BT vs Sky: Round one

I do like a nice advertising spat, and the row between BT and Sky over the latter’s refusal to take its ads to promote BT’s Premier League broadcasting, has all the hallmarks of turning into a real ding-dong.

So far, we’re still at the name-calling stage with animal metaphors the insult of choice. BT likens Sky to a “rottweiler running away from a newborn puppy”, while Sky has retaliated by calling BT “a £22 billion gorilla in puppy’s clothing”. (Personally, I think of Sky as a Staffie, but I think BT is shying away from that description on the grounds that nearly all the Sky footie fanatics it wishes to poach own Staffies and might be insulted.)

Now it’s all gone to Ofcom, whose relevant code, BT believes, means Sky cannot discriminate between advertisers and must therefore take its advertising.

Given the amount of money Sky spends on other broadcasters – who cannot refuse its money – and its failed attempt to prevent ITV Digital (remember that?) advertising its football rights on Sky a decade ago, you might think this was rank hypocrisy on Sky’s part.

Sky meanwhile is trying to muddy the waters by accusing BT itself of hypocrisy. But what does it really think it is going to achieve?

I suspect this is, in the end, nothing more than the first skirmish in what will be a protracted guerrilla war, as Sky does everything it can to distract, delay and annoy BT. The location will not be in the court of public opinion – too dangerous that – but in the backrooms of Ofcom.

I suspect too that Sky knows it will not win this particular skirmish but it is worth having a go anyway. As a licensed broadcaster, Sky must comply with Ofcom’s codes – and it cannot cherry pick the ones that it likes and ignore the ones it doesn’t.

Sky’s suggestion that BT should forget about advertising on Sky Sports channels and instead go for its other 90-plus channels – for example, Sky Arts or Living – is, of course, laughable. Unlike many other target audiences, BT’s is so easy to define and find for this particular task.

In fact, I imagine that what BT would really like would be the opportunity to run its ads via Sky’s AdSmart system, which would allow it to target Sky on an individual household level (i.e. heavy viewers of football). It may have to pay three or four times more, but given the precise level of targeting BT wants, this would be the equivalent of hitting the bullseye. Or, for Sky, the equivalent of taking one in the balls.

However, AdSmart isn’t due to launch trials till August this year (when the new Premier League season kicks off) – so maybe a little tactical delay on Sky’s behalf might be in order.

This, of course, opens up the possibility of yet another spat between our two pugilists. Can Sky reasonably refuse to allow BT to use AdSmart? That would bring Ofcom into new territories.

So, we await the Ofcom ruling – no later than mid-May – and meanwhile Sky will be preparing its defences.

And here’s an interesting paradox: if Sky succeeds in banning BT from its sports channels, then of course BT would be able to prevent it from advertising on its. If Ofcom rules against Sky, then it would be free to carpet-bomb BT subscribers with its ads. It’s going to be fun.

The Thatcher years: Maurice, Tim, Martin and the ad business have a lot to be grateful for

The default reaction of most media to Baroness Thatcher’s death last week was to trot out shots of that era-defining ‘Labour isn’t working’ poster from 1979, followed quickly by the ‘Sid’ privatisation ads for British Gas.

As iconic emblems, they certainly do the trick. But in fact, the Thatcher influence on the advertising industry was far more profound than that, beyond ushering in a whole new attitude to political advertising – and the realisation that the core skills of advertising: clarity of thinking, brutal reductionism, consumer insight and striking imagery – could play a powerful role in politics.

Let’s start with Maurice (now Lord) and Charles Saatchi’s posters. They established the agency’s fame beyond adland, and made it the obvious port of call for a series of Tory-leaning businessmen like Lord King of British Airways and Sir Stanley Kalms of Dixons. Their endorsement in turn meant that Saatchis in particular, and advertising agencies in general, were at last treated as serious businesses by the City.

Agencies went public – some now defunct like BMP and GGT, others like AMV and WPP still around, as well – of course – as Saatchis. Individual agency bosses such as the Saatchis – previously unknown outside Soho and the pages of Campaign – Tim Bell (now Lord) and Martin Sorrell (now Sir) became the business equivalent of rock stars.

Backed by cheap City money and generous accounting rules which favoured acquirers, agencies went on massive (and occasionally suicidal) spending sprees, buying everything in sight in the UK and the US.

Naturally, this led to moments of great hubris, exemplified by the Saatchis’ posited takeover of Midland Bank. An agency trying to buy a bank? What were they thinking?!

At the same time, Thatcher’s other great legacy to the advertising business was playing out. This wasn’t privatisation per se – although that handily filled the coffers of agencies and media owners – but the subsequent deregulation and the opening up to consumer choice of sectors like telecoms, financial services, energy and utilities, not to mention TV with the launch of Sky.

It’s hard to believe now, but whole categories of advertiser we take for granted now hardly existed then. BT was a monopoly, you couldn’t get a mortgage from a bank and when it came to gas and electricity choice was virtually non-existent.

And politicians took to the joys of advertising like ducks to water, leading to an explosion in publicly-funded ads. Where would agencies or media owners be today without those categories – ok, even allowing for the fact that public sector advertising is dead for now.

Media owners cashed in too: reform of the trade unions allowed Rupert Murdoch to breathe new life into newspapers, gave rise to the birth of The Independent, and to satellite TV.

Footnote: Of course, if business and politics were seduced by the charms of the advertising industry, so some agency bosses were also seduced by politics. The sensible ones like Maurice Saatchi and Tim Bell stayed behind the scenes.

Others like Robin Wight, the W in WCRS – at the time a classic agency product of the Thatcher era – took it a stage further. In 1987 dear old Robin, of the BMWs, purple suits and classic 80s adman glasses, stood as Tory candidate for Bishop Auckland, a rock-solid Labour seat and home to many Durham mining families. Needless to say, despite dishing out branded t-shirts (labelled ‘Wight in Front’ on the front and ‘Back Wight’ on the reverse*), Labour increased its majority.

*Hat tip for the t-shirt info to a former WCRS staffer unwillingly despatched to Bishop Auckland to campaign for his then boss.

The London question

How should advertisers treat London? As a country in its own right? With audiences that are markedly different from elsewhere in the UK? Or as an upweight to a national campaign?

It’s tricky. We instinctively know London is different, but it’s not easy to quantify.

I’ll be chairing a fascinating morning session at City Hall on April 26 on behalf CBS Outdoor, in association with MediaTel, at which these issues, and other fascinating insights into London, can be explored.

Speakers include Dr Linda Yueh, chief business correspondent of BBC World News; Mike Brown, managing director of London Underground and London Rail; and renowned author and social commentator Peter York.

To find out more about how to attend, visit the CBS website.