Ah, marketing. The land of slogans, one-liners and buzz phrases. Terms our esteemed colleagues have spent days (or, more likely months) slaving over and are kind enough to share with the rest of the industry. In a business like ours which is dominated by words, surely we could never get sick of language? Well actually, yes. And over the last couple of weeks some especially annoying words have come together to form a massive grumble in my mind.
I’ll start with one particularly close to home. The industry seems to have a habit of segmenting marketing careers into different silos. It’s fair to some extent given that we all have our specialisms and niche areas, but in my job, working as a writer in the headache-inducing, mind bogglingly technical area of financial services, my colleagues have given me a special name. Apparently I’m a “fluffy” marketing person, and apparently it’s also essential to wiggle your index and middle fingers in a “ “ motion every time you say it. I’m surprised they haven’t changed my email signature yet- I’ve even been introduced as a “fluffy” in business meetings, a term probably best reserved for Hugh Hefner groupies.
Now, I’m sure it’s probably a joke and I shouldn’t get touchy about it, but I can’t help but feel that it’s a teensy bit degrading. I often have to remind myself that I have taken, and passed, four finance exams, so I can’t be a complete numpty. Sure, I might not be able to understand the intricacies of a yield curve first time, but if you explained it to me I could eventually communicate it to other people, which I don’t think is entirely without skill.
Anyway, I’m not whinging purely to wallow in self-pity; I’ve noticed the labelling thing happens to other marketing jobs too. Across the office from me sit “the techies” (finger wiggling again essential). They’re the ones who can understand accumulation, top slicing, lautro and all those other topics which form a question mark across the foreheads of normal folk. But just as I don’t like being shunted into one little box, it seems “the techies” don’t either. They’ll often point out that they can actually write communications, and find the idea that they all function like Moss on The IT Crowd a bit offensive.
Apart from those observations, the words which are currently irritating me are the ones I have to clatter out on the keyboard in every bloomin article I write. An obvious one is that eye-watering, bottom-clenching catchphrase which has been coined in every ad and news headline for the past twenty years (or so it seems), the credit crunch. I mean, I like a bit of alliteration as much as the next consenting adult, but in this instance, having too much of what we fancy is making us unimaginative lard-arses.
If you’re sick of the dreaded CC phrase too, the good (or bad) news is that it’s been replaced by a word which is going to hang like a rain cloud and piss all over our work for the foreseeable future: recession. Just the thought of typing it over and over again is enough to wear the nobbles off my keyboard.
Finally, a term which really confuses me is 'bear market'. Not because I don't understand what it means- it's scattered throughout every fund manager outlook written these days, like a defense for the fact that they're just about to tell you that your investment's dropped by 50%. But I always have to think really carefully to remember that a bear market is a bad thing, because to me it sounds rather lovely. I always imagine market stalls stuffed full of teddy bears and a load of punters haggling over the price.. Big teddies, little teddies, teddies with bowties...
And I just realised why they call me a fluffy.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Friday, 6 February 2009
It's all organic
If I told you I arrived home last night to find that my fiancé had cleaned the kitchen to within an inch of its life and told me not to touch any of the pots and pans bubbling away, you’d probably think what a sensitive and modern man I’m living with. Well, maybe the women would think that and the men would wonder what he’d been up to. In actual fact I’m ashamed to say that my other half has taken up a hideously embarrassing hobby: making homebrew. Not because there’s a shortage in real ale or even because the economic crisis has rendered it impossible for us to pay a visit to Threshers. No, apparently it’s fun to spend your time up to your elbows in barrels of pungent smelling fluid. Fantastic.
So, why am I wittering on about beer? Well, it seems as though my man isn’t the only one to be reinventing their own version of The Good Life. I call it the Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall effect; we’re all yearning for a golden age when you grew our own carrots and slaughtered your own Sunday roast. Flick your telly over to Property Ladder and you’ll see that traditional occupations are receiving a revival, with ex-investment bankers abandonning their laptops for the simple, masculine pleasures of manual labour (grr). Bygone hobbies are becoming popular again, as film stars while away the hours knitting their own underpants. And eco warriers would do our wartime predecessors proud with their recylcling and ‘making do’.
I don’t think this resurgence of basic life skills is totally unconnected with the financial crisis that’s rocking our world. We’re living in a time when the most fundamental assumptions underpinning our lives are being torn apart. Whereas the nineties saw the explosion of credit, and a clammering for celebrity-style lifestyles, the noughties see us crying out for the reassurance and security we took for granted in the past. Our grandfathers fought in the war and dug for victory; we get into a tiz if the 24 hour Tesco runs out of lime to go with our Coronas. As Hugh advocates, we need to regain our self-sufficiency and make our modern lives less vulnerable.
The past is definitely the future when it comes to advertising. We can see it in the spate of cautious ads which have sprung up in the market, a good example being Nationwide’s excellent ‘Strong, stable, dependable. Exciting aren’t we?’ This advert is open in recognising that the headonistic days of fast cars and fast bucks are gone, and the only ‘perk’ savers in 2009 are looking for is that the cash they put in the bank will still be there when they need to take it out.
As a woman in her mid 20s, I tend to think that the desire for a simpler life is affecting the younger generation the most. We might be seeing the past through rose tinted spectacles but I, for one, wouldn’t mind bringing a few elements of it back. For example job security. During my eight year long career history, I’ve had three jobs working for some of the UK’s largest financial organisations and have been through three rounds of redundancies. That’s one re-application for my job per department I’ve worked in, and I narrowly avoided a second cull at one place by months. I’ve always been one of the ‘lucky survivors’, but a job for life is very much a distant dream for us 80s babies.
The recession is also making us wish we could go back to being first time buyers again. Why? Well because at least back then we could cobble together a few pennies for a deposit or, failing that, go for one of those wonderfully irresponsible 110% mortgages. Now, having pumped money into our homes since the early noughties, negative equity and restrictive lending is making second-time buying far harder than getting a house ever was in the good old days. Furthermore, if house prices rise, the other pipedream we have of surviving on one wage while the woman raises the children- a lifestyle our ancestors enjoyed and fought hard for us not to be able to- will never be more than a crazy idea.
Yep, things are pretty depressing at the moment, but don’t feel too sorry for us. Thanks to Hugh, at least we can survive on a diet of real ale and carrot soup.
So, why am I wittering on about beer? Well, it seems as though my man isn’t the only one to be reinventing their own version of The Good Life. I call it the Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall effect; we’re all yearning for a golden age when you grew our own carrots and slaughtered your own Sunday roast. Flick your telly over to Property Ladder and you’ll see that traditional occupations are receiving a revival, with ex-investment bankers abandonning their laptops for the simple, masculine pleasures of manual labour (grr). Bygone hobbies are becoming popular again, as film stars while away the hours knitting their own underpants. And eco warriers would do our wartime predecessors proud with their recylcling and ‘making do’.
I don’t think this resurgence of basic life skills is totally unconnected with the financial crisis that’s rocking our world. We’re living in a time when the most fundamental assumptions underpinning our lives are being torn apart. Whereas the nineties saw the explosion of credit, and a clammering for celebrity-style lifestyles, the noughties see us crying out for the reassurance and security we took for granted in the past. Our grandfathers fought in the war and dug for victory; we get into a tiz if the 24 hour Tesco runs out of lime to go with our Coronas. As Hugh advocates, we need to regain our self-sufficiency and make our modern lives less vulnerable.
The past is definitely the future when it comes to advertising. We can see it in the spate of cautious ads which have sprung up in the market, a good example being Nationwide’s excellent ‘Strong, stable, dependable. Exciting aren’t we?’ This advert is open in recognising that the headonistic days of fast cars and fast bucks are gone, and the only ‘perk’ savers in 2009 are looking for is that the cash they put in the bank will still be there when they need to take it out.
As a woman in her mid 20s, I tend to think that the desire for a simpler life is affecting the younger generation the most. We might be seeing the past through rose tinted spectacles but I, for one, wouldn’t mind bringing a few elements of it back. For example job security. During my eight year long career history, I’ve had three jobs working for some of the UK’s largest financial organisations and have been through three rounds of redundancies. That’s one re-application for my job per department I’ve worked in, and I narrowly avoided a second cull at one place by months. I’ve always been one of the ‘lucky survivors’, but a job for life is very much a distant dream for us 80s babies.
The recession is also making us wish we could go back to being first time buyers again. Why? Well because at least back then we could cobble together a few pennies for a deposit or, failing that, go for one of those wonderfully irresponsible 110% mortgages. Now, having pumped money into our homes since the early noughties, negative equity and restrictive lending is making second-time buying far harder than getting a house ever was in the good old days. Furthermore, if house prices rise, the other pipedream we have of surviving on one wage while the woman raises the children- a lifestyle our ancestors enjoyed and fought hard for us not to be able to- will never be more than a crazy idea.
Yep, things are pretty depressing at the moment, but don’t feel too sorry for us. Thanks to Hugh, at least we can survive on a diet of real ale and carrot soup.
Friday, 30 January 2009
The meaning of marketing
I was looking at our life, pension and investment products the other day and pondering the meaning of marketing, as you do. It's a common belief amongst IFAs that some products, like insurance and pensions, sell themselves, whereas other products, like investment bonds and IHT mitigation trusts, need to be sold to customers by astute advisers.
It makes sense really- despite most of us being jaw-droppingly unprepared when it comes to pensions, if we’d gone to the trouble of seeing an IFA, many of us wouldn’t need too much convincing that we should bung fifty quid a month away for our old age. Ignoring IHT is understandable too- whilst we accept the fact that one day we’ll be pushing sixty, we’d rather not think about pushing up the daisies, and will consequently put off any decisions about what will happen to our amassed fortunes after death.
But does the old adage about some products being a hard sell and some being an easy sell really apply to marketing?
My thinking goes like this: if it’s true that certain products, for example pensions, fly off the shelves, what’s the reason for it? And more importantly, what’s the reason for somebody choosing a particular company over another one? More often than not, intermediaries and consumers will choose a product which seems reliable from a name they feel comfortable with. In other words the answer comes down to brand, and a heck of a lot of meticulous marketing and PR-building going on in the background.
Think about it- how many of us have done an insurance comparison quote and discounted the first few providers because we’ve never heard of them? How many of us always pop to the Post Office for travel insurance because we think we’re getting a great deal? I’m not knocking the Post Office or any other provider, but success in these ‘bread and butter’ products, as they’re affectionately described, is often based on excellent public perception. Not an easy task at all then, if you’re a marketer.
Secondly, just like bread and butter, the easy-sells are bland. Trying to market a stakeholder is like trying to dig sand with a fork: there’s nothing to get hold of. The charges are low, the commission is low, and the fund choice is low. The end. Dull, dull, dull. Even worse are the products which are ratings driven- if you’re trying to flog life insurance at twice the price of every other company, nobody’s going to buy it no matter how good your marketing is or how many bells and whistles you put on (sorry boss).
On the flipside, the products which Advisers find tricky to sell are more often the ones we can get our back- office teeth into. These ‘luxury’ products, like investments and healthcare, have actually got something going for them and it’s not difficult to make them appeal to people. This is the exciting area of financial services; where you can tap into consumers’ hopes and dreams, or play on their worst nightmares. You can even add on special offers and deals without getting strung up by the FSA. Marketing heaven (or as close as you’ll get in this industry).
Despite the products not selling in vast quantities, I’d argue that the more gritty area of the market doesn’t just get our lowly attention; it gets more attention from customers as well. Isn’t it the ‘nice to haves’ rather than the ‘have to haves’ which we put more effort into in life? For example, if you were choosing an investment bond for your child’s future, wouldn’t you give it far more of your energy than a straightforward insurance policy? The truth is, if you’ve got a bit of spare cash, you’ll make damn sure it’s put to good use. This is the time when marketing comes into its own; you can really sell a product based on its merits, not just because it’s cheap and easy. The audience is there and they’re interested in what you have to offer.
I suppose what it comes down to is that everyone has a wage to live on and it’s all about prioritising financial needs. Advisers are never going to persuade customers to put their money into non-essential areas if they don’t have basic life cover, and if they did they’d be struck off quicker than you can say “mis-selling” (rightly so). All the marketing department can promise is that if customers do come our way looking for a savings plan, our ads will be so shit hot they’ll never want to leave. And, in return, we’d appreciate the sales force giving stakeholder applications the massive respect they deserve in future.
It makes sense really- despite most of us being jaw-droppingly unprepared when it comes to pensions, if we’d gone to the trouble of seeing an IFA, many of us wouldn’t need too much convincing that we should bung fifty quid a month away for our old age. Ignoring IHT is understandable too- whilst we accept the fact that one day we’ll be pushing sixty, we’d rather not think about pushing up the daisies, and will consequently put off any decisions about what will happen to our amassed fortunes after death.
But does the old adage about some products being a hard sell and some being an easy sell really apply to marketing?
My thinking goes like this: if it’s true that certain products, for example pensions, fly off the shelves, what’s the reason for it? And more importantly, what’s the reason for somebody choosing a particular company over another one? More often than not, intermediaries and consumers will choose a product which seems reliable from a name they feel comfortable with. In other words the answer comes down to brand, and a heck of a lot of meticulous marketing and PR-building going on in the background.
Think about it- how many of us have done an insurance comparison quote and discounted the first few providers because we’ve never heard of them? How many of us always pop to the Post Office for travel insurance because we think we’re getting a great deal? I’m not knocking the Post Office or any other provider, but success in these ‘bread and butter’ products, as they’re affectionately described, is often based on excellent public perception. Not an easy task at all then, if you’re a marketer.
Secondly, just like bread and butter, the easy-sells are bland. Trying to market a stakeholder is like trying to dig sand with a fork: there’s nothing to get hold of. The charges are low, the commission is low, and the fund choice is low. The end. Dull, dull, dull. Even worse are the products which are ratings driven- if you’re trying to flog life insurance at twice the price of every other company, nobody’s going to buy it no matter how good your marketing is or how many bells and whistles you put on (sorry boss).
On the flipside, the products which Advisers find tricky to sell are more often the ones we can get our back- office teeth into. These ‘luxury’ products, like investments and healthcare, have actually got something going for them and it’s not difficult to make them appeal to people. This is the exciting area of financial services; where you can tap into consumers’ hopes and dreams, or play on their worst nightmares. You can even add on special offers and deals without getting strung up by the FSA. Marketing heaven (or as close as you’ll get in this industry).
Despite the products not selling in vast quantities, I’d argue that the more gritty area of the market doesn’t just get our lowly attention; it gets more attention from customers as well. Isn’t it the ‘nice to haves’ rather than the ‘have to haves’ which we put more effort into in life? For example, if you were choosing an investment bond for your child’s future, wouldn’t you give it far more of your energy than a straightforward insurance policy? The truth is, if you’ve got a bit of spare cash, you’ll make damn sure it’s put to good use. This is the time when marketing comes into its own; you can really sell a product based on its merits, not just because it’s cheap and easy. The audience is there and they’re interested in what you have to offer.
I suppose what it comes down to is that everyone has a wage to live on and it’s all about prioritising financial needs. Advisers are never going to persuade customers to put their money into non-essential areas if they don’t have basic life cover, and if they did they’d be struck off quicker than you can say “mis-selling” (rightly so). All the marketing department can promise is that if customers do come our way looking for a savings plan, our ads will be so shit hot they’ll never want to leave. And, in return, we’d appreciate the sales force giving stakeholder applications the massive respect they deserve in future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
