Advertisements
 

Ad industry puts the boot into ‘treacherous’ Chartered Institute of Marketing research

June 8, 2012

An amusing industry spat has broken out between the Chartered Institute of Marketing and just about everyone else over the way the industry has been handling the vexed issue of marketing to children.

One year into the Bailey era, the CIM has released research that apparently shows 85% of parents are unaware of the Government-sponsored and industry-sanctioned ParentPort website – a forum that enables parents to vent their spleen at the way marketers have been commercialising and sexualising childhood. This, from one of its own, is an unforgivable undercut to the belly of the industry, which claims to have made Stakhanovite progress in grappling with an issue in which David Cameron has taken a highly personal interest.

The result has been uproar, with other industry bodies jostling to put the boot into the CIM research.

First to weigh in with apoplectic energy was the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (ISBA), the principal trade body for clients.

The riposte from ISBA’s director of public affairs Ian Twinn was masterly in its use of cutting irony: “ISBA is an active supporter of the industry pledge on the use of peer-to-peer marketing, along with many leading advertisers and media, but sadly the CIM remained aloof from the collective efforts of the wider industry.” Which was very silly of it, because now it’s going to enjoy zero support for its views.

Next up, and in similarly sarcastic frame of mind, is the Advertising Association, which represents clients, agencies and media. This week’s newsletter thunders:

“Thank goodness that advertising think-tank Credos has already done some far more thorough work on the same topic. Are advertising and marketing of concern to parents? Yes. But are they the biggest concern? Not by a very long shot. Are parents less concerned when rules and real life ads are explained in context? Yes they are. Should advertising respond? You bet – and we have. Ask (former AA chairman) Mark Lund.”

Industry regulator the Advertising Standards Authority has confined itself to a more diplomatic rebuke: “The work that regulators, including the ASA, continue to undertake in responding positively to the recommendations in the Bailey review (Letting Children Be Children) has been welcomed by government as well as family and parenting groups.” Subtext: ‘So what in God’s name do you people over at CIM think you are playing at?’

I’m beginning to feel sorry for David Thorp, CIM’s director of research. Just trying to help, eh, David?

Advertisements

Chris Wood appointed chairman of COI

April 7, 2011

Things are moving with unaccustomed and electrifying speed at the COI. Chris Wood, the senior of two non-executive directors, has effectively taken over the tiller from CEO Mark Lund, who is stepping down some 5 weeks before he was expected to.

The catalyst behind this accelerated transition is Waitrose, as in the £25m advertising account. Although Lund had signalled a return to the private sector, the rapidity of the Waitrose win by his new agency Now took everyone by surprise. And made Lund’s continuation at the COI untenable. Hence his leaving party last night.

Technically, Wood is to be acting chairman. Two civil servants will be joint chief executives. Emma Lochhead, whose importance I flagged in an earlier post, is HR Director at COI/Cabinet Office (Government Communications); and Graham Hooper is head of client service and strategy. In other words, of the trio only Wood is a marketing professional with “outward facing” experience of the private sector. In recent times, every head of the COI has been recruited from the private sector.

The restructure is clearly an interim arrangement. It takes place against the backdrop of the Tee Report, drawn up by senior civil servant Matt Tee, recommending radical streamlining of the COI’s role and headcount. Tee’s recommendations are, for the most part, likely to be implemented but they need to be sanctioned by a public expenditure committee (PEX), which will not happen before June.

I understand that, once the formalities are out of the way, Wood’s role – which would appear to be executive chairman – may become permanent. As it happens Wood, who is a well-known figure in marketing services circles, has just stepped down from being chairman of branding, strategy and design consultancy Corporate Edge (now a subsidiary of Photon), which he has led since 1997. Earlier in his career he was CEO of innovation consultancy Craton Lodge & Knight, which eventually floated on the London Stock Exchange. Subsequently (1990-97) he was a senior executive at Princedale plc, another quoted marketing services company. He bought out Corporate Edge from Princedale in 1997.

Wood is now believed to be pursuing a portfolio career, and has business interests outside marketing services (such as a gastro pub in Wiltshire). He is known to be seeking non-executive positions.

It may be of considerable significance that the COI has appointed another senior civil servant, Ian Watmore, as accounting officer. Normally, the role of accounting officer – who is directly responsible to parliament for the COI’s activities – is wrapped up with that of COI chief executive. This was certainly the case with Lund and his predecessor, Alan Bishop.


Wanted: CMO of government to head son of COI

March 18, 2011

The COI is dead; long live the Government Communication Centre. That is the distilled recommendation from senior mandarin Matt Tee in his snappily titled ‘Review of Government Direct Communication and the Role of COI’, just published.

It may be a recommendation, and Tee himself may be about to depart for pastures new, but we can rest assured that his word has the force of writ. It’s all over for the COI, bar the quibbling. The rupture with past traditions going back to 1946 is so fundamental that only a rebrand, in Tee’s considered opinion, will do it justice.

So what exactly are the implications of Tee’s vision? The first is that the GCC will be smaller in size and scale of ambition than its predecessor. When fully set up in around 18 months’ time, it will have a staff of about 150, as opposed to the current complement of 450 (after 40% cuts). It will be more strategic and more confined in its role, but this should not necessarily be interpreted as “less powerful”. On the contrary, Tee intends to strip power not from the centre, but from communications divisions within separate departments of state (or feuding baronies, as they are sometimes known). Part of this realignment is driven by a pledge (frankly avowed) to bring down the deficit: so expect plenty more redundancies in various communications departments in the coming months. But the over-arching idea is a better, joined-up, communications programme, more economically expressed, which will rid government of substantial duplication in the way it puts out messages. In other words, the programme will be theme-led rather than departmentally-led. And the messages will be “brigaded” around the GCC, which will act as ringmaster rather than as a trading centre.

What’s interesting is just how few of these master “themes” there will be: six in all. Even if this figure is more arbitrary than it appears (why not five, or nine?) it signifies a massive compression of the existing direct communication service – not to mention a great deal more command and control from the centre. Indeed, Tee makes it crystal clear that less will mean more: more effectiveness “through better evaluation and insight”; and relentless focus “on value for money and return on marketing investment”. The thinking is that, by 2013 at the latest, all existing departmental communications executives (excluding press and internal comms) will be pooled into something called the Government Communication Network (GCN), which in turn will pour nearly 500 into the 6 theme teams and a further 150 into GCC. The remainder (estimated at about 1300 personnel) are likely to find themselves surplus to requirements.

Superficially, all this looks unpromising for the marketing services community, for whom COI spend was long a gravy train. There has been an increasingly bleak assumption across the industry that government would attempt to saddle the private sector (agencies and brand owners) with a growing burden, under the guise of pro bono collaboration, in place of the healthy income stream to which agencies, at any rate, have hitherto been accustomed.

In fact, Tee has been highly pragmatic about the role of paid-for communication. For one thing, he has junked the hated US Ad Council concept, touted late last year. Had this prevailed, ad agencies and media owners would have been expected to contribute their wares free of charge: Tee reckons this is simply “not workable, nor desirable”. Instead, communication will be divided into a tripartite framework: pro bono; collaborative; and fully paid-for. In place of the Ad Council is a boiled-down Common Good Communication Council, “facilitated” (and presumably financially underwritten in some way) by government, dealing with such public information topics as “literacy” or “road safety”. Then, a stage up: partnerships with like-minded commercial and civic organisations (Green issues and obesity are cited; business4life comes to mind). And finally, and wholly financed by taxpayers’ money, government-only issues, such as recruitment to the armed forces or taxation.

Similarly, paid-for media will survive, although buyers and planners now have to demonstrate good reason for elbowing aside placement on government-owned assets (websites; poster sites on government buildings; Directgov etc), which the report estimates to be worth £50m a year in media value.

There’s even some unequivocally good news, for those – at least – involved in digital communications: Tee thinks the government doesn’t do enough of it.  “My conclusion is that government should make greater use of digital channels in direct communication and that digital considerations should be built into all communication activity from the start,” he says.

Last but not least, now that COI ceo Mark Lund has decided to move on, who will be running the new organisation and how much power will he or she wield?

Despite the anticipated shrinkage in budget, the new executive director (ceo) will in some ways be more powerful than any COI predecessor. Not only will the GCC act as an “intelligent gateway”, with a veto on all government marketing and advertising spend over £100,000, its chief executive will also be closer to the heart of government. The ceo will sit on a cabinet sub-committee, chaired by the minister for the cabinet office (currently Francis Maude) and will also be charged with producing a marketing strategy for government at the beginning of each parliament.

An insider tells me: “What we’re talking about here is a CMO for government. Who could fill the role? Well, the brief is going to require very careful construction. The job won’t automatically go to an agency or business person. Obviously, sophisticated political skills are required. But the centre of gravity should lie in marketing. Experience of large and complex marketing operations is the vital pre-requisite. And it’s clear you’re not going to get those kind of skills in the public sector, are you?”

Along with a new executive director, the government will also be recruiting a Government Oversight Panel consisting of “three people who have experience of and high credibility in the communications industry”. Their job will be to ensure GCC head remains up to snuff. It’s not dissimilar to the current COI non-exec role. So I would not be surprised to find the two present incumbents, Chris Wood chairman of Corporate Edge, and Simon Marquis, filling two of the seats. They would offer sensible continuity at a time of radical change. But who will be the third?

PS. Tee’s official title, Permanent Secretary for Government Communications at the Cabinet Office, will be abolished when he leaves this month. The COI/GCC project will thereafter be overseen by Emma Lochhead, HR Director at COI/Cabinet Office (Government Communications).


Havas’ David Jones – the man who would be king

March 9, 2011

What a week to be away. Mark Lund, chief executive of the COI, announces he is quitting after only two years (it’s usually a five-year contract) to return to the private sector. There could be no bleaker verdict on the outlook for public-sector marcomms expenditure in the foreseeable future.

Meantime, David Jones (on the right) has emerged as group CEO of Havas’ global operations. Jones takes over from Fernando Rodes, who has held the post since billionaire financier and industrialist Vincent Bolloré first became chairman and principal shareholder (35%) of Havas.

At first sight, the management shake-up comes as a complete surprise, with Rodes unexpectedly announcing his semi-retirement at a board meeting yesterday. In fact, the accompanying restructure has all the hallmarks of a carefully stage-managed event. It should also be noted that Rodes’ resignation comes precisely five years after he was installed in 2006.

Rodes has been competent rather than outstanding at the Havas helm, and seems to have been feeling the pressure from Bolloré. Global expansion has been hesitant and Havas’ recent set of annual results show solid rather than spectacular signs of recovery. They certainly lag the performance of the really big hitters such as WPP and Omnicom.

Rodes is a complex and somewhat enigmatic figure. He holds many trump cards: urbane, an accomplished linguist, well plugged into the Franco-Iberian business community, he is also a key player in MPG – a media planning/buying specialist set up by his father Leopold, and now a strategic component of Havas. But the appeal (like MPG’s) is regional rather than global. And he comes across as a somewhat reluctant leader.

Jones, whose middle name is ‘Vitality’, can be accused of no such reticence. For some time, he has been the obvious leader-in-waiting, as head of EuroRSCG Worldwide and latterly Havas Worldwide (meaning all of Havas’ global advertising operations). Which is where the recent growth, particularly in North America, has really been happening.

To these responsibilities will now be added MPG, plus other media buying units such as Arena. Note, however, that Jones’ own power-base remains intact: he will continue to be CEO of EuroRSCG.

He’s a shoo-in in other respects, too. Fluent in three languages (English, French and German), Jones has been an indefatigable performer on the world stage ever since he rose to prominence at Havas. He is a natural brand ambassador.

We should not underestimate his achievement, however. At 44, he is the youngest-ever CEO of a premier league advertising and marketing services group. He is also that extraordinarily rare phenomenon, a Brit in charge of one of France’s most cherished companies.

No pressure then, though I doubt he’ll show it.


Francis Maude’s Sword of Damocles leaves the COI’s future hanging by a thread

October 15, 2010

Clearly the future of the Central Office of Information, which has been around since 1946, is even more precarious than I – or I suspect its chief executive Mark Lund (left) – had imagined.

Not content with imposing an emasculating 40% cut on the COI’s 737-strong workforce, the Government is now openly toying with the idea of casting its eviscerated carcass onto the bonfire of the quangos.

The decision, which will not be finalised until the end of November, is in the hands of cabinet office minister Francis Maude. Maude’s views on the subject may readily be gauged by his recent actions. He has floated the idea of the BBC airing COI campaigns free of charge – presumably in place of the many self-indulgent programme trailers and cross-channel promotions which now clog our viewing. Indeed, he has gone further. Since media buying would, to the extent that campaigns are aired by the BBC and not commercial channels, become redundant, he has taken the logical step of opening negotiations with WPP over M4C’s £200m centralised media buying contract.

Strip out centralised media buying, and it is very difficult to see what else is propping up the rationale of the COI. Specialised consultancy advice? Increasingly unlikely. Such industry knowledge will be a rare commodity once the organisation has been cut to the bone. And if that is so, the road to dissolution begins to look like a four-lane motorway. As with other quangos facing the axe, any essential functions will be transferred to alternative organisations – here, the bigger-spending departments of state such as the DoH.

All this would be a terrible blow for commercial television (especially ITV, which carries the bulk of COI campaigns). But it is doubtful whether agencies (beyond M4C and the media buying community) would shed anything other than a few crocodile tears. Someone still has to make the ads; and Richard Pinder, chief operating officer of Publicis Worldwide, has made it abundantly clear that his agency for one would be right behind the Maude proposal. Others may be more muted, but it’s unlikely they will disagree with him.

If Maude gets his way, it will be the realisation of a terrible irony. Previous COI ceos – namely Carol Fisher and Alan Bishop – have fought tooth and nail over the past decade, ultimately successfully – to suppress a secession by departments of state.

But will Maude actually go through with it? Don’t underestimate the BBC’s ability to kick up a stink over this: it doesn’t like the Maude Plan any more than ITV, although for a quite different reason. The whole issue threatens to become mired in a heated “public interest” debate, pivoting on the BBC’s impaired political impartiality. What with the brouhaha over BSkyB (to refer, or not refer, Rupert Murdoch’s bid), I doubt that the coalition government will have the stomach to take on an alienated ITV and truculent BBC as well. No doubt about it, though, it’s a thin thread the COI’s future hangs by.


Swingeing COI job cuts mean the end of the road for state-bankrolled “nudge”

August 4, 2010

It’s difficult not to sympathise with Mark Lund, chief executive of COI, as he contemplates the grim future facing his department.

When I interviewed him for Marketing Week last year, it was clear he accepted that substantial cuts were on the way. But even he, hands newly on the helm of one of the UK’s largest advertisers, can have little dreamt that, rather than circumnavigating a few reefs, he and his crew were going to be driven onto the rocks by a team of professional wreckers (aka Francis Maude and the Cabinet Office).

“Decimation” does not do justice to the future of the COI. Its fate is four times worse than that, with 40% of its staff expected to lose their jobs. That’s 287 people out of 737. Everyone is going into consultation, and that includes Lund himself.

He may not lose his job, but he might well wish he had done. For what is the COI’s role likely to be, post “restructuring”? It will, of course, continue to be a significant media buyer and specialist marketing services consultancy by appointment to Her Majesty’s departments of state. But gone, to all intents and purposes, is the higher strategic mission of reforming society through a lavishly-funded behavioural economics programme (or “nudge,” to put it in the vernacular). The budgets have simply vanished. And so, soon, will the people capable of managing them.

Might they ever come back? If they do, Maude’s axe-wielding makes it clear it won’t be any time soon. This is the really bad news for COI roster agencies, who may have interpreted the draconian restrictions imposed earlier this year as merely a temporary measure, to be relaxed once the economy ticks up. Maude, minister of the Cabinet Office, has made it abundantly clear that this Government is not an adherent of taxpayer-sponsored “nudge”. The days of “wasteful and unnecessary spend on marketing and advertising” and “spending millions of pounds on expensive projects are over,” he tells us.

Over, that is, until the next general election campaign in about four years’ time, when the Government will suddenly find the urge to trumpet all its achievements. But COI culture will have been so traumatised, and its skills so bled, that I doubt it will be up to the challenge by then. The surge, when it comes, is more likely to emanate from the marcoms teams within the departments of state that contract themselves to the COI. Richly ironic if so, because these self-same teams have – for the past ten years – fought an intermittent and losing battle with the COI over mastery of the budgets.


%d bloggers like this: