Women say no to Crispello

This week, Cadbury’s kicked up a media storm, announcing the release of its latest chocolaty confection, Crispello.

The company is pinning its hopes on the new product, the first since the 1990s, to reverse a worrying downward trend in chocolate sales. According to industry research, annual sales of single chocolate bars fell by 6.6 per cent last year, in a market worth approximately £800m a year.

Now apparently women are to blame for this. We are all too weight conscious and have therefore decided to forgo fatty snacks in favour of nuts, raisins and rice puffs. Taking this as our (dubious) starting point, you can understand Cadbury’s logic in designing a slim-line chocolate bar that would appeal to women with one eye on their waistlines.

Nevertheless, it is one thing to design a light chocolate bar which may appeal to women, it is quite another to market it so unashamedly to an out-dated female stereotype.

A Cadbury’s spokesperson described the concept behind the new bar, “The mix of wafer and chocolate is a lighter way to eat chocolate, and we know from experience that women are attracted to this particular format. It will also appeal to women, because it is in three separate portions so they can consume a little at a time rather than in one go.”

Much as I hate to admit it, I am just the kind of girl that this bar should appeal to. I find a whole snickers hard to handle and have a tendency to buy a bounty, only to leave the second half for later (much to my flatmate’s consternation).

But if there is one thing I hate, its being patronised.

Susan Berfield summarised my feelings exactly on Bloomberg BusinessWeek commenting, ‘I’m sorry, did the spokesman just tell women how to eat chocolate?’ 

Everything about the Crispello, from the tragic strapline (‘A little treat for you’), to the condescending comments of the Cadbury’s spokesperson, makes me want to inhale a king-sized Mars whilst burning my bra.

I do not deny the business sense or effectiveness of gender specific marketing. I do however think that marketers need to spend more time ascertaining how that gender would like to be marketed to. Women in the 21^st century may still count calories, but we’ll be damned if anyone counts them for us.

By Polly Robinson

Putting a face to the name

How important are the people behind the brands?

Everyone knows the big names behind Virgin, Apple and News International but do they contribute to the way people feel about their brand? Rupert Murdoch certainly has seen how his actions can affect his business.  

Brands are always fighting to become more human and customers are always after that personal touch. After all, everyone wants to be wanted.

Richard Branson, to some people, is seen as a big figure head in the business world. Rated as the UK’s 4^th richest citizen in Forbes’ 2011 list of billionaires, it’s clear to see he’s doing something right. And it’s not just his business ventures and accomplishments that people aspire to – he’s a real person. He’s a family man - this was clear to see when his holiday home was destroyed.

But he’s also not afraid of adventure. He launched his first business at just 16, and now heads up a multinational conglomerate with over 400 companies worldwide.

A brand needs to be likable, interesting and human for it to make an impression on a large scale. Maybe Branson has all those qualities and that’s what’s been behind Virgin’s billions.

But some house-hold brands, that are just as well-loved, if not more, hide their CEOs from the limelight.

Mulberry, a quintessentially British brand, started out producing fishing bags and jackets, inspired by the country pursuits of hunting and shooting. It was only after the brand grew throughout the UK and internationally that the iconic Bayswater was born.

But have you ever seen Mr Mulberry – or Roger Saul as he is officially known? No. Even after he left in 2002, the faces behind the brand have never really entered the limelight.

For the company that was started with £500 Saul was given for his 21^st, it hasn’t always been an easy ride. A brand that is now known for quality and luxury was once seen as ‘stuck in the countryside’.

After nearly sinking in the 90s, the company went through an extreme image overhaul. Rather than shoving the brand’s backers into the limelight, strategists chose to celebrate the famous faces of those who have inspired collections – Alexa Chung & Lana Del Ray. These ladies have revitalised the brand, lending it a cool-factor that has contributed to its cult status.

There’s no doubt that placing a face behind, or at least beside a brand, adds value. But does it need to be the founder? Of course an individual who has started a successful business from scratch will always be a source of intrigue. However, without a little charisma, without that… je ne sais quoi, their connection with the brand has very little commercial value. If this is the case, it would be far more worthwhile bringing Brandgelina into the mix.

By Stephanie Rock

What does your coffee say about you?

This week, hot beverage politics hit the headlines, as news emerged that Ed Miliband plays the role of coffee boy in the opposition offices.

David Cameron chose Prime Ministers Questions as a fitting time to divulge this information, clearly hoping to suggest that Ed Miliband isn’t ‘butch’ enough to take on the top dog position of PM.

In the same week Ed Balls shrugged off claims that that he split a cappuccino over a colleague’s papers. Don’t be mistaken for thinking that Mr Balls was embarrassed at defacing government work though.  On the contrary, he was upset at the accusation that he drinks a sissy cappuccino, when his preferred choice is a double espresso with an extra shot of hot water.

Discussion of the inappropriate timing of David Cameron’s comments, and the implicit suggestion in both Balls’ and Cameron’s statements that you need to be ‘butch’ (manly) to succeed in politics, could go on for hours. Nevertheless, the incidents also relate to another controversial topic: What foods/ drinks give a good business impression?

After all, agree with Balls/Cameron or not, you can see their simple logic: Strong coffee= strong personality. Recognising this however can open the door to a whole range of anxieties. Does displaying a weakness for chocolate immediately pigeonhole you as sweet? Does choosing Chinese over Indian make you a boardroom pushover, unable to handle the heat?

A quick browse of the Internet unearths a wealth of similar food/office questions and insecurities. One forum I came across was completely dedicated to what you could and couldn’t eat in business meetings, offering numerous scenarios dependent on what those around you were eating and what time of day it was.

Another particularly entertaining article from The Guardian discussed the rise of the breakfast meeting and the issues of tucking into a full English whilst others reach for a low-fat soya fruit pot whilst downing a wheatgrass shot.

Nevertheless, by far the most sensible piece of advice, and one which I will forever follow, came from Karen Brady who tells women not to shun the canapés at dinner parties, ‘because you can see the pained expression on their faces.’ Karen is right, people may disapprove of fatty but no one likes a killjoy.

At the end of the day, people may judge others on what they eat. However, I hope I am not alone in thinking that to judge an individual’s business credentials based on their choice of coffee is utterly ridiculous. Ed Balls can drink a skinny frappuccino with whipped cream and a caramel shot for all I care, as long as he does his job. 

By Polly Robinson

A picture speaks 1000 words

In public relations we are considered words people, using the power of the pen to tell our stories.

It is sometimes forgotten the power a picture can possess. Yes words are better at conveying nuanced messages, helping you to speak directly to your audience; however often one image can capture the hearts and imagination of a nation in a way words rarely do. Images are not exclusive; they speak a universal language which can be understood by everyone.

The Vietnam War was often considered the first ‘television war.’ In the 1960’s people could see the Vietnam War in colour and in the comfort of their living rooms. In the mid-1960’s, television was considered to be the most important source of news for the American public, and possibly the most powerful influence.

Initially the coverage was pro-American, with interviews and a generally positive spin. The violence in the news reports often involved little more than puffs of smoke in the distance, as aircraft bombed the unseen enemy. It was only when the war came into urban areas that the destruction and suffering started to appear regularly on TV.

The real change came with the beginning of American troop withdrawals in 1969. The focus was still on ‘American boys’ and the troops were still presented in a sympathetic light. Nevertheless journalists were growing increasingly sceptical of claims of progress, and the course of the war was presented more as an eternal recurrence than a string of decisive victories. Visuals from the war zone, although not violently graphic, placed emphasis of the human costs involved.

The power of these images being beamed directly into American homes and around the world helped to change the tide of public opinion, putting pressure on the government to eventually pull out of Vietnam.

So I suppose if there is a moral to this tale, it is this. Sometimes we should put down our pens- because there is truth in that old saying; a picture speaks 1000 words.

By Pema Seely

Can we finally have it all?

Last week, we received the news that Helen Gurley Brown, former editor of Cosmopolitan, had died. She presided over the woman’s glossy for 32 years, taking it from a conventional magazine for repressed housewives of the USA to what many regard as a bible for 21^st century womanhood.

During her career, Gurley Brown was criticised by feminists for placing too much editorial emphasis on attracting and pleasing men, and for her vocal appreciation of plastic surgery. Nevertheless she remains in my opinion a justifiable and valuable female role model.

Helen Gurley Brown was one of the first people to suggest that women might have it all- the corner office, the loving family and fulfilling sex-life.

Although in theory, Gurley Brown is of course correct, it is only 50 years after this initial statement, and numerous boardroom and bedroom struggles, that this utopian ideal looks to be coming anywhere near some kind of reality.

The problem was, that although Cosmopolitan encouraged business, love and motherhood, popular culture and the world’s media didn’t really play ball. Over the past 50 years, the two seem to have colluded in their portrayal of such women, intermittently branding them as boardroom bitches, unloving mothers and inattentive wives.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher was widely dubbed The Iron Lady; whilst this pseudonym suggested her uncompromising approach to foreign policy, it hardly painted her as a loving wife and sensitive mother. Our first female PM has not been the only muti-tasking mummy to suffer the media’s scrutiny. Anna Wintour’s less than open demeanor has led to her portrayal as an ice-woman and bitch, a characterisation the press eagerly confirmed in their reporting of her affair and divorce in 1999.

This criticism of career women is not confined to real-life editorial, but perpetuated by popular culture. There are countless television series where women in power are negatively portrayed or seen failing to maintain a work life balance; The Devil Wears Prada, Ally McBeal and BBC’s Mistresses to name just a few.

Nevertheless, all is not doom and gloom. Perhaps I am optimistic but the tide does seem to be turning and recently I have noticed a far more positive media approach to the women that have it all.

First of all Karen Brady, vice-chairman of West Ham United, wife and mother of two became a veritable nation’s sweetheart. Then there was the reaction to Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg’s brave declaration that she leaves the office at 5.30pm everyday for dinner with her children. This statement, which could’ve been met with derision, was actually applauded for its conveyance of simple family commitment. Similarly, last month, when pregnant Marisa Mayer was named Yahoo CEO, comments were predominantly congratulatory, focusing on her aptitude for the job rather than her imminent delivery. 

I’m not saying that the problem of work-life balance for females no longer exists. The very fact that a successful businesswoman in a loving relationship and with children compels comment at all, proves there is still some way to go. Nevertheless, as we at Wordville find so often, it helps to have the media on our side.   

By Polly Robinson

Set up for Life

Like most people in the UK – and indeed the world – I was glued to my TV screen on Saturday night, willing Jessica Ennis on in her quest for Heptathlon gold. She had, of course, been the favourite to win all along. The media hype before the event had been colossal and poor Jess had the hopes of a nation on her shoulders as she entered the biggest spectacle of her life.

After she won by such an impressive margin – and after the initial celebrations had died down ever-so-slightly, whispers started over whether she would choose to race in the 110m Hurdle event later in the week. Jess had, after all, achieved the best hurdles time ever achieved by a heptathlete. 

As my family joined in the speculation, I argued: “She could, but she doesn’t need to.” In fact, Jess doesn’t need to do any athletics ever again. What she achieved on Saturday was so magnificent that it has cemented her in sporting history and paved the way for her to do absolutely anything she wants – she could be a presenter, a sports pundit, a film star, a politician… Almost overnight, she has the world at her feet.

It’s every PRO’s dream; achieving the equivalent of Jess winning the heptathlon gold for one of our clients. An idea so great, so huge, so influential, so genius that it simply never leaves the pages of the world’s media and is written about for years to come.

While we’re talking big and aiming high, here are my top three Jess-Ennis-Gold PR equivalents of 2012:

-          Kony video

A perfect example of viral publicity working at its best, the video exposed warlord, Joseph Kony’s use of child soldiers in Uganda. Film-maker Jason Russell from advocacy group, Invisible Children, uploaded a 30 minute documentary to Youtube and Vimeo that had soon been viewed by over 100 million people that had previously been unaware of the issue.The Kony 2012 campaign’s goal was to increase awareness about Kony and his actions, pushing people to urge the American government and others to intervene in the search for Kony. The group then developed the ‘Kony 2012 action kit’, consisting of various DIY marketing materials, which quickly sold out at $30 per set.

-          Mission: Impossible – The Queen

I’ve never really been much of a Royalist. In fact, Britain’s Jubilee fever left me feeling somewhat queasy. But even I had to voice my new-found respect for the Queen when she met up with James Bond at her Palace, climbed into a helicopter and jumped (yes, that part was real) out at 20,000 feet, to make her entrance into the Olympic Park. The dare-devil Queen was watched by around a billion people – and in a matter of seconds quashed any image or reputation we Brits have as ‘reserved’ or ‘stuffy’. This bold move will certainly be in the history books of the future, and will earn us a new reputation as a ‘fun’, ‘radical’ and truly ‘far out’ nation. Overnight, widespread faith in Britain was restored.

-          Lauren Luke / Refuge

      Self-taught make-up artist, Lauren Luke, was once herself a victim of domestic violence. The Youtube sensation, whose self-filmed make-up tutorials have earned her over 111 million views, was chosen by Refuge to front a campaign against domestic violence by making a series of videos that showed victims how to cover up their bruises after being attacked. The shocking tutorials – one entitled ‘How to look good the morning after’ – were a depressing reminder of the high numbers of victims that try to cover up their abuse. Refuge’s campaign was everything that a PR campaign should be; it took advantage of a medium that was likely to go viral, it was impactful, and bore a simple message; making it worthy of stories in almost all target national and consumer media.

By Jess Matthias

Olympics, you are here. Finally.

It’s time. Oh yes it is, and I, like a lot of you I’m sure, have waited long enough for these epic Games to start.

It’s been seven years since we were designated to host the 2012 Olympics, VS France who was left very vexed. Well the years have gone by and now it’s time for the show; they say it will be ‘the most extraordinary games in the Olympic history’.

Yes, this year Britain has been motivated to host internationally relevant events. Indeed our Queen was watched by a 15 million people last month, and in her honour (if not just as an excuse) 9,500 street and private parties were hosted around the Capital. The Diamond Jubilee was a spectacular event, for locals and tourists alike, who witnessed 1,000 boats float in chaotic formation down the Thames, or attend the concert hosted at Buckingham Palace.

The Jubilee Mania being over, I thought things were getting back to normal. I was expecting a busy, humid, sun-free summer like the kind we usually experience, with a break in the rain schedule a hopeful highlight.

However I was surprised by the wave, well, the tsunami overwhelming the city with the Games. Indeed it has all changed. Tube stations have been rebuilt, roads cleaned and graffiti whipped off walls in Brick Lane. Tesco’s has even changed their opening times, thinking we would, as day-to-day customers, be happy to find it opened at 5am instead of 7! But that’s just me being cynical, as tonight it’s been said that a 4 billion people are going to be watching the opening ceremony. And London will receive an extra million people during the month surrounding the Games, all eager to attend the 302 events coming up.

Meanwhile, the debt seems to have reached the thousand billions, so what would that be in numbers? Next to that it’s true that the 3 billion spent on her Majesty’s Jubilee isn’t much, nor the 110 million pounds spent on security during the Games.

We can argue that sales during the Jubilee went up 120 million pounds, and that McDonald’s will be serving 1.75 million meals, so in the long term, maybe it is helping our drowned economy.

But no matter the crisis, the starvation and unemployment, millions of people sang the British National ‘God save the Queen’ Anthem, and they all definitely meant it. That’s the beauty of England, and we are all ready to shout for our athletes, no matter how much of a hassle taking the tube is these days.

26,000 members of world’s media are waiting in the city, making it the biggest event in history. So it seems truthful to say that tonight and for the next two weeks, the worlds’ eyes are on us.

By Mona Malca