Nike win an Oscar for bad luck...

When it comes to asking the question of who not to use for celebrity endorsement, you should definitely ask Nike. Either they have a freaky intuition of how to intentionally attract bad press or maybe they are in on the game? Either way, it's not been a good run for them.

Mock advert on Chip Shop Awards

First Tiger Woods. Then Lance Armstrong. Now Oscar Pistorius. It seems the severity of their bad luck got worse as time went on. But, does this really reflect badly on Nike? What happened to the good old saying - 'there is no such thing as bad press'. This could be said when Tiger Woods was found out to be a serial cheater or arguably when Lance Armstrong admitted to doping, but perhaps it becomes exhausted when an athlete is accused of shooting and killing his girlfriend, or does it?

Nike is a likeable and established brand in sport who have stayed true to their roots. So, it is hard not to feel sorry for them when their support of iconic athletes is tarnished by bad press. However, from my own research it seems negative PR which is generated by external influences such as ambassadors and celebrities is hard to evaluate. In essence, they are merely endorsers of the brand, so the only thing that can be lost is their authority and credibility to the endorsement.

Perhaps, the very act of brands publicly dropping associations has a positive value attached to it. The recent Nike ad featuring Oscar Pistorius with the very unfortunate strap line 'I am the bullet in the chamber' got pulled pretty quickly after the incident but yet the advert has spread like wildfire. I bet my bottom dollar that more people have seen the ad now than who would of done. However, what damage has it really done? Lots of free publicity. Great. But, off the back of a murder inquiry. Not ideal, but so what? Nike did not get accused of killing anyone and the average person is not going to associate Nike with murderers. Needlessly to say, Nike did all they could do and suspended any further dealings with Pistorius. As they did with Armstrong. 

Recent Nike Ad featuring Pistorius

This type of bad press is not unique to the sports industry. Kate Moss' cocaine ordeal in 2005 saw Burberry and Chanel drop her from their books. Rimmel, I guess, saw the funny side. 

This brings to light, yet again, the vulnerability of using people/celebrities/ambassadors to support your brand. Yes, they bring all the values for which made them famous in the first place, but, it also brings the uncontrollable attention of their private lives. Is it worth the risk? 

Naturally, you do not think most people will be accused of premeditated murder or to be found using advanced doping methods. However, the private lives of celebrity endorsers will never represent the actions of the brand, so arguably there is no risk in the first place. Nike has just unfortunately become a text book example of how badly celebrity endorsement can go but I do not think that has come at a cost. 

The Tube's human side...

On the surface it seemed peoples perceptions of the Tube are that it is a cold environment where people are continuously cramped, silent and moody. However, there was an untapped human side to the Tube which was left hidden until now.

It was identified that the tube is the ultimate social network – connecting the lives of Londoners and getting them to the people and places that matter.  So, to mark the 150th anniversary of the Tube, 150 individuals were recruited to represent the best and most touching human stories about how the Tube has connected their lives. Did you know 3 babies were born on the underground in its entire existence? That people have met have met their future wives/husbands on the Tube?

The stories tap into fond memories from the ordinary public to popular celebrities and are being shared with fellow Londoners through a partnership with the Evening Standard. The first article, written by Steven Cording, kicked off the celebration of the anniversary on the 9th January by introducing some of the 150. Steve recounts how the Tube enabled him to meet his future wife through a fateful 'sliding doors' moment.

Introduction to the 150 article within the Evening Standard 09.01.13

Last week, TfL and The Evening Standard took advantage of Valentine's day on the 14th February by celebrating a few of the many love stories that were written. Robin, whose story was the focus of the article, had proposed to his wife on the Tube platform after a date and they have since been married 13 years!

Article on the Evening Standard 150 hub and in print 14.02.13

The diversity and passion of the stories challenge the 'cold' stereotype with experiences ranging from falling in love to dream job interviews. This partnership has enabled London Underground to have a human voice and provides a platform where they can connect with their customers on a more emotional level. This element of the campaign is part of wider activity celebrating the 150th anniversary where TfL are doing various events throughout the year to bring to the forefront the heritage and the future of the Tube.

To see the stories, visit www.standard.co.uk/tube150 and look out for future press releases in the Evening Standard.

Red Bull gives Felix wings

Red Bull firmly have their foot within extreme sports, showcasing their newest project on Sunday night with Austrian-born Felix Baumgartner free-falling 24-miles above the earth's surface. 

Felix Baumgartner pushed the boundaries of human limits by pioneering a new world record for the highest ever sky-dive. The jump involved a 3-hour journey in a stratospheric balloon before jumping out at over 120,000ft above the earth's surface where he reached terminal velocity at over 700mph. 

The world famous jump

It actually took the brand over 6 years to create and develop this idea, which included the world's leading minds in aerospace medicine, engineering, pressure suit development, capsule creation and balloon fabrication. Needlessly to say, it was a ballsy attempt by Felix with rumours that there was a 30s delay on the live feed in case they needed to cut the stream in the event of the worst happening. 

However, the fact that it was a brand initiating this madness is even more ballsy - most brands would have a coronary at the thought of an untested event which risked human life, but this is just part of every-day for Red Bull. Their strategic sponsorship and co-creation of extreme sports aligns with their current brand values of re-vitalising your body and mind and their apt comms positioning of 'Red Bull gives you wings'! 

Twitter conversations took off

This event showed the increasing popularity of content creation as oppose to a sponsorship badging exercise. In fact, Red Bull is a leader within this area as they were the first brand to move from sponsoring an F1 team to actually buying their own - a move which has proven to be very successful, especially in light of Sebastian Vettel's recent win in Korea. 

Creating your own content allows you limitless opportunities in terms of developing something newsworthy. The Stratos stunt alone triggered 3.1m tweets, 8 million tuned in to watch the event live and according to Forbes it generated tens of millions in global brand exposure. 

This clearly gets people engaging with the brand but does it shift enough cans? Only a sneaky-peek at Red Bull's sales data after an event like this would be able to show us how much it drives people to buy their products.

All in all, Red Bull is certainly leading the way in terms of innovative and mass engaging content, however, they have set a high bench mark - not only for other brands, but even for themselves!

Well done Felix!

@mecaccess @rebeca6gonzalez
www.mecaccess.com

Olympic ambush

Since the announcement in 2005 that London was going to be the Olympic hosts for the 2012 games, brands and business were biting at the bit to know how they were going to capitalise from it. With the lead-up to the games and after the official national sponsors were announced in 2007, many legal restrictions have been developed in order to stop unofficial brands from associating themselves with the games through their marketing communications. A local Stratford cafe preempted the arrival of the games by naming his cafe 'Cafe Olympic' post the 2005 announcement. Subsequently he was asked to change the name of his cafe due to legal restrictions around the word 'Olympic'. Needlessly to say, he has probably done better off the back of the publicity which surrounded this story.

The newly renamed 'Cafe Lympic'

Ambush marketing is a hot topic for LOCOG at the moment and is defined as; a marketing strategy where advertisers associate themselves with a particular event without paying a sponsorship fee. Although, the term conjures up images of camouflage men running around in combat doing surprise attacks with branded paraphernalia. It comes about as the Olympic committee try desperately to protect and please their official sponsors of the games. As a result, there have been many articles around the legal restrictions of businesses using Olympic signs, logos and the like, which is clearly outlined  in the 'Olympic rules'; of which, rule 40, uses the term 'ambush marketing' 7 times! 

Rule 40 is essentially the LOCOG 'black-out' period, where non-official sponsors of the games are not allowed to use any Olympic athletes in any of their marketing communications. Any brand found in breach of this may be subject to a fine, as well as the athlete being banned from the Olympics or disqualified from their Olympic accreditation. The restrictions on the black-out are so tight that official sponsors have to request permission to use any of the athletes within their marketing communications during this period. LOCOG have provided this very 'useful' illustration as to what marketing communication is acceptable;

The well illustrated 'black-out' Dos and Donts

Somehow, though, it can become a bit 'obsessive' when it comes to determining what is classified as 'ambush marketing'. Currently, no branded products are allowed to be brought into the Olympic village, but how far does this go? Your clothes? Your bag? Apparently yes. Lord Coe, chairman of LOCOG said in an interview that if you are seen wearing a Pepsi t-shirt, you may not be allowed to enter into the Olympic village but you may be able to get away with wearing Nike trainers. He further went on to say that there are restrictions on "any objects or clothing bearing political statements or overt commercial identification intended for 'ambush marketing'". This contradicted the initial statement of LOCOG who said that people visiting the venue can wear what they want.

Nike 'Olympic' campaign

These rules and restrictions have been about since ambush marketing took center stage in the 1996 Olympics, when Nike had given out branded Union Jack flags to fans visiting the stadium in an attempt to ambush the official sponsor 'Reebok'. However, Nike's clever marketing campaign during the run-up to the 2012 Olympics but before the LOCOG 'black-out', meant that they came out as the top brand people associated with the Olympics despite them not being an official sponsor. 

This shows that the power of the Olympic logo and slogans are not that powerful after all! Therefore, as true in all sponsorship, a 'badging' exercise does not achieve cut-through - it is how you engage with your consumers on their emotional level which will get you the association. 


The premise of the restrictions put in place to prevent ambush marketing are completely justified considering the games would not go ahead without the support and financial backing of the official sponsors. However, due to the pressures put on by official brands, LOCOG have become a tad overzealous and paranoid as some of their public comments and statements around the matter seem rather ridiculous. The restrictions are becoming so tight that it is affecting local businesses who not not trying to make money off the Olympics rather just trying to get into the spirit of the games. Essentially, LOCOG should be renamed The Fun Police.

@mecaccess @rebeca6gonzalez 

http://www.mecaccess.com/

Scribbling sense #Squared

Did you know that people hire graphic scribblers to draw out dialog which is said live at meetings, discussions and presentations? They are hired in order to produce a visual representation of key points and messages from the speakers. We had Cara Holland, a freelance graphic scribbler, come in and show us how it is done. 

Example of Cara's work

Visualising dialog is very hard; you have to think about the core message you are trying to convey. In order to do this you have to strip back waffly paragraphs and sentences to one key message. Once you have your sentence or your key core message, you have to underline the key words you need to draw in order to depict the message. It is very easy to get carried away with metaphors and cryptic messages in order to release your inner artist, however, you have to keep it legible to anyone who is reading it. People have to be able to look at your drawing and immediately understand the message you are trying to convey. It has to be said that my drawing abilities are not the best but Cara reaffirmed that you do not have to be a good artist, in fact its not about art at all, it's about being able to communicate your message through drawings. 

Another Example of Cara's work

This workshop really helped us bring out our creativity but it also made us think about the messages we communicate to people every day. Suddenly when you are made to think about the core of what you are saying, the key messages are really quite simple and easy to find. Needlessly to say, it looks like a very fun job but one that takes a lot of experience and skill to become good at. In essence, it's like learning a new language. If you are interested in more of Cara's work her website is www.graphicchange.co.uk

My attempt at drawing my key message

Our constant companion #Squared2012

Mary Meeker believes that by 2014 there will be more people accessing the internet through their mobile than their desktops. The UK is certainly edging towards that way with 51% of the population owning a smartphone, 93% of which access the internet through their mobile phone. Mobile internet is certainly not going to replace the desktop, however, learning how people use technology within their day-to-day lives is crucial within the world of advertising.


I hear people often say 'this is the year of mobile' - which people convince me it is. However, people also say 'every year they it's the year of the mobile but it never is' which then makes me think, maybe it's not? Though, after a presentation by one of Google's top advertisers for mobile communication, I have been more inclined to think that maybe this is the year for mobile advertisement.


The mobile revolution was started by Steve jobs - he brought about the iPhone; the most internet friendly smartphone which changed the way in which we use our phones. This revolutionised the market, which later Samsung and Motorola fully embraced, bringing some tough competition to the market.


The mobile has now become our constant companion, something we check more than we think we do. In fact, on average our phones are never more than 80cm away from our body. This has brought about habits such as dual screening, where we watch TV with our devices at hand; 54% of people actively use their smartphone whilst watching TV.


We know how often people use their smartphones - think about how often you unlock your phone, it is something we use throughout the day at different touchpoints - but it's knowing how and when people use it, in order to determine whether to invest in mobile advertising. It's about knowing when to jump on the band wagon. For example, purchases made via a mobile phone usually have low price points - 28% of items bought via a smartphone include flights, concerts and trains.  This is where Easyjet were smart to develop an app which allowed people to buy and manage bookings via their mobile phone as a result of some valuable market insights of an emerging market. On the other hand, if you sell luxury cars, you might not necessarily sell your cars through the phone but you might direct them to a show room.

There is also a trend of brands creating apps just because everyone else is, but this is dangerous territory and could be counter-effective, The point of the app is for people to use it regularly, which statistics say that we only have maximum of 8 apps which we use actively. There are too many mundane apps which people do not use or want, but brands feel they should be there. If anything, we are starting to experience 'app fatigue', so making sure your brand is relevant for an app is absolutely crucial - they need to be engaging as that's why we have apps in the first place. 


I do feel however, every website should be mobile optimised - to allow people the choice to find out more about the brand via mobile should they wish too - after all, you do not want to be missing out on potential visits to your site. A staggering statistic shows that 40% of people will go to a competitor website if they suffered a bad mobile experience - so this in fact can tarnish your reputation as a brand! Despite Easyjet having a brilliant app, they still have not mobile optimised their site - which suggests to me that they have missed a trick there.


Some tips about how to go about mobile optimising your site are;
- Simplify navigation
- Be thumb friendly
- Design for visibility (use of colours, plenty of space, 3D effects)
- Make it accessible
- Make it easy to convert
- Listen, Learn and Iterate
(for a full personalised report - howtogetmo.com)


In all, mobile advertising is a great place to be, with some very strong statistics backing this up - but making sure you understand how people use their mobiles will help you develop a mobile advertising campaign relevant to your audience. You can get mobile statistics for free at ourmobileplanet.com.

'We don't pay for perfection, we pay for non-crapness' #Squared2012

In advertising, it is our job to make consumers aware of brands, services and products. It is the job of the brand, service or product to fulfill the needs of their consumers. But what makes a consumer need and want them? What makes the consumer decide on a particular brand, product or service?


Rory Sutherland, vice-chairman of Ogilvy One, came to talk to us at Squared about the irrational intelligence of behavioural design. I have touched on this previously in behavioural economics, but I am going to bring another theory to the table - the dual system theory.

Evans and Frankish believed that the brain has two systems - System 1 and System 2 (see table). These two cognitive spectrums of the human mind are in constant battle when we come to making decisions. The way to look at our brain is to think of a rider (System 2) on an elephant (System 1) - the rider thinks it has a plan but ultimately he is not in total control. All our feelings and motivations are determined by what gets filtered by the ‘elephant’ - this processing power is deeply uneven. In neuroscience, decisions are taken elsewhere in the brain, but the rational side of the brain tries to make post-hock rational sense of the decision. Ultimately, we are very bad at making decisions, ‘we do what is convenient and then we post-rationalise’.


System 1 is do to with our belief - it is our instinctive feelings. It has a tendency to see everything in context, whereby we see things in light of our beliefs; this is what Stanovich referes to as 'fundamental computational bias'. However, sometimes there is a need to decontextualise a problem in order to make more rational and logical decisions - this is the primary function of System 2. Businesses focus on talking to the rider, whereas marketeers focus on talking to the elephant.


Businesses often believe that you need to change the attitude of the consumers and this will change their behaviour. This is not necessarily true. The trick is to change their behaviour and then their attitude will change - if the elephant turns right, the rider will rationalise as to why it did so. Humans are very good at post-rationalisation, we always attribute success to a grandiose strategic design and not a fluke, it is this idea of proportionality, big effects = big causes.

However, some of the best creations come from small ideas. In evolution, there is no grand design, sometimes it is about changing smaller things overtime and seeing what happens - progress happens through little improvements. The invention of the generic coffee cup lid for all coffee sizes was a small solution yet it changed everything - we no longer have to search for the 'small', 'medium' or 'large' lid, the difference is in the volume size of the cup, not the rim. Yet, no one gets a noble prize for a coffee cup lid?


Many businesses and marketeers are not doctors in psychology, nor do they use it as a primary mechanic in making their decisions. Most successes and fundamental truths are stumbled upon by accident. Who would have thought that McDonalds, an average burger company, would become one of the most internationally recognised burger companies in the world? The truth is, people don’t want the best burger in the world, they want the same as the last one they had. McDonalds is standardised to military levels. It is pretty safe to eat something that you have eaten before - humans are socially heuristic, you eat what you know it safe. People pay a premium on reassurance - not perfection, just non-crapness. Essentially, brands are a proxy for non-shitness. Although our System 2 brain would massively disagree with this, our System 1 brain tells us 'it's OK, McDonalds won't kill us.'


We need to start thinking more heuristically, so that we can target the elephant more empathetically and strategically. Intuitive judgement is nothing to be sniffed at, some of the best chess players in the world play heuristically - not probabilistically. Rational thinking can cloud creativity, though this is not to say that an element of rationality should not be included when creating advertisements and campaigns. However, being arbitrary can very, very valuable.


Essentially, when designing advertisements and campaigns, think heuristically and target the elephant. You will win.


Rory Sutherland was one of the most inspirational speakers I have ever had the enjoyment of listening to. Follow him on twitter @rorysutherland.


Lesson 17: It is possible to be irrational but highly intelligent, as it is to be rational but illogical and stupid.