All worship at the temple of celebrity.

Until fairly recently you had to do something to become famous. You needed a skill or talent which set you apart from the rest of society, whether that be acting, singing, playing sport, running the country or being a little too handy with an axe or shotgun. It was about your peers recognising your unique gift, raising you above the masses and lavishing praise and adoration on you for it, or in the case of an axe murder, infamy may be a more appropriate description.

Sadly, that no longer seems the case in modern Britain where you only need lie down and 'think of England' with a second rate soap star or soccer player and then sell your 'story' to the newspapers to kick-start a career as a celebrity.

It's not just in Britain; my Polish wife has noticed the emergence of a new word in the Polish language over the last few months - 'celebrita'. In Polish there was no such word as celebrity; you were an actor, singer, pianist, axe murderer etc. But increasingly the media needed a word as a catch-all for the new breed of vacuous, talentless pond-life that is crawling out of a gutter near you.

And because those talentless individuals are now occupying so many rungs at the bottom of the celebrity ladder, those with genuine talent are propelled to stratospheric levels of hero worship.

It scares the hell out of me when an entire generation are growing up with the sole life ambition 'to be famous'. Ok, to say an 'entire generation' is an exaggeration, but there are certain socio-economic and geodemographic pockets for whom schooling is no longer seen as a necessary route to success. In a recent report by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 70% said the cult of celebrity was perverting the aspirations of children, while 37% felt their children just wanted to be famous for being famous. A primary school teacher from Scunthorpe said that her pupils believed academic performance was irrelevant as they could become rich and famous by appear on a reality show.

Unfortunately this celebrity obsession is unlikely to diminish any time soon for the simple reason that it sells newspapers and magazines at a time when traditional media is under pressure from the internet. You only need to venture into a newsagent to see rack after rack of celebrity magazines.

Finally, I heard a very funny line in relation to Queen of the bottom feeders, Katie Price (aka Jordan), who for those of you who have had a) your eyes closed or b) have been engaged in missionary work in Africa is currently engaged in a bitter divorce from her equally talented husband, Peter Andre - 'Katie has requested that the press respect her need for publicity at this difficult time.' For me this so succinctly sums up everything that is so wrong about the nation's obsession with celebrity.

Qatar 2030

This is kind of a follow on from my previous post, but I understand that it's not necessarily the solution I'm talking about.

Qatar is a small nation situated on a peninsula in the Arabian Gulf. It has around 1.6 million people, of which only a small proportion are pure-blood Qataris, amongst the highest GDP (PPP) per capita on the planet, oh and the largest single gas reserve in the world. So, it's not short of a few dollars.

It also has an organisation called the Qatar Foundation. Run by Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned, the Qatar Foundation is quite an exceptional organisation. In anticipation of the country's hydrocarbon reserves running out, QF has developed a vision called Qatar 2030. Qatar 2030 aims to transform the nation into one of the world's leading knowledge economies, a centre of excellence for areas such as technology, medicine, science, education, research and design. Formed in 1995 and launching its vision in 2000, QF has developed and is more importantly delivering on a 30 year game-plan for the Nation without miring itself too much in politics. In Europe I don’t believe we have anything currently which can compete with that.

Having seen the vision in action I would pretty much guarantee that Qatar will succeed in its aims and as all companies or institutions who locate there are joint ventures with the Qatari government, Qatar will jointly own the intellectual property on any developments or inventions that come out of these ventures. Qatar will be one of the world’s leading technical, educational, medical and scientific based economies and equally importantly, retain its position as one of the world’s richest countries.

And another thing, Qatar 2030 has been properly defined and communicated, so both Qataris and Expats know the vision and its aims. They get the purpose of QF and the role it plays as an adjunct to government, without meddling in petty politics. Therefore they both support and appreciate QF.

Obviously Qatar benefits from a fairly blank canvas, or rather desert, is tiny and has buckets of cash. It would be considerably more difficult to replicate a QF model in Europe, but not impossible. I also recognise that Qatar has other issues which we would consider pretty fundamental in Western democracies, however, for the purposes of this blog post I've focussed exclusively on QF.

A Role for Europe

For many people, especially in the UK, the concept of 'Europe' conjures images of whacky laws defining the shape of bananas, the annual festival of bizarre Euro Pop that is the Eurovision Song Contest and foreigners who want to mothball the beloved pound note. At best 'Europe' is viewed as an object of mockery; at worst an organisation hell bent on eroding the sovereignty and institutions of the United Kingdom.

At a time when the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are debating closer ties - now that really would be an economic and political force to be reckoned with - the countries of Europe are either dithering or else embroiled in petty politics whilst pandering to growing nationalistic movements.

Take the much debated devolution of Scotland as an example. As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland exists as an important region in one of the World's leading economies. As a devolved entity the country is relegated to the status of a small, cold, wet country of 5 million people on the Northern fringes of Europe. In GDP (PPP) terms it would rank below Portugal and Algeria and just above Chile. If it were a US State, economically Scotland would be 23rd largest behind Missouri and just above Connecticut (source: www.nationmaster.com)

But it's not just in Scotland, Spain has the Catalan separatist movement, Spain and France have the Basques, Britain also has a bubbling separatist movement in Wales and even Belgium has an active Flemish separatist movement.

Now, okay once separated these small countries would almost certainly want to join the EU in their own right, but it hardly bodes well for the future of a harmoniously integrated EU. Will Scotland, Catalonia or Flanders welcome greater EU integration and the devolution of sovereignty that that will entail when they've just fought so hard to disintegrate the nations they've devolved from? I think not.

In my view this fragmentation is economic and political suicide that would result in Europe becoming a spent economic and political force within 50 years. Only an integrated Europe can consider itself a serious contender for the title, that is, unless the US, Japan, BRIC and even the emerging Middle East seriously mess up.

But it's not just Nationalism that poses a major threat to the future success of Europe. I believe an equally threatening problem is that the EU has never really defined itself properly to the average John, Jacques, Giovanni or Johan in the strasse. This means they just don't see the value of it and in the absence of a strong, commonly held vision and belief, the mass populace will gravitate towards the sensationalist views pedalled by the populist media.

To use marketing speak and compare the EU to a brand, it neither knows it's brand proposition, it's brand values nor it's brand positioning. If it does know them, then it doesn't communicate them effectively enough. I suspect the former is true.

Currently the perception is that there's a great deal of overlap between what the EU does and what National Governments do, which leads to the conclusion 'what's the point?' Again, take Scotland as an example. In Scotland the average person has a local councillor, an MSP in the Scottish Parliament, an MP in the UK parliament and an MEP in the European Parliament - come on, how much representation does a person need?

So what should the EU do? My view is that it should do less. Rather than trying to cover all bases and thus overlapping the role of National Government, the EU should streamline and focus. In doing this it will be able to define a distinct role for itself that will be understood and valued by the public.

What should that role be? The politics systems of Europe are based on a 4 or 5 year cycle. This cyclical action whilst forming the bedrock of democracy does tend to lead politicians to take a rather short-termist view. Who can blame them when they have to 're-apply' for their jobs every 4 or 5 years. When you look at it like that, it's a wonder that anything ever gets built in the public sector. Europe is missing an overarching agency that can take the long term view and undertake projects which will benefit the population in 10, 20 or 50 years. If I'm starting to sound like an unreconstructed communist advocating a centrally planned economy, then that's the furthest from my thoughts.

If the EU could:

+ Redefine itself as a kind of supra-national development agency
+ Break out of the 4/5 year political cycle mentality
+ Work to a 10, 20 or 50 year game plan
+ Steer clear of becoming embroiled in petty political battles
+ Take a long term view of the future and develop a compelling vision based on enhancing the infrastructure, knowledge and fabric of Europe in order to make Europe a better place to live and more globally competitive
+ Communicate that vision to the masses effectively
+ Invest in delivering on that vision

Then there’s a chance it could convince dissenters of the value of an integrated Europe and give Europe a fighting chance of being able to compete with the US and BRIC in 20, 30 or 50 years time.

Thicker, fuller, longer...

...oh yeh, we're talking eyelashes baby!

I don't normally pay much attention to ads for make-up - I don't wear it and generally think women look prettier with less of it, rather than more. That was, however, until a few little words started appearing in the bottom corner of the current raft of mascara ads whilst showing models with unfeasibly large lashes and a promise that using their product will enable you to achieve just such a look. Those words are 'Filmed with lash inserts', 'Enhanced in post-production' or worse still, both.

I'm sure the majority of the population don't have a clue what the phrase 'Enhanced in post-production' means. What it actually means is 'This is bullshit and you'll never look anything like this because we've used a computer to make these lashes look really long and fat.' Well, actually you could achieve the 'look', however you'd need to film yourself, then have the tape edited by a re-touching expert, but then that isn't really going to help you when you're off for a night on the razzle and want killer, XXL, voluminous, to the max lashes.

What if other industries jumped on the bandwagon? Ads for Fiat would show the looks and performance of a Ferrari like supercar, but when you turn up to the showroom you've got a bog-standard Fiat Panda. A palatial mansion in a property ad would in fact be a pokey 2 bedroom starter home. And let's not even go near the disappointment that would ensue following the new Wonderbra campaign.

To be honest, I'm surprised they can get away with it. In my book, it's at best misleading, at worst an outright lie.

Call me cynical, but...

Newspaper sales have been in decline for a number of years due to the changing media consumption patterns of the population. We've seen massive growth on the web, plus in the UK's major cities we now have free morning and evening newspapers.

The double whammy for traditional media owners has come in the form of the current recession and the corresponding drop in marketing budgets and therefore media spend.

So, basically traditional media owners are hurting...badly. They need a solution and fast!

Now let's turn to Mr Brown. He may lack the balls of Mrs Thatcher and the charisma and spin of Mr Blair, but overall I don't think he's done too bad a job during what has been a rather tricky time. So why do the press seem hell bent on forcing an election? Could this be the solution they've been looking for?

Surely journalistic integrity would prevent the press from embarking on a campaign to oust a British Prime Minister purely for economic reasons? Well, the ABC figures show that the quality dailies saw a boost in circulation during the US presidential campaign and a UK election would almost certainly benefit the red tops too, with headlines like 'Come on Camer-On' and 'He's Brown and out'. Plus, of course during an election campaign the political parties open their wallets and spend a huge amount on advertising campaigns. Now that would be a really welcome boost for the poor old newspapers.

With a large proportion of the UK press in the hands of foreign owners, what interest do they have in supporting and enhancing the democratic process when they can manipulate it for their own benefit instead.

It's great that our democratic system has the safeguards in place to ensure that a leader can be removed if he or she is failing to deliver. It's a sad day when that same process can be manipulated to sell a few more papers and therefore line the pockets of the media owners.

Before the green shoots...

...You have to plant the seeds.

Recession after recession we see businesses cutting their market budgets, which reduces their lead pipeline, which reduces their revenues, which leads to further budget cuts, an even smaller lead pipeline and lower sales...you can see where we are going with this. It's a vicious and destructive downward cycle and a false economy.

Break the cycle.
Businesses that break the cycle are those that will prosper most once the economy turns. Not only will they emerge stronger, having captured market share from weaker rivals, but they'll also mop up what business is available during the difficult times - it's been proven time and again.

A time for the brave!
Anyone can market successfully in a boom, it's like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel, but marketing in a recession takes skill and accuracy.

A highly creative, carefully targeted lead generation campaign utilising both off and online tactics needn't cost a fortune and could generate a significant return for your organisation.

You wouldn't hire a numpty would you?

I was recently talking with the owner of a franchised business. The franchisor was bemoaning the poor quality of some of their franchisees ‘…they’re lazy, they can’t sell and their quality control standards aren’t up to scratch’

When I suggested that maybe it wasn’t the franchisees at fault, but rather the franchisor for selling them a territory in the first place, the reaction was shock. ‘But if they want to pay us £25k, then we aren’t going to say no.’ was the reply. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Remember the phrase ‘A fool and his money are soon parted.’

The fact of the matter is that there’s a tendency amongst some franchisors, especially in the early stages of the business, when cash is tight, to sell to whomever has an open cheque book. I can understand the desire for cash and the need to rapidly achieve geographic coverage, but it is still bad business practice and will almost certainly lead to problems in the future. The franchisor will be left with large patches of the country covered by franchisees who can’t be trusted and generate limited revenues for the company. In turn, the weak franchisees will feel aggrieved, having purchased the franchise only to discover that the rewards don’t live up to expectations, blissfully unaware that their failure to prosper is down to their own ineptitude. Plus, there’s a risk that strong franchisees will become disgruntled because their neighbour is damaging the reputation of the brand.

Over the years I’ve hired a few exceptional people and many great people, but I can honestly say, I’ve never hired a complete numpty, apart from maybe the Danish intern we hired one summer. I’ve never hired anyone who is lazy, with poor quality standards and a complete inability to do the job just because they said they want to work for me, so why do so many franchisors take this approach? In my business we put potential employees through a rigorous set of interviews and usually give them a month trial to ensure both parties are culturally suited and the candidate is up to scratch.

Franchisors should apply the same rigorous selection criteria to the recruitment of franchisees. Treat every one as if you were hiring a critical new member of your senior management team and you won’t go far wrong because even though these people don’t work directly for you, they are your company ambassadors. In a traditional business they’d be your General Manager for Scotland, your Head of Sales for Greater Manchester or your MD for France. The fact that these motivated, talented individuals want to shell out their hard earned cash to join your operation is a bonus and should be secondary to whether they’re good enough to work with you.

If you’re a potential franchisee then my advice would be to steer well clear of franchise businesses that are more interested in taking your cash, than in vetting your abilities. The other tell-tale signs are a hard sell pitch that’s a little too thick and a promise of returns that are just a little too good to be true – if their opportunity is so good, then why do they need to batter you into submission. On the other hand, if they reject more potential franchisees than they recruit. If they make you jump through hoops and are more interested in your abilities and your potential, than in the contents of your bank account, then the chances are they’re a quality outfit with sound management and a bright future.

Finally, back to the business I mentioned at the start of this article, they were told by the Franchising Expert at the head office of a leading high street bank that the only thing that matters is the franchisee’s cheque clears. In my view, potentially disastrous advice. Sure, if all you’re interested in is selling franchises, not building a solid, long term business then that’s fine, take the money off any numpty who walks through the door. But then again, if this is all you care about, then your ‘opportunity’ might better be called a pyramid scheme so please close the door as you leave and don’t besmirch the good name of franchising.

First Post

If you've stumbled upon this blog, then welcome. Here I intend to post a series of thoughts and ramblings on a variety of issues directly and sometimes not so directly related to marketing and business.

I've spent the last 15 years working in the advertising and marketing industry and have helped some of the world's biggest brands (Sony, Dell, IBM, Reuters, Adobe etc.) achieve outstanding results...so theoretically I should know my stuff.

I've resisted the temptation to 'go public' for many years, not out of any kind of technophobia, but more out of a sense of modesty...'why would anyone be interested in my thoughts?'...an unusual characteristic for an ad man I know. But then again, my clients listen to and respect my views, so maybe a wider audience might find them interesting, useful, informative (delete as appropriate).

Regards
Mark