Despite my attempts to mislead you, I think this week's question was just too easy for you. I did try and throw you a red herring – detailing where the advert was placed – but you spotted that the new version on a white background was easier to read and therefore more likely to be read.
Last week, I referred to 'fundraising truths' and one of them is that reversed out type can lose you up to half your readers. Of course, you might choose to ignore that, but you'd need a good reason. I like the way David Ogilvy put it (in Ogilvy on Advertising) - he knew a fair bit about press advertising after all.
"I am sometimes attacked for imposing 'rules'. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hate rules. All I do is report on how consumers react to different stimuli...I may say to an art director, 'Research suggests that if you set the copy in black type on a white background, more people will read it than if you set it in white type on a black background'. A hint perhaps, but scarcely a rule."
I wonder how long the art director who ignored such useful 'hints' would have lasted.
Earlier in the same piece, Ogilvy says "When I write an advertisement, I don't want you to tell me that you find it 'creative'. I want you to find it so interesting you buy the product." Wise words in this particular case.
As an aside, placement on a good page of the newspaper would also have been likely to increase readership. High traffic pages include: the front page (of course), the page with the crossword and the television listings. Placing the advert on a page with a related article would also lift response.
One last installment to last week's question, before I hand over to the next quiz master, the very public spirited @damianobroin.
I think we all agreed last week that this Oxfam advert isn't the best, but it appeared in a slightly different form in this Monday's Guardian (see below). Today's question is, why might we reasonably believe that more people would read this version than the previous one? (It appeared in page 23, bottom right hand corner).
If I learnt anything last week, it's that you lot like a prize, so something as yet undetermined will be awarded to the best answer to appear in the comments below or a tweet. Answer goes up at 4, like last week.
Since posting the inaugural Friday Fundraisers' quiz question, I've been wondering just how brave/outspoken I'll be when giving the answer. I'm still not sure, but here goes:
There is, as several tweets have suggested, more than one 'fundraising truth' which seem to have been disregarded when coming up with both of these adverts. Many things surprised me about them, but there was one thing I just kept shaking my head at - the donation forms.
Making response as easy as possible is a basic in fundraising. When an advert is placed on the left hand side of the spread (as Save the Children's is), the coupon should be placed on the left hand side so that it can be cut or torn out with two cuts or tears (one up and one across). I realise that the scan, which you can see again below, makes it hard to see the placement, but you can just see the fold of the paper running down the right hand side of the image.
Oxfam's wasn't placed on the edge, but clearly goes out of its way to make cutting out the response device difficult with four cuts in total. Now I've a feeling that the person/people selling in this idea will have said the cut is integral to their clever creative idea, but (and here's the brave/foolish outspoken bit) it's a bad idea anyway. And I think it's fair to say that both of these adverts fly in the face of a great deal of fundraising common sense.
Here's a few other points that people have mentioned:
Save the Children - It's powerful subject matter, but there's no eye contact in the image, the child pictured isn't named (missing out on any connection with her) and an uninvolving headline doesn't help.
Oxfam - This must be part of a test, as it seems their tv ads are back on track (See here). But I find it hard to understand why anyone would respond to an advert that asks a donor for a commitment, yet does so little to meet their needs. (Click here for more on donor needs.)
Both adverts feature Haiti, but neither tackles a key barrier to giving, which is 'I've already given to Haiti'.
One more thing to note: these adverts were actually placed back to back. So if you respond to Oxfam's ad, you'll have a Save the Children donation form on the back and vice versa. There's no way of responding to both unless you have a photocopier to hand. That's probably not the charity's fault, but I'd say the newspaper has a few questions to answer.
Finally, the best way to judge these adverts is on their response, which I don't have access to. If anyone would like to share the results, that would be great, but for now I'll just wish both charities luck with these campaigns.
If you read this post, you'll know that I think attention to detail is important because it can often make a significant difference to response.
Before I came to Bluefrog, I worked at RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People) and it was there that I started learning about fundraising, from people like Alan Gosschalk, Richard Verden (now at Red Cross) and Allan Thompson (NDCS). At the time, we had a banker cold pack that was impossible to beat, so we spent a lot of time making improvements to it. During this time, I learnt many 'fundraising truths'. We called them 'fundraising truths' because many fundraisers seem to know them, although I've never seen them written down in one place. Nevertheless, they're things that are always worth doing.
For example:
Long copy
A window BRE
A separate donation form (ideally A4)
Not rocket science.
A few years ago, we retested some of these 'fundraising truths' and guess what? They all won in the tests we'd set up.
And so on to the Friday fundraisers' quiz question. Both the charity press adverts that appeared in Monday's Guardian went against a 'fundraising truth'. Can you see what it is?
The scan makes this question rather more tricky than it actually is (if you've still got a copy of the newspaper, take a look at that instead). But I'll resist the temptation to give you any more of a clue and I'll put the answer up at 4pm anyway.
Every writer has a Muse. Oscar Wilde was visited by the
Green Fairy – “a glass of absinthe is as poetical as anything in the world”.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge turned to opium to “bring forth Thoughts, hidden
before”.
Sadly, the only bottled Green Fairy I could find in
Bluefrog’s kitchens was, well, green Fairy Liquid. And no sign of any opium
either. So when seeking inspiration for my first ‘Creative Blog’ post, I turned
to a more prosaic but similarly moreish Muse – YouTube.
My attention was caught by a participant in the recent
Corporate Strongman Competition (entry fee – $3 million), the Superbowl Ad
Break.
Amongst the adverts flexing and posing in front of millions of Americans
was this one, for a new ‘Clean Diesel’ Audi:
At first glance, I was amused. Then baffled. Deploying a
pernickety Green Police is a strange way of selling a green car – both mocking
the environmental movement and inviting the viewer to join it.
Audi’s Green Police State just seems to reinforce the
worrying but widely held view that climate change is a Convenient Excuse for governments to impinge on
people’s freedoms and meddle with every aspect of their lives.
The New York Times went along with this interpretation, calling the advert “misguided” and saying
that it put “the mental in environmental”. Frenzied YouTube commenters, like Mr
or Ms Hornet, see it as a glimpse of the Orwellian future and a vindication of
their green scepticism:
On closer inspection, I’m not sure if Audi have scored an
own goal. I think they’ve just approached advertising about environmental
issues in a typically groundbreaking way.
Groundbreaking in tone – with its power-chord soundtrack and
hyperbolic surrealism (the sniffer anteater), ‘Green Police’ is funny. Which is
a rare quality in adverts that tackle the subject of climate change (compare
the worthy tone of the latest Prius campaign).
And groundbreaking in target – Audi are aiming at people who
are neither environmental militants nor climate change sceptics, who don’t have
a problem with being green but do object to being told how they should live
their life.
“Sell a ‘Clean Diesel’ Audi to climate change apathetics”.
Quite a brief for the creative team. After a heavy session of absinthe, opium
or YouTube, I’m sure they pondered the dependably illuminating question:
“What is going to stop our target from doing what we want
them to do?”
And I imagine the answers would have been:
“Because they think an environmentally-friendly car might
compromise their driving experience.”
“Because they do not identify or want to be associated with
stereotypical green-car owners (as seen in South Park).”
Rather than shying away from these challenging answers,
‘Green Police’ addresses them in the tone most appropriate to the target – as
all effective advertising should do.
Instead of scaring or preaching, the advert deploys humour –
something that Superbowl watchers (largely male Bud Light drinkers) can relate
and respond to.
It shows them that they can adhere to environmentalist
principles (the Green Police approves the car). And at the same time, it
reassures them that they can still differentiate themselves from ‘tree-huggers’
and have fun (the grinning driver speeds off, leaving policemen on electric
scooters choking on his (clean) exhaust fumes).
At this point, I should sound the ‘shoehorn alert’.
Because whether your brief is for a Superbowl TV advert or a
warm DM pack, it always helps to ask the question I mentioned earlier – “What
is going to stop our target from doing what we want them to do?”
What we want people to do here at Bluefrog is, invariably,
give to a charity. And the reasons why they might not are, conveniently, listed
here. Only by
assuaging these doubts and suspicions, directly and honestly, will creative
work be a success.
For a face-to-face script, say, that could mean immediately
addressing the donor’s frustrations with ‘chugging’ in a friendly and open way:
“Now, I know you think I’m just another out-of-work actor,
getting paid on commission to sign you up for a cause I don’t care about. Well,
all that is true. Apart from the last bit. I really do care about this cause.
Let me tell you why.”
(Just one hastily written example. But you get the idea.)
The more bravely and adventurously you tackle a donor’s
concerns, the better. Your creative work, like the ‘Green Police’ advert, might
look a bit different, or raise a few eyebrows, or even be misunderstood by some
people. But other people will get it, and respond to it. And chances are,
they’ll be the people you’re aiming at.
Right, that’s it from me. I’m off back to YouTube. Aline
will be back here soon. Thanks for dropping by.
In a desperate attempt to find a snack to enliven the miserable dark days of February, I stumbled across a potential 'Lovemark'.
If you read this post, you'll probably recall that 'Lovemarks' are the brainchild of Kevin
Roberts, CEO Worldwide of Saatchi and Saatchi. In Lovemarks - the future beyond brands, he states his belief that brands have become tired and need to evolve. Although charities are not a major feature of the book, the values he ascribes to 'Lovemarks' are exactly what good causes need to aim for if they are to hold a special place in people's hearts.
Here's a quick reminder of some of the ways 'Lovemarks' rise above traditional brands.
BRANDv LOVEMARK
Information Relationship
GenericPersonal
Recognised by consumers Loved by people
DefinedInfused
StatementStory
ValuesSpirit
And now let's road-test a product which takes us a step closer to our sector – it's Tropical Wholefoods.
Their dried banana pieces caught my eye in a shop which is a lunchtime stroll away from Bluefrog offices. The packaging is fabulous. Subsequent googling revealed it to have been designed by a company called Shimmer.
Here's the front.
It can be a punishing job researching material for this blog, but in this case I can report that the dried banana pieces are pleasingly sweet and chewy. And when I turned to the back of the packaging, I discovered the
product's extra goodness.
Hopefully, it's shown big enough (below) for you to see that the illustrations bring to life the benefits of trade to the whole community, with children in school and more food being cultivated.
The copy gives a taste of some interesting sounding work, very much like what we'd share with donors to an international development organisation. It mentions, for example, that the ripe bananas are picked, hand-sliced and dried in specially designed solar driers.
I also bought the dried oyster mushrooms in the same range. They're cultivated by coffee growers in Colombia, using another innovative technique – sowing seed in biomass that is a by-product of coffee cultivation and usually discarded.
So far, so good. Great product, attractive packaging, innovative work – but does Tropical Wholefoods qualify as a 'Lovemark'? I followed the link to the website to find out whether the values displayed in the packaging are reflected ('infused') online. Would I find the makings of a 'lasting relationship'?
I'd like to say otherwise, but I was a bit disappointed. The promise made on the packaging wasn't entirely fulfilled. As you may be able to see from the extract below, the information on the website is decidedly flat – especially when you consider how interesting it could have been. The 'story' aspect of a 'Lovemark' is missing.
The blog, which you can click on from the home page, is slightly better and there are nice features, like an open invitation to visit the company. So a 'Lovemark'? Perhaps not quite yet.
As charities, all we have to offer donors is the experience of giving - hopefully, a fulfilling and life enhancing one. We don't have any banana chips to hide behind, tasty or otherwise.
So I'm reminded how important it is to convey innovation, good ideas and intelligent work. Donors, even more than consumers, want to align themselves with an inspiring and innovative brand.
And so onto another example, where the brand promise is fulfilled by the experience.
Over 43,000 people have watched this clip of MSF's inflatable hospital going up in Haiti. If you haven't seen it already, there's no fancy editing or commentary. There's even a section in French without translation. You just see the hospital going up. The last person I showed it to watched the full six minutes in silence, then turned to me and said "That's so incredibly neat".
To finish, one last link to a post by Jeff Brooks. If you haven't read it yet, it shares the best starting point when thinking about brand: 'Your 'look' is not your brand: What you do and who you are is your brand'.
