There is an enormous opportunity for the advertising agency with even the vaguest semblance of balls.
It is to take advantage of the fact that South Africa wallows somewhere down at the bottom of the global barrel when it comes to service.
Must one assume that every client briefing to an agency includes the instruction that under no circumstances should any advertising be permitted to commit the manufacturer, retailer or service provider to anything that might come flying back in their faces?
Probably not. The thing is, no-one has given a thought to really putting an advertisers' reputation on the line.
Shrugs and apathy
It goes beyond that. How many times has an agency seen a truly great campaign fall apart because of distribution snafus preventing the product being on the shelves when the campaign has broken; when retailers or dealers haven't read their bulletins about upcoming ad campaigns and answer customer inquiries with shrugs and apathy; when the service the customer gets from the bank, insurance company, timeshare outfit,etc just isn't anywhere remotely near what the ads claimed it would be?
It happens more often than not.
With the result that when the advertising promise is not kept by the people at the coalface, the campaign withers and dies.
So, this opportunity is not just there for the agency that has the guts to stand up to its client and insist on including something in the ad that will act as a firecracker up the backsides of those who have to deliver the goods, but it should be something every agency should think about purely from the point of view of wanting to be effective.
Promises, promises
What I'm talking about is advertising in which the client promises to do something. Advertising that commits retailers, dealers, service providers to a specific course of action.
For example, how often does it happen with the launch of a new car? After a few months down the line when all the hype has worn off? Expensive ads go to inordinate lengths to catch the eye of a prospective buyer and cajole him or her to call in at their nearest dealer for a test drive? It's damn difficult to achieve that. How disappointing when the excited and enthusiastic potential customer does exactly that only to be greeted by a salesman who doesn't bother to take his feet off his desk, let alone stand up and who says, "Sorry I don't have any demo vehicles right now, come back tomorrow."
What I'm suggesting is that somewhere on the ad should be something that lights a fire under the salesman. Something like: "If your nearest dealer doesn't immediately arrange a test drive call me, give me his name" - signed by the MD.
Now the reason no MD will agree to that is because they're worried about having to answer the customer hotline all day. But the point is the phone won't ring because when, there is something potentially career-inhibiting like that in an ad, salesmen will a) get to hear about it one way or the other and b) make damn sure they don't have their feet on the desk while an irate customer is dialling the MD on his cellphone.
While advertising is great at persuading customers to do things, they all fall flat when it comes to motivating sales people.
Motivation in ads
There are myriad more examples. Hotel ads that offer free accommodation if service isn't up to scratch. But not a generalised sort of statement - it needs to be specific: if reception is not up to scratch, if room service doesn't deliver within 10 minutes - something measurable.
Service providers, in particular those that invite business by telephone, stand to benefit the most by including this sort of motivation in their advertising.
The trick is to do it in such a way that guilty parties can't point fingers. Even to the point, where possible, of including the names and perhaps even photos of front-line managers and service people in advertisements.
Potential is limitless
Of course it has been done before in this country but in a rather non-committal way. Where people can call toll-free or consumer "hot lines" if service is not up to scratch. But in every case it has been too generalised. The company as such has elected to carry the can.
What needs to happen is that individuals need to be affected. Jobs need to be put on the line. Careers need to be a stake.
Whoever gets going first will make a gigantic leap forward in terms of holding the marketing high ground. The trick is to get going before everyone is doing it. In itself not a bad thing - in fact this should be a national objective. The point is that whoever gets in first will make a mint; those who follow will simply survive.
Chris Moerdyk was head of strategic planning and public affairs for BMW South Africa and spent 16 years in the creative and client service departments of ad agencies, ending up as resident director of Lindsay Smithers-FCB in KwaZulu-Natal. Chris was recently listed in a Markinor survey as one of South Africa's top 10 marketing thought leaders. Apart from currently being a corporate marketing analyst, advisor and media commentator, he is non-executive chairman of Bizcommunity. Email Chris on and follow him on Twitter at @chrismoerdyk.
We did that for a campaign for DHL many many years ago Chris - "If we dont answer the phone within 25 rings, your delivery goes free!" Guess what - we were told to pull the campaign after the first week! They couldnt deliver despite giving us an assurance they could! hahahahaha Posted on 14 Sep 2009 15:40
I beg to differ (on certain parts of the article) - I don't see any reason for ad agencies to be be accountable for any defects / false marketing / or any shortcoming in clients products or services. Posted on 14 Sep 2009 16:30
According to the latest statistics 0.6% of the employed working population in SA has a form of disability (I don't know where, nor in what positions; but they're definitely not in the shops I frequent, nor in the sources of media I consume).
Acccording to the UN Dept Social Development ... an estimated 1/3 of the world's population are directly affected by disabilities. Why is this population-group ignored? Don't marketers and media-people have the inner-courage to do what they know is right - by not 'ignoring' them?
See the problems that the SAAF caused by 'ignoring' Caster Semenya's genetic-test. Posted on 14 Sep 2009 18:34
I remember that one of the car rental companies did it, Imperial - if I am not mistaken... but the fact that I can't even remember which car rental company did it was says a lot about the effectiveness of the campaign.... Posted on 14 Sep 2009 18:49
lets not make the ad agency accountable, becuase in the micro environment all stakeholders have to pull their weight and we -the ad agency- are marketing intermediaries in this respect. so we launch a campaign and it is a success then suppliers, the company, staff e.t.c. should also envision the same idea that we have for the brand, if it doesnt then its the brand manager who should be held accountable not the ad agency. we have a lot of hard work and many clients to satisfy so we give each campaign 100% then move to the next meaning we cant go back and also train the staff of a particular brand Posted on 15 Sep 2009 09:39
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This Message Board accepts no liability of legal consequences that arise from the Message Boards (e.g. libel, slander, or other such crimes). All posted messages are the sole property of their respective authors. The maintainer does retain the right to remove any message posts for whatever reasons. People that post messages to this forum are not to libel/slander nor in any other way depict a company, entity, individual(s), or service in a false light; should they do so, the legal consequences are theirs alone. Bizcommunity.com will disclose authors' IP addresses to authorities if compelled to do so by a court of law.