Sometimes the hardest thing to say

The Evening Standard has recently run ads apologising for past poor performance in meeting readers expectations. The Guardian reports: The market research evidently discovered that Londoners considered the paper to be too negative, not celebratory enough and guilty of failing to cater for the capital’s needs. A great city with great facilities was being persistently talked down.

sorry_beingnegativesorry_beingpredictablesorry_losingtouch

It certainly is a bold campaign that will gain a lot of attention. It will also no doubt set up future expectations for readers and place the paper in a demanding position for change.

In line with our Civil Branding ideas, we always recommend beginning any new positioning with an authentic promise: one that customers will accept and one that the company can deliver. We often see the need for brands to wipe the slate clean, especially in developing markets where branding has previously been unsophisticated or in industries where there are very low customer expectations like finance.

Over the last decade, internet advertising has cut conventional media budgets, putting pressure on quality news items that come from investigative reporting and the like. The resulting drop in quality has refocused the industry on sensational news items that are easier to report on but created long-term damage to the brands.

This ad is a bold way of wiping the slate clean. The reason it is bold is because it is unusually humble, and we look forward to seeing how well people respond to this from the Civil Branding perspective.

Sometimes the hardest thing to say
  1. Posted by: Geoff Smith on 05.15.2009 at 10:37 am

    The upside of running such a bold campaign is that it wipes the slate clean and sparks public interest precisely because it is controversial. Even if former editor Veronica Wadley’s remarks on the campaign sound over-cooked (“London is laughing at this ludicrous campaign” etc.), she has a real point about the bad impact it’s likely to have on staff and contributors. A blanket apology for “being predictable”, “too negative” etc? If the paper was really that lousy it would never have survived and Lebedev would never have bought it. The blanket apology also undermines the humility we’re supposed to buy into. Who wants to see their work binned as trash to promote a new management team? Nor is it massively flattering of the tastes of readers who happened to think the Standard was a decent paper. So yes, it grabs attention and maybe it will provide a platform for the new-look Standard to succeed commercially. But a showcase of civil branding? I think not.

One Trackback

  1. By Civil Branding » Trebor, humility and authenticity on December 8, 2009 at 10:55 am

    [...] for past errors in order to wipe the slate clean and begin a more genuine dialogue with the reader (see previous post). Trebor, humility and [...]

Post a Comment

Civil Branding encourages comments to be short and to the point; as a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.

*
*

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:

+ Bold: Text

+ Italic: Text