Davos: like Cannes but for ugly people

Following an email accusing him of not being cantankerous enough, Dominic Mills has upped his curmudgeon quotient as he takes a look at Davos, ‘pink’ premium brands, Apple and Maurice Levy.

A lot has happened in the last few days, so this is a pick-n’-mix column highlighting just a few items that caught my eye.

But first, a word to a reader who e-mailed me last week in reference to my curmudgeonly view of the John Cleese Specsavers ad.

“I enjoy your column,” he wrote, “but why can’t you be more cantankerous?”

So this is for you, Mr Pxxxxxx Cxxxxx of well-known tech company/media owner. In a bid to be more reader-centric, I’m doing my best to up the CQ (that’s curmudgeon quotient, for those in the trade) from now on.

1. Davos

Here’s the stuff about Davos that drives me mad:

– The self-importance and implicit one-upmanship of attendees

– The almost orgiastic air of self-congratulation that permeates delegates

– The conspicuous cost of attendance and sponsorship ($27,000 per delegate and approx $300,000 to sponsor)

– The huge volumes of hot air that are propelled into the atmosphere from pointless discussion

– The fawning, sycophantic, and unquestioning coverage by the media (check out this Bloomberg TV interview with Maurice Levy (like the Xmas prezzie scarf though, Maurice).

– The why-the-hell-are-they-there sprinkling of some cultural fairy-dust, exemplified by the attendance of Bono (is there an opening of an envelope he won’t go to?), will.i.am (ditto), Leonardo di Caprio etc.

And it came to me: it’s exactly the same as Cannes.

But then I realised the difference: Davos delegates are dull and ugly. Whatever you say about Cannes, it’s more fun, and the people are better looking.

Oh, and Davos doesn’t do awards.Yet.

2. Marketing to women

Last week, everyone got uptight about the ‘revelations’ that female-targeted versions of well-known brands carried a hefty ‘pink’ premium, charging more for the female equivalent than the male version.

Examples included Bic razors, Bic pens, white vests and bicycles.

In fact there’s nothing new about this. The Daily Mail was banging on about it a year ago. But the media love it because it suits a narrative in which everyone is, at one time or another, a victim.

But here’s another way of looking at the issue: it’s a triumph of marketing. If marketing departments need to justify themselves to their CEOs and CFOs, here’s the argument.

“You see,” they can say, “marketing is about being able to create a price premium. We’re not just responding to demand, we’re creating an emotional need for a pink razor, and therefore we can charge double for it versus the ordinary crappy blue ones that men buy.”

[advert position=”left”]

The trouble with this attitude is, it’s fine until you’re rumbled or if you can’t justify it via, for example, better functionality, aesthetics or some other intangible quality when you’re put on the spot.

In fact, it happens all the time. That’s why an Audi is more expensive than a VW, and a VW more expensive than a SEAT, even though they share many of the same component parts, from engines to dashboards.

But within this storm-in-a-teacup row there’s a much more interesting story about the difference between marketing to women and men.

Last week, those nice folks at Caffeine invited me to a fascinating talk by Jane Cunningham and Philippa Roberts of Pretty Little Head on just this subject. They are also the authors of The Daring Book for Boys in Business, which you should check out – and not just because of the brilliant parody cover artwork.

Their theory goes something like this: there are effectively two main types of decision maker – systematisers and empathisers.

Systematisers like logic, rationality and linear processes. Empathisers look to purpose, bonding and connections as decision-making forces.

We all use both modes, but have a preference for one, or default to it. No prizes for guessing which sex uses which.

As with people, so with brand owners, Cunningham and Roberts say.

Systematising brand owners operate by command-and-control; they are linear, analytical and hierarchical. Their brands are built on rational product benefits and competitive advantage. I think that fits most car companies, and financial services, plus the likes of Tesco (old-style, anyway) and Microsoft.

Empathetic brand owners are more people-based, less hierarchical, form close bonds with their audiences, and share with and mirror those audiences. They behave, in short, as most people do. Their brand marketing is all about sharing, building emotional loyalty, and less about the product than the buyers. Think Dove, Apple, Method etc.

Of course, just because they take a more ‘female’ approach to marketing doesn’t mean that they don’t want to whack buyers with a premium if they can. But they may be better at convincing consumers that they’re worth it.

3. Bloody hell, Apple undermines its own premium image

As far as I can tell, Apple is never consciously underpriced.

You don’t get to be the world’s most valuable corporation by offering your products at a discount or running Black Friday/Boxing Day sales.

So I was stunned to get this email this month offering me £275 – sorry, up to £275 – off my next iPhone.

However, it made sense as reports began to emerge at the tail end of last week – Reuters here noting the travails of iPhone suppliers, and even the Daily Mail thought this newsworthy.

Hmm. Interesting. The iPhone is not only Apple’s biggest single profit driver, but also at the heart of all the ways Apple ties in its customers. So it’s got a problem.

But it clearly doesn’t want to damage its premium (product and price) image with anything so tacky as sale ads or 40pc off posters in shop windows, hence the low-key email.

Meanwhile, for those who really want to understand all the action in the mobile market (including Apple, Facebook etc), may I recommend Simon Andrews’ weekly Mobile Fix newsletter from his agency Addictive.

This week, he’s focusing on what Apple’s exit from iAds really means, and whether it’s a cunning plan to subvert Google.

4. Three cheers for Maurice Levy

There’s a lot of fun to be had teasing old Maurice Levy and his giant ego, but every now and then he does something worthwhile.

This time – announced last week – it’s his Publicis 90 initiative which involves co-funding and mentoring 90 start-ups in celebration of the group’s 90th anniversary.

As way of grabbing the limelight at Davos (and trumping his nemesis, Sir Martin) it’s a good effort.

And of course, it positions Publicis as both enlightened and forward-looking.

I’ve been interviewing agencies and start-ups recently, and one thing is obvious: there’s a lot of ‘tech wash’ (i.e. everyone talking a good game, but failing to match words with actions).

This is a statement of intent, but we should be careful not to confuse an agency group investing in a start-up (in which case the temptation to take control and shove it down the throats of a) all the operating companies and b) clients) might prove hard to resist, with those agencies (including several in the Publicis group) that nurture start-ups and introducing them to clients, and whose key role is as honest broker.