Why does the government advertise?
Discussion
I wonder how much is spent yearly on advertisement, e.g. Act on CO2 s
te, tax deadlines, and general crap like: http://payandworkrightscampaign.direct.gov.uk/inde...
That appeared as a Doubleclick Ad on MSN - why?
te, tax deadlines, and general crap like: http://payandworkrightscampaign.direct.gov.uk/inde...That appeared as a Doubleclick Ad on MSN - why?
The Gov't needs to communicate to the population. By using different media and different creative for each campaign the Gov't can target the right people, at the right time, through the right medium and in an impactful way. All those things vary according to the nature of the campaign in hand.
The COI marketing budget is MASSIVE.
ETA: to answer your specific question, MSN has huge reach so is a decent enough place to advertise. Also MSN offer advertisers various filters such as age, sex, etc.
The targeting systems available for online advertising are particularly clever. If you start performing a few searches online for say 'Wedding Dress' then within a week or two you would start seeing adverts displayed on some of the sites you might visit that relate to weddings; jewellery, venues, honeymoons, stationery etc etc. It's clever stuff.
Facebook is another good example - you can target by age, sex, hobbies/interests, geographical location etc. Far more targeted than traditional media.
The COI marketing budget is MASSIVE.
ETA: to answer your specific question, MSN has huge reach so is a decent enough place to advertise. Also MSN offer advertisers various filters such as age, sex, etc.
The targeting systems available for online advertising are particularly clever. If you start performing a few searches online for say 'Wedding Dress' then within a week or two you would start seeing adverts displayed on some of the sites you might visit that relate to weddings; jewellery, venues, honeymoons, stationery etc etc. It's clever stuff.
Facebook is another good example - you can target by age, sex, hobbies/interests, geographical location etc. Far more targeted than traditional media.
Edited by bramley on Wednesday 25th November 20:17
bramley said:
The Gov't needs to communicate to the population. By using different media and different creative for each campaign the Gov't can target the right people, at the right time, through the right medium and in an impactful way. All those things vary according to the nature of the campaign in hand.
True, I guess my main gripe is they feel they need to advertise things that anyone with half a brain would realise anyway - and if you don't realise it IMO you don't deserve to be reminded.I think the title should be "Why does the Government advertise so much?"
I listen to the radio while working and in the car, commercial stations seem unable to get through an ad break without one of those awful tax credits adverts or some such. It's the strongest marketing campaign on the radio and it's very wrong.
It's not public service broadcasting, it's a waste of bloody money. Or do people like Moira Stewart, Jenny Eclair, Adam Hart-Davis etc. give their services for free?
I listen to the radio while working and in the car, commercial stations seem unable to get through an ad break without one of those awful tax credits adverts or some such. It's the strongest marketing campaign on the radio and it's very wrong.
It's not public service broadcasting, it's a waste of bloody money. Or do people like Moira Stewart, Jenny Eclair, Adam Hart-Davis etc. give their services for free?
The government are the UK’s largest spender of the advertising £ but the adverts are also the most closely monitored for effectiveness and generally (but not always), they do tend to achieve a cost benefit for every £ spent.
Take the tax credits examples. If not enough people take up their credits, then the government incurs greater costs in administration and possibly even giving greater welfare payments than are technically needed. By alerting people to their existence, this cost can be reduced by significantly more than the cost of advertising.
Same for self-assessment tax. If people are late, that’s a huge cost burden on the government and thus, us.
Pre-Sky, the government used to run public information films but with media being so fragmented these days, the only way to reach mass audiences is via paid for advertising.
Take the tax credits examples. If not enough people take up their credits, then the government incurs greater costs in administration and possibly even giving greater welfare payments than are technically needed. By alerting people to their existence, this cost can be reduced by significantly more than the cost of advertising.
Same for self-assessment tax. If people are late, that’s a huge cost burden on the government and thus, us.
Pre-Sky, the government used to run public information films but with media being so fragmented these days, the only way to reach mass audiences is via paid for advertising.
mattviatura said:
Stevie you obviously have studied the figures, I admittedly haven't.
However I've just heard an advert for the "Policing Pledge" or something.
How on earth does that benefit the populace?
Advertising is a big part of my business and for the most part, we deal with government clients - in the UK, mainly at a local level - so it's fair to say I have a reasonable handle on this!However I've just heard an advert for the "Policing Pledge" or something.
How on earth does that benefit the populace?
There is a grey areas of government advertising that one might consider as political willy waving and the Policing Pledge may well fall into this category but even here, there will be some justification along the lines of instilling public confidence that can be aligned with a cost benefit. If the public have confidence in the police, then they are more likely to support them which means crime goes down and public costs go down.
StevieBee said:
mattviatura said:
Stevie you obviously have studied the figures, I admittedly haven't.
However I've just heard an advert for the "Policing Pledge" or something.
How on earth does that benefit the populace?
Advertising is a big part of my business and for the most part, we deal with government clients - in the UK, mainly at a local level - so it's fair to say I have a reasonable handle on this!However I've just heard an advert for the "Policing Pledge" or something.
How on earth does that benefit the populace?
There is a grey areas of government advertising that one might consider as political willy waving and the Policing Pledge may well fall into this category but even here, there will be some justification along the lines of instilling public confidence that can be aligned with a cost benefit. If the public have confidence in the police, then they are more likely to support them which means crime goes down and public costs go down.
You mention that there is a tangible cost benefit in reminding people of tax return deadlines etc. NO THERE ISN'T!
To me, your post sounded like someone believing the hype (not a surprise if you are on the 'inside'). I dont mean this to be in any way confrontational or aggressive but the fines and whole regime on SA was chaged to generate MORE money for HMRC.
People missing deadlines and getting late fines and Surcharges have made a huge difference to the overall Tax Take in UK.
Think of teh Congestion Charge, without the fines and PCNs, the system will collapse with teh losses. HMRC is no different now as the penal regime amounts for so much. I did see some numbers a while ago and will try and find them.
So, to summarise, if too many people believe the 'hype' (my phrase) and believe that the advertising is for the good, it will self perpetuate.
Apologies if this comes across accusatory but it isnt meant to, honest!
Would be interesed in your repsonse?
P
Firstly there is an obligation by government to inform and secondly they do it for their own propaganda.
The pity is NuLab have used massive advertising and TV progs (paid solely by the taxpayer e.g. Border Patrol etc) to put across their socialist agenda and propaganda daily... and the dumb voter does not realise it's just propaganda by the Bolscheviks!
How can Labour EVER have been voted in a second time, never mind the third, without these massive politically motivated propaganda. Surely no polulation can be THAT dumb!?!?!
This needs to be banned, permanently!
The pity is NuLab have used massive advertising and TV progs (paid solely by the taxpayer e.g. Border Patrol etc) to put across their socialist agenda and propaganda daily... and the dumb voter does not realise it's just propaganda by the Bolscheviks!
How can Labour EVER have been voted in a second time, never mind the third, without these massive politically motivated propaganda. Surely no polulation can be THAT dumb!?!?!
This needs to be banned, permanently!
A lot of government advertising is extremely tenuous when it comes to cost justification added to which is that to fully grasp the reasoning, one has to have a good understanding of the management side of politics (rather than the political).
I’ll give you an example based upon the area in which we specialise – waste management awareness.
It costs around £100 a tonne to tip waste into landfill. This is made up of operational costs, landfill tax and other similar costs. On average, each home contributes around £80 of their council tax towards waste management.
To overcome this discrepancy, councils divert waste away from landfill using things such as recycling (which also generates income).
If people don’t know how to recycle or use their scheme properly, then not only does the council suffer the £20 cost burden, but they also loose additional money because what is recycled, is not of a good enough quality to meet market demands.
However, the council can pay us an equivalent of, say, £5 per household to run a campaign that raises awareness, educates and encourages people to recycle. Our track record is that we yield on average, an increase to 50%, quality recycling.
So, that £5 per household budget results in a saving of £50 per household plus increased revenue from the recyclate commodities that further subsidise waste management. This means there is more money to go on other things without over-burdening the council tax bill.
Believe me, this is exceptionally carefully monitored. No government, regardless of politics, would sign off on major campaigns without being able to fully justify the expenditure. But as I say, to understand the justification requires the removal of political cynicism and gain an understanding of how things work at a sub political level.
That said, there are many examples of poor ad campaigns and I wouldn’t stop short of levying criticism where appropriate – (Just not on our campaigns ☺
I’ll give you an example based upon the area in which we specialise – waste management awareness.
It costs around £100 a tonne to tip waste into landfill. This is made up of operational costs, landfill tax and other similar costs. On average, each home contributes around £80 of their council tax towards waste management.
To overcome this discrepancy, councils divert waste away from landfill using things such as recycling (which also generates income).
If people don’t know how to recycle or use their scheme properly, then not only does the council suffer the £20 cost burden, but they also loose additional money because what is recycled, is not of a good enough quality to meet market demands.
However, the council can pay us an equivalent of, say, £5 per household to run a campaign that raises awareness, educates and encourages people to recycle. Our track record is that we yield on average, an increase to 50%, quality recycling.
So, that £5 per household budget results in a saving of £50 per household plus increased revenue from the recyclate commodities that further subsidise waste management. This means there is more money to go on other things without over-burdening the council tax bill.
Believe me, this is exceptionally carefully monitored. No government, regardless of politics, would sign off on major campaigns without being able to fully justify the expenditure. But as I say, to understand the justification requires the removal of political cynicism and gain an understanding of how things work at a sub political level.
That said, there are many examples of poor ad campaigns and I wouldn’t stop short of levying criticism where appropriate – (Just not on our campaigns ☺
This sounds remarkably like justifying an expense after the decision to spend has been made. I don't buy it - in fact coincidentally a Jobcentre Plus advert is on right now, why? It's an onslaught.
I have to agree with Slaav's comments.
That said, it's unusual to have a reasoned argument on this forum without being called a tosser and once again I can't blame Stevie one bit for profiting from this.
I have to agree with Slaav's comments.
That said, it's unusual to have a reasoned argument on this forum without being called a tosser and once again I can't blame Stevie one bit for profiting from this.
StevieBee said:
A lot of government advertising is extremely tenuous when it comes to cost justification added to which is that to fully grasp the reasoning, one has to have a good understanding of the management side of politics (rather than the political).
I’ll give you an example based upon the area in which we specialise – waste management awareness.
It costs around £100 a tonne to tip waste into landfill. This is made up of operational costs, landfill tax and other similar costs. On average, each home contributes around £80 of their council tax towards waste management.
To overcome this discrepancy, councils divert waste away from landfill using things such as recycling (which also generates income).
If people don’t know how to recycle or use their scheme properly, then not only does the council suffer the £20 cost burden, but they also loose additional money because what is recycled, is not of a good enough quality to meet market demands.
However, the council can pay us an equivalent of, say, £5 per household to run a campaign that raises awareness, educates and encourages people to recycle. Our track record is that we yield on average, an increase to 50%, quality recycling.
So, that £5 per household budget results in a saving of £50 per household plus increased revenue from the recyclate commodities that further subsidise waste management. This means there is more money to go on other things without over-burdening the council tax bill.
Believe me, this is exceptionally carefully monitored. No government, regardless of politics, would sign off on major campaigns without being able to fully justify the expenditure. But as I say, to understand the justification requires the removal of political cynicism and gain an understanding of how things work at a sub political level.
That said, there are many examples of poor ad campaigns and I wouldn’t stop short of levying criticism where appropriate – (Just not on our campaigns ☺
Your second last para sounds like a rather naive statement? Do you honestly believe that everything is thought through, debated and costed in advance of decisions being made?I’ll give you an example based upon the area in which we specialise – waste management awareness.
It costs around £100 a tonne to tip waste into landfill. This is made up of operational costs, landfill tax and other similar costs. On average, each home contributes around £80 of their council tax towards waste management.
To overcome this discrepancy, councils divert waste away from landfill using things such as recycling (which also generates income).
If people don’t know how to recycle or use their scheme properly, then not only does the council suffer the £20 cost burden, but they also loose additional money because what is recycled, is not of a good enough quality to meet market demands.
However, the council can pay us an equivalent of, say, £5 per household to run a campaign that raises awareness, educates and encourages people to recycle. Our track record is that we yield on average, an increase to 50%, quality recycling.
So, that £5 per household budget results in a saving of £50 per household plus increased revenue from the recyclate commodities that further subsidise waste management. This means there is more money to go on other things without over-burdening the council tax bill.
Believe me, this is exceptionally carefully monitored. No government, regardless of politics, would sign off on major campaigns without being able to fully justify the expenditure. But as I say, to understand the justification requires the removal of political cynicism and gain an understanding of how things work at a sub political level.
That said, there are many examples of poor ad campaigns and I wouldn’t stop short of levying criticism where appropriate – (Just not on our campaigns ☺
I have a client who sits on a major London Body who is self made and pretty comfortable. He cannot believe the processes and waste in almost every single project and expenditure. It appears to him atht theer are political egendas in the vast majority of cases and then the argument is developed to justify the decision.
This can be witnessed in almost every aspect of our lives?
Admittedly there are some good campaigns but it really sticks in my throat watching some of teh adverts on TV and the Press which are little short of Part Political Broadcsts on behalf of the 'crooks' in charge.
And dont get me wrong, I dont in any way blame you for making a living on teh back of this. It's not your fault!
P
Slaav, mate, I have stories that would make hair curl! I'm privy to a lot of the back room stuff. I can defend what we do but rarely a lot of the political tinkering that goes on.
We do - I would like to think - operate with a bit of integrity. Last year, we pulled out of what was quite a decent campaign project because the way the client (a London Council) was directing things was wholly inappropriate and driven purely by political aims. Nearly did the same again this year with a client in the North West. The Councillor who held the communication portfolio was pushing us to concentrate all awareness efforts on one small area of the district. It became apparent that this was his ward and also that with the lowest recycling of all the district.
We do - I would like to think - operate with a bit of integrity. Last year, we pulled out of what was quite a decent campaign project because the way the client (a London Council) was directing things was wholly inappropriate and driven purely by political aims. Nearly did the same again this year with a client in the North West. The Councillor who held the communication portfolio was pushing us to concentrate all awareness efforts on one small area of the district. It became apparent that this was his ward and also that with the lowest recycling of all the district.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff