Author Archives: Benedict Pringle

Intellectual property rights in political advertising

Leave a reply

During the local council elections in the UK last month a few campaign managers got in contact with questions about the clearances they need to get before including photographs and imagery in campaign material.

Ever the obedient client servant, I thought I would post a short note on the subject.

The Institute of Practitioners of Advertising give this definition of copyright:

“An original copyright work is one that is the result of independent, creative effort. It will not be classed as original if it has been copied from something that already exists. Before giving a work protection, the court will check to see that the work is “the author’s own intellectual creation”, an original expression of the creative freedom of the author. As copyright protects the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself, it only exists if the work has been fixed or recorded in a permanent form.”

So if you find an image online that you think would really bring your leaflet to life, you need to be careful to make sure that it isn’t a piece of original, independent art work.  Copyright protection in the UK is automatic, no official registration is required, so the fact that it is available freely online doesn’t mean that you’re allowed to use it as you please; indeed the fact that it is online means that it is a permanent ‘expression of an idea’ and you should immediately be wary of using it.

For example, the artwork of Bridget Riley – a famous British painter – can be found all over Google images under various search terms.  However, finding it on Google image search doesn’t mean that it’s free for you to use.  If you decided to include the Bridget Riley image in your poster you would be liable to a legal challenge as it is a breach of intellectual property; indeed Bridget Riley doesn’t allow her artistic works to be used in any form of advertising so you really would be in deep trouble.

So, in short, you can only use an image or a photograph if you are the originator or you have permission from the originator to use it, if you use an image for which neither applies, you are at risk of a legal challenge; the only exception is if the originator has been dead for over 70 years.

Every single election period someone is caught out falling foul of this law.  As soon as you distribute a piece of political communication one of the first things your opponents will do is check that you have paid for the right to use everything in the ad.  Any positive impact that your communication may be having will immediately be curtailed if the opposing campaign can show that you have created it without permission.

 

FNB attacks South African government

Leave a reply

Throughout the early part of this year there has been a huge public spat in South Africa between a fast growing and innovative national bank – FNB – and the ruling ANC government.

The cause of the argument is the above advertisement (one of many videos released).  You can read the full story here.

The CEO of FNB stood down last week and The Mail & Guardian, one of South Africa’s daily newspapers asked me a few questions and as I felt that all my answers were so fantastic I thought you would appreciate me posting the full transcript of the interview here:

Does political advertising work?

Yes political advertising does work and in a number of different ways:

1.  It helps create a narrative in the mind of your audience.

2.  It motivates your activist base.

3.  It depresses the opposition’s activist base.

4.  It interferes with the opposition’s strategy.

5.  It can influence those undecided about a given issue or election.

A study by Michael Franz, published in American Politics Research in March 2010, found that a 1,000-ad advantage in any given market over the course of an election increased a candidate’s vote share by about 0.5 percentage points

Is the effect of political advertising such as that of FNB on a company’s bottom line?

If I was to summarise what I think the communications brief was for these adverts I would suggest it was something like:

Get:  16 – 30 year old South Africans

Who: are restless and feel dissatisfied with the state of the word, but who are optimistic about the future

To: consider opening a current account with FNB

By having them believe: that FNB understands and shares their point of view on the world and is therefore best suited to cater for their financial needs

This communications brief is sound.  The answer to the brief could have been executed creatively in a number of different ways, many of which would have not had overt political intonations.

The route they have gone down has created political controversy around the company, which is not necessarily a bad thing given the brief.

The communications could be considered a success if the objectives for the campaign, and for the company as a whole, are achieved.

However, seeing as the CEO has resigned that would suggest that the impact the campaign has had on the business has not outweighed the controversy and publicity, therefore the campaign has to be considered a failure.

In a country like South Africa – a new, politically fraught democracy – do you think that political advertising is a wise idea?

Political advertising is an essential element of free speech.  It would be incompatible to claim to be a democratic state whilst at the same time ban or subvert paid-for political communication.

Do you think Jordaan did FNB a service or a disservice with the campaign?

It was an advertising campaign which seems to have been deemed to have backfired, so on the face of it Jordaan must be perceived to have done the company a disservice.  However, I would be interested to see opinion polls, brand tracking and business results over the medium term for FNB.  It may be that the communications and subsequent publicity have positively impacted how lots of people in South Africa perceive the bank and the bank may well be rewarded for that with improved business results; if that is the case then Jordaan should be exonerated.

Anything else you’d add?:

I wholeheartedly support FNB’s right to run advertising of this nature.  If a company wishes to make a political statement it would be undemocratic for a government to prevent them from doing so.

However, it is very unusual – in any country – for a company to run communications under their own banner to urge people to vote in a particular way.

The reason for this is simple: public reaction to political messaging is almost uniformly intense but it is hard to predict the direction that the outpouring of emotion will follow.

Given that fact that the ANC are hugely popular amongst a great number of people, the risk that the videos would be divisive would have been obvious from the outset.  FNB took a commercial risk with this communication and therefore they cannot be surprised that some have reacted negatively.

 

Anti-plain packaging ad

Leave a reply

205227_DT_JTI.indd

 

I somehow managed to miss this last month, but I thought it so interesting that it’s worth sharing for anyone else that may also be slow on the uptake.

The tobacco giant JTI giant ran a national advertising campaign against plain cigarette packaging in response to the government proposals to include legislation on the issue in the Queen’s speech.

The print ad uses a letter from a Department of Health official to the Australian government, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, to accuse the government of implementing plain packaging proposals despite the fact that “there isn’t any hard evidence to show that it works.”

It’s a brilliant piece of advertising.  The British public hate the nanny state and this ad very cleverly uses the government’s own words to accuse them of intervening without basis.

The ‘We couldn’t have put it better ourselves’ line is a political advertising classic and is usually accompanied by a quotation taken completely out of context.  The damning thing about this execution is that the letter is shown in whole.

The letter was dismissed by the Department of Health, which said evidence and research has since been developed.  But the enforcement of plain packaging was dropped by the government days before the Queen’s speech… no doubt ALL because of this ad…

Review – Propaganda: power and persuasion at the British Library

Leave a reply

propoganda power and persuasion british library

On the weekend I went to visit Propaganda: Power and Persuasion, a new exhibition at the British Library examining state propaganda, from its origins in the ancient world up until the present day.

If you’re interested in politics and communication it’s definitely worth a visit.  The exhibition space itself is very dark and feels slightly old-fashioned, but the quality of the content and analysis combine to create a very stimulating experience.

With over 200 exhibits, it has a good range of works; there are Napoleon-era paintings, posters from the Spanish civil war and Nazi films as well as modern day phenomena like tweets shown in a giant data visualisation installation.

Curated by Jude England and Ian Cooke, curators of Social Science at the British Library, the exhibition explores the different ways in which the state has used propaganda to influence the thoughts and feelings of a nation.

It’s organised by theme, rather than chronologically; there are sections on ‘internal enemy’, ‘external enemy’, ‘sport’ and ‘health’ amongst others.  Whilst there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this and it makes sense from an analytical point of view, it is slightly annoying that you can’t just pick a period which particularly interests you and immerse  yourself in the communications of the era.

There’s lots of video content (provided by the British Film Institute) and interviews with academics and commentators including Alastair Campbell, John Pilger, Iain Dale, Tessa Jowell, Noam Chomsky and David Welch, which all adds interest.  Slightly annoyingly there’s only ever one pair of headphones to a screen, so you have to loiter with sharp elbows at the ready to get an earful.

The exhibition will be accompanied by a series of events, including talks from political advertising luminaries such as Trevor Beattie.  Matt Forde, an old pal of mine, is also hosting a comedy night – Political Party – in honour of the exhibition on Monday 15th July which should be fantastic. 

The exhibition costs £9 and is open daily until 17th September.

What AdLand must learn from Thatcher

Leave a reply

What adland must learn from Thatcher benedict pringle quote

 

Here is yesterday’s Campaign Magazine leader (the advertising industry’s trade magazine) by Editor Danny Rogers which is on the topic of the lessons advertising can learn from Thatcher.

The article name checks all of the legends of the political advertising game and so I am particularly irritatingly smug about being quoted.

Marmite Margaret

Leave a reply

Marmite Margaret Guardian Ad BBH

 

The Guardian and BBH have released a fantastic piece of reactive press advertising featuring a jar of Marmite and Margaret Thatcher.

There’s a lovely bit of detail with the copy ‘contains iron’ on the base of the label.

The end line ‘One woman, a nation divided’ is also very nicely put.

The Best of Thatcher’s Conservative Party Posters

Leave a reply

Best of Thatcher Saatchi and saatchi conservative posters

The Thatcher years could also be called the Saatchi  &Saatchi years.  The sophistication of political marketing and presentation reached a level that had never been seen in Britain before.

Margaret Thatcher was the first political leader to employ a professional advertising agency, to blustering disapproval from the Labour Party, and Saatchi & Saatchi took the opportunity with exceptional gusto.

The agency produced what is widely regarded as one of the best posters ever created, not just within the political realm but throughout advertising history, in ‘Labour Isn’t Working’.  But there were many other fantastic posters produced across her three successful general election campaigns in 1979, 1983 and 1987.

ASA’s refusal to rule on political advertising creates controversy for media owners and a democratic deficit

1 Reply

ukip-poster-manchester-stop-open-door-immigration

UKIP are currently running a poster in Manchester featuring the headline ‘Stop Open Door EU Immigration’.

The poster has caused controversy in the area and led to the local community lobbying the media owner – Clear Channel – to remove the poster.  There was a brief hiatus over the past few days whilst the media owner decided their position.

Thankfully, for the sake of freedom of speech, Clear Channel have decided to allow the poster to remain.  

This is not the first time that media owners have been put in a compromising situation with regards to running controversial political advertising and it will not be the last; the reason for this is that the Advertising Standards Authority refuses to rule on political advertising.

Political advertising in the UK is a free-for-all.  Parties, pressure groups and trade unions can say whatever they like in their advertising without fear of recrimination.  They can – and do – promise the world and have no obligation to deliver against it.

This is completely contrary to the rules for all other advertisers, who have to comply with rigorous self-regulatory standards.  It is quite literally one rule for the people and one rule for the politicians.

There are many problems with this approach from a democratic perspective, but the one which this UKIP case has revealed is that media owners are getting landed in hot water with the public by having to decide whether or not to run advertising that may be controversial.  If the media owners refuse to run advertising there is a serious risk of infringing on the right of political parties to freedom of speech and landing themselves in a law suit.

By changing the self-regulatory system to force the ASA to include political advertising in its regulation of what is legal, decent, honest and truthful advertising  (and what isn’t) it removes the possibility of political parties having their freedom of speech infringed upon and prevents landing media owners in controversy.

Happy Easter from The Labour Party

Leave a reply

ed miliband egg head but good egg

 

Here’s a bit of fun for the Easter break: a piece of positive advertising on behalf of the Labour Party for their leader Ed Miliband carrying the headline “He’s an egghead, but a good egg”.

The public regard the Labour leader as a bit of a geek and this piece of communication playfully acknowledges that before letting them know he’s a nice guy too.

David Cameron’s personal poll ratings remain high and people are yet to see Miliband as ‘someone they’d like to have a drink with’.  For Labour to succeed in 2015, they need to start making Miliband connect with the electorate; authentic communications such as this are a step in the right direction.

Downgraded Chancellor

Leave a reply

downgraded chancellorT

The Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband made a real feature of the phrase “Downgraded Chancellor” throughout his speech.  He also made a point about it being possible to fit the Coalition government’s budget into a single tweet.

The Labour Party subsequently released the image above which featured both pieces of messaging.

Very good.