'Advertisers should fear Twitter and Facebook more than regulators'

Interesting viewpoint from the global head of comms giant Havas in the Guardian last Friday.

David Jones, the global chief executive of Havas Wordwide, has warned that advertisers who market their brands as socially responsible should fear "inherently negative" social media such as Twitter and Facebook more than getting ad campaigns banned by regulators.

Jones said that with the rise of social media, with which many companies are still grappling, brands should be more worried about consumers than trying to outmanouevre the regulator.

"Social media is inherently a more negative than a positive medium on many levels," he added. "Lots of stuff that is passed around is negative. If you are a brand or a company today you should be far less worried about broadcast regulations than digitally empowered consumers. What is an ASA sanction versus a [negative] sanction from a couple of million people if you are not authentic?"

'Surely he's being a bit melodramatic,' thought I to myself. 'It's not quite that vicious, is it?' Then, with consummate irony on the timing front, Néstle found itself in a whole Facebook of trouble over its supplier policies in Indonesia. That wasn't the touchpaper however. Having an idiot at the controls of the Facebook page was what provoked a storm of negative howls.

First off, a fairly cocky status statement greets you:

Ok, so far so not exactly shiniest practitioner of good community relationships. And pretty soon it gets called out on the attitude by Paul:

Ok, nobody's throwing stuff around so far. This is now the moment where a cool head will decide how things go from here.

 

Ouch! Way to show the customer who's always right, Nestlé. Firm, firm, firm hand at the controls. We like it! But Paul ain't going away.

Take that, you big multinational you, and rethink! Which they did!

Oh no they diint!
Oh yes they diid!! They just told him that he was as irrelevant as the on average eight insect legs per  bar that end up in the choccie vats, allegedly. With more pithiness than I can muster here, somebody later on in the thread said 'Well, the chocolate's hit the 93,000 fans now' or something similar. Sorry I can't find it now for proper attribution, but the thread is very, very, very long by this stage and will be having a massive impact on the company. I'm frankly amazed that there's no real sign of moderation from what is, after all, the world's biggest nyom conglom. I did find an apology of sorts in there too, but am curious as to why they bothered.

The floodgates are ripped off at the hinges long since, and the well meaning complaints and the cranks and everything in between are going full tilt through Nestlé like prune juice. Their nut clusters are in such a vice right now that it will have some sort of impact on share price, I don't doubt. And while obviously at the heart of this is a very sore point about how they go about their ingredients gathering in our super-connected world, it still got kick started with a rookie mistake. Control of the FB page was given to someone who should not have been entrusted with the brand's reputation on the two-way street.

This is what Havas head honcho Jones meant when he spoke about fearing the negativity of online interfaces like Twitter and Fb. Oh boy is it ever.

I wait with huge interest to see what Nestlé's next move will be. Last word with Paul, and this is still on the host's fan page. (Numbers of fans still growing, it is noted.)

Who is Ireland's largest advertising agency?

Have a guess. Is it McConnells? McCann Erickson? IIBBDO? QMP? DDFH&B? Pretty big hitters all, representing some heavyweight (what my old boss Frank Young in Wilson Hartnell used to lovingly call) Blue Chip clients. I guess the colour refers to Vegas more than the Embassy Grill.

Anyway, I'm not sure how the billings stack up. I could probably do a graph or something, look up the IAPI website. But I can't be arsed and it's after one in the morning. Ultimately you know it's going home to one of the many heads of Medusa, innit. Interpublic, Havas, WPP, Omnicom and Publicis have, between them, Irish advertising by the curlies.

Speaking of the IAPI website, I see that there are fifty eight member companies on the list. Impressive. Ireland's biggest media specialist is bound to be in there somewhere, right?

Anyway on an entirely unrelated topic, I read an interview in siliconerepublic.com with John Herlihy, Google's European Director of online sales and operations, and he has this to say in ironically a not-very-coded way to advertisers.

I believe many Irish companies are missing a trick, and there is a big opportunity for businesses to go out and capitalise on the shift of consumers to the online arena. Research shows people are becoming increasingly value-conscious as a result of the credit crunch, and are choosing to go online to both inform their purchasing decisions and to look for the best value available. If you don’t have an online presence, then you’re losing business.

I don't think that ad agencies should feel concerned by this. Akin to Spinal Tap's smaller stadia final tour, the audience is simply becoming more selective.

It's also probably entirely irrelevant, but that same Google just posted some juicy figures for the final three months of 2008. Read these while bearing in mind that in its biggest market, the US, Google has a healthy but not exactly knicker-bursting 35% of the search market. Here in vanishingcubland it's got about roughly in or around oh I dunno say 100% of that same market. So do the sums accordingly. Stats from the Beeb.

• Net profits of $204.1m (€147m) in the three months to 31 December.
• This compares to the $27.3m profits the company made a year earlier.
• Total fourth quarter turnover jumped to $1.03bn from $512.2m.

I'm just saying. It's not really relevant anyway, cos Google's not an ad agency. They just find stuff for you and do a kinda fun themed logo every so often on their search page, right? If they were an ad agency they'd probably be more into Powerpoint and they'd definitely be members of IAPI. I just wonder how they make that pot of cash in this climate just from being friendly and not evil and über-helpful when we're searching for shit. But they're absolutely, definitively, categorically not an agency.

Meanwhile, I read today in the Business Post that we're facing tough times, but media executives are upbeat. So that's all pretty jolly. Ed McDonald, Chief executive of the Association of Advertisers in Ireland, says that

In tighter economic conditions, it is vital that businesses look on their marketing and advertising spend as an investment rather than as a cost. Sure, it’s a cost, but it is more importantly an investment as essential as any R&D investment or capital equipment purchase or property lease.

I'd agree with all that, Ed, but I'd sure hope for agencies' sakes that clients don't start looking at remarkably accountable alternatives to the tried and trusted agency setup.

Dermot Hanrahan meanwhile, a long-time mover in broadcast and online circles, is staking it less on trad media and more on what's been working well for him up to now.

‘‘Online is still the fastest growing medium and it will continue to grow strongly. It... has gone from being an optional extra to being the medium which will eventually matter most. Marketeers who don’t use it are becoming rare, and are usually confined to decision makers above a certain age. Growth forecast for 2009 range from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, despite recession.

‘‘The medium is the most accountable, measurable and increasingly innovative as we see the decline of old banner ads and the growth of newer, more engaging, video-led ad formats. Again, the lower cost of entry in online advertising positions it better than most for the year ahead.”

Interesting bit about the decline of banner ads. I wonder if he's punting virals as newer and more engaging?

Happy Monday, Adland Ireland.