NORTHERN PLANNER

It's not news to you (hopefully) that most of how marketing communications works is as much about how it makes you 'feel' as what it 'tells you'. Due to a quirk of human nature, this possibly calls into the question the REAL effect of campaigns that parody the competition. Let me explain.

Gossip lubricates the cohesion of every social group. But be careful how you do it. Sharing juicy news and speculating over half baked rumours really is way to bond with co-workers, friends or whatever. But talking about people behind their back in a negative way backfires, in fact, saying negative things about people in general isn't advisable.

That's because whenever we hear someone talking about someone bad points, subconsciously, we attribute those bad points not just to the subject of the conversation, but the person slagging them off. Talk to someone about how lazy and unreliable Rob is and they'll end up withe the impression YOU are lazy and unreliable. Gleefully tell me how arrogant John is and I'll end up thinking you're more arrogant than I would otherwise.

Which makes you wonder what the long-term effects of these two financial services campaigns were. I don't mean what feedback people gave in unreliable research, or even shifts in awareness or consideration etc, but the longer term implicit memory planted in people's minds, the thing with the longest and, in the end, the most important effect.

In the case of Natwest, I know the resolution is the brand as the solution, a lone alternative in a morass of unhelpful, untrustworthy enemies, but you do wonder if people just lump Natwest with the brands they were trying to criticise.

And in the case of Nationwide, is it even worse, when you also personify the brand as fat and annoying?

You can see why they might have shifted the strategy the focus on the solution rather than problem..