New business agency blog

There were reports in the press recently that a Labour leaflet campaign was targeting cancer sufferers with a message that their lives could be at risk if a Tory government was to come into power using the strap line “are the Tories a change you can afford?”

Labour claims that they used publicly available social demographic data and the data management company Experian confirmed that both Labour and the Conservatives use its Mosaic database, which divides voters into 67 groups and identifies likely cancer patients using anonymised hospital statistics, including postcodes and the diagnoses of patients.

This throws up interesting questions about what customer information a brand should use in tailoring their communications.

The holy grail of all customer marketing is surely to get to a point where brands can treat their customers as individuals but if they are seen to be taking advantage of someone’s disadvantages to promote a product or service then this risks alienating the customer and potentially turning into a PR nightmare.

As a Business Development Manager I have the advantage of being able to react to information I receive during a conversation and amend my communications accordingly.

When I am making new business calls to marketing decision makers part of my job is to identify ‘pain points’ and highlight requirements that are not currently adequately provided by their internal resources or current suppliers. This gives me a great reason for them to meet my client. However I’m always very aware that identifying pain points is one thing, but overstating them is likely to turn the prospect off.

Quite often the questions I ask are designed to raise these areas in the prospect’s mind but sometimes ‘in their mind’ is enough and these ‘problems’ remain unspoken. If, in their mind they can see a problem that is currently unsolved and match that with a potential solution that my client has expertise in then I’m more than half way there.

In my experience there is such a thing as overselling your benefits and if that is on the back of excessively highlighting a prospective client’s (or for that matter voter’s) problems then you’re bound to risk appearing mercenary or as Phyllis Delik, 80, who received one of Labours leaflets described it “callous”.

What do you think the limit should be on marketers using sensitive data to target their customers, if any?

Of all the electioneering and posturing that’s going on, very few articles catch my eye and make me want to read on – this one did.

This particular article resonated for two key reasons:

Firstly, I run a business development agency helping marketing agencies find new business and am conscious of the fact that one day I may be invited to help an agency that specialises in marketing to kids, and as such, will have to make a decision as to whether we want to work with them.

Secondly, I’m the grandmother of an 18 month old and will no doubt be facing the problems associated with marketing to kids as she gets older and more verbal in her demands to keep up with all her classmates (my own son was told ‘no’ but I’m not sure that cuts it any more in this greed driven world)

Anyway, I’m pleased that to read that a website that will enable parents to complain about sexualised products and marketing aimed at children will go ahead whether Labour or the Conservatives win the general election.

I don’t care whose idea it was or who put it in their manifesto first, I’m just glad that both parties are sensible enough to see value in the notion. I also hope that the industry is consulted.

Here’s a prime example of why we need to prioritise initiatives like this – Primark is forced to withdraw its padded bikini tops for 7 year girls - need I say more?

Would be good to hear your views on this………

I always find it amusing when a political party tries to entice the public into voting for them by saying they’ll cut a little here or cut a little there in the hope of swaying public opinion in their favour. The general public is not that gullible and we recognise that one size DOES NOT fit all. What’s good for the goose is often not good for gander and when one-person benefits it is often at the expense of another.

National Insurance will be one of the key issues at the forthcoming general election as Labour plans to increase the tax by 1 percentage point for both workers and employers, raising £7 billion in total. On the reverse side of the coin, the Conservatives have pledged to counteract the impact of the rise, by promising to raise the qualifying threshholds for National Insurance, effectively cutting tax for anyone earning less than £45, 000. But how are the Conservatives able to do this without risking the economy?

It is already rumoured that £6 billion will be at risk in our already fragile economy if David Cameron pursues this plan, whereas the Labour Government have promised more improved public services with their increase; such as high standard nurses, getting to see your doctor in the evening and at the weekend, better neighbourhood policing and even child care vouchers for teachers so that they can return to work sooner after having children. By stark comparision, the Conservatives have promised a cut in child tax credits, child trust funds and education budgets, which is hardly investing in the future of our children?

David Cameron is a great PR man and I’m sure that anything he dresses up will sound appealing to the many that are wooed by paying less National Insurance contributions. However, before you decide on who is right think less about your own pocket, but the impact that raising threshholds for National Insurance contributions will have on our economy… There is always a price to pay by someone.

What are you thoughts on this subject and how will this affect you?