An open letter to SAN Parks CEO, Dr David Mabunda

Dear Dr Mabunda

I would like to bring something slightly concerning about your marketing and PR efforts to your attention. But before I do that, let me give you a brief overview of who I am and what I do.

I am passionate about South Africa, in particular, the rich natural heritage that we have been blessed with and inherited and I support those organisations that endeavour to protect this heritage. I spend as much time as I can outdoors and in nature and frequent as many South African Nature Conservancies and Parks as I can. In fact, I have bookings at three of your incredible parks to look forward to next year.

To make a living, I am a dedicated brand strategist. I strive to ensure that the brands I work with are positioned optimally for maximum impact and effect in the market and I work to help them maintain a good, responsible and positive image in the minds of consumers, ultimately to help guarantee their business success.

Let me return to the purpose of this mail. I follow SAN Parks on Facebook. SAN Parks has an impressive 51 000 followers - a number to be proud of in the social media environment in South Africa. That means over 51 000 people have chosen to follow what you say and over 51 000 are recipients of the communication that you extend to them on a daily basis.

I have noted with interest the increasing number of posts on your Facebook Page about rhino poaching and what has essentially become and been termed the War on Rhino Poaching. Fair enough, the levels of rhino poaching are alarming, enough I believe, to have imposed a decline on our rhino population and if you add up the numbers, to threaten extinction to the species in less than a decade.

We all have the right to be extremely concerned and frankly, angry. Our heritage is being threatened and very little is being done internationally to help tackle the demand for rhino horn. Parks and conservancies are the ones who appear to be bearing the brunt of this epidemic with little reassurance that it is going to slow down any time soon.

In the last three to four years, the South African public has finally been made more aware of what is happening and on what scale poaching is taking place. This is fair and arguably good. We are joint custodians of our natural heritage and have the right to know what is threatening it. It is also necessary to gather the support of South Africans to increase the pressure on Government and international organisations to do something about this on the levels that count i.e. to encourage proper attempts to challenge and curb the demand by a largely Eastern market - a demand fuelled by the leaders of the very countries in question.

On the ground at home, we are dealing with an equally complex situation. Our country and our neighbouring countries are plagued by poverty and I am certain that because of this, it isn't particular hard to convince a few economically- and socially desperate people to plunder a natural heritage that is the least of their concerns. A heritage that they realistically reap no rewards from and one that they have had not had the means to appreciate and fully understand the greater meaning of.

This is what SAN Parks is dealing with. And lately, this is what SAN Parks is becoming increasingly public about - the confrontation between its field rangers or hired task forces and the impoverished "runners" paid marginally to break through a fence, find a rhino and kill it.

Via your daily updates, not only are your followers and the broader South African public being made aware of your attempts to curb poaching on the ground, we are also privy to the increasing number of human deaths that are a result of this anti-poaching effort. In fact, your organisation or brand, seems to be advertising the fact.

In a post I was exposed to on the 20th November, along with thousands of other South Africans, SAN Parks acts almost proud that another poacher was fatally wounded (exclamation mark, exclamation mark). It seems fair to assume that SAN Parks is quite proud of the death of a human being who has done wrong and by deduction, one can't help but think that SAN Parks thus advocates the death sentence.

From using Facebook for simple daily updates on the state of the natural nation to it becoming a  platform to convey what one can argue is an underlying, yet powerful political ideology is quite a bold leap for a brand with a very defined purpose. This move is one that I am not certain is within the best interests of your brand or grounded in what I believe your brand purpose to be.

Instead of rallying a nation of natural heritage custodians and conservators, you seem to be rallying a crowd for war - a crowd just as pleased as you by the death of another human being that has done wrong; a crowd ignorant to the complexities that fuel this poaching epidemic; a crowd that is starting to outwardly condone death, war, murder as the final resolution.

A representative sample of SANParks follower comments

This is what concerns me most. A brief look at global history might suggest that this attitude or approach only ends badly. Perhaps it is time to take a brand leadership stance and influence your followers from the position of a renowned and admired nature conservator and not an organisation proud and out to kill.

Regards,

Jayne Holness

The New Lil-lets Campaign

After encountering some varied opinions from colleagues and completely changing my own tune, I have finally settled on a point of view regarding the new Lil-lets campaign by MC Saatchi & Abel.

Someone argued that the ad doesn’t convey any functional product benefits (e.g. efficacy and quality) and hence, is essentially not doing much for the brand. I tend to disagree.

I admit that the campaign/ad is quite emotional and serious and says nothing of the product, but I think that is precisely what’s working for me. I reckon it is the details of sanitary products that embarrass people i.e. the functional benefits that are given horrible names/references like channels, leaks, leak-protection, WINGS (for crying out loud), barriers, walls, absorbent gel…all of which have quite vivid connotations or that conjure up very specific, unfeminine and often awkward imagery.

I think the category, through its communication and what have since become conventions, has created half the embarrassment that women experience when it comes to talking about/experiencing periods and I really don’t know if many chicks would choose to see all this stuff.

What has changed my mind about the Lil-lets campaign is the very fact that it says nothing about all those exaggerated or weird things: no demos, no flapping wings or contorting pads, no blue liquid, no reminders of all the things I really hate and that I am pretty certain other girls and women dislike too.

Essentially, this ad challenges the category slightly and gives a little more credit to what women know and feel i.e. implying a level of personal discernment when it comes to choosing and using (pretty intimate) products and knowing/feeling what is quality and what works.

This is my experience. NOBODY can help me when I’m on my period besides chocolate, I migraine tablet and isolation (read: a day off so I don’t have to talk to anyone), so a sanitary brand is unlikely to do much for me either. All it offers is a product I HAVE to use. No matter how comfortable you try and convince me your pad or tampon is I’d still prefer not to wear one. Full stop. But because that’s not realistic, all I want is a product that is the “healthiest”/best possible quality, the most efficacious, the least embarrassing…and if it proves not to work, I’ll ask what my friends are using and change very swiftly.

A brand needs to say very little to suggest that it is a quality and hence efficacious product – I will make my decision based on what you look like on that shelf or, depending on my age, I’d rely on my mother or friends for help. At the end of the day, the proof will be in my experience of a sanitary product, especially since I believe that every woman or girl has had an embarrassing moment, moments which are actually often not avoidable or solvable by the best product on the market.

Having said all this, the Lil-lets communication may be category challenging and worthy of praise for sparing us demos and unique descriptions, but executionally, it’s not new. One could change the voiceover of the ad and it could be for life insurance, a car, a bank, an education policy, a beauty product, tracker or the next instalment of the new KFC campaign…

DA Youth Poster

If this was truly an effective piece of communication promoting cultural/racial integration, then I doubt that the DA Youth would need to jump to such a defensive conclusion: ‘…if educated university students see the poster as promoting sex, "then we have no hope".’

I’m not certain that slating an intended target audience is the best means of rallying the same people behind your campaign. And, if the sentiment of students is accurate, surely the DA Youth should first question whether it actually understands the very people it is talking to and the context within which they live, rather than reactively question their interpretative skills.

The fact is that people consider it sexual. I agree that this is frustrating, but for a number of reasons, we do operate in a fairly conservative and touchy society when it comes to nudity or anything sexual. There is no escaping that. One would hope that the DA Youth would be aware of this, and I’m pretty certain they were…

Clearly the intention was for the communication to be provocative without being cheesy or reminiscent of an idealistic portrayal of a Rainbow Nation. This is not an easy balance to strike because how does one show “political togetherness” without people scoffing at it and considering it another piece of colourful, 1994-inspired propaganda?

However, I do have to question how much thought went into this and can’t help but feel that a naked couple was the easiest and most obvious option. I’m all for provoking people to think a little and be forced, even temporarily, to exit their comfort zones, but at least then back your efforts up with a bit of thought, planning and perhaps some basic research. Hit us hard with your message and not with distractions from it.

Personally, there’s something more believable in seeing a group of racially- and culturally-diverse kids playing, for example, than seeing an image of an inter-racial couple, who had to be portrayed naked to ensure that people got the message.  Unfortunately, in this instance and whether the DA Youth like it or not, nudity is driving people’s interpretation.  

The Unnamed: Part 1

I have been doing an exercise. It had no purpose other than to inform the viability of a theme for my 30^th birthday party next year, but it did reveal something quite interesting.

I decided that I was quite fond of the idea of iconic ad characters as a new twist on the age-old dress up theme. It echoes what I spend my days doing and I believed it would present a multitude of possibilities for me and everyone invited.

I was wrong and sorely disappointed. But, why?

I was quite liberal in my approach. I decided that the character could be from any ad anyone remembered, provided that it was from within my TV-watching lifetime and wasn’t somebody famous*. From childhood, that gives us folk like The Oros Man, Rascals, The Nik Naks Man, Simba, The Frosties Tiger and Colonel Sanders with his feathered and fury friends.

Moving on in time, we brainstormed Mr Min, Joshua Door, The Michelin Man, The Camel Man, The Baker’s Man, David Kramer, the Morkels two-year-guarnatee-store chick, Ouma of rusks’ fame and Mrs Balls, the maker of the original Saffa chutney.

Into my teens and adulthood, we get the Vodacom Yebo Gogo duo, Boet en Swaar, Ronald Mc Donald, Captain Morgan, Johnny Walker, Mr Muscle, The Man your man could smell like, Kulula’s Jet-setting Pool Man, The Cadbury Gorilla etc. etc… Oh, and the Brand Power woman.

This posed a slight dilemma. Besides the challenge of a white chick convincingly dressing as the Brand Power babe, my options as a female are limited to Mrs Balls, Ouma and ‘Mrs Morkel’. Unless I got horribly drunk and repeated the Morkels’ slogan, that woman would not be easily recognized. Likewise, if one really interrogates the situation, I somehow doubt that unless a girl bears a striking resemblance to The Brand Power babe, Ouma and Mrs Balls, they could be easily confused with the number of other nameless woman who have appeared in detergent, soap and food ads over the years.

I’m stuffed. As is half my guest list. I find this situation rather curious. Here are my (slightly bitter) observations:

The last two iconic females, other than the recent Ms Brand Power, are Mrs Balls and Ouma. They may have been relegated to the kitchen, but alas, at least they had names, some associations (aprons) and gave a mildly persuasive sense that they had unique personalities.

Ms Brand Power is at least a character. She empowers woman to shop better. But that’s all we know and it’s not like she has a defining dress sense or outstanding characteristics.

Outside of the above three half-heartedly iconic ladies and even considering famous actresses and models* with good bodies, skin and teeth, women in ads tend to be represented by roles, benefits and through stereotypes and not as unique characters with much personality whatsoever. I shall rework my invitation to read:

Boys: iconic ad characters

Girls: stereotypes, emotions, benefits, roles

So ladies, (moms, daughters, friends, girlfriends, wives, working professionals and celebrities) here are your choices:

• Happy mom (cooking)
• Happy mom (cleaning)
• Happy mom (germ killing)
• Happy mom (supporting man)
• Happy mom (soothing sick kids)

• Happy young woman (glowing skin)
• Happy young woman (pearly white teeth)
• Happy young woman (good body)
• Happy young woman (healthy/regular [exciting one, this])

• Happy woman in white (obviously I’d only recommend this if you’re on your period)

• Teenager (inconspicuous supporting character- best for those who don’t like dress-ups anyway)

• Working professional (with this one, you can mix and match with any of the above. It adds depth and authenticity to your character)

One can’t help but wonder why the ladies aren’t privileged enough to be graced with a character more definitive and exciting than a role or stereotype…We also thrive/thrived on and are/were intrigued by fantasy, so I do wonder whether we’d be a little more entertained by and a little more remembering of someone other than an unnamed woman that is a copy/past of a section of a brand blueprint or guideline.

*Celebrities do not count.

1) They are meant to be like us, just prettier and more successful (obviously). Their role in ads is not to excite and charm us with their one-of-a-kind personality or character, but rather to use their ability to not be themselves and conform to a role (celebrity) as a means to convince us of a product benefit.

2) It’s not like long lashes, fancy dresses and varnish-shiny hair will convince anyone at my party anyway… whoever attempted this would still just be another celebrity unless they had a LOT of cash for a make-over or had a strategically placed mole. 

What we can learn from @BronxZoosCobra

I’m a little hesitant to launch into any commentary on social media and the use thereof, it adds to the plethora of opinions on the subject and hence to the marketing ramble and clutter in this area. In my mind, this furious and frenzied conversation- most of the time a rehash of the same topics- indirectly and ultimately compels a few too many agencies and clients to launch into the social media environment with very unlikely brands and for the wrong reasons.

I’m a cynic. I am intolerant of unconsidered actions and reckless abandon when it comes to the use of social media platforms by brands. Why? Because I cannot fathom why I’d want to get regular updates from my preferred margarine brand in my facebook newsfeed. I simply cannot find a compelling enough argument for the use of Facebook by a margarine. Despite being fervently loyal to my preferred marg, I could not think of anything further from my interests and/or friends than a tub of oily, yellow stuff that I drown my toast and potatoes in.

Too often the actual nature of the platforms gets ignored. However, this week, I happily got reminded about the beauty of twitter and why I feel like I do about many brands and their ridiculous pursuit to be my friend.

An Egyptian cobra went missing from the Bronx Zoo in New York earlier this week (March 26th) . An anonymous person swiftly started tweeting as the @BronxZoosCobra, describing its sightseeing adventures in the city and its sinister thoughts while being ‘missing.’

Very quickly, @BronxZoosCobra’s follower count soared and its presence on Twitter was much talked about in significant local and international media. People commented, retweeted and seemed to become quite immersed in the “mind” and intentions of this creature. Without it necessarily being the intention of the person responsible for the feed and certainly that of the zoo, @BronxZoosCobra functioned as the most natural, believable and possibly effective marketing effort that that zoo has likely ever seen.

The Cobra was finally found yesterday and the Twitter feed promptly halted, and as far as I can see, it has been discontinued altogether*. What a pity. If I were the Bronx Zoo, I’d have contacted the Tweeter and offered them the chance to continue tweeting as the @BronxZoosCobra. What better way to bring a slightly uncomfortable creature to life and ultimately to peak interest in the particular exhibit The Cobra would be part of. The extensive following was already there and interest indirectly aroused.

I see it as an opportunity lost to use social media in the way it should be- organically. But despite this, is also makes me so much more aware of how many brands just don’t recognise the opportunities of social media platforms armed with proper insight into how they are used by people and can and should be used by brands.

*Sadly, rumour has it that the @BronxZoosCobra Twitter account has been suspended. What a tragedy, whoever may be responsible**. 


**It seems @BronxZoosCobra is back (April 5th). Excellent!

No Headline Necessary

Is that because I'm uber confident, have no imagination or because I'm just too lazy to actually think about how I could grab your attention? Maybe it's because I actually have nothing compelling to talk about in the first place.

Who knows. Your guess is as good as mine.

I just know that it certainly doesn't give me even a vague reason to consider this car.

* For the purpose of remaining concise, I'll refrain from commenting on everything else that this ad is lacking.

Communication for social issues

I’m not convinced that many ads designed to address social issues, specifically the perpetrators of damaging or wrong behaviour, have any effect at all on the people they are intended for and contribute meaningfully to anything besides an agency awards cabinet with a subsequent contribution to creative rankings.


There seems to be a common thread in communication that addresses (anti) social behaviour- they end up being conceptual portrayals of serious issues or disorders that acutely lack the psychological insight and education necessary to know how to connect meaningfully with the people the communication is targeted at. 

I am also slightly doubtful that many people who demonstrate serious anti social behaviour or who do things that are damaging to themselves and/or other people are able to look at their own situation objectively, let alone through the gaze of a privileged, conceptual ad-person. Generally, people tend to be in denial about a serious problem they have or behaviour they perpetrate, so providing them with some abstract visual about the effects of their behaviour seems rather inadequate.


To me, it’s like asking a person with anorexia to look in the mirror as a means to shock them into eating. Any person remotely informed about this disorder will understand that the mirror merely reflects individual perception- an outcome guaranteed to differ for people with the disorder and those without it.


These ads done by Lowe Bull, Cape Town, for SANCA are an example. The conceptual nature of this work would suggest a fairly sophisticated target audience. In this case, I somehow doubt that using examples of extreme situations like drug abuse and prostitution to dramatise the effects of drinking during pregnancy will necessarily resonate with the apparent target audience. I’d propose that for a middle class mum-to-be, learning disabilities may have been a more realistic and appropriate example of the effects of moderate drinking during pregnancy. However, if the communication is aimed at heavy drinkers or people who abuse alcohol, i.e. those that are most at risk of having babies with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, I’d suggest a visit to areas and communities where alcohol abuse and FAS are rife. I suspect one might find that the shock tactics of these ads, coupled with their conceptual nature are completely meaningless.


I really feel that it’s time advertising agencies took more responsibility for what they do by taking time to understand who they are speaking to, what behaviour they are attempting to change and the realistic process required to attempt to change that behaviour.