spec'd where you just weren't getting the right tech for your needs, and then that was sort of compounded with vape reviews that people were not trusting the what they were reading, and there was this real need to be able to go and speak to someone face to face.
00:26:07.359 --> 00:26:27.279
But that also then trusted with a really lovely truth about curries that their colleagues get 40 hours of training, and so they are experts in their field and they're able to guide you to the right tech for your needs, not just sort of point you in the direction of what you're asking for, but really talk to you and diagnose you and give you what's right for your sort of need states.
00:26:27.599 --> 00:26:36.160
So we tested our proposition for people, and it really very clearly answered a sort of gaping problem for what people were looking for when they're shopping for tech.
00:26:36.880 --> 00:26:47.680
I mean, it sounds sort of obvious when you read a case study, but I bet at the time it wasn't as obvious, or the the conditions needed to be perfect for the organisation to hear that.
00:26:48.160 --> 00:26:51.759
Yes, but at the time that was when they were consolidating the business.
00:26:52.000 --> 00:27:00.319
At that time, Dixon's car phone warehouse team they had, yes, they consolidated the business, and it was quite function-led for a long time and very salesman.
00:27:00.640 --> 00:27:01.279
It wasn't working.
00:27:01.440 --> 00:27:07.839
The business was sort of in decline, and they knew they knew they needed to step change the business, and then this is where we then found the truth.
00:27:07.920 --> 00:27:11.759
And so they knew they had to do something different, and they took took the risk.
00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:18.720
And then we spoke about this on stage, but that it was met with some sort of negative press of some people saying these ads are silly.
00:27:18.880 --> 00:27:21.920
Um I would fire your advertising agency if I were you.
00:27:22.079 --> 00:27:28.000
But in order to reassure them at the time when we didn't have MMM results or any sales results, because that comes, they do it yearly.
00:27:28.160 --> 00:27:34.480
We we turned to system one and we tested, and it completely smashed the benchmarks for the category that we currently sits in.
00:27:34.559 --> 00:27:38.160
And there was projectives of RI scores in it, sort of really high.
00:27:38.240 --> 00:27:42.559
And that gave them assurance to stick with it, to sort of double down.
00:27:42.720 --> 00:27:55.680
So it was the case of finding a real truth about colleagues and the brand, and then presenting it in a way with humour that created cut-through and distinctiveness against what is a both functional and try sort of category.
00:27:55.839 --> 00:28:06.400
We couldn't bore people into buying products, so we had to do something in a way that would put sort of a smile on people's faces, and we also had to talk about a lot of things, but that we did it in a fun way, so it sort of draws people in.
00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:10.880
So there was a lot of sort of companion parts quite nicely and fitting together.
00:28:11.359 --> 00:28:25.680
Ollie, tell me about the media half, which I know runs way beyond just budget levels, because people like me tend to rewrite history as being like creative invention and the power of an idea.
00:28:26.559 --> 00:28:35.920
Whereas the paper is very honest about what you did in media and also what the company had done to enable a change in media levels and intent.
00:28:36.160 --> 00:28:44.640
I think when we were writing this, what we saw was this huge gym of performance in the first year when the brand platform landed, and there is no doubt at all CREAP was a huge driver of performance.
00:28:44.799 --> 00:28:47.440
And there will be a cumulative impact on that in the following years.
00:28:47.519 --> 00:28:59.920
But the three or four years following launching, we just saw consistent growth of performance, which we do think is in some level down to the way that we optimised our media, and the way that we we changed the funding model for curry's in a way that we could absolutely drive towards a single metric.
00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:15.119
So curry's have long and friendly and very positive relationships with lots of suppliers, but as with many brands who have lots of different funding requirements and lots of different funding sources, they were digging lots of stakeholders who might have different opinions on what the primary objective should be, and that might not line up with curry's.
00:29:15.279 --> 00:29:23.519
So almost one of the most important things we did was to kind of wrangle all of that money and make sure it was pointing that one direction, which is long-term revenue for coers.
00:29:23.759 --> 00:29:25.200
And there's no panacea for that.
00:29:25.279 --> 00:29:30.880
Part of it is just going, we agree this is what we should be driving, therefore we're going to make sure it's critical in everything that we plan.
00:29:31.039 --> 00:29:36.480
It's also just having really honest conversations with the suppliers and making sure that they know that actually in the long run this is going to drive sales.
00:29:36.640 --> 00:29:39.200
You're just going to have to trust that we know what we're doing with your funding here.
00:29:39.359 --> 00:29:50.000
And what we saw is as this went in, as COEs essentially Kevin were wording, but sort of pointed funding in a closer direction, that did lead to a steady increase in performance, which benefited everyone involved.
00:29:50.160 --> 00:29:59.200
So, yeah, there was a lot of structural changes that needs to happen to make it happen, but equally, the ultimate driver's success was that single-minded focus on that one measure, which was long-term ROI.
00:29:59.359 --> 00:29:59.920
So it's great results.
00:30:00.319 --> 00:30:03.359
When you see it plotted on a chart, you're seeing this double-digit growth year on year.
00:30:04.480 --> 00:30:05.279
Two, three years.
00:30:05.599 --> 00:30:08.079
Yes, that's when they really gain the confidence in that approach.
00:30:08.400 --> 00:30:15.440
Kind of so there's two bits that firstly, I'm old enough to remember Craig Ingalls talking about John Lewis being very true to that.
00:30:15.680 --> 00:30:19.839
Lots of supplier funding not crystallizing in goodwill towards the John Lewis brand.
00:30:19.920 --> 00:30:25.039
So lots of work behind the scenes to capture that budget for the brand in turn helping the suppliers.
00:30:25.200 --> 00:30:25.440
Yes.
00:30:25.599 --> 00:30:30.480
So that playbook is familiar and probably is much harder than people like us realise.
00:30:30.720 --> 00:30:30.960
Oh, yeah.
00:30:31.039 --> 00:30:31.519
I'm upset.
00:30:31.839 --> 00:30:43.200
Second bit though, which would gladden Les's heart, is I think you've just said, and certainly the paper says optimizing for long-term revenue did not undermine short-term returns.
00:30:43.359 --> 00:30:43.599
Yes.
00:30:43.759 --> 00:30:46.640
It goes on to say something like because they work in lockstep or whatever.
00:30:46.720 --> 00:30:47.680
So tell me about that.
00:30:48.079 --> 00:30:48.720
It's exactly that.
00:30:48.960 --> 00:30:50.880
It's his absolute dedication to a single metric.
00:30:50.960 --> 00:30:53.680
And Dan Rebells is the marketing director for Curry's.
00:30:53.839 --> 00:30:56.000
He's got ROI written behind his laptop.
00:30:56.160 --> 00:31:02.559
And it's it's honestly true, there is not a single pound we spend, but we don't know exactly what the incremental return on that will be for Curry's.
00:31:02.640 --> 00:31:07.039
And that is actually quite limiting because it's not enough just to go, oh, this is a really fascinating.
00:31:07.279 --> 00:31:09.039
We love this excavation, what a brilliant idea.
00:31:09.119 --> 00:31:10.640
We'll still we'll just put a brand study on it.
00:31:10.720 --> 00:31:12.160
And no way, I know I'll show that it's effectively.
00:31:12.319 --> 00:31:20.559
It has to be so disciplined, and there is nothing we do, but we don't have to build some very strong rationale for why this is going to have an incremental revenue benefit to curry's.
00:31:20.799 --> 00:31:27.119
And the the fact that long and short act in sort of lockstep, I think, is true, and I think that's just because that's the nature of success.
00:31:27.200 --> 00:31:34.640
If you're driving long-term revenue, you are probably going to drive short-term revenue, and bluntly it's also a factor of how econometrics works, they're going to go in the same direction.
00:31:34.799 --> 00:31:47.519
Which means that a lot of time you're saying no to a lot of things, but when you do say yes to something, everyone is so confident that this is absolutely going to work, and we know that we can sell this into the business and to every part of the business that carries because they understand the actual financial value to them as a company.
00:31:47.920 --> 00:32:04.880
It's a testament to beyond expectations as a vehicle as well, because it allows us to sort of speak to the constraints of being a supplier-funded model, but under that platform, we do talk about tech specs, we talk about offers, but we do it under such a strong sort of platform that allows us to do both in many ways.
00:32:05.200 --> 00:32:17.680
We have our strand, which is the branded strand, but Amazing Tech, which is full of lots of information, is still driving those longer-term brand scores because we have all our branded assets in there in a very clear, distinct, and consistent tone.
00:32:17.759 --> 00:32:18.880
So we're driving long-term.
00:32:18.960 --> 00:32:21.359
So that's why I was talking about some shorter-term thinking.
00:32:21.519 --> 00:32:26.559
But also, I think it sort of pops back to they were operating with very short-term thinker and it wasn't working.
00:32:26.720 --> 00:32:31.680
So I think they were in a position where they knew they had to build a stronger brand and think on long-term.
00:32:32.240 --> 00:32:34.240
You end the paper with three learnings.
00:32:34.559 --> 00:32:35.599
I'm trying to get these right.
00:32:35.759 --> 00:32:41.200
I think one is the power of fame, and one is long-term horizons, which we've talked about.
00:32:41.440 --> 00:32:44.720
The third one is the power of human, I think.
00:32:45.119 --> 00:32:45.279
Yes.
00:32:46.160 --> 00:32:47.599
Bold distinctive humour, yeah.
00:32:48.720 --> 00:32:51.200
Well, actually, human rather than just human.
00:32:52.880 --> 00:32:59.920
Because I think it is a very human answer by definition in terms of the idea, but also how it was carried through by colleagues.
00:33:00.079 --> 00:33:00.240
Yes.
00:33:00.400 --> 00:33:06.720
And I can't help feeling that maybe you've accidentally or deliberately stumbled into some new sort of secret source.
00:33:07.359 --> 00:33:20.319
The humans respond to human imperfect communication and it's very much on purpose because beyond expectations are the ways our colleagues go above and beyond for our customers and the way they show support.
00:33:20.400 --> 00:33:22.720
And then the humour comes from hyperbolising that.
00:33:22.799 --> 00:33:32.480
So with the with the humour around the human, it's always the joker's never on the customer, it's sort of it's always the colleagues in the way that they're going above and beyond.
00:33:32.559 --> 00:33:37.519
So we're never because we always run ads by the the colleagues' colleagues and get their input.
00:33:37.680 --> 00:33:42.960
So we never want to sort of be poking fun at them, but it's showing the ways that they go sort of above and beyond.
00:33:43.039 --> 00:33:49.680
And it so cleanly answers the challenge that all the insight that we had around the crisis of unassisted selling.
00:33:49.839 --> 00:33:52.799
The people want to speak to people, they want that human connection.
00:33:52.960 --> 00:33:57.839
And Curry is the unique selling point for Curry's this 40 hours of training and going above and beyond.
00:33:57.920 --> 00:34:01.200
So it was all those elements that gave us the secret sauce.
00:34:02.160 --> 00:34:04.559
For me, I think one of the things I love working on curry is.
00:34:04.720 --> 00:34:06.400
I think one of the one of the that's not what I was going to do.
00:34:06.480 --> 00:34:17.679
There's more than and I think one of the key things, and it came up on stage actually just now, is is is this a lot of the things which I've which which can be frustrating with the marketing is this focus on short term.
00:34:17.760 --> 00:34:30.159
But when I talk about short term, what I mean is platform metrics is going after all these numbers which are addictive and fun, and we we love going after them, but they're so far away from what actually matters, and that's a very frustrating thing in time, which is a game at start and eventually feels a bit useless.
00:34:30.320 --> 00:34:46.400
So being actually able to focus on something which has a real business impact is actually really, really fun and interesting, and you can fully see what that means in terms of what the the market team within Curies, how they now fit within the business, because they have this brilliant setup which is actually driving business success.
00:34:46.480 --> 00:34:49.199
And I think that's a really powerful and quite fun thing to be a part of as well.
00:34:49.599 --> 00:34:56.880
We have a very busy retail calendar beyond expectations, gives us an amazing vehicle to speak to a broad breadth of briefs.
00:34:56.960 --> 00:34:58.639
And Jez and Dave do an amazing job.
00:34:58.719 --> 00:34:59.519
They have such energy.
00:34:59.599 --> 00:35:15.199
I I say they should be the chief comedic officers at AMV because you can see their personalities within the work, like they're incredible people, and even the IPA paper, the case study film where we used AIDS to talk through it's changing our campaigns for our characters within the film.
00:35:15.280 --> 00:35:17.760
That was all them, you can see their personality coming through.
00:35:17.840 --> 00:35:19.760
And yeah, they do such a wonderful job.
00:35:19.840 --> 00:35:26.480
And even from we're about to launch Black Friday, which is the busiest time in the retail calendar, very hard-working assets.
00:35:26.639 --> 00:35:31.199
But again, they managed to smash it with a really funny campaign, which was the brief was hard.
00:35:31.280 --> 00:35:35.440
And if on a piece of paper, we have uh Black Friday toolkit, which is all sort of neons.
00:35:35.599 --> 00:35:40.960
Last year we had a choir, which is about low prices of research, we're talking about the sort of biggest ever event.
00:35:41.119 --> 00:35:45.199
We had so many sort of restrictions, but still the adders are incredibly funny.
00:35:45.440 --> 00:35:47.280
There's bodybuilders, I'll put it there.
00:35:48.320 --> 00:35:57.519
Yeah, so they every time you think that you they sometimes when you give bridge creativity, oh sorry, but they every time they had the same energy and they managed to smash it.
00:35:57.599 --> 00:36:02.239
And when we showed the IRL to the room, everyone was laughing, and that's a testament to doesn't think.
00:36:03.119 --> 00:36:08.000
Tell me what it felt like to win an IPA effectiveness award or what it feels like.
00:36:08.159 --> 00:36:09.280
It's quite recent.
00:36:09.840 --> 00:36:10.719
It's pretty good, isn't it?
00:36:10.880 --> 00:36:11.599
Yeah, pretty good.
00:36:11.840 --> 00:36:13.679
So I'm tragic because I couldn't make night.
00:36:14.559 --> 00:36:19.599
I was abroad and I genuinely looked at every single possible flight I could do to try and make sure I could arrive there.
00:36:19.679 --> 00:36:23.360
And it would have involved me staying overnight in an airport, I think somehow over two nights.
00:36:23.440 --> 00:36:25.840
It just none of it had adult, essentially, which is a real shame.
00:36:26.000 --> 00:36:27.599
I was getting live texts, obviously.
00:36:27.760 --> 00:36:28.480
I know it's brilliant.
00:36:28.559 --> 00:36:35.119
We so we have uh every week we have a big meeting which is XAMV and it's Spark and it's um coasm sitting room and go through all the campaigns.
00:36:35.199 --> 00:36:38.639
And we just sat down and go, Yeah, maybe we're the best, maybe we're the best at this.
00:36:39.840 --> 00:36:40.719
That's quite nice, isn't it?
00:36:40.800 --> 00:36:42.239
Yeah, um it feels pretty.
00:36:42.480 --> 00:36:44.079
I see I still look quite sunk in.
00:36:44.159 --> 00:36:45.519
I just feel immensely proud of Sam.
00:36:45.840 --> 00:36:52.400
It's really a shame that he can't be here today because he he didn't really spearhead this whole thing and he's been on since the very, very beginning.
00:36:52.559 --> 00:36:54.719
So yeah, I was very proud of all of us.
00:36:54.880 --> 00:36:57.280
Curry's, as you can tell, how we gushed about Curry's.
00:36:57.360 --> 00:37:00.480
It's it's not only is the work great, but it's also just a genuinely lovely team.
00:37:00.559 --> 00:37:04.559
Our clients are great, they're great partners, and they allow us to push the creativity.
00:37:04.639 --> 00:37:10.000
They always push us to be more unexpected, and it's a perfect partner for create great great work.
00:37:10.079 --> 00:37:16.000
So it's yeah, it's a real swelling of pride, I think, and proud of all of us, and also a testament to Sam.
00:37:16.159 --> 00:37:25.840
He he he attributes it the win to sort of everyone who's touched the campaign from the from the moment that it launched, and not only the people still working at AMP at Spark, but everyone who's touched it.
00:37:25.920 --> 00:37:27.039
So that's what's really lovely.
00:37:27.119 --> 00:37:29.360
It's a testament to the whole team.
00:37:29.679 --> 00:37:31.920
I think I actually read is your client called Dan?
00:37:32.079 --> 00:37:32.880
Yes, Dan Rebel.
00:37:33.119 --> 00:37:40.400
I think I read a LinkedIn post where he was at pains to talk about you and I'm sure Sam, who I haven't met, and others as co-conspirators.
00:37:40.639 --> 00:37:44.159
I think it's an amazing thing for clients about their agency team.
00:37:44.480 --> 00:37:44.800
Yeah.
00:37:45.039 --> 00:37:58.880
I said it on stage though, even when we sort of pitched for the Channel 4 work, the diversity award, it feels like you're showing up as Curry's team, not current client and agency, which is again, I think you can see it in the work that it's a real partnership.
00:37:59.280 --> 00:37:59.519
100%.
00:37:59.920 --> 00:38:06.480
I think from uh the accounts I've worked on, I've never worked on one which isn't this is by far in the way the most integrated in the way that we all work together.
00:38:06.639 --> 00:38:11.760
Um but for Spark, we've been Curry's agency for I think 30 years ago, some silly amount of time.
00:38:11.920 --> 00:38:13.280
And that is seen.
00:38:13.519 --> 00:38:23.679
I think we we understand the business so well, and as do A and V, absolutely, and I think you can see exactly how that comes out in terms of the conversations that we have with them, and now hopefully in terms of the the the business success as well, which has come back.
00:38:24.400 --> 00:38:25.039
Thank you very much.
00:38:28.639 --> 00:38:39.760
You very kindly agreed to read our gold and Grand Prix winning papers after the event, so you didn't receive them in advance of Thursday night, and it's only Wednesday afternoon.
00:38:40.159 --> 00:38:51.199
It is actually but you've rather assiduously gone through each of them, and I I'd be fascinated to hear what themes you saw across them, rather than talking to you in in depth about each one.
00:38:51.760 --> 00:38:56.800
What did you see as someone who's written and won your fair share of PFA results?
00:38:57.199 --> 00:38:59.920
So I read five and I did feel there were some common themes.
00:39:00.320 --> 00:39:11.679
In general, actually, I I felt that that there was quite a lot of stuff which was broadly in the area of budgets and media and all that stuff about investing for growth.
00:39:12.480 --> 00:39:24.400
So I think it's true that maybe all but one of the five papers I read they had a secured extra budget in order to sort of turn things around.
00:39:24.960 --> 00:39:30.159
And that actually spending more was a big part of the success story.
00:39:30.400 --> 00:39:40.239
Now that's all not always been the case with IPA papers, because we've we've often had papers in the past which were actually more about spending less and doing things more efficiently.
00:39:40.480 --> 00:39:52.639
Obviously, given the things that I've wanged on about over the last year about go big or go home, and we need bigger budgets and bigger media plans, that fits with my own personal evil plans.
00:39:53.360 --> 00:39:55.679
Um so I thought that was quite heartening.
00:39:55.920 --> 00:40:04.960
Um and and within that, also it's almost as if they'd read some books by people like Benfield.
00:40:05.599 --> 00:40:09.760
There was some stuff about uh balancing short-term and long-term.
00:40:10.880 --> 00:40:19.679
So in particular, Andrex went from 50-50 to long-term and short term, and a low budget.
00:40:20.480 --> 00:40:23.519
And they dialed up the brand budget.
00:40:23.840 --> 00:40:28.960
So that the total budget got bigger, and they went from that 50-50 to 75-25.
00:40:29.440 --> 00:40:38.960
And 75-25 is exactly the ratio that we recommended in our book from 2018 for brand leaders like Android.
00:40:39.519 --> 00:40:44.320
So it was for us, you know, for Peter and I, we we would say I'm speaking on it.
00:40:45.280 --> 00:40:48.639
It's it's a textbook example of the kind of thing we recommend.
00:40:58.880 --> 00:41:03.360
So I have to ask maybe more generally about the long and the shortness of it.
00:41:03.679 --> 00:41:09.039
In respect of the fact that some of those winners were very long effects.
00:41:13.039 --> 00:41:21.599
But I I was particularly pleased to see that actually some of the big winners were reporting a fairly short, fairly quick turnaround.
00:41:22.239 --> 00:41:36.559
So I have to keep the paper straight in my head, but I think that the Andrex one, you could see I I was a little bit skeptical until I got towards the end of the paper, and there's a whole bunch of grumps where it just they just turnaround straight away.
00:41:36.960 --> 00:41:42.559
Yeah, I think there is this misunderstanding sometimes about what we mean by long term.
00:41:42.880 --> 00:41:57.360
I've seen a somebody posted on LinkedIn only last week about, you know, oh you can't in when times are tough, you can't be bothering about the long term and waiting for the profits to come like a check in the post in three years' time.
00:41:57.920 --> 00:42:01.119
It's not that long-term effects are delayed effects.
00:42:01.360 --> 00:42:03.760
What they are is lasting effects.
00:42:04.079 --> 00:42:09.440
So the Andres one showed, you know, that you can immediately get a turnaround.
00:42:09.679 --> 00:42:19.280
But one of the papers now I do get these confused, but one of them talked about uh oh, I think it was the Alzheimer's one, that's right.
00:42:19.519 --> 00:42:26.559
That they saw an immediate effect, but that it would last in terms of how much money the flow of money for decades.
00:42:27.119 --> 00:42:30.559
Because they were getting people to make legacies.
00:42:31.039 --> 00:42:37.599
So you know they got an immediate effect of people pledging to remember Alzheimer's and they will.
00:42:38.639 --> 00:42:39.760
A lasting effect.
00:42:44.960 --> 00:42:46.639
Giving money for for decades.
00:42:47.199 --> 00:42:55.119
So I d I d I think I don't want to change the terminology, but the point is long term does not mean delay.
00:43:07.280 --> 00:43:07.679
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:43:10.159 --> 00:43:11.519
I don't know your point of view.
00:43:16.559 --> 00:43:20.000
Which is the paper that included a brand valuation.
00:43:20.559 --> 00:43:24.400
The paper, the gold-winning paper that includes a brand valuation is for Spect Savers.
00:43:24.880 --> 00:43:29.599
Which essentially is putting you know present value?
00:43:29.840 --> 00:43:30.639
Yeah, yeah.
00:43:31.039 --> 00:43:36.800
Yeah, so Spect Savers did not rely on that brand value calculation.
00:43:37.039 --> 00:43:46.800
They did the kind of more conventional the profit ROI first, and then they looked at it another way by saying, okay, what's the value of the brand?
00:43:47.360 --> 00:43:59.760
I I can't actually remember whether they really show the contribution of advertising to the value of the brand, which is a little if they didn't do that, that kind of that's an extra set that one would.
00:44:00.159 --> 00:44:00.800
Need to do.
00:44:00.960 --> 00:44:05.519
That's a useful alternative way of looking at things because I've used it myself.
00:44:05.760 --> 00:44:15.440
Years ago, when we did one of the papers on Felix Cat food, what we did was we had a long-term paper where the brand had actually changed hands.
00:44:15.599 --> 00:44:26.400
It was sold, I can't remember, it was once upon a time it was Quaker, and then it was sold to someone else, and then it was sold by them to Nestle, I think.
00:44:26.480 --> 00:44:27.519
But Nestle Karina.
00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:28.400
Yeah.
00:44:28.719 --> 00:44:34.800
So we had two points where we didn't have to have a valuation of the brand, we had a market price for the brand.
00:44:34.880 --> 00:44:41.199
And we could look at the how much it had gone up during the period in question.
00:44:41.360 --> 00:44:46.800
And we sort of made the argument that advertising was the main driver of their growth during that period.
00:44:46.960 --> 00:45:02.239
In fact, actually, now I come to think of it, we did that again with another one years ago that no one will remember called Frazel Insurance, which won a bronze in 1996, I think it was, and is entirely the origin of the long and the short of it.
00:45:02.880 --> 00:45:07.920
All the analysis that behind the long and the short of it came from that IPA paper, really.
00:45:08.079 --> 00:45:12.960
Anyway, but but again, we had a point where the brand had been bought and sold twice.
00:45:13.119 --> 00:45:19.760
So you some can sometimes have a market price for a brand, as opposed to a kind of like finger-in-the-air estimate.
00:45:32.159 --> 00:45:36.960
So it's it's a useful thing, but you know, cross-bracing.
00:45:37.119 --> 00:45:41.440
Look at the the the answer from a number of different perspectives, I'd say.
00:45:41.760 --> 00:45:44.480
So talking of cross-bracing, I've never heard that before.
00:45:44.719 --> 00:45:45.840
I may just made it up.
00:45:46.239 --> 00:45:47.440
Well, we'll go with it.
00:45:47.679 --> 00:45:49.920
How are you feeling about ROI these days?
00:45:50.159 --> 00:45:50.800
Well, okay.
00:45:51.360 --> 00:46:01.760
It's funny, I was on a stage with Andrew Tyndall last week, I think it was, and we were asked this question which metric would you put in room 101 or whatever it was?
00:46:01.840 --> 00:46:04.880
And he said, about an O Your one, it'll be it would be ROI.
00:46:05.679 --> 00:46:06.559
And I said, no.
00:46:08.079 --> 00:46:10.639
Because ROI does have a role to play.
00:46:10.719 --> 00:46:22.400
It's one that, you know, what what what I get pissed off about is people making it like the one metric or the primary metric.
00:46:22.639 --> 00:46:40.639
It's a bit like, you know, on the dashboard of a car, you know, maybe the revs is, you know, you wouldn't necessarily want to get rid of the rev counter, but you wouldn't want to make it the thing that, you know, you drive by, you know, going, okay, I don't pay attention to speed or direction or anything else.
00:46:40.719 --> 00:46:46.000
I just want to keep my revs steadily on that number, you know, or maximize or minimise or whatever.
00:46:46.239 --> 00:47:03.920
So ROI has a role to play, particularly if you've got a bunch of money and you've got two channels and you're deciding where the next pound goes, then you go, okay, right, well, this one has a high marginal ROI, so we'll dial that one up a bit.
00:47:04.079 --> 00:47:10.320
And then the other thing, of course, is are you measuring ROI short term or or or long term?
00:47:10.960 --> 00:47:19.280
So there's no one perfect metric, it's but that one can be dangerous if you make it your North Star.
00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:22.320
So what did you put in room 101 as a metric?
00:47:22.559 --> 00:47:23.199
Oh, I don't know.
00:47:23.280 --> 00:47:26.000
I don't think I actually came up with a decent answer, to be honest.
00:47:26.320 --> 00:47:27.440
Likes or impressions?
00:47:27.760 --> 00:47:30.159
I think I might have said something along those lines, actually.
00:47:30.320 --> 00:47:33.519
The fluffy stuff, brand up or something like that, you know.
00:47:33.920 --> 00:47:46.480
You so we're we're chatting at Stroke After the effectiveness conference, where you've just landed your latest little effectiveness bomb around the astonishing dependency on promotions.
00:47:46.559 --> 00:47:53.519
I'm using that advisory because I had no idea quite how big promotions had become to dwarf paid-for media.
00:47:53.679 --> 00:48:06.559
And it struck me that at least a couple of the papers you read talked about that as well, and that win the same win you talked about on stage earlier, which is for no pounds there's profit upside.
00:48:06.880 --> 00:48:07.679
Yeah, exactly.
00:48:07.760 --> 00:48:25.440
So price promotions are huge, and one of the reasons that m most people in our world don't know this, and I think possibly even some clients might, some marketers might not have the complete picture, is the big cost of the price promotion is the cost of the discount.
00:48:25.760 --> 00:48:34.320
It's not a media cost, but you know, the fulfillment cost of you know giving away X percent for free, effectively.
00:48:34.559 --> 00:48:42.719
And that's I think it's often not listed in anywhere in the accounts as an as a line item.
00:48:42.880 --> 00:48:48.239
And if it is, it's in the trade budget, you know, it's not in what's called the marketing budget.
00:48:48.320 --> 00:48:50.800
I mean it's marketing in the wider sense of marketing.
00:48:50.880 --> 00:49:12.159
But again, I first saw this working on pet food years and years ago, where I actually that you know the client I was working on, probably guess who it is, they showed me the figures where it was the whole of their uh what they call PFME spend, you know, and it's got you know all the trade spend and the marketing communications and things.
00:49:12.320 --> 00:49:21.039
And I just went, oh my god, I mean in that case, I mean their their trade spend was like ten times the marketing spend.
00:49:21.199 --> 00:49:23.280
And most of that was price promotions.
00:49:23.440 --> 00:49:33.039
And also I had it tracked over time, and it was just like like that, you know, and I just I had I think I showed this at an IPA meeting 20 years ago.
00:49:33.920 --> 00:49:41.280
This is what's destroying our industry, but you know, it's not listed in the things that we normally see.
00:49:41.519 --> 00:49:44.000
I think it's probably bigger than Google, you know.
00:49:44.400 --> 00:49:46.719
It's a sort of silent killer, you know.
00:49:46.960 --> 00:49:53.119
And pet food's actually a very good example because as a dog owner, my dog's not gonna eat any more.
00:49:53.360 --> 00:49:54.079
I might buy more.
00:49:54.159 --> 00:49:57.840
In fact, I do buy more when it's on promotion, but I can't get the dog to eat more.
00:49:58.320 --> 00:50:12.480
So it's exactly you know, it's just and well, of course, Andrex, you know, for all their attempts to, you know, do adverts about pooing, they're not gonna get people to ship more, are they?
00:50:12.639 --> 00:50:13.199
You know?
00:50:14.079 --> 00:50:16.000
So that's pretty much fixed.
00:50:16.400 --> 00:50:19.199
But they did talk about promotional dependency.
00:50:19.519 --> 00:50:20.400
Yes, they did, exactly.
00:50:20.480 --> 00:50:21.039
That was the point.
00:50:23.280 --> 00:50:31.119
Their brand was weak, they were dependent on promotions, they were finding it harder and harder to justify a price premium.
00:50:31.280 --> 00:50:37.519
And so they were losing market share to all these kind of knockoff brands and own label and stuff like that.
00:50:37.760 --> 00:50:46.480
So and you know, they they turned things around by putting money back into brand investment again and becoming less dependent on price promotions.
00:50:46.639 --> 00:50:49.440
So that's a classic example of the kind of thing we talk about.
00:50:49.599 --> 00:50:55.280
Um, two years ago I was part of the team that wrote the McCain paper, um, and that was a very similar thing.
00:50:55.440 --> 00:50:59.039
We were, you know, at the end of the day, you're just selling potato.
00:50:59.920 --> 00:51:02.079
There's no real difference between the products.
00:51:02.239 --> 00:51:08.800
Sorry, McCain, but you know, but you you know, your aim is basically to get people to pay more for the same thing.
00:51:08.880 --> 00:51:11.679
And that's one superpower's brands, really.
00:51:12.239 --> 00:51:15.440
You also used uh today you used an automotive example.
00:51:15.599 --> 00:51:15.840
Yes.
00:51:16.079 --> 00:51:28.000
And I think I'm pretty sure the nationwide paper includes other financial services brands' dependency on incentives or interest rates or yeah, cost.
00:51:29.119 --> 00:51:39.440
I I don't remember that bit, but what I do remember from the nationwide paper was that they had reduced their own dependency on financial incentives.
00:51:39.519 --> 00:51:43.760
So presumably they were doing some kind of giveaways to people who open an account.
00:51:44.079 --> 00:51:51.840
I suppose my point is that it's not just an FMCG cowering in the face of, you know, no retailer power.
00:51:52.400 --> 00:52:08.320
Yeah, I mean we the the thing that I talked about today, the research I talked about today is quite dependent on the research is quite focused on consumer goods, because that's where there's a lot more data in research.
00:52:08.480 --> 00:52:14.239
But I think a lot of the same issues will apply to some service brands.
00:52:14.559 --> 00:52:19.440
I have to be slightly careful there, because subscription services may differ in some ways.
00:52:19.599 --> 00:52:36.639
For example, it may, you know, if you're a if you're a bank, it may actually be worth your while to bribe someone with some sort of a you know£100, you know, joining fee or something, if you think they're gonna be with you for 40 years or something like that.
00:52:36.800 --> 00:52:45.360
But yeah, I mean the whole thing of sort of buying customers, if you like, is is quite prevalent in services.
00:52:45.679 --> 00:52:55.679
But buying customers, I mean, at risk of quoting Drucker, and I think this is what you were suggesting earlier, buying customers, buying new customers, actually fine to a point.
00:52:56.000 --> 00:52:56.480
Could be, yeah.
00:52:56.960 --> 00:53:01.199
Just buying custom or bringing forward customer is the expensive bit.
00:53:01.519 --> 00:53:06.639
So it it depends a lot on what kind of service it is and what's the sort of mechanism.
00:53:06.719 --> 00:53:29.039
So subscription services will be different from what you might call perishable services, like say a haircut or something like that, you know, where where it's you know, it's hair haircuts are much more like buying toilet roll, you know, you have to buy a certain number on a regular basis, you you uh and and it's not a subscription thing.
00:53:29.280 --> 00:53:32.400
So you you are quite free.
00:53:32.559 --> 00:53:38.159
I'm really boxing myself him by talking about haircuts, given how loyal I am to my hairdresser.
00:53:38.480 --> 00:53:54.639
But yeah, so uh you have to look at the dynamics of precise dynamics of how people choose the product or service, also the costs involved, and then the retention-repeat mechanism, which can be different with services.
00:53:54.800 --> 00:54:11.199
So, for example, when I talk about the costs involved, one area where discounting often is really a good idea is I think Dom used the term clearance, you know, where you know this sandwich is gonna be thrown away if it's not sold today.
00:54:11.360 --> 00:54:17.920
Or, and in the case of services, this airline seat will be empty unless we fill it by 5 pm.
00:54:18.320 --> 00:54:29.760
Um, and in that case, it may be that you know slashing the price to to sell uh something rather than nothing is uh it makes good sense.
00:54:30.159 --> 00:54:39.199
Yeah, they're great examples, they remind me that you've always, I think, encouraged people to be very precise about their situation, their categories, their marketing.
00:54:39.920 --> 00:54:47.119
You are known as uh as an expert in measurement, but I I also think you have had a ringside seat on great making.
00:54:47.199 --> 00:54:49.840
And I know that one of the things you spotted across these papers.
00:54:50.239 --> 00:54:50.960
Humour.
00:54:51.199 --> 00:54:52.400
Absolutely, yeah.
00:54:52.639 --> 00:54:58.960
So um we had Curries, Nationwide, and Spect Savers all used humour, didn't they?
00:54:59.119 --> 00:55:00.480
I think those were the three.
00:55:00.800 --> 00:55:01.840
Were there any others?
00:55:02.159 --> 00:55:04.400
Those are the ones that s struck me.
00:55:04.719 --> 00:55:06.400
I think Andrex does in its slightly wonderful.
00:55:06.719 --> 00:55:07.119
Yeah, okay.
00:55:07.199 --> 00:55:10.400
Well, I have to say I've not seen the Andrex ads.
00:55:10.480 --> 00:55:11.840
I've just seen them in the paper.
00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:14.800
So I yeah, yes, there was a sort of wonky humour to that.
00:55:15.280 --> 00:55:21.360
And I find incredible that we have to sort of justify humour.
00:55:21.519 --> 00:55:45.599
It's like, you know, the way you could see in the way in these papers, it was like, you know, well, you know, you might think, for example, yes, it was in the spectators one, because of course they moved into hearing, and they're sort of going, well, of course, this is much more serious business, you know, because you know, it's very it's a just terrible disability, and you know, it's not really appropriate to be, you know, to make jokes about you know hearing loss, you know.
00:55:45.679 --> 00:55:48.880
And I mean, I was just thinking, nonsense.
00:55:48.960 --> 00:56:03.679
I mean, this it's a rich vein of humour, but they they really had to sort of justify using humour, even though they had decades of experience a bit working at Spec Savers.
00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:09.039
Curry's got quite a lot of pushback about whether about humour and you know whether it was appropriate.
00:56:09.199 --> 00:56:11.360
I think there was that in nationwide as well.
00:56:11.599 --> 00:56:24.639
But humour, I mean, maybe because I grew up in BNP, you know, in in the 80s and with all that heritage going back into the 70s.
00:56:25.119 --> 00:56:31.920
Great humorous advertising, you know, we know that humour works better than almost anything else.
00:56:32.159 --> 00:56:35.360
So, I mean, that was great to see it coming back.
00:56:35.440 --> 00:56:36.639
I'd like to see more of that.
00:56:37.199 --> 00:56:48.800
It's also the antidote to the dreadful phase of you know purpose advertising, which was such a dead end and such a waste of money.
00:56:49.039 --> 00:56:51.679
And these two things seem to not be able to coexist.
00:56:51.920 --> 00:56:59.599
In fact, anyone who's sort of got a sense of social purpose these days, human seems terribly suspect.
00:56:59.679 --> 00:57:03.679
You know, it's kind of like you know, saving the planet is a serious business.
00:57:03.840 --> 00:57:11.519
We're not saving the planet, we're selling Lou Roll and you know fridges at currics and stuff like that, you know.
00:57:13.039 --> 00:57:18.320
Even if you are saving the planet, your old agency has Columbia, I think, as outdoor brands.
00:57:18.480 --> 00:57:18.719
That's right.
00:57:18.960 --> 00:57:21.760
And that is a much more interesting story for being told humorously.
00:57:22.000 --> 00:57:35.679
I mean, humour's not the only way you can get people interest, but but you know, we know that advertising, brand advertising tends to brand advertising has to talk to people when they're not interested in what you have to say.
00:57:35.920 --> 00:57:41.199
So you have to do things that are inherently interesting and inherently enjoyable that keep them watching.
00:57:41.440 --> 00:57:48.880
And you need to have some sort of emotional impact so that they get engaged and they remember what you who you are and all that sort of thing.
00:57:49.119 --> 00:57:51.519
And humour's one way to do that.
00:57:51.760 --> 00:58:03.760
And the other thing is I think it's really important, almost like politically, environmentally, that we make ads that people enjoy because otherwise we're just polluting people's lives.
00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:12.320
So when you make ads that are funny, enjoyable, entertaining, and all that sort of thing, the advertiser wins and the audience wins.
00:58:12.559 --> 00:58:21.840
The other thing is that humour is one of the only ways of getting that kind of an emotional response in a brief time frame.
00:58:22.320 --> 00:58:24.719
Because you can do a really quick joke.
00:58:24.960 --> 00:58:29.280
It's really hard to make someone cry in, you know, five seconds.
00:58:29.360 --> 00:58:32.960
You know, you can you that requires more emotional storytelling.
00:58:33.119 --> 00:58:39.519
But you know, in a world where we often have to do a lot of things that are in a very short compass, humour can be a great way to do it.
00:58:39.679 --> 00:58:41.440
Spectres do that so well, don't they?
00:58:41.840 --> 00:58:44.480
Did it two weeks ago with a buyer tapestry tactical?
00:58:44.880 --> 00:58:45.280
Yes.
00:58:46.320 --> 00:58:56.880
The one I loved was the year years and years ago where someone drove over a roundabout and on the crash site, they put up a poster saying should have gone to spectators, you know.
00:58:57.039 --> 00:58:58.639
And it's a quick fire gag.
00:58:58.719 --> 00:59:00.719
Yeah, so I mean, I love humour.
00:59:00.880 --> 00:59:02.960
I I take humour very seriously.
00:59:03.199 --> 00:59:06.320
So it's really nice to see that that coming back.
00:59:06.480 --> 00:59:13.119
I mean, maybe the other thing is people, yeah, I you know, I say things and people hear something else.
00:59:13.519 --> 00:59:33.039
Talking about emotional advertising, and possibly Adam and Eve with John Lewis, you know, back in the days when the John Lewis ads were good, we created a style of emotional advertising but which is much more tear-jerking, and people have begun to think that's what I mean by emotional advertising.
00:59:33.199 --> 00:59:35.599
But a good joke is an emotional response.
00:59:35.920 --> 00:59:38.159
I think you always meant response.
00:59:38.480 --> 00:59:39.599
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:59:40.159 --> 00:59:40.639
The stimulus.
00:59:41.039 --> 00:59:49.280
Yes, and it doesn't have to be a tear-jerking response, it can be, you know, you know, a laugh or even just a sort of like, hmm, you know.
00:59:49.599 --> 00:59:55.599
When you see a beautifully designed poster, for example, that's an emotional response as well.
00:59:56.000 --> 01:00:00.079
I've got one last question for you, which you don't have to answer if you if nothing comes to mind readily.
01:00:00.320 --> 01:00:13.599
I kind of sit in the audience at these things thinking that a lot of the problems in our industry are things we've invited into our midst and that we're responsible for our predicament.
01:00:13.760 --> 01:00:24.639
I'm thinking today about things like direct mail and retail media where we seem to decide that they were the shitty end of what we did, and so they've come out shitty.
01:00:24.800 --> 01:00:25.119
Yeah.
01:00:25.519 --> 01:00:32.639
And I'm pretty sure I've heard you speak previously about an industry being so busy sort of fighting each other for share of the cake.
01:00:32.880 --> 01:00:33.039
Yeah.
01:00:33.840 --> 01:00:36.159
Not making the cake bigger, yeah, absolutely.
01:00:36.400 --> 01:00:37.920
Yeah, there's a couple of things in there.
01:00:38.079 --> 01:00:45.679
One, I mean, that's the thing I've been banging on about over the last year, is about making the cake bigger, go big or go home.
01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:52.800
Just I think we've not fully remembered how important scale is to everything we do.
01:00:52.880 --> 01:01:02.800
So we've sort of constantly fine-tuning things, and it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, you know, for individual brands and for the industry as a whole.
01:01:03.039 --> 01:01:05.519
So that that's part of the problem.
01:01:05.760 --> 01:01:12.159
There is also snobbery, isn't there, in our business, you know, that we regard certain activities as grubby.
01:01:12.480 --> 01:01:24.719
Um, so I think I think I once actually said in somebody's hearing about the you know grubby business of direct mail, and yes, she's she was a direct mail expert.
01:01:24.960 --> 01:01:29.920
She kept saying over the years, kept saying, you know, yeah, I work at the grubby end of things.
01:01:30.079 --> 01:01:37.440
But yeah, I mean, there's we would all like to be working on really, you know, gorgeous films.
01:01:37.679 --> 01:01:49.599
I mean, it is kind of ironic that as I say, I felt with these five papers I read, that there was quite a lot of media in there, in the broadest sense, including budget.
01:01:49.840 --> 01:02:01.199
And yeah, we do have to remember, I mean, I I have this chart that I sometimes put up about, you know, it's about 50% when you're thinking about ROI, it's about 50-50 media and creative.
01:02:01.360 --> 01:02:08.719
And we do have to remember that the creative bit, the creative content, is really, really important.
01:02:09.119 --> 01:02:14.159
I mean, it won't work without all the budget and the media, but it's really it's that is the magic.
01:02:14.559 --> 01:02:15.519
Great place to end.
01:02:15.599 --> 01:02:16.239
Thank you, Les.
01:02:16.639 --> 01:02:22.480
Thank you for listening to the effectiveness files brought to you in partnership with our friends at TrackSuit.
01:02:22.639 --> 01:02:28.400
You can download any of this year's IPA award-winning papers from the IPA or from WARK.
01:02:28.719 --> 01:02:29.920
Till next time.