A few days ago I read that Ofcom are changing the rules regarding how many minutes of advertising can be broadcast per hour during films screened on TV. This will be increasing from the current 7 minutes to 12 minutes. Another way of looking at it is that up to 20% of what you are watching will be an ad.

This story caught my attention for a number of reasons:

Firstly, I had no idea that there was a seven minute cap until now. Disgraceful I know, considering I work in a new business agency and should therefore be an expert in all legislation across all marketing disciplines. I’ll be having a long hard think tonight about how I’ve let my colleagues down with my ignorance.

If this 7 minute cap does currently exist it seems to me to be like “London Underground minutes” – you know, where you look at the first train board on the Northern Line platform at Bank station and it says 1 minute but really you know it could be nearer 5.

Secondly I didn’t realise that films were treated differently to other types of programmes until I read that article. Personally it doesn’t make me any happier to have a show like The Wire interrupted more often or for longer than “Bridget Jones – The Edge of Reason” (which is no doubt being repeated tonight for the eighth time this month on ITV2) just because one is a film and one isn’t.

I do know, however, that most channels I watch already synchronise their ad-breaks with each other so that if anyone dares to channel surf during a break they will be subjected to a commercial from someone or other, whether they like it or not. I also know that commercials tend to be broadcast at a higher volume than the programmes – a bit like shouting for our attention just in case it lapses when the break starts.

 So the other reason this story had me interested is from the point of view of cost, competition and coverage.

Does the increase mean that brands will put their TV advertising budgets up to spend more money marketing to us during the extra allowed time? Or will it be the case that more availability actually leads to the overall cost of buying ad slots decreasing simply due to the laws of supply and demand – maybe leading to smaller brands that would not have previously had the budget available to look at advertising on more mainstream TV channels as a viable option?

As more and more channels launch, coupled with the fact that people can now watch films and programmes via the internet, audience share is becoming increasingly fragmented. To a certain extent this has been good news for some brands because it allows them to target their audience with much better accuracy. For example, you can guarantee that any new film by Nick Love about football hooligans will be advertised between 9 and 10pm on Bravo as the demographics are a very snug fit.

It’s a far cry from the pre-digital/Sky days where only the biggest brands of all could afford a similar slot on ITV and even then the ad may be wasted on a significant proportion of the audience.

In order for advertisers to win new business from viewers they may have to work harder to keep the audience interested. After all, if people know they have longer during a commercial break, they are more likely to leave the room to do things like make a cup of tea. One option would be for shorter breaks but more frequently, although the annoyance factor of having a film or programme interrupted too often would be pretty high.

My final thought was how all this is pretty irrelevant to me as a viewer anyway. Why? Because since mankind’s second most important invention after the wheel – i.e the Sky Plus box – I’ve watched less ads than ever before. I simply record everything I’m going to watch and then start viewing it about 15-20 minutes after it starts, skipping through every ad break and still finishing the show at the same time it finishes it real time.

How ironic that the company who reaps such a huge revenue from selling ad space to brands also provides such an effective means of allowing us to avoid watching them.

The advertising and marketing column in the Evening Standard on 7th February focused on the pharmaceutical world and how recent and future changes offer opportunities for specialist healthcare agencies.

Alchemis has successfully served numerous healthcare agencies over the years. These have been in the traditional PR, communications and advertising space, but more recently the digital sector.

Healthcare and pharmaceutical work is something in which we have thrived and one of the few areas where we have worked for both UK and overseas clients. The nature of the business is interesting and diverse and a break from the more mainstream sectors in which we operate.

One key difficulty in this arena for new business prospecting is that of data and contacts and this is a key reason why these specialist agencies turn to Alchemis. We have spent a long time building data in this sector and this helps us get around the no name policies, which provide the biggest barrier to success.

As the article highlights, political reform and a change in consumer behaviour and access to information is opening up new avenues for agencies. With the power moving away from the NHS trusts, doctors’ surgeries will take charge of buying medicine. This change brings big opportunities for communications experts.

The article goes on to suggest that global demand for medicine will increase as developing countries such as India and China increase their expenditure.

However, it is the digital world that has really put the cat among the pigeons. Even in my days on the phone for several healthcare agencies in the early noughties, “Direct to Consumer” communications (or DTC) was the buzz phrase. With the internet and the growing influence and power of social media, there is huge potential for well positioned agencies.

Digital communication is also a great tool to help work around the ever increasing time constraints of the healthcare professional.

Due to our experience of the sector, Alchemis is set up to help healthcare focused agencies really benefit from all these changes. We enjoy the challenge the industry brings and would welcome the chance to deploy our skills in this area further.

After reading Graeme Crossley’s blog on Brand Republic yesterday which asked “Why do some brands think they deserve to get free consulting?” I thought I’d share my thoughts on the matter from my perspective as Director of Operations.

Graeme is understandably somewhat irked by his perception of an increasing trend over the last year of brand owners expecting free consulting from agencies, which as he sees it is not just an evaluation of the brand as part of their conversations about potentially working together, but wanting all of the work for free.

We’re living in pretty tough times at the moment – thousands of people are losing their jobs (including vast numbers in marketing departments up and down the country). EVERYONE is trying to keep costs down to the absolute minimum and everyone wants their suppliers to go the extra mile to secure their business.

I totally sympathise with the situation that Graeme finds himself in; realistically there is likely to be another agency that will put in extra work for nothing for the chance of ultimately winning that big brand account.

We often refer to “the benefit of the back door” or “getting under the radar” – both being descriptions of effective ways of securing decent sized new business accounts from small initial projects. Impress the brand enough and they will use you for work as and when it does come up. However, you have to make sure you have an effective new business strategy in place to nurture this relationship to fruition. We have come across many agencies in a similar situation to Graeme and our New Business Managers have built and maintained excellent ongoing contact strategies that have ultimately resulted in winning new business. I won’t deny it’s hard work – although it’s also our day job, so you won’t find many people in a better position to help you.

In his final paragraph, Graeme says that nobody who applies for a job would work for free for the first three months, so why would agencies do so for brands. Well, I remember leaving college way back in 1993 and looking for a job in the marketing communications industry. Several agencies offered to take me on for unpaid work placements for 3-6 months – the logic being that if you impressed them enough there might be a paid job afterwards but tough luck if there wasn’t and at least you’d have some agency experience under your belt. Even as recently as a few months back I read about a guy who offered to refund his salary to any employer who took him on and wasn’t pleased with his work. On top of this, the number of students doing ‘internships’ (a fancy American name for unpaid work) has risen dramatically in the past few years.

I suspect that these practices have been going on in one form or another for a long time and will continue to do so. In times of economic hardship where competition is fierce for every scrap of business the scale of the problem is magnified as the buyers hold all the cards. The ultimate goal for the agency who wants the business is to convince the buyer that appointing them will yield the greatest possible return on investment for their brand.