Tag

Procter & Gamble

Browsing

By

P&G has filed to trademark LOL, WTF, NBD and FML

Procter & Gamble’s attempt to connect with a millennial audience by trademarking acronyms such as WTF, LOL and NBD has raised eyebrows, but the practice of laying brand claim to everyday slang is not as unusual as it may seem.

P&G has filed to trademark LOL (laugh out loud), WTF (what the fuck), NBD (no big deal) and FML (fuck my life).

Initially reported in AdAge, the news has drawn the attention of global outlets such as the BBC and Bloomberg, which have questioned if owning such colloquialisms will really end entice a younger customer base.

However, the conglomerate is not the first company to attempt to brand everyday slang.

“Trademarking colloquial language is nothing new – McDonald’s somewhat depressingly trademarked Maccy D’s, for one – and other than it being an interesting headline, I’m not sure there’s not much to see here,” said Rich Leigh, founder of Radioactive PR.

“A quick search of the US Patent and Trademark Office shows that there are multiple other live trademarks for the term ‘WTF’, for instance, across a handful of goods and services categories, including hand tools and fashion.”

Indeed, there have been 246 trademarks filed for LOL or phrases containing LOL, 147 for WTF and its offspring, 71 for NBD and 61 for FML. Many of the files have been labelled as ‘dead’, meaning the application was ‘refused, dismissed, or invalidated by the office’ – all potential outcomes of P&G’s attempt.

Leigh added: “I can understand that the suits at a big corporate entity like P&G even being aware of slang is jarring, like when your mum asks if you’d like to be in a selfie (and then asking somebody else to take the ‘selfie’), but bless them, they’re trying. Whether it helps them hoover up all that sweet, sweet MilleXZial cash remains to be seen, but that’s no doubt their intent.”

David Born, director of entertainment licensing firm Born Licensing, agrees that P&G’s interest in the acronyms is driven by a millennial targeting strategy that a number of brands are actively undertaking.

“This also appears to be the reason why we are seeing emojis almost everywhere we turn, whether on product or in advertising,” he said. “We recently worked with Just Eat who licensed emojis as part of their Real Reviews campaign, and have a number of other advertisers that have shown interest in using emojis as a way to communicate with their target audience.”

Melissa Robertson, chief executive of Now, is cynical that the tactic will work, however: “WTF P&G! They must have a GSOH if they really think they can claim ownership of generic text language IMO. WTF is going on when marketeers become that greedy? Are they going to sue our Whatsapp groups for using their owned language?

“FWIW, I think it’s ridiculous. Don’t make me LOL.”

Feature Image Credit: P&G has filed to trademark LOL, WTF, NBD and FML

By

Sourced from The Drum

By Shawn Lim.

As the world’s biggest advertisers like Unilever and Proctor & Gamble continue to operate on lower advertising budgets and spend less on media buys in 2017, Facebook believes that putting its faith in mobile advertising will help it ride the storm going into the next year.

Ever since P&G’s top marketer Marc Pritchard announced that the Ariel and Pampers advertiser will review all of its agency contracts and called for more transparency in the media supply chain at the start of year, the advertising industry has seen some major shakeups.

Unilever dropped half of its creative agencies under its employment and reduced spend to $200m, while P&G reduced up to $140m of its ad spend and stopped investing in areas where it was unsafe for its brands, on top of its move to stop targeted ads on Facebook in 2016.

The cutbacks by the FMCG giants were necessary to clean up the supply chain and remove fraudulent inventory, acknowledges William Platt-Higgins, vice president, global client partnerships at Facebook in an interview with The Drum in Singapore, and notes that it is in everybody’s interest that fraud be eliminated from the ecosystem.

“We have seen various marketers and agencies taking a hard stance on this publicly and some clients very surgically try and cut out as much of that as possible. They have done so without any negative impact on their business because the inventory that they are weeding out is actually not good inventory to begin with,” explains Platt-Higgins.

“It won’t be eliminated completely, but I think all the clients that we work with in all regions of the world are focused on reducing fraud as much as they can and getting transparency into the supply chain by using third party verification.”

While Facebook has previously come under fire for reporting miscalculated metrics and for a lack of transparency because of its closed marketplace around its user data, brands and agencies still trust the social media giant, according to Platt-Higgins, which is why all Facebook verticals are growing, including FMCG.

He also accuses critics of being green-eyed about Facebook’s strong, growing partnership with P&G and other big FMCGs, claiming that it is being brought earlier into the creative and strategy planning stages.

“They (Unilever and P&G) are very focused on maximising value for their investments and cleaning up as much of their supply as they can. They are looking to hold all media choices, not just digital media choices accountable,’ says Platt-Higgins.

“One of the things we are starting to hear is the advantage of any digital investment is it is more measurable than traditional offline investments. Digital channels, because they are measurable, the amount of data available on their efficacy and attribution to sales is large.

“What we are seeing from these conversations is ‘It is great that I am holding all my digital investments super accountable, because that is the right thing to do and I want to hold all my other investments as accountable as well’. What you will see increasingly is that investments will flow to media channels that are providing the higher returns of investment and the higher value, and they will recede from those that aren’t.

He also repeats a well-trotted out company line about its closed marketplace, as he says that the Facebook ecosystem does not qualify it as a ‘walled garden’. He explains that people are jealous of the quality of its data and its desire to protect its data, which comes as a result of its commitment to user privacy.

“We certainly hear it (walled gardens) and I don’t think that we would agree with that,” he adds, adding that the requests tend to boil down to various people or entities wanting more data on individuals, which breaches Facebook’s terms of service and the trust that people give when they join.

“That is something that we will and must protect. So that’s our stance on it,” asserts Platt-Higgins.

Quoting a book called ‘How Brands Grow’ by professor Byron Sharp at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, Platt-Higgins says Sharp’s words inspired Facebook to shift its focus to mobile advertising to cope with the FMCG giants’ lower ad spend and media buys. Sharp wrote that in order for brands to grow they need to bring new users into the franchise, and that consumers are not uniquely loyal to brands and instead tend to shop on a ‘consumer regiment’ of products because of mental and physical availability.

He claims that this approach by Facebook has seen it reach 500,000 households in the Philippines for Nestle’s all-purpose cream product campaign using Facebook and Instagram. While in the UK, 37 FMCG campaigns that made use of its tools drove a 3.7% increase in sales, and of those people buying those products 60% were non-brand buyers. In the US, 200 campaigns on Facebook and Instagram drove an increase in household penetration, bringing new users in 72% of the time.

“Over the last number of years, as people shifted to mobile devices, the concept of both mental and physical availability has changed. If you are in the business of growing your brand, what you need to master is mobile marketing,” says Platt-Higgins.

“This is where we have been spending most of our time. Not only is Facebook and Instagram driving sales, but they are disproportionately driving household penetration and bringing new users in because of mobile.

“In Indonesia or India, where there might be power outages from television, the opportunity to reach people with mobile and bring top-of-mind awareness and mental availability is huge.”

However, Platt-Higgins admits that simply porting assets from television onto mobile does not necessarily work and Facebook is constantly reminding itself that the way people consume content is different. He adds that if a brand is not building for the mobile environment intentionally and with craft, care, seniority, thoughtfulness and senior stakeholder-management stewardship, as well as optimising for mobile, then it is a missed opportunity.

“Brands need to optimise in three areas. One is the reach, where often what we find is that clients have gone too narrow with their reach and that can be a drag on their results. We see that the frequency is not optimised and not reaching people enough or too often. The most important thing is how the creative is being optimised for mobile,” explains Platt-Higgins.

“We spend a lot of time trying to audit and show whether or not the work has been optimised for mobile and if it has, how we can make it even better.

“If we can get those three things right, we find that we can disproportionately drive sales and Facebook has a direct attribution to sales. That is the only equation that people are interested in.”

Platt-Higgins’ advice on mobile certainly carry weight, as a report by eMarketer found that FMCG brands are expected to invest 28% more in mobile advertising in 2017 in the UK.

By Shawn Lim

Sourced from THEDRUM

B

Procter & Gamble is a household name with nearly 100 brands and associated products under its wings. Tide detergent, Pampers diapers, Bounty paper towels, and the skincare brand, Olay, are all owned by P&G. Marketing these brands has also earned P&G the title of the world’s highest-spending marketer (the brand spent over $18 billion last year on promotions, nearly $10 billion of which went toward advertising). P&G certainly has the budget to pay for licensing photography, but apparently lacks the will to do so according to accusations brought by Cincinnati-based photographer, Annette Navarro, who is suing the company for $75 million.

While some photographers have run into issues with smaller brands and sometimes look for over-the-top punitive damages, there is nothing small or punitively over-the-top for P&G, which allegedly showed complete disregard for paying proper licensing fees.

Navarro worked on a number of jobs over a 14-year period for various P&G brands. However, after completing a job for P&G’s brand, Olay, she recalled P&G wanting to save money by licensing the images for three years for use only in North America. While this was relatively standard, years later, the modeling agency representing the models in the photographs would inform her of the unlicensed use of these images both after the licensing terms ended and outside of North America. P&G has reportedly settled with the modeling agency, but did not offer terms acceptable to Navarro, who now seeks the maximum penalty for a number of images used without proper licensing. A similar case handled by Navarro’s lawyers against a different client resulted in a $1.6 million payout for the unauthorized use of just two images, making Navarro’s suit for $75 million not entirely unreasonable considering the widespread use of “several photos.”

P&G knows its advertising budget is out of control and recently announced it would begin scaling back the promotional spending that ate 22 percent of its earnings last year. However, for any company, let alone for one whose annual revenue is in the many billions of dollars, lying about territories and length of time that an image has been used for to save on licensing fees is far from the right way to scale back ad spending. Perhaps the company could have considered running just two of the three $5 million Super Bowl ads it ran this year.

B

Sourced from Fstoppers

By .

Procter & Gamble (P&G) is working to get the right blend of precision with mass-reach in its marketing after previously admitting that it had targeted excessively online.

It doesn’t have to be an “either or” debate, opined Gerry D’Angelo, the global media director for the world’s largest advertiser at the Festival of Media in Rome this week (9 May).

“The approach I’m trying to instill here is to make sure we’re using all the technology to drive scale and reach and then once that’s in place we can use that muscle memory to build personalisation,” he said.

D’Angleo’s talking about building a better use of data and technology at the business, where its marketers have a more robust idea on how to get the most reach but also the right precision. Rather than pull swathes of media money from online platforms, the noises coming from P&G suggest its revamped approach will revolve around how to better buy reach. Part of this thinking would have likely guided P&G’s decision to redistribute its programmatic data duties earlier this month when it cut ties with AudienceScience.

“It’s not that personalisation is a bad thing,” assured D’Angelo as if to ward off concerns that he and his peers will start pulling reams of budget from the likes of Facebook and Google.

“We just need to make sure we don’t follow it out the window and end up talking to a fraction of our category buyers. As long as you can accommodate both of those concepts [personalisation and mass reach] simultaneously, which I think you can, then I think its absolutely acceptable to be able to talk o people and also talk to them in a highly targeted way.”

It’s a change in tack from P&G, which was one of a throng of advertisers to pump money into targeted ads that consequently sacrificed reach. The company’s top marketer Marc Pritchard admitted as much last year when he said “we targeted too much and went too narrow” on Facebook. Four years ago, the business was adamant, as many of its peers were, that this was the way to go. In 2013, it moved a third of its advertising budget online and then a year later slashed its spending by 14% and refocused on what it said at the time was an “optimised media mix” with more digital, mobile, search and social investments.

But businesses like P&G own brands built on mass media, with the type of recognition that has always chaffed against the hyper-targeted sensibilities of environments like Facebook. And with tougher cost pressures on the company’s marketers as seen by its plan to cut a whopping $2bn in marketing costs over the next five years, it may have to go back to the marketing sensibilities that defined the industry in order to continue to grow.

Nowhere is this need clearer than in P&G’s four-point plan to overhaul its investments around viewability, third party measurement, agency relationships and online ad fraud.

If Pritchard is going to lead by example on his view about the death of craft in advertising currently then he needs to disentangle the media supply chain and consequently tackle mass personalisation.

“There is a reality that personalisation can go too far,” said Matthew Heath, chairman and chief strategy officer at Lida. “Firstly you need brand salience and attraction – you can be as personal as you like but I still need to trust you and be interested in you in the first place. Secondly brands often need a dimension of discovery and serendipity, that disappears in the overly personalised world.”

By

Sourced from THE DRUM