Tuesday, 5 July 2016

BREXIT - A MARKETING WAR

It’s not that there are fundamental differences between the beliefs of either side, but more to do with the fact that one side was able to win the marketing war whilst the other lost. After all it was not long ago that David Cameron referred to the UK as being “swarmed” by a “bunch” of immigrants and it isn't as if Borris Johnson and Nigel Farage come from underprivileged backgrounds or are really anti-establishment.


Here below is an analysis of both #remain and #leave campaigns:


1.     Market Research & Marketing Problem Definition

I suspect that the whole immigration issue was not so much that 17 million people are racist, but the pressure on services that left the locals disgruntled. Nigel Farage did mention that when they asked people to outline their biggest concern, they were faced with answers surrounding the NHS and immigration. So whilst the remain campaign banged on about the economy referencing status quo and how much worse it would be if we exit, they failed to offer any indication that they understood the concerns of the people who are already suffering in the economy of status quo.

Therefore, the definition of the marketing problem for the #leave campaign (as it seemed) was:

How do we get people to believe that an exist would alleviate pressure on services and therefore benefit Britons?

Whilst the definition of the marketing problem for the remain campaign (as it seemed) was:

How do we get people to believe that remaining is better for the economy, security and a bunch of other things like inclusion and love between Europeans?


Here it seemed that there are two countries and two people in which two different campaigns were operating, neither side promised anything of substance, mainly just insinuations of resolving the marketing problem with a leave/remain vote


2. Expert advice

One of the most tragic ideas (in my opinion) the remain campaign had, was to parade Obama in order to preach to the converted and annoy so many at the same time. As a committed pro-Europe citizen, I found Obama’s take on things and his mere invitation to speak on the topic, extremely irritating and therefore, I cannot help but wonder how many remain supporters switched sides and how many undecided voters went for leave due to the American idea of intervention that has never been less welcomed after the Iraq war.
As if that wasn’t enough, the remain campaign delivered the final blow by having Bank of England’s Carney tell people the economy would suffer gravely if they voted exit where people already blame the banks for much of the economic misery in the country! Did the remain campaign miss the last six years on British streets and social media? if there are people less trusted than politicians by the British public, those would be bankers!

General expert advice may appeal to those who are already in favour of the motion and it reassures them that they are doing the right thing. Furthermore, it may act as a push for those who are undecided but only if it specifically addresses the needs of the voter. What the remain campaign did, is in fact introduce experts to push and convince people of status quo by offering a bleak alternative to status quo and not expert advise on how to tackle the concerns that the voters have. 



3. Brand Image

In a way or other this became very much a brand Cameron v Borris/Farrage.

On the one hand you had the prime minister with all the greatness that this carries who appealed to Tory Britain, on the other hand you had Nigel Farrage who surgically disguised his public school, privileged upbringing successfully. Farage was often seen with a beer in one hand and cigarette in the other portraying a “jack the lad” one of the people type of image, not to mention the way he spoke  (does he really speak like that in real life?), furthermore larger than life Borris Johnson who plays football and drives around in a hatchback  couldn't be further away from the conservative party image which he indeed is part of. Granted the brand image may have deteriorated since the referendum as the brand promise became compromised but this doesn’t detract from the fact that it was very successful during the campaigning period.



4. Call for Inaction

The remain campaign claimed victory from day one and this was almost a call to their voters for inaction, they hoped that people will tick the remain box once they arrive at the polling station, yet did not plead enough with people to turn out to vote. In some areas they did provoke minorities who traditionally have a lower turn out, but there was no drive en mass. There was a general disbelief that a leave vote would actually materialise whether a person voted or not and this specific issue was never tackled by the remain campaign as they too believed success was inevitable.

On the other hand the leave campaign continuously called for action, vote to change NHS, vote to get rid of migrants and finally vote for independence! as if Britain is actually under occupation by the EU. They called for action at every turn.


5. Advertising

The remain campaign offered articulate, clever, question time type of advertising whilst the leave offered sound bites easy to digest without giving half your evening to analyse it and frankly with the longer than European average working week (8 long hours longer than France) many do not look for escapism in the BBC Debate or Hard Talk.

When the leave campaign advertised £350 million for NHS the remain campaign should have advertised 26% of doctors are foreign, when they controversially advertised images of masses of migrants almost attacking Britain, the remain campaign could have very visually showed how many people would be left untreated if immigration is disallowed.

There was never any bite size information on how many European programs and funds the British benefit from; there were no (or very few) human stories  on how the EU funds helped farmers and other people in society. There was some dehumanisation of the remain vote whilst the leave campaign managed to make the vote as one of the oppressed, the people (no matter how untrue) the anti-establishment vote which is the vote many are choosing across the world, only the remain campaign seemed to have been carrying on with a business as usual attitude ignoring this drive.

6. Product and packaging

The product that the remain campaign was offering is the same old thing, there was no “new and improved version” to satisfy the voter, no decrease in university fees, no increase in income support, no extra nurses and doctors, no extra primary schools, no extra affordable housing  basically they just wanted people to  buy the old product basically, no Jermey Corbyinsm what so ever, which would have seriously helped get him and his voters onboard.  Whereas the leavers offered a change, so people wanted to try it out.

I know this is simplistic but as I said earlier most people don't have the time or motivation to examine the ins and outs of the products on offer, they scan the label and go ahead and here it was easy, the one product they already knew and didn't like or were indifferent to it and the other product has a fancy label promising euphoria, which would you choose?

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

An investigation into the services and amenities needed by British families with young children when staying at a 4/5-star hotel on leisure travel (holiday)


In modern day Britain, the idea of going on holiday no longer embodies an unnecessarily extravagance but is described by many as a need.

Three British couples were interviewed and over 50 people responded to an online questionnaire, seeking to understand their family requirements when staying at a 4/5-star hotel on leisure travel. The answers were analysed based on the ages of the children within the family unit.

This research concludes that hotels are failing to cater fully to the British family unit, primarily due to their lack of appreciation for the vast difference in family requirements, based upon the age/s of the child/children in the family unit.

Hotel design, parents’ increased anxiety for child health and safety, age compression, child development and socialisation are some of the factors explored in this research that are viewed to contribute to the family holiday experience. 

The appropriate age of a ‘child’ in the hotel industry should be reassessed and a more specific categorisation of children needs to take place, under at least four sub-age groups, infant (0-1yr), toddler/pre-schooler (1-5yr), child (5-9yr) and Tween (9-12yr) as each possess a specific set of needs.


The Family Unit Hotel Wheel proposed at the end of this study is intended for the use of hotel management for strategic planning and hotel staff for practical purposes as a “to do” list. It lists the requirements of a family based on the age/s of the child/children in the family in order for hotels to provide the necessary requirements for each family unit. The wheel also lists the common family requirements.


Full research in review for publication