Minimum Pricing for alcohol looks like the most contentious social marketing issue to emerge in recent years. While at face value the case for minimum pricing might seem fairly straightforward, scratching the surface reveals a far more complex set of issues which could throw up real challenges for the plan. Account Director and healthcare and social marketing specialist Emily-Jane Hadley takes a look behind the headlines and comes up with some potentially controversial conclusions.

The introduction of minimum pricing of alcohol in England has the potential to be one of the most contentious pieces of social engineering ever undertaken in Britain if it does eventually pass onto the statute books.

A controversial view, possibly? But if you look at the problem that lurks behind the populist headlines, it is actually pretty easy to come up with some strong supporting evidence to underpin this somewhat contentious viewpoint.

Over the past few years the government has significantly changed its approach to addressing health and social problems which has lead to an explosion in social marketing techniques. Gone are hectoring tones of ‘x is bad for you’ and ‘stop doing this or you’re going to die’ and in have come much more subtle yet effective techniques that gently persuade us to change our behaviours. So it is interesting that the government seems to have dropped all of these and gone back to the big stick of legislation to address the alcohol issue.

Some may argue that legislators are being driven by the success of the smoking ban in public places and how that helped reduce smoking prevalence.

But the motivations and behaviours sitting behind that are very different from a minimum pricing approach for alcohol. For starters a lot more people drink than smoke and a large proportion of people drink sensibly.

For seconds, we’ve been educated for years that smoking damages your health so a ban on smoking in public places was obvious and logical. But drinking is different on so many levels.

Britain – The Binger of Europe

Let’s not deny it, Britain has a problem and anyone who has ventured out in the UK’s cities of a weekend could conclude pretty quickly that binge and anti-social drinking are big issues. And there are medical and government experts aplenty to back this view up. According to the Health Secretary, alcohol abuse costs the NHS around £2.7 billion every year.

That said, a much less publicised fact is that UK alcohol consumption per head of population is in long term and significant decline. If you look at ONS data you’ll see the amount drunk by the average British adult has fallen every year since 2002.

With some groups the reduction is substantial. If you take men aged 16-24, arguably the group who are most often portrayed as the perpetrators of binge drinking, the statistics are even more surprising. In 1999 this group was averaging 26 units a week.

Ten years later in 2009 this had fallen to 15 units according to the ONS. So is the overall societal problem as big as government and healthcare professionals are saying?

The short answer to anyone hitting the town on a Saturday night is probably yes. But if as a society we are drinking less than we used to, why is thee binge drinking problem now bigger than it ever appears to have been?

As an interesting aside, it is worth looking to certain countries in Europe for a comparison. Southern and Mediterranean Europe are often cited as models of socially responsible drinking. Alcohol goes hand in hand with food and as such Southern Europe doesn’t have the same binge drinking problems as the UK. This is even more interesting if you consider that alcohol in Southern Europe can often be found much cheaper than in the UK.

However if you venture into Northern Europe the picture is somewhat different. In certain Scandinavian countries, alcohol is significantly more expensive than in the UK. In Sweden sale of alcohol is a government regulated monopoly in the take home trade. Do high prices and tight control of distribution mean they don’t have problems? The answer for the UK government, sadly, is that despite this level of regulation, binge drinking is still a problem in certain parts of Scandinavia.

Coming back to the UK….

To suggest the focal point of the problem is excessive drinking and violence in public would be a mistake. It is certainly the most obvious visual manifestation of the problem, but it is just one element of the problem.

Stop Wining It Might save your Life

Equally concerning for the government is the long term problem quietly ticking away in the background in the shape of middle class Britain and its love of wine. This group aren’t fighting in the streets or vomiting in bars, but they are storing up a massive hidden health problem for the future.

If you accept Britain’s binge problem exists on two levels, how would a minimum price of 40p a unit actually go towards changing the behaviour of both of these groups, if at all?

Minimum Pricing Unlikely To Change Behaviour in Bars

First let’s look at weekends in bars and streets throughout the land. The brutal reality is that a minimum unit price of 40p per unit will do next to nothing to change the way we drink in bars and the reason for that is simple.

The vast majority of alcohol on sale in bars is significantly more expensive than 40p a unit simply because of the on-costs associated with running a bar, so 40p a unit isn’t even going to make a dent in changing our behaviour once we get to a bar. Given the clamp down on irresponsible promotions over the past few years, the idea of people getting wasted in happy hours is increasingly an urban myth. So minimum pricing is unlikely to change our behaviour once we’re in bar. Where it may have an impact is in reducing what the social scientists are terming “pre-loading”.

Pre-load, Aim, Fire

Pre-loading is where consumers drink before they go out and are able to benefit from supermarket prices and promotions. The net effect of this is by the time these consumers hit the streets they’ve almost certainly exceeded the recommended daily intake and many will already be in a pretty poor way. So at face value, minimum pricing could have an impact in helping to reduce pre-loading which could reduce the problem being stored up for when these consumers finally get to the bar. It sounds like a good idea……but…..

It all depends what they are drinking when they’re pre-loading. If their tipple of choice is cheap alcohol or a product on price promotion, then minimum pricing will potentially have an impact on behaviours. But it is not the universal panacea some experts are saying it is, because it all depends on what people are pre-loading on and whether their drink of pre-loading choice already falls above the minimum price threshold.

Hitting The Middle Class Tipplers

Which brings us neatly onto the middle class tipplers. The bottle-of-wine-a-night at home brigade aren’t fighting or vomiting in public, but are sure as hell damaging themselves and in the process storing up one massive health bill for the future. If you accept the research and urban myth that wine accounts for a significant chunk of this excessive consumption in a home environment, what impact would minimum pricing have on wine sales? Answer, unless it is on a significant price promotion, not that much because a lot of wine is already priced above the proposed 40p per unit.

So when you examine the facts you start to realise that minimum pricing is far from being the magic bullet that could help us beat our binge drinking addiction. Sadly there is no panacea and the reality is addressing this issue is far more complex and will require all parties to work much more closely together and look at an educational approach rather than all stick and no carrot. Kids at school get education on drugs and sex, but how much emphasis is put on responsible consumption of alcohol? That sounds like an idea worth drinking to.

The very mention of EU directives is enough to turn the blood cold among many marketing professionals, but unfortunately the EU Privacy Directive is not something that the marketing world can ignore. It landed around a year ago with all sorts of threats about restricting the ability of marketeers to track consumer behaviour online. Since then brand owners have been given twelve months to get their house in order and now it is a fact of life for all marketeers using online.

With the Directive now in force, Digital Account Director Katie Livesley takes a look at how things have shaped up in the first year and what it means for digital marketeers.

When the Privacy Directive arrived everyone was predicting doom and gloom around tracking consumers and their online behaviours. Inevitably things settled down once the media hype died, and now it has become law, it is worth looking how the Directive is actually impacting on businesses.

First things first though. It is worth revisiting what sits behind this seemingly opaque piece of Euro bureaucracy. Just what is the EU Privacy Directive?

Like all EU documents the bureaucrats of Brussels tend to like creating long letters rather than short ones but in very simple terms it can be boiled down as follows.

The Revised Privacy Directive – a Definition

In April 2011, in the context of increasing concern over the use of customer data online, the EU introduced a self-regulatory directive to codify standards and enhance transparency and user control for online behavioural advertising.

The 2011 framework was based on a ‘Notify and Opt Out’ approach. The revised directive places a greater emphasis on online businesses to get ‘Informed Consent’ from users.

Both the Government and ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) have taken a pragmatic view in terms of the Directive’s implementation. Both bodies recognise the importance of the Directive but appreciate the Directive’s guidelines are confusing and will take time to implement.

So that’s the lesson over on interpreting Euro law. More importantly is what does it mean for businesses in practice. Again, the EU does seem to specialise in making the complex, even more complex. I’m no lawyer, but in very simple terms the Directive has the potential to impact on businesses in a number of ways and there are ways to ensure compliance and good practice.

While at face value EU Directives generally feel like draconian pieces of all reaching legislation, the reality is actually somewhat different. Enlightened companies could take the view that The Directive should be perceived by businesses as an opportunity to show their customers that they are safe and responsible to engage with online.

It is also a chance for brands to show their customers that they understand the importance of offering a personalised user experience when it comes to advertising.

In simple terms, comply with the Directive and your customers are more likely to want to do business with you because you are targeting them in a relevant way with the appropriate permissions in place.

So what exactly do you have to do to ensure compliance and in so doing, hopefully create greater levels of engagement with your customers.

Three Steps to Compliance

While there are no clear guidelines on how to comply with the Directive, have a look at what your business can be doing around the Directive. Generally speaking there are three areas to consider.

Control

One of the most important elements of the Directive is to show that you are taking steps to ensure your users are as informed as possible as to how you use their data. The first step is completing a full audit on the Cookies you use on site.

Communicate

Be clear and transparent in terms of how you use Cookies. Ensure your Privacy Policy is up to date and contains all information on how you use Cookies both on and offsite. It’s worth noting that all communication should provide users with opt-out mechanisms.

Consider

While there are no clear guidelines- as yet – as to what equates to ‘Informed Consent’, it’s worth beginning to think of ways you could achieve it. You could send an email to all your customers explaining your approach to Cookies, or you may decide to host a banner on site giving your customers the opportunity to access more information on your Cookie policy.

Whatever you do, the most important thing is to be seen to be doing something in line with the Directive rather than burying your head in the sand which may be very tempting with something as obscure as a piece of EU legislation.

The power of TV and the emotional reaction it can provoke has always led to those ‘did you see……..’ conversations amongst friends, families and colleagues. Commonly known in the media world as the ‘Water Cooler effect’, opinions (both positive and negative) are regularly shared on the latest plot line in Corry, the next wannabee on the X Factor or the latest bizarre episode of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.

However, the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut that is Social Media (and Twitter in particular) means the ‘Water Cooler effect’ is moving into the digital space, in real time.

Viewers can now post their comments and opinions on a programme before it’s even ended, which can often affect whether the programme is a success or failure. In 2011 the hype surrounding My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding on Channel 4 was completely driven by Twitter and real time commentary. This programme went on to be Channel 4′s biggest series of the year, with each episode growing on the previous one and the final episode of the series delivering an audience of 8.8 million.

TV companies have been quick to embrace Social and now actively encourage the viewer to Tweet their opinions on a specific subject. This isn’t the preserve of the 16-24 generation either, but extends across the entire social sphere where even David Dimbleby reads out Tweets on Question Time.

Perhaps the most notable example of broadcasters embracing Social interaction is the recent announcement by Channel 4 that they are going to launch a new linear TV station, where the programme content is predominantly decided by social commentary. 4Seven is the first new channel from Channel 4 since 2005 and will give viewers a chance to catch up on programmes from the last seven days that have been talked about in social media, by bloggers and commentators and among Channel 4 viewers.

Added to this, Sky Media have recently acquired a stake in Zeebox, an App that fuses live programming and social networking. Available on iPad, iPhone and Online, Zeebox serves up social media feeds via Twitter and Facebook. It was put into practice on the final episode of Sky1′s Got To Dance where, as well as being able to interact with friends and other fans, users could access exclusive live backstage footage of the contestants.

It’s clear from these initiatives that TV is entering a new age where digital technology has given viewers more control and a much louder voice regarding the programmes they watch. The dialogue between viewers and broadcasters is now immediate, but it’s important to acknowledge that at the heart of this new social commentary sits programming taken from Linear TV.

The fact that viewers feel compelled to comment and engage with others about a specific programme shows that there’s still a lot of love for TV. It stirs opinions, emotion and laughter and can bring together friends and strangers alike, sat hundreds of miles apart. Viewers love the rhythm and structure provided by a TV schedule, which is often used as a cultural signpost to the week; thanks to the Social activity on Facebook and Twitter, X Factor on a Saturday night is now more of an event than a programme.

Yet TV needs Social as much as Social needs TV. A positive noise about a programme can do wonders for its ratings, as seen with My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding. 4Seven will take this even further by repeating programmes and compiling the schedule purely on the basis of audience and blogger demand. So, more than ever before, this places the onus at the door of broadcasters and production companies to be brave with programming, continue to innovate and above all, entertain the public! Which can be no bad thing for the future health of TV!

Facebook has arguably been the one story of business optimism in the current economic climate. Its IPO debut gave it a value of more than $100bn and the story of how a Harvard geek has gone to become one of the youngest billionaires on the planet in just eight years is the stuff of Hollywood fantasies (as well as Hollywood realities given the success of the blockbuster The Social Network).

Social Media Director Robin Wilson takes a look at the potential challenges Facebook will face now it will be under the continual scrutiny of public ownership and as falling share prices already show it could be construed that it has failed to live up to the hype.

Can you imagine the euphoria at Facebook Towers on the morning of its debut on NASDAQ?

Apparently the listing will generate an additional $1.5bn in income tax revenues into the state of California such is its scale. So from that you can deduce there are an awful lot of wealthy geeks living it up round Silicon Valley. But having achieved such a stellar valuation where next for the social network that has become woven into the fabric of our lives?

For some financial analysts they believe the only way is down and that Facebook is grossly overvalued and this appears to have been played out with the falling share price post listing. Whether they actually believe that, or whether they are talking the share down to allow them to short the stock and make a wheelbarrow full of cash is a totally different issue.

However, one thing is certain. Facebook is going to face massive levels of public and investor scrutiny if it is to continue to justify a price tag of this magnitude, even at the reduced share price. Which really does beg the question of where next for Facebook?

If you accept that stock prices are essentially forward looking estimates of the future performance of the company, you can quickly identify several key challenges they are going to face on the assumption they are going to have to deliver some pretty astonishing revenues to justify the valuation in the future.

The first big question is where will the next one billion users come from who will drive growth and therefore revenues?. The simple and somewhat glib answer is from emerging economies and the most obvious being China. However the Chinese authorities are not known for their welcoming attitude towards Western social and tech companies so that may stymie that one. The other thing to consider is that in emerging economies there is not the same penetration of computers and smartphones as there is in the developed world. There may be a massive untapped audience but unless they can access a computer or smartphone they’re not going to be on Facebook anytime soon.

So acquiring the next one billion customers is undoubtedly a challenge. But closely linked to that is the pressure on Facebook to deliver revenues as well as new customers. The call for revenue means they are going to have to strike a careful balance between customer/user experience and the need to generate money.

There is a fine line that can be easily crossed and if consumers feel they are being overly exploited to enable Facebook to meet its numbers, things could get interesting pretty quickly.

The third interesting issue for Facebook watchers is that of mobile devices. More people than ever are choosing to access Facebook via mobile devices and if they’re paying for data downloads they don’t want to be bombarded with ads and brand messages. This puts Facebook in a potentially interesting position. Namely how can it generate revenues when the increasing channel of choice for access is one where consumers don’t want commercial messages served to them because it eats their data allowance? At present there are some simple ads and offers served over mobile when accessing Facebook from a handheld device, but it is nowhere near as extensive as the desktop experience. So the techies are going to have to work out how to monetise this growing channel for access without disenfranchising consumers in the process.

And finally the other interesting challenge they face in the chase for revenues is the growing number of companies and employers who are banning staff from accessing Facebook in office hours. If consumers can’t access Facebook for a large portion of their waking day or are only doing so quickly from their mobiles, this limits reach and impressions for brand owners which mean they’ll not be willing to pay the same premiums. It will be interesting to see how Facebook handles this and whether it starts to develop corporate products for companies to replace company intranets and internal communications systems and thereby create revenues from a different business model.

Clearly there will be plans in place to address many of these issues, but the level of investor and public scrutiny means every move the company makes will be subject to endless analysis and media speculation and some of Silicon Valley’s newly minted millionaires will need to get used to life in the public spotlight as well.

A recent survey by Silver Poll showed that it is the over 55s who are adopting e-reader technologies like Kindle. Six percent of over 55s own an e-book reader compared with five percent of 18-24 year olds. You may think this is an obvious development and argue that a) the numbers are still pretty small, b)the over 55s are more likely to read regularly and c) they have the time to do so.

Closer examination of the sales data shows this boom in the over 55s is part of a wider adoption across the population. Mintel estimates around 6.5M UK adults now have some form of e-reader and the Kindle is the most popular device with around one quarter of those downloading an e-book using the Amazon device. So the e-book looks like it is here to stay and will only gather more critical mass as time passes.

But if like me, you’ve spoken to any Kindle users recently, you might have spotted a potentially more interesting and less obvious technology trend and it looks like they’re taking a leaf out of the baby boomers book and re-working the sixties festival mantra to their own e-reader rallying cry “ tune out, turn off and drop out.”

I’m afraid that the rather clunky phrase I’ve come up with to describe this trend is convergent disconnection, so let me explain in a little more detail.

Over the past fifteen years the consumer electronics industry has focused on bringing together information, communication and entertainment onto a single device, meaning we can access everything we want from something not much larger than a packet of cigarettes. In doing this technology manufacturers have ensured the term “convergence” has entered the everyday language of business and marketing.

Brands have been built, fortunes have been made and consumers have chased the next technology dream in a bid to have everything at their fingertips on a single piece of hardware.

Inevitably there have been some compromises along the way, and if like me you have numerous friends who are members of the geek fraternity, you will probably have been subjected to conversations like – “device x is great for email and as a phone, but no use for surfing the Internet and device y is fab for watching YouTube videos but does not have enough memory for holding all the photos I’ve taken.”

But recent years have seen many of the shortcomings ironed out and hardware like iPads are pretty damned good at doing everything from email to e-reading and it is in this latter area that things start to get interesting (albeit I accept they fall short on the phone front).

I happened to mention to one of our technology specialists that a number of friends (who were all significantly under fifty five) have recently acquired a Kindle e-reader.

The immediate reaction of my tech colleague was one of bemused horror and he enquired, “What did they do that for and why on earth didn’t they buy an iPad instead?” before subjecting me to sales pitch that would have put even the most ardent Apple brand evangelist to shame. So I went and spoke to my mini-focus group of Kindlers and I found some interesting stuff. So much so I’ve gone and rooted out a few more Kindle users because I think I’ve stumbled on something interesting in this convergent, always-on, always available society in which we live….

Pretty much everyone I spoke to who had bought a Kindle, admitted to really wanting an iPad and that price was not an issue. They also admitted it was beautifully designed and did all the stuff they’d want it to do and they even said they’d heard it was pretty good as an e-reader, citing things like the great screen etc. Admittedly most said the Kindle was lighter, but it looks like the recent unveiling of the iPad 2 with its mantra of thinner, faster, lighter may have headed off the one advantage the Kindlers could list in favour of the Kindle. So why the hell hadn’t they just bought the iPad?
The answer lies in the fact that despite listing all the benefits of the iPad they didn’t want to be always on, converged and connected.

If anything, they regard time with a book as time away from it all, time to lose themselves in a great read and time to avoid the distractions of email and consuming a multiplicity of content from different sources. And even though they’d chosen an e-reader, they still see the act of reading, even on an electronic device as time for disconnecting from the bustle of daily life

And it is for this reason that the Kindle won through and they all said they were worried they would succumb to temptation and struggle to switch off properly if they knew the device they were using was capable of accessing email, social networks etc.

That said, if you google web access for Kindle, you’ll discover it is possible, but according to most reviews it is not a great experience. So after years of chasing a convergent utopia, are consumers finally choosing to disconnect to spend some time away from the always on lifestyles we live?

If they are, and assuming my sample size is not a case of happy co-incidence, it opens up some interesting questions for technologists and marketers alike. If the success of e-readers and particularly the Kindle continues, the makers of these devices face some interesting choices about how they develop their products in future and what functionality they choose to add.

Equally if the act of convergent disconnection is a conscious decision by consumers, is this their way of telling technology companies and brands not to intervene in their personal space and if this is the case, how will technology companies and brands respond to this – will they respect the decision, or look to get round it in various ways?

And finally is this a form of information protest by consumers who are tiring of having all their data in the public domain (even though ironically Amazon captures a fair bit of data simply to allow you to use a Kindle)? At this stage I can’t give you a definitive answer, but I do think we’ll see a growing number of examples of consumers consciously switching off and going off grid in a bid to escape the daily pressures of everyday life. One example where this is already happening is mobile phone ownership. According to a variety of sources, around 40% of UK mobile users own multiple SIMs/ handsets which would suggest a growing number of people have business and personal mobiles.

It will be interesting to see where this might go because this is one of those cases where you think you might have spotted something – maybe the start of a trend. And if you’ve spotted similar trends I’d love to hear from you – and yes you can email me, but if I’m reading my Kindle I can’t guarantee I’ll be able to respond.

On a recent business trip, Sharon Palmer Head of Media at Universal McCann Manchester, found herself in a curiously awkward position at breakfast time.

Do I simply eat alone staring into space trying to tune into the muffled conversations around me? Try juggling my knife and fork with one hand while negotiating to hold a newspaper? Feels awkward and clunky can we change? Or place my neat little iPad onto the table and download The Times while eating my breakfast with two hands?

Being an old-fashioned girl who built her career on print, it came to me at that moment that perhaps the death of newspapers in the print form was not only real but about to speed up. With the almost continual decline in readership of newspapers over recent years, would the birth of the easily digestible iPad and other similar tablet devices be the final nail in the coffin for one of the oldest media around?

On February 2nd, Apple and Rupert Murdoch launched the first digital only newspaper designed for use on the iPad only – the Daily. This breakthrough is hoped to change the face of journalism forever through a combination of reporting and technology.

The Daily is a mixture of the newfangled and the old-fashioned. It has whizzy graphics, including video and “360-degree” pictures. Sport fans can receive the ‘twitterings’ of their favourite players. Unlike most websites, though, the Daily is available only in America. It features outmoded things such as editorials and paid reporters. Although it can be updated to take in breaking news, it is primarily a daily, not an hourly.

The Daily will cost consumers 99 cents per week or 62p in our money – not bad value when you consider the enhanced digital experience against its rather flat print cousin. At £1 a day, it seems newsprint could be pricing itself out of the market.

It’s too early to say how successful the Daily will be but there’s sure to be a wave of ‘me too’ products – already there is talk of Richard Branson launching an iPad only Virgin magazine.

And even if it fails, there’s no denying consumers appetite for the tablet format, 4.8million were sold in the third quarter of 2010, which was a 45 per cent increase from the previous quarter. Retailers ran out of the iPad 2 within hours of it going on sale.

With demand for tablet formats high along with the opportunity to offer richer consumer experiences, the iPad seems like the ideal device to encourage consumers to pay for digital journalism. The stats back this up – 52 per cent of iPad users read a magazine or newspaper on their device every day, according to YouGov’s latest TabletTrack report.

There is no doubt that the platform offers advertisers an new opportunity but the industry continues to debate what that will look like and how big that opportunity is.

After the industry rumours (will Philip and Fern actually take a branded sip? Will the machine be front and centre?), the appearance itself was rather anti-climactic. But ITV’s caution is entirely understandable, says  Richard Johnston, Head of Broadcast at Universal McCann, as it’s not clear how British viewers will respond to the move.

The concept of product placement has been around for years. In films and US imports, characters frequently interact with recognisable brands. The contents of a Samsonite case held the key to a mystery on Lost, while James Bond always checks his Omega watch on board a Virgin Atlantic plane these days.

The restrictive rules on where product placement can be used (no news programming, no children’s shows) and which products are allowed (no alcohol, cigarettes or even unhealthy foods) mean that we are unlikely to see a proliferation in the short term.

Having suggested that viewers won’t notice an immediate sea change, what can advertisers expect from the change in rules? Nescafé’s investment probably paid off in PR, rather than media value, but as the fuss dies down, advertisers looking to use product placement to build brand awareness will need to closely examine the benefits.

For a start, how do we measure the value of product placement? Software has been developed to measure duration, visibility and area of any product placement, but valuing context and engagement will be more difficult.

In terms of executing a product placement campaign, there are two ways an advertiser can access programming. The first (seen on ITV’s This Morning) is to physically incorporate products and brands into the shooting of the show. A second way (called digital insertion) involves using CGI to digitally add brands or logos into pre-filmed programming.

Digital insertion of packaging and logos into programs may be relatively quick and easy, but will preclude any interaction, which is surely where the greater value lies. How much will the rules allow presenter interaction with brands? Will consumers have a negative or positive reaction to brands intruding into their favourite shows? We will only be able to answer these questions when a few more brave brands jump into these untested waters, and we can see the impact; for now, it is simply too early to tell.

The extension of the ASA’s CAP code to all online content controlled by companies, including social media, [http://www.asa.org.uk/Media-Centre/2010/ASA-digital-remit-extension.aspx] was first announced in March last year and it’s been the subject of heated debate ever since.

It seems the main challenge facing the ASA will be policing the application of the CAP code to online content, particularly content in social media where there is a grey area on who owns the content.

According to the ASA, user generated content (UGC) is not included in the ASA’s remit extension. However, if a company incorporates UGC in its own marketing, it will be covered. This will be considered on a case-by-case basis, warns the ASA, taking account of the context in which it is placed. So, what about shared media?

Shared media is content that isn’t quite owned by a brand or by a user. For example, comments by a user on a brand’s Facebook Page, blog or YouTube channel, is usually referred to as shared media.

If a user makes a comment on brand-owned social media that doesn’t comply with the CAP code, then what happens? Does the brand have to take it down? But if so, does the brand have a right to delete a comment that technically doesn’t belong to them?

There will, no doubt, be continued calls for more clarity on this from the ASA as it faces the huge task of trawling through thousands of shared media comments to decide whether they constitute ‘marketing’ or not, and whether they are responsible, depending on context.

In reality, the threat of falling foul of the ASA guidelines is likely to discourage many brands from starting and continuing conversations online with their customers in shared media area.

The ASA says its primary concern is not to punish advertisers and, of course, any guidelines which help provide people with a great experience of brands online are a positive move.

But for the many reputable brands who are already acting responsibly in the social media space and who value the two-way dialogue they have with their customers, honestly, transparently, and with full disclosure and no attempts at deception – this is a real shame. This is a real shame for their customers too.

It’s difficult to have a natural conversation if you have to watch your words or you feel you have to prove the context of what you’re saying constantly.

It will be interesting to see how the brands who are talking to their customers this way and who have seen great success with social media adapt to the new guidelines and to see how or if they change the way they talk with their customers.

Let’s hope that behaving reputably online, by being transparent, honest and listening to what people are saying i.e. being human is a strong enough defence to set some precedents in this area.

With approximately 300 sessions, 900 expert speakers and 20,000 new consumer technology products launching each year, CES is the premier trade show for understanding the latest in consumer platforms.

Technology is changing the nature of the relationship between consumers and products. An increasing number of life choices are now dictated by and connected to an operating system of preference – Microsoft Windows, Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android/Chrome ecosystem. Emerging trends in technology are rewriting the rules of how we engage with our audiences. Marketers need to sit up and take notice.

Transforming Data

Data is at the heart of all we do and understanding both the opportunities and pitfalls it offers is crucial. Understanding how to employ aggregated data and content to increase the value of customer relationships is an imperative. For example, retail brands must come to grips with the online/offline “consideration journey” and develop creative and technologically targeted tactics to build dialogue pre- and post-purchase.

Data can also be used for research and development. Often product insights and new product ideas are at the core of a consumer’s response to your current product offerings. “Milling” these conversations can lead to product innovation and new invention.

Finally, building trust with your audience in order to continue to have access to this data is vital. If your brand has loyalty or CRM programs or even a social network fan base, then continuing to build trust among these audiences regarding confidentiality is key. Once that trust is lost, it will be very difficult to manage. Moving forward, the key for data management is to value, reward and protect those people who choose to share it.

Transforming Identity

As technology develops and as more of what we do lives online, our digital footprints will increase in quality and depth, enriching profiles, which in turn will enrich the experience, fostered by closer relationships with trusted tools and brands, and creating “integrated experiences” of consumer content.

By leveraging consumer data and a consumer’s digital identity, contextually relevant content can be served up to that consumer wherever he or she is.

The result is the creation of the most discriminating consumer we’ve ever had, where technology has enabled them instant access to information, changing their behaviour.
For example, shoppers can now use their phones to scan bar codes at retail outlets to look for better prices and reviews online. Or alternatively, they can use their devices to share in purchase decisions with friends. Retailers need to adapt and embrace these
changes and create platforms that optimize and engage, tapping into the content a user produces in-store. Technologies such as Near Field Communications (NFC) open up tremendous opportunities. Retailers can deliver product information as well as coupons and offers based on what they know about you within a short distance to a device. They can also leverage gaming dynamics with rewards programs to create
more sustainable value, tailored to the profiles of their potential customers.

Key Understandings

All of this opens up the massive question of how to manage the information avalanche, with a larger network to manage and a wider data set to consider. Will consumers look to subscribe to a universal identity, one which seamlessly connects to any online destination? What information will a universal form of identity provide? Facebook
Connect is looking to make it easy to log in using a form of universal login but when it comes to transactional information, who will own the commerce piece, and what will consumers expect regarding their privacy? Who will own and help manage identity? Will it be Google? Or will consumers prefer a brand that manages money/transactions like MasterCard or PayPal?

Transforming Home

The profound effect of a connected world, where systems can for the first time be developed and enhanced through unifying technology, will give us a completely new level of insight into consumers and consumption behavior. This opens the door for creating more relevant relationships with the consumer and delivering on a brand’s
value proposition in a way that was never before possible.

Transforming Wellness

With the investment of Government programs and the interest of large corporations to decrease healthcare costs, healthcare management, wellness and fitness will take on a new meaning. Coupled with technology advancements and the ability for a consumer to stay connected at all times, personal health devices will become a natural
extension of our increasingly “always on” environment. Opportunities will abound for leveraging new marketing channels in these environments as well as reaching targeted demographics such as the U.S. “boomer,” who is poised to spend the most discretionary income on this part of their lives.

Transforming Automotive

Automotive is one area of our daily lives that will undergo an accelerated development path as multiple trends converge in one place. The automobile is now the focus of intense innovation to ensure it is consuming the least amount of energy, utilizing the road network efficiently, and entertaining and protecting its passengers. The automobile represents another touchpoint for the brand marketer, as a consumer’s digital lifestyle extends to their primary mode of transportation, their car

Happiness is certainly up there on the national agenda – and there’s lots more action to come on this in the Spring. Maybe this is a good time to reflect on the part we play as a marketing community. I’d like to pose (and attempt to answer) two questions:

1. Can we as marketing people contribute to the sum total of people’s happiness?
2. Are we about to see an era of ‘happiness marketing’?

You’ll notice that the answer to the second question could be ‘yes’ even if the answer to the first is ‘no’.

At McCann Manchester, we’re really interested in the growth of ‘smile’ marketing. There’s an awful lot of it about – stuff that puts a smile on your face. I don’t mean the ‘delighting the customer’ mantra of the business textbooks. I’m talking about marketing that sets out to put an immediate smile on people’s faces. Think Ben & Jerry’s Phish Food, or Barburrito putting the face of an ‘ass’ on each bar stool. McDougalls Upper Crust pies have enlisted the help of Armstrong & Miller in firing pies across the channel at the poor deprived French. Tyrrells reinforced their positioning by offering a Massey Ferguson tractor as a competition prize. And it’s working. Ben & Jerry’s sales value is + 24% and Tyrrells + 38%. McDougalls sales growth is probably sky rocketing too.

We’ve always known there was a positive correlation between strong advertising creative and business success. The recent Thinkbox/IPA study shows great creative campaigns are 11 times more efficient. Our own analysis suggests a strong relationship between marketing effectiveness and finding an ownable way of putting a smile on people’s face. And I’d argue a smile is the expression of at least a moment of happiness.

President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and other world leaders (see theElders.org) are imploring us to be better citizens. Some brands are responding to this by trying to make the smile last a little longer and arguably moving further in the direction of real human happiness. Innocent’s ‘Big Knit’ making winters warmer for old people, This Water turning your purchase of a small bottle into providing enough clean drinking water for a month to someone in Malawi. Arla Foods bringing kids closer to nature.co.uk. These brands are improving other people’s lives whilst satisfying the higher self-esteem / self-actualisation needs of their own consumers. Faced with a choice of buying the good looking brand or the good looking brand that does something good as well, many people are opting for the latter. The happiness is felt by receiver and giver. Brand owner, consumer and trade outlet all benefit. Ask Innocent – their sales are up 16%.

What this demonstrates is that we don’t have to divorce our individual citizenship from our role in adding value through commercial activity. Draw yourself a Venn diagram of two circles. Put ‘Please my boss’ in the first circle and write ‘Be a good citizen’ in the second. Then sit back and ask yourself what opportunities might sit in the intersection. There’s something in that space for every brand. And the space gets bigger as the state retrenches and we move towards the Big Society.