Whatever...

What exactly has Ford got against Stupid Dogbot?

By Joe Banks

It’s often said (and certainly when I was growing up in the 70s) that the adverts are the best things on the telly.  Yes, they’re short films made to sell things, but the sheer diversity of approaches to fulfilling this basic objective is truly mind-boggling.

And of course, intentionally or not, they also say lots about the company behind the product, both in how it sees itself and how it views its potential market.  In fact, in these days of heightened brand awareness and increased media savvy among TV audiences, this is perhaps the most important aspect of the advert. 

Which is why you’d think that both the companies and ad agencies involved would sometimes give a bit more thought to the implications of the messages contained within their adverts.  OK, so the way that people view ads is obviously a subjective experience - but one current campaign has caught my attention for all the wrong reasons…

Ford’s ‘Clever Fiesta, Stupid Dogbot’ ads have been running for over a year now, and there’s something not quite right about them.  Basically, Ford has invented a robot dog to compare one of its cars against, with all kinds of indignities visited upon the unfortunate metal canine while the Fiesta sits in the background looking smugly inert. 

There’s a number of ways in which these ads don’t work for me, but the most obvious is that Dogbot is actually rather cute and lovable, whereas the Fiesta is just another toaster on wheels.  It just seems pretty mean-spirited (even the word ‘stupid’ seems harsh) to pick on poor old Dogbot, who after all – like a real dog – probably doesn’t know any better.

As such, these ads make me feel sorry for Dogbot while depicting the Ford brand as being self-satisfied and complicit in Dogbot’s mishaps.

Now, you might think it’s crazy that I've got myself emotionally involved with the plight of a computer animated graphic – but that’s exactly what a lot of modern adverts are designed to do.  Only on this occasion, I’m assuming that this isn’t the empathetic response that Ford was aiming for.

I suppose what amazes me most is that a campaign that has clearly cost a lot of money can still be so imprecise in the message it delivers – but this doesn’t seem to be so unusual in advertising.  Public relations is also a great way to promote and enhance a company’s brand values – but I can’t imagine any PR agency getting away with a campaign that was as potentially open to such a negative interpretation.

Sure, PR and advertising are different disciplines, and they go about brand building in different ways – but sometimes, you’ve got to wonder if the desire to do something ‘cool’ hasn't over-ridden basic common sense about how people relate to certain imagery.

(And it looks like Ford isn’t the only car manufacturer that’s sending mixed messages out in its adverts)

Brand extension or brand confusion?

By Alexandra Radius

Anyone in business has to answer the following questions almost every day. How can we grow our business? How can we increase sales? How can we maintain or lower expenses? One way of responding to these questions is brand extension.

Virgin is a good example; a recent independent study has shown that the UK public voted Virgin as their most admired brand with 23% of the votes.  (Sony came second with 21% of votes)

Virgin's revenue comes from a variety of businesses: airlines, megastores, mobile phones, music label, trains, cosmetics, wines, money - just about everything! In the UK, Virgin even owns a modelling agency and two nightclubs.

Why does Richard Branson keep launching so many different operations? The Virgin website even solicits proposals for new business ideas. With new technology and media opening up even more possibilities for diversification, what's next? Virgin social networking?

In France, to increase brand awareness, Virgin has just bought out a radio and TV station (we already have the mobile phones, megastore and drinks). But while it's a new way to communicate and talk about the Virgin brand, I'm not sure this strategy works so well in France because the company simply doesn't have the same market penetration as it does in the UK.

Of course, the greatest danger of too much diversification is the possibility of a negative impact on core brand values, leading to confusion in customers' minds. Also in a diversified company, the objectives of some sub-brands may conflict with those of others.

In my opinion, in France, Virgin may have to refocus on basic corporate communication activities to increase consumer loyalty before spreading itself too thinly with multiple products.

Privacy leak becomes a flood

By Richard Ratclifffe

Privacy International has produced a report announcing that Britain is Europe’s worst performer when it comes to protecting the privacy of its population. Britain only narrowly beat communist China, who censor the internet and recently announced it would no longer tolerate user generated content on sites like YouTube.

Privacy and the infringement of civil liberties are popular subjects at JK and have featured in blogs discussing CCTV, data sharing and tracking devices. While discussing personal data and the creation of centralised national databases, one of my colleagues touched upon the argument that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

But recent data loss fiascos have shown that potential invasion of privacy is a danger to us all. Even if we ignore the dubious ways in which our own government has misused personal information, it is obvious that it’s incapable of protecting us from the threat of fraudsters and cyber-criminals.

Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg has recently produced figures showing that 2007 was the worst ever year for personal privacy. The loss of half the population’s personal information has led many people to believe that the ID card scheme is now unlikely to become a reality.

Despite these events and recent research showing that 6 out of 10 UK citizens do not trust the Government with personal data, Gordon Brown, in his first major interview of 2008, reiterated his unwavering support for the scheme.  While there are many conspiracy theories regarding the malevolent plans for our personal information, it has now been proved that incompetence is just as big a threat.  This is all a far cry from Labour's optimistic plans for eGovernment and broadband Britain.

Much of the information which would be required for the ID card scheme and the national identity register would be of a sensitive nature, and every time an individual interacts with any part of the ID infrastructure, an audit trail would be left behind which could be updated to the register. Information could cover education and employment data (including any trade union affiliations,) as well as medical records (including any conditions or diseases such as allergies or HIV).

Before considering the consequences individuals might face should this information be stolen or innocently misplaced, it is worth remembering Gordon Brown has openly admitted that, just as the DVLA sell driver’s information to clampers, he would be prepared to sell our information to private enterprises.   

As the capabilities of technology continue to progress, it is imperative that people start to speak out in defence of their privacy. The idea of a centralised national identity register is remarkably similar to systems used in regimes like communist East Germany. Despite not having the technology we have now, these systems were still ruthlessly efficient in exerting control over the population.

I think that before ideas of this nature are even considered, it is essential that the procedural errors leading to the recent data loss incidents need to be examined and rectified. In addition, it needs to be explained why so much private information is actually required and what it is to be used for, rather than simply using ambiguous threats of terrorists and illegal immigrants to justify it.