The NAB’s brilliantly coordinated and executed marketing, advertising and PR ‘ambush’ on its sister Australian banks a couple of weeks back rightly got a lot of favourable comment at the time.

As a campaign it was bold, brazen, well timed and very different for a bank. As an ‘attention-grabbing’ exercise it must have been seen and commented on by the majority of adult Australian consumers. 

What impressed me most in the campaign which NAB is still proudly showing on its web site,was the integration of a whole range of communication tools – advertising, public relations, social media, billboards and stunts. So, it deserves a 9 or 10 out of 10 for execution. 

But did I think it was a game breaker in the bank marketing war? No – definitely not.

Let’s put this NAB initiative in perspective. To use a war analogy this was only the pre-emptive first strike (albeit brilliantly created and executed) in what will be a long, bloody and protracted marketing and public relations war with the other banks (perhaps a parallel with Iraq).

Yes, NAB might have won the initial battle –and temporarily back-footed its competitors. However, many other battles will be fought and already we are seeing the other banks beginning to respond – also creatively and aggressively.

As a communicator what interests me, and I suspect other thinking PR and communication professionals, is whether what we saw in mid-February was just a one-off ‘big bang’ (albeit done very well) to create noise with the aim of addressing the obvious lack of penetration that previous announcements about reducing and eliminating fees achieved.

Or was it the start of a long-term advertising, marketing and PR campaign or program that is really different for the banking industry. One that strives to connect in meaningful ways with all NAB’s stakeholders to bring about change. One that has the layers and depth and sophistication that is really capable of being a game-breaker.

If NAB is really serious – and committed – to achieving a substantive change in attitudes and behaviour it needs to embrace communication theory. This says that to ultimately change behaviour target audiences need to be subjected to a staged and progressive communication program. And that such changes can only be achieved through campaigns and programs that often evolve over an extended period – sometimes years!

This would suggest that there are four phases NAB needs to work through.

1. Awareness – what do we want the target to see, hear or be exposed to that they weren’t before?

2. Comprehension – what do we want the target to understand or comprehend that they didn’t before?

3. Attitude – what do we want the target to believe and feel now that they didn’t before?

4. Behaviour – what do we want the target to actually do that is different to what they did previously?

NAB has clearly ‘nailed’ the awareness phase. So they are off to a great start. But there’s an awful lot more to be done.

As I’ve written previously there’s a big difference between image and reputation.

This initiative was focused at the image end of the telescope. If NAB really wants to win the banking wars most of the future work has to be done on building reputation. And that takes time (and hard work!).

I’ve written previously about my concerns about the banking industry’s approach to PR and communication. My perception is that too much  seems to be so focused around short-term thinking. From a communications perspective it seems that most banks struggle to think or see beyond the next interest rate rise.

So congratulations to NAB for a brilliant diversion. Yes, it created a lot of noise. Yes we all noticed it. Yes, those of us in the marketing and pr community generally applauded it. Yes, it was one of the best examples there’s been in Australia of how to coordinate and integrate advertising, public relations, social media etc.

 But will this 2-3 day burst change how Australians view their banks? Will it encourage many to run into the arms the NAB because it we see NAB as being so different to the other banks?

I doubt it.  (And so do others )

But regardless of the ultimate success of the NAB’s campaign I bet there are some envious PR and Communications Managers out there.

I’m sure many PR professionals would like to be in the shoes of Andrew Hagger, NAB’s head of corporate affairs and marketing. I’m sure he’s still bathing in the reflected glory. I’m sure the hierarchy in the bank loved it. And what a great campaign to have on your CV!

No related posts.

What a PR disaster to start the New Year! Hard on the heals of the public relations challenges the Australian banking industry struggled against late last year a group of retailers from the Australian retail industry has scored a spectacular ‘own goal’ with its advertising campaign against the evils of online trading.

One of the basic principles of PR is to avoid giving potential ‘bad news’ stories or issues more ‘air’ by commenting on, or highlighting, them. Often it just gives the ‘other side’ more credibility.

However, through their advertising and the predicted publicity it generated, retailers have just given the online industry the arguably the biggest publicity boost they have ever had. Talk about ‘own goals’ and ‘shooting oneself in the foot’.

This has to be one of the classics ‘how-not-to-do it’ PR exercises of recent times.

If, as has been reported, only about 3 percent of all Australian retail sales are made online, then it’s reasonable to assume that probably less than 10 percent Australian consumers may be active online.

As a result of the wall-to-wall publicity on television, radio and in our papers what’s the betting that a large number of consumers have already, or will soon, be looking online to see what the fuss is all about and to really compare prices.

The big retailers have, through their ill-judged (in my opinion) actions, not only publicised online retailing and bought it to the forefront of consumer’s minds. They have legitimised the online industry and the products they are selling.

What muddled thinking could have possibly led the Australian retail industry down this track?

Why would they take out paid advertisements aimed at the 150 or so Members of Parliament when they would also be read by the 10/12 million Australian adult consumers?

Why did they ever think there was a parallel with the 2010 campaign by the mining industry? That industry was entirely different. It touched comparatively few Australians. There were a whole lot of other political factors connected with this issue.

Did they ever consider what the ‘opinion formers’ and ‘influencers’ (media, Choice etc) might think, and say, about such a campaign and what influence this would have on ordinary consumers?

Did they ever consider what their customers might think, or how they might react, to a campaign that was inherently critcising them and accusing them of not being loyal to Australian retailers?

Did they not realise that their action was like throwing a match into a patch of dry grass? That it would encourage the media to investigate the whole issue of online versus retail prices? And that it would likely encourage Australian consumers (their customers) to actually try this alternative method of buying goods?

In my pre-Christmas blog about the Australian banking industry I commented/inferred that in my considerable experience in working in PR for industry groups that there seemed to be a disconnect between what executives/management did when promoting their own brands compared to what they did when looking at the world from an industry perspective.

Little did I think that in such a short time there would be such a vivid example!

Interestingly, one of the side issues is that this campaign not come from the Australian Retailers Association. Rather it is the action of an alliance of 21 key retailers- including Harvey Norman, Myer and David Jones - who are ‘doing their own thing’ . One can only imagine the splits this campaign, and the aftermath to it, are likely to cause within the wider Australian retail industry.

In fact, the Australian retailing industry has its share of issues over unity and direction as there are several different bodies representing various sectors, including the Alliance of Australian Retailers, whose own public campaign around the display of cigarettes was not without considerable controversy.

However from my perspective the sad thing is that this debacle reflects on the PR industry. One assumes that somewhere in the undergrowth there was PR input. One can only wonder whether this was as considered as it might have been? Or did the retailers simply go on their own?

PS Since writing this blog I have become aware (through the Sydney Morning Herald) that a PR agency was behind the Australian retailers campaign. It is not my desire to openly criticise fellow PR practitioners, or PR agencies, and I did consider not posting this blog. But on reflection, given that I am an independent consultant and commentator with no PR agency affiliations or vested interests, I decided to proceed with what I believe is fair comment.

No related posts.

For anyone working in corporate PR in Australia the Toyota recall issue deserves study as an example of one of the best “how-not-to-do-it’ in crisis management.

For those newer to the game it will provide some valuable insights into processes and pitfalls in a genuine crisis.

 For PR ‘veterans’ like myself, who have been around the block a few times, it will likely bring back a few memories.

In a crisis there are three key determinants in how successful they are handled:

1) What’s the company’s culture and attitude to disclosure?

This is where Toyota’s problems begin (as do those of so many companies). Tom Gable, a San Deigo PR guy who was part of a international PR group I belonged to many years ago, has a great blog that backgrounds Toyota’s real failings in this area.

Tom, apart from his own insights, provides some telling quotes from a Feb 6 article in the Wall Street Journal, the best of which I think is: “In Japan there is a proverb, ‘If it stinks, put a lid on it”.  Alas, this seems to have been Toyota’s approach to its burgeoning safety crisis”.

Then Ken Makovsky, one of the smartest PR guys I’ve ever worked with, who has managed to grow one of New York’s largest independent PR agencies – and resist being taken over by the voracious ad agency conglomerates – has a nice little commentary piece.

After concluding that all the fundamentals of crisis management communications are being violated, he ends by posing the question – “Is Toyota suffering from a case of ‘historical amnesia’ so profound that the company’s communications efforts have collapsed in exhaustion?”

2) Who’s controlling the communication?

The blog Ishmael’s Corner fromLou Hoffman hits the nail right on the head when he says “I am convinced every crisis reaches a fork in the road in which a company must make a choice on who’s leading the charge, legal or common sense”.

He then does a great job of analysing three Open Letter’s in the US from Toyota (its best to go back and start from his first one) showing how they seem to have moved from a legal to a communication approach. For those who have been through these exercises it will likely bring back memories!

3) Who’s fronting for the organisation?

This is the nightmare that many in PR, who have the task of being the organisation’s spokesperson, dread.  It’s the ‘job from hell’. In some cases you can feel that you are the sacrificial lamb. You need the ability to turn penetrating media questions from negative to positive, to be fluent and right ‘on message’.

When it comes to Australia, regrettably, I don’t think Glenn Campbell, Toyota’s local spokesperson ( a former client and probably the most sensitive, conscientious PR professional I have worked with) did the job that was needed with TV or radio. He appeared a tad defensive, he got a little tangled in his delivery and his messaging didn’t come out as I am sure he had hoped. Probably a 7/10 – but when a 10/10 was needed!

However, it would be grossly unfair to shoot the messenger. As I think is clear the basic problem is with the organisation, its culture and apparent attitude and a ‘disconnect’ with the real world (can you believe it was still running TV adverts for the Prius the day Campbell was fronting the media announcing a recall!).

So what’s the take out from all this?

There are many Australian PR Directors and Managers who work for organizations with overseas masters who would privately concede that either because of Toyota-like in-built cultural issues, or simply because there’s a lack of understanding as to how things are done in Australia, their worst nightmare is a crisis or product recall.

In fact my own experience is that it is only five years ago I had to create from the bottom-up a complete crisis management plan, including protocols and processes, for the Australian and New Zealand subsidiary of one of Europe’s largest conglomerates. What we did, and the questions and issues that this exercise created, ended up prompting Head Office to follow ANZ’s lead and start to put an international crisis framework in place!

The bottom line is that the Toyota episode, which clearly still has some twists and turns left in it, should provide the motivation to review or audit just how prepared you are to face a crisis – and most importantly, if you have overseas masters, what processes and protocols exist between you and they.

PS.  You might be interested in, or get some value from, two articles I have previously written in ‘PR Influences’.

1)  Media Relations: What type of spokesperson works best?

2) Media Relations: How well prepared are your management to talk to the media?

No related posts.