The SSE orangutan and the pointless league table
The latest brand league table has been published and Dominic Mills is not impressed.
I’ve been worried recently about Maya, the SSE orangutan. In her latest ad, she’s hanging around Blackpool pier, while the voiceover drones on about how SSE believes “energy is there to be enjoyed” (such insight!).
Blackpool is surely no place for an innocent orangutan. She looks wet too. She’s lonely. She’s cold. She looks miserable. As would anyone, to be honest, if they were forced to pretend they were having fun in possibly the most depressing place in England.
I was about to report SSE to the RSPCA when I remembered Maya was a fake (she’s very convincing: I’ll give them that). About as fake as jollity and glamour purveyed by Blackpool, and about as fake as the ‘pride’ SSE claims to feel in what it does.
Anyway, there’s good news for Maya. She’s helped SSE come 89th – top that, eh, Zingy and your mates at E.ON – in a league table published last week.
This is a table that ranks the UK’s most, er, ‘storytelling-est’ brands for 2015. Who knew that such a thing existed? Who knew that such a league table was necessary?
You can read the full results here, and see that Apple (as usual…yawn) comes top, followed by MacMillan Cancer Support, the National Trust, the BBC, Xbox…and so on.
For SSE, coming 89th in such illustrious company must count as a result. I bet it doesn’t even think of itself as a ‘storytelling’ brand – whatever that is.
[advert position=”left”]
Here’s some bloke from Aesop, the agency behind the survey, explaining some of the trends: “Although charities lend themselves to emotional, purposeful storytelling, other categories such as financial services and utilities struggle to tell stories that the public cares about. Npower is the lowest ranked brand at 154th, while British Gas makes it to only 143rd place.
“By contrast, SSE performs relatively strongly, coming in 89th. By focusing on creativity, emotional resonance and purpose in this way, brands from all sectors can strike a chord with the public.
“SSE hasn’t shied away from its central purpose – providing energy. With many utility brands it’s the last thing they talk about. When a brand talks about what it’s here to do, it helps people to understand its purpose in their lives.”
Hmm, but how do we explain why – relatively speaking – John Lewis has had a bad year? It ranks only 32nd in the table (down from last year). If John Lewis isn’t about storytelling, emotional resonance and purpose, I don’t know what it is. The team at Adam & Eve must be slitting their wrists.
And it seems odd, by the way, to research this table before Christmas, surely the time in the year when storytelling really counts.
Other brands that one might also associate with storytelling – Dove, Red Bull, Nike or Compare the Market – also do a lot worse than one might expect. They are beaten, for example, by Nando’s and Wolf Blass (which is like the Nando’s of wine).
All of which begs the response: so chuffing what.
So how do you measure a storytelling brand? Apparently, you ask 2,800 consumers nine questions.
Here are three, and how I would respond in the case of SSE.
Q: Does SSE demonstrate a clear sense of purpose and vision?
Me: Yes, its purpose is to bathe consumers in warm treacle, in which we are tricked into thinking it is – unlike its competitors – more interested in building orangutan sanctuaries in Borneo than it is in making profits.
Q: Does SSE produce content you would want to share or talk about?
Me: Definitely, the more people are aware of its smarmy advertising, the better. They need to be warned. This is a personal mission of mine. (It’s funny, by the way, that SSE has disabled all consumer comments on its YouTube channel. You’d think they didn’t want people to comment…)
Q: Are you intrigued to see what SSE will do next?
Me: Absolutely. How much lower can SSE sink in its attempts to manipulate us?
Of course I understand all too well that the likes of Aesop need to find a way to stand out in an increasingly crowded market. If ‘storytelling’ is its thing, then a quick ‘n dirty piece of research, followed by a league table that be easily sold into a gullible trade press…and off you go.
All the better, too, if you can lay claim to a contemporary adland fad like storytelling.
But really, does nobody stop to ask what effect storytelling actually has on a brand – likeability, relevance, salience, price resilience or, even, sales performance – before setting off on such a task. It’s clear Aesop has no idea.
The answer could be that ‘storytelling’ actually has no positive results on the measures that really matter for brands.
Quick-thinking Dave
A guy opposite me on the tube last week was chuckling away to himself. Then he got out his phone and took a picture of a tubecard ad.
It was for TV channel Dave, advertising its latest rerun of QI, and hoping to woo young male viewers away from I’m A Celebrity.
If you can’t read the copy properly, it says: “We too have sent 12 celebrities into the jungle…Unfortunately we’ve lost them. That was six months ago. Still no sign. If you’ve seen them please do let us know.
“In the meantime we’ll stick to what we’re good at. Turn over to QI at 10pm on Dave.”
Brilliant. Witty, pithy, quick-thinking, subversive. Dave’s brand values to a tee.
It’s also, given the demographic of tube travellers, a great example of medium and message as one.