Is the Innocent brand a lie?
Last week Google was revealed to have not told the truth about their collection of personal customer data which places an enormous question mark about their truthfulness and the authenticity of their organisation’s well publicised values. Can Google be trusted?
Innocent drinks have had an interesting few years struggling with similar issues. In 2007 they were censured by the Advertising standards authority in 2007 in a story covered by the Guardian, about the health properties of their smoothies which led them to withdraw their claims. Two years later, this was reversed by the ASA who then concluded that their drinks did constitute 2 of one’s 5 -a-day requirement. But in-between times they launched their “This Water” brand which also ran foul of the ASA due to its sugar content. The ASA deemed its marketing to be “misleading”.
As a parent, I am concerned about the way the food industry markets products, especially ones that children buy so I welcome an active and robust regulator in the ASA. Innocent on the other hand does not seem to be very smart about making sure it doesn’t run up against them and twice in two years did just that.
In both cases you could argue the problem was one of interpretation but it seems incredible that a brand trading on the values it does, does not pay a lot more attention to ensuring the claims it makes will not run into such opposition.
For me it still calls into question the authenticity of their brand promise, especially “This Water” which was found to contain 30-42g of added sugar in a 400ml bottle. But even if they genuinely care about their purpose and are fighting interpretations, they are certainly not acting Innocent but more Naive. That’s not a recipe to sustain long-term brand success.
FollowHow brands lose trust
In the past few days we have heard how Apple (a brand I have never been in love with but have admired for its strategy) has been secretly collecting user information, an offence which a federal judge ruled should go to court.
According to an article in Techweek, “The case will combine 19 lawsuits that have been filed against Apple, accusing it of secretly allowing applications to track users’ activities and collect information including location, address, age and gender”.
Steve Jobs publicly denied this was going on in 2011 but there is mounting concern that this was actually a lie. At the same time, Google is under investigation for the personal data it collected illegally when collecting images for Street-view in the UK, data it stated it did not collect deliberately. This week the Guardian revealed that US investigators discovered emails inside Google from an engineer confirming that contrary to their testimony to the EEC, the data had been collected deliberately in contravention of European law. They also now have a case to defend.
Google is proud of its values. Number 6 is “You can make money without doing evil” a lovely boast so long as it is true. For them, their value seems very hollow today. Apple on the other hand make no pretence of their “niceness” preferring us to focus on their products. But herein lies the problem for Apple. Over decades they have built up a following from people who even if Apple has never said it, WANT to believe that Apple acts in a good way and assume Apple does.
They will probably forgive Apple for operating an I-Phone system that illegally collects information about customers but this practice is shocking. And the bigger problem for Apple is that if their employees think this behaviour is OK, then they are likely to be found out again. The more this happens, the more they will destroy the trust they have built up in their brand.
Google on the other hand is rather cornered by its “without evil” principle that it has trumpeted for years. Now that its behaviour has been revealed to be at odds with its values, it exposes itself as a liar. What else is it doing that we don’t know about? Already there are questions about browsing history and the use of such data for advertising purposes, all of which is performed without the user really understanding how their personal data is being collected and used. Google’s business model rather depends on being able to do this and so is vulnerable to legal or public concern.
There isn’t a immediate competitor in sight so I’m sure they are not sweating quite yet. But if there was, one which really lived its values rather than pretended it stood for something it did not, then they could find themselves in trouble. No one likes being taken in by a fraud and if there was an as good alternative, Google would go the same way it arrived – quickly.
Interestingly, their value number 4 says “Democracy on the web works”. This is something that could come back to bite them if people lose trust in them.
When you’ve only got seconds
Retailers only have seconds to communicate to passing trade. How they achieve this physically is one challenge but how they engage mentally with a prospect is another.
This business in Old Compton Street, Soho, London knows exactly where it stands. Surrounded by competitors in similar businesses catering to all types, it communicates a breathtakingly simple and honest value proposition in just two words that ticks every box in my positioning model:
- Is it clear? Do i know what’s on offer?
- Authentic? Are they genuine, do i believe they care about what they do?
- Reliable? Will they deliver the ‘trashiness’ they promise?
- Distinct? No one says it like they do or reflects the reality we all recognise.
- Salient? Does it ring my bell functionally and emotionally? I’m not their target audience but their longevity suggests someone values them
It makes me smile every time I walk past them, a reminder that great marketing done well can be very simple.
Should marketing agencies take a stand?
WPP’s CEO, Martin Sorrell last week publicly denounced the creation of this advertisement produced by the Argentinian arm of his Y&R business.
How do you feel about it?
For me, sentiment and issues of taste aside, what is amazing is his vocal criticism of his own business. If I was working for the WPP group anywhere in the world, I’d now be very concerned. And very confused
Martin Sorrell is British and is expressing an opinion based mostly on his nationality. Yet he runs a global business in almost every corner of the world staffed by many nationalities, some of whom will be bemused by his reaction.
“Does this mean we have to have neo-colonial, british empire-orientated values when producing creative work for our local markets?”, I can imagine them wondering.
Now, WPP has a large exposure to the UK market with many high-spending clients and people based here so on the one hand one can understand his rush to criticise. But what about all those people outside of the UK who probably can’t see what the fuss is about? In an instant, WPP finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place.
The second related issue is whether there is any room for morality in marketing services businesses. They have never been ones to turn away a dollar in the past, however unpalatable the client or their agenda. The lobbying industry, in which Sorrell has many interests (see below), has never hitherto been a shrinking wall flower when it comes to taking money from clients.
WPP group public affairs interests include:
- Burson-Marsteller, and its subsidiaries: Prime Policy Group, Direct Impact, Penn Schoen Berland;
- Hill & Knowlton, and its affiliate, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates;
- Ogilvy Government Relations;
- Quinn Gillespie & Associates;
- Dewey Square Group
On the WPP webpage about ‘marketing ethics”, the only visible expression of morality I could see was as follows:
So “misleading” is bad but anything else is fair game? My experience of working in agencies was that we were trading our ability to influence for clients cash. We were not there to judge a client’s agenda but to help them get their message across. Finito. So the idea that suddenly agency people should consider the morality of what they do or respect the sensibilities of another nation they have been at war with is risible if it alters their ability to perform. Imagine Martin Sorrell banning all ads depicting scenes from the second world war!
So where do WPP’s people stand now that their boss has the potential to publicly criticise their work? Does WPP have a stated policy that all staff have to subscribe to that states they cannot insult other countries? Do they have a decision-making framework that enables them to turn clients away with morally repugnant views or for whom offensive communications will work?
Dove and Lynx have long been Unilever stable mates but the latter has turned into a massive youth brand on the back of its relentless sexism. The former meanwhile has profited from its campaign for ‘normal’ women trying to escape the objectification of women by brands like Lynx. Is WPP going to stop using sex to sell if it offends another part of society?
I somehow doubt their people have any clear guidelines that have been asserted from on high other than “make brands famous and make me money”. Which means the tens of thousands of people who work there suddenly have no real idea where they stand or what their organisation stands for but know their leader stands for something that they can only second guess. Poor people – what a lousy place to work.
I’m not suggesting that the wheels are going to come off his impressive business empire but I also know values are a critical contributor to organisational cohesion. And when a leader expresses values-based opinions that are out of kilter with his people and their values and beliefs, challenging their entire raison d’etre for working there in the first place, then that can only lead to trouble.
How authentic is their offer?
I spotted this language school in Leicester Square a few years ago. It was without the missing ‘h” for several months which made me ask myself at the time who was responsible for allowing this situation to go on for quite so long?
Comedy value aside, I wondered what else their management didn’t pay attention to and what effect this had on their ability to recruit staff or students?
For me, paying attention means looking at yourself from the perspective of other people, seeing what they see, feeling what they feel in the context of their relationship with you and assessing how this affirms their belief (or disbelief) in the thing you promise to do for them.
To me, this looks like a English language business which can’t spell “English” which on a simple level undermines the authenticity of their offer.
How did you react and what did it make you feel? Do comment below.