• Skip to main content

Karan Chadda

Global digital marketing and communications leader

  • Home
  • Writing
  • Explorations
    • GPTs
    • Fake news memes
    • Poetry by numbers (2015)
    • Social media best practice
  • About me

Analytics

October 16, 2017

Twitter ads, disclaimers and highly regulated industries

Twitter is a tricky medium for advertising but its user base is valuable.

On average, Twitter’s UK user base is better educated and higher earning than the population as a whole. That makes it a bit of a prize for some products, including some which are highly regulated like financial services.

Twitter users are also an opinionated bunch who often angrily coalesce around an issue and their regular flare ups become fodder for news outlets. So there’s a notable risk when advertising to them.

A look at financial services

So how to advertise Twitter users? Let’s take a look at some ads by financial services firms to see the approaches different firms are taking.

Hargreaves Lansdown, which provides investment services to retail investors, has been running ads that link to information about the funds that are most popular with its ISA clients. They have a clear disclaimer that there is a, “risk of loss.”

Meanwhile, UBS bank’s digital wealth management offering, called SmartWealth, is running ads with a clear call to action telling investors to, “place your money into UBS SmartWealth.” They too run a disclaimer that informs us, “Capital @ risk.” The disclaimer is certainly less blunt Hargreaves Lansdown’s but is just a clear. Interestingly, UBS SmartWealth only uses Twitter to run ads. It has not tweeted in an effort to build an audience or a conversation.

Standard Life Invest, use no disclaimer in this Twitter ad. The account, which in its description says it’s only for investment professionals, instead takes an approach whereby you click through to a screen which requires you to confirm you are an investment professional before proceeding to take you through to the advertised content. This approach certainly frees up characters in tweets and also allows for longer and more complete disclaimers. A drawback to this approach is that the bounce rate is likely to be quite high.

Brand building

BNY Mellon take the approach of using Twitter as a brand building tool. A simple ad, linking to a nicely designed (if a little too self-reverential) quiz that seeks to place BNY Mellon as an innovator.

What should we take from this array of approaches? Well, firstly, on Twitter there’s no standard way to deploy the disclaimers highly regulated industries need to use. That’s probably a good thing from a creative perspective. Certainly, in the examples cited, when sharing information that might be seen as financial advice, the disclaimers are delivered before you get to the content.

Another point to note is that targeting is poor. One of the ads is for investment professionals (and I’m a long way from being one) and two others promote wealth and investment management brands which provide services that, to put it politely, I’m probably not the target customer. That’s not to say those managing the accounts have chosen the wrong audience targeting. We all know that Twitter’s targeting can be a little off sometimes.

Finally, we should note that Twitter, in its thus far fruitless drive to turn a decent profit, is constantly developing new ad products. Financial services and other highly regulated industries tend to be cautious spenders but also big spenders. It’s likely Twitter will keep launching new ad products and tweaking its services to capture this lucrative market.

September 27, 2017

10 quick-fire responses to Twitter’s 280 character trial

  1. Double the length, half the insight.
  2. I was going to write a short note, but didn’t have time so I wrote a long one.
  3. At least 100-tweet threads will be half the length.
  4. Sedentary thinking leads to bloated ideas.
  5. War with North Korea is now twice as likely.
  6. Less editing lowers quality.
  7. You’re not supposed to feed the trolls!
  8. If brevity is the soul of wit, Twitter’s soul is dying.
  9. We have double the characters to lament losing a sixth of our Jaffa Cakes.
  10. Too many tweets makes a tw*t (ht @David_Cameron).

September 3, 2017

Social media changes – summer roundup

 

What changed on social media over the summer? A fair bit. Brush up here.

LinkedIn decided to jump on the native video bandwagon.

Instagram began allowing verified accounts to add links to their stories.

Medium rolled out a partner programme, essentially a way to trial community publishing that pays.

Medium also decided to encourage applause.

Facebook dived into TV, sort of.

Facebook also took a tiny step toward stopping ads on pages that spread false news.

Facebook expanded marketplace, watch out ebay.

YouTube had a spruce up, the changes go beyond the logo.

YouTube also took its first step in social sharing within its platform.

Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube formed the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. Not exactly The Avengers but it’s early days.

LinkedIn went Lite in emerging markets.

Google let people publish posts directly to search results.

Google+, yeah it’s still there, launched a discover tab.

July 31, 2017

Do you know if you’re capex or opex?

The brutal logic used in accountancy is a useful tool for understanding where you fit in your clients’ eyes. If you understand how you’re seen, you can deliver a better service and achieve greater growth.

Take the concept of breaking expenditure down into two buckets: capital expenditure (capex) and operational expenditure (opex). Broadly speaking, capex is money spent buying, building or maintaining assets, and opex is money spent on running the company.

Why are these two definitions useful? They help you understand what a client sees when they buy your services.

Advantages and challenges

For instance, if you’re a law firm that specialises in mergers and acquisitions, then a client might see the money they spend on you as capital expenditure. It’s money they only spend because they’re building their business. If they stop investing in growth through acquisition, they’ll probably stop using you. If they delay investment plans, then your planned fee income will be delayed too. The advantages of capex are that it normally has specifically identified budgets associated with it and there is a clear business objective (e.g. buy that company).

However, if you’re a public affairs specialist working with firms in heavily regulated industries, you’re probably operational expenditure. Your clients will need a dialogue with legislators and regulators, either through you, your competitors, a trade association, internal capacity or some mixture of all of these.

The big advantage from opex is more stable and cyclically defensive income; you’re a necessary expense for the business. The challenges typically come from greater or more constant scrutiny: why does this service cost this much? Where can savings be made? Efficiency gains in opex tend to accumulate over time. If costs can be cut by 10%, then future costs have also been cut. It is a perpetual saving.

P&G’s $100m saving

Let’s take a real world example, Proctor & Gamble (P&G) recently cut its digital ad spend by more $100m and claimed to see no detrimental impact from the move. At the same time, P&G’s CEO said the company was investing in new digital capabilities.

In effect, that $100m is an opex efficiency saving, meanwhile capex on digital marketing continues. So some agencies will be growing their business with P&G, others will have lost a lot of income.

How do clients see your firm and how are you using that knowledge to plan and grow a stronger business? Contact us to have a chat about capex, opex and how marketing can help.

July 18, 2017

Four points of note from the CAP’s report on gender stereotyping within advertising

A lot has been made of the ASA’s announcement that it will more strongly regulate gender stereotypes in ads. Here are four points worth noting from the report.

1. Extending existing work

The report advocates an extension of the ASA’s existing work on gender. At the moment, ads that objectify or inappropriately sexualise women can be banned. The CAP report proposes formalising the framework in this area and extending it to look at gender in terms of:

  • Roles
  • Characteristics
  • Mocking people for not conforming to stereotypes
  • Body image

2. The public believes brands have a responsibility to ensure ads aren’t offensive or harmful

Reading through the qualitative research part of the report is a reminder that people are aware of the ubiquity of advertising and its power to normalise stereotypes and body image.

One participant is quoted as saying, “If you are seeing it all the time, you just get used to it… it becomes the norm doesn’t it.”

There is particular concern among the public in the way children and young people can be affected or even harmed by advertising. It is an issue brands should take seriously.

3. That responsibility extends to social media

The concern for children and young people extended beyond advertising into social media. Again, the qualitative research part of the report is revealing.

This comment, by a 15 year old girl in York really stands out, “Singularly, no but put together and seen on a daily basis then yes. Let’s say you follow Topshop on Instagram and you check it every day. You see that kind of picture every day. Then you get into that mindset that this is what you’re meant to look like. Especially if you see it from a young age. “

It’s a powerful reminder that the daily repetition of images and messages not only sells products, but also leaves a lasting impression on people.

4. It’s not censorship

While the mooted changes will alter how the ASA assesses ads, they don’t affect the process. People will still have to complain about an ad before the ASA will review it and issue its decision. The days of controversial ads are not over.

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Copyright © 2025 Karan Chadda | Views are my own