Brand news: we’re no longer brands

Now you see us, now you don’t. Have you been following the Muji madness and Starbucks strangeness? Muji is not a brand and this Starbucks café is not Starbucks. The recession is producing some strange responses in the world of big brands. Muji, the pound store that isn’t, sells you everything but now wants you to decide that you can have too much and that enough is enough. And it can do that because, it says, it isn’t really a brand. Starbucks, where you pay for the seat as well as the coffee, is trialling local stores in the US which do not have any Starbucks branding, meaning to show that it is returning the idea of the independent local café to people’s lives. Both Muji and Starbucks are hereby attempting to introduce marketing by stealth. It’s unwholesome, unrealistic, inauthentic, unethical, disingenuous and utterly, completely and unequivocally cynical. Both give brands and branding a bad name.

Mark Griffiths www.idealconsulting.co.uk

Paying to volunteer

Admittedly I've had a year off volunteering as a reading partner locally, but on the day I decide to go and get everything set up again for next term, I learn about the new vetting and barring scheme that's coming in. Basically, spend more than one day a month in school and you'll have to pay £64 for proof that you're safe to do so.

Children's authors are up in arms and refusing to go to schools any more on principle. Like the authors, I sometimes address assemblies with many adults present, so can emphathise with their view. But as a reading partner, I'm on my own with children.

I was happy to get my CRB certificate as (a) I know I'm safe (b) it provides a guarantee for the school that I have been cleared for spending time with children and (c) it didn't cost me anything.

What I have an issue with is paying £64. Volunteers are already giving up our time unpaid and making a massive contribution to education at no cost to the taxpayer. I know my employer, ideal, will foot the charge for the checks if necessary, but what about all the non-working mums or retired helpers - who's going to pay for their checks?

As it is, schools and children look set to lose out (yet again) as many people will follow in the authors' footsteps and just stay away. By all means have the checks and the proof, but I'd like to keep the checks free of charge in recognition of the important role we volunteers play in education. Or sweeten the pill by donating back to schools half of the sum paid to the database agency.



Debbie Griffiths http://www.idealconsulting.co.uk/

Sugar was never so sour

Here’s one for ya – is there more to the detachment of Sir Alan Sugar from his role as NS&I ambassador than meets the eye? In 2004, National Savings & Investments made Sugar their brand ambassador, the frontman for their advertising campaign. Is it a good idea to have Sir Alan Sugar attached to your brand? NS&I seemed to think so. In my book about the branding of Premium Bonds, Nice little ERNIE, I discussed how NS&I agonised over their choice. But Sugar seemed, to them, to be the perfect fit. It seems that amassing millions and millions of pounds over years and years of business sent a message to canny savers. However, NS&I can hardly have anticipated Sugar’s real, mainstream fame as centrepiece of The Apprentice from 2005 onwards. Here, without a TV ad script, even with careful editing, the man reveals a clear personality trait that we can all name. Some people have called it bullying. Others have described his approach as a model of bad management. Many wonder why anybody would want to work for him, particularly if you’re a woman. But Gordon Brown has had the benefit of the NS&I and Apprentice TV coverage. Yet he still saw fit to create Sugar as Enterprise Tsar. What message, I wonder, does he think this is sending to women? Or to anyone wanting to set up in business today? Put all this aside for a moment – for, today, Sugar’s relationship with NS&I is over, thanks to Sugar’s ‘promotion’ into the political elite of the House of Lords - Cabinet Office rules prohibit the use of political figures in government advertising. Now, although government directs its policy, NS&I is hardly a political vehicle. So, NS&I has to lose the brand equity it’s gained with Sugar and begin it again with someone else. This is an outcome of the recent expenses scandal. The Tories tried to tear Sugar away from The Apprentice when he became Enterprise Tsar. They failed. Sugar has agreed not to discuss government policy on the TV programme!! They’ve succeeded with NS&I. In opposition, separating politics from business is seen as the greatest priority for them (and their mates at The Telegraph). But how are we to influence policy on business if we do not bring people from business into politics? Even Gordon Brown understands this. He believes Sugar can reverse the relentless tendency to see his own brand as the dead duck it is. And the Tories are desperate for this not to happen. So, David Cameron, is it best for the country that the person most associated with successful business practice and apprenticeship does not have any influence on government policy? Or is it best for the Conservative Party? Or, are you politicians all so completely out of touch that you think Alan Sugar, the man who famously predicted that the iPod would be kaput by Christmas 2005, will make any difference to the business start-ups we really need in this country? It’s a sweet logic that leaves a very sour taste.

Mark Griffiths http://www.idealconsulting.co.uk/

Carbon pensions – cost vs. value

Which of Jonathan Porritt’s 19 sustainability breakthrough ideas for the 21st century captured your imagination? I couldn’t get my head around the algae carbon capture one and some of the others look like they’ve been recycled and given a fresh look, but I really like some of the energy ideas put forward. I wish I’d had an input into the report – I’d have got people talking about ‘carbon pensions’.
We know the majority of the UK population isn’t saving for a pension – either because they don’t care or can’t afford to - but those that can, do so we can look forward to a more comfortable retirement. Well, it’s the same with renewable energy – if you’re able, it’s time to consider paying a premium now for a long-term investment that will make our climate more comfortable for our retirement and for future generations.
While the green lobby keeps shouting about the need for us, as a nation, to invest more in renewables – including the Carbon Trust’s report today - this important message gets all too easily drowned out by the media who focus on the increase in prices this will result in.
Of course there’ll be a cost, but there’s also a cost of not investing in renewables. Staying dependent on overseas oil and gas is not only unsustainable environmentally, it’s risky politically, economically and therefore socially. Fall out with someone and they could cut off the supply or hold us to ransom over whatever prices they want to charge. Nuclear is not the answer. What you gain on the green swings, through carbon neutrality, you lose on the radioactive roundabout.
We’re an island with great potential for generating our own clean energy from wind and waves. Let’s invest in it. The money will have to come from somewhere, preferably government, but they’re unlikely to foot the whole bill. Energy companies rightly need to be made to invest in renewables, but they should also be made to look after those unable to pay. Rewnewable energy can only be truly ‘sustainable’ if the environmental benefits are in harmony with the economic and social impact.
That’s why I liked Porritt’s ideas on combating fuel poverty while improving energy efficiency. I haven’t fully got my head around the carbon credit card idea, but in principle I’m warm to it (pun intended). As long as those unable to pay get everything they need, those who are able to pay can choose whether to stick to a low carbon lifestyle or pay for the extra they use.
At Ideal we’re happy to pay a bit extra for our energy, which contributes to Scottish Power’s Green Energy Fund. Yes, I’d like our bills to come down, but until the Sustainable Development Commission’s breakthroughs become reality, that means we’ll have to reduce our own consumption, which isn’t such a bad thing, is it?

Debbie Griffiths www.idealconsulting.co.uk

Misplaced brand loyalty

The politico-religious brand draws some confused reactions. British Muslims are divided over the role of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some are prepared to state, on camera, that Taliban law is the best kind of law. Others, particularly women, see the Taliban for what they are. Before we get too outraged at the BBC's platform for those who would uphold such repression, supposedly in the name of that man-made and man-managed construct called religion (again – does humankind ever learn?), we might look at some of our own youthful reflections on politics and the way to live our lives. Some of us thought communism, or the socialist idea, was the way to go. Notwithstanding the fact that there isn’t a culture in the world where it has worked any better than its capitalist counterparts (I've visited Cuba twice - everyone has good teeth and is over-educated for a life they are not permitted to live). Then we grew out of such Romantic notions, being prepared to grapple with the uncertainties of life by recognising the eternal imperfection of humanity. The Taliban brand is very much like the Nazi brand. It attracts considerable popularity for its no-nonsene, cut-through characteristics and seems to have a sense of direction. But it is ultimately doomed to failure because the sense of humanity always prevails...eventually. If British Muslims living a life of freedom in our society flirt with it when asked, we shouldn't be so surprised (though the BBC's determination to promote the values of some minorities can be counter-productive and give more fuel to the Daily Mail/BNP brigade). Loyalty to such a brand, for whatever reasons, is always misplaced.

Mark Griffiths http://www.idealconsulting.co.uk/

Racism at Wimbledon

It’s open season on East Europeans at the BBC. That must mean it’s Wimbledon again! Is it just me, or is BBC TV tennis link-man, John Inverdale, sounding more and more like Rigsby or Alf Garnett? Two days in and every broadcast seems to home in on how the Eastern Europeans are dominating the women’s game. There’s Nockemova, not to be confused with Nackemova. Here’s Ichalova struggling to distinguish herself from Scratchelova, even though they come from different countries and cultures a thousand miles apart. The Russians are coming! What is it with re-enacting the Cold War? Do people not realise that Russia in particular has the economic clout, population size and political will to create such success? Even if they do realise, why is this success begrudged? What’s wrong with Eastern Europeans being good at tennis? Nobody complained when the Americans dominated. So, now it’s the poor Williams sisters versus the Russian hordes. It’s fortunate that some of the Eastern Europeans are so good looking. Did you witness the Serena Williams post-match interview on Monday evening? The BBC actively encouraged her to see herself oppressed by East Europeans. ‘Yes,’ said Serena. ‘I think I’ll need to change my name to Williams-ova.’ This, in itself, sounds fairly harmless. Set it in the context of the sneering and mocking barrage of anti-Eastern European commentary, however, it acquires another meaning. You can’t imagine the tables being turned, with Russians being encouraged to complain – jokingly, of course – about the amount of blacks dominating the game. And this is where the hypocrisy lies. Racism is not just about skin colour. It doesn’t have an exclusively ethnic focus. It is also about discrimination on national and cultural grounds. Eastern Europeans are like vermin. There are so many of them. They’re fair game. We’ve just seen 100 Romanians kicked out of Northern Ireland with a few polite words thrown their way by our politicians. Imagine the furore if they’d been black or Muslim. Have the recent elections not taught us anything? Are we to allow the repugnant views of UKIP and BNP to take centre stage? Is it OK to return to the 70s and call foreigners what we like (not the black ones, of course). Racism for any reason is essentially a sign of ignorance, stupidity and fear. And now it’s alive and kicking in one of our nation’s beloved annual institutions, as the BBC celebrates Wimbledon. Well, the BBC coverage is discriminatory, biased and unfair. They’re trying too hard to entertain us and what they’re saying is fundamentally wrong. Watch and see.

Mark Griffiths www.idealconsulting.co.uk

The politics brand never learns

So, the scandal of politics continues.Those responsible for the brand of politics do not appear to be learning their lessons. The way that John Bercow has been elected Speaker of the House of Commons shows that politicians believe they are operating in a vacuum, unobserved by the populace they are elected to serve. Once again, somebody gets elected on a majority vote (it took three votes to get to that). And that person is elected, not necessarily because most electors thought he was the best man for the job, but because many Labour MPs thought that electing him would be the best way to rile the Tories. Already, before the man has even started the job, Tories are talking about unseating him when they assume power next year. Why can’t we have a system of rotating speakers, so that all sides are satisfied? Why can’t we have fixed Parliaments? Why can’t we have politicians who remember why they became politicians in the first place? And they wonder why people are turned off politics and do not vote at election time. How can we engage with a brand in which such behaviour takes place? I cannot and will not.

Mark Griffiths http://www.idealconsulting.co.uk/