DASI

August is a month in which generally very little happens in Ad land; I only have to look at my Twitter feed to see that at the moment there are a lot of people away on their holidays- and as a result, there’s not been much to talk about. But fear not, for today I read that Unilever has announced something that’s sure to get a debate going.

Peperami has been under the wing of Lowe for 15 years, during which time the character ‘Animal’ has become the focus of its brand. Voiced by Adrian Edmondson, the Animal has spent his time self harming in the name of snack food, but now he’s permanently severed a limb: as Lowe have had their contract terminated.

There’s nothing particularly shocking about that, eventually all brands, even those with long standing relationships, will require a fresh look at things. What is surprising is that in their place is a UGC campaign. Anyone can register for the competition, through ideabounty.com, and the brief will be based on (and this is the interesting part) the animal character.

UGC ads are nothing new; Doritos have been particularly active in the area in the last few years, giving some of the most prized ad space, the Super Bowl breaks, to competition winners. However these were very open briefs whereas the central and, crucially, existing theme for the Peperami competition has been set. It’s this dropping of Lowe but sticking with the identity that developed under them that has caused the most debate, particularly amongst irked creatives who say this is nothing more than an exploitative cost cutting exercise:

“This stinks of a money-saving exercise, rather than a genuine belief in crowd sourcing…” Read one comment on Brand Republic

I think opinion on this will be split, depending on where your loyalties lie:
If you’re a creative, you’re liable to see it as a poor showing from Unilever- it’s undoubtedly a controversial decision to follow this path as, if they were unhappy with the work Lowe were producing, why would they continue with the Animal theme?

However, if you’re more of a business/financial type it’s more likely that you’ll be inclined to believe that in tough economic times, any brand is within its rights to take a gamble with its output in order to make almost certain substantial savings. After all, it’s not like this is “Thanks for the strategy” after 12 months and one campaign, or even worse, an idea pitched by an unsuccessful agency.

In a personal opinion, I think this is a sad result of the climate we’re in and symptomatic of the changes the industry is going through, where for some areas at least the Big Idea agencies are really up against it, particularly as the internet provides such an accessible and cost effective vehicle for this type of idea.

But that’s as far as it goes.
At the moment, cost saving is at the top of nearly every brand owners list of priorities, and when that’s the case there’s no room for sentiment, no matter how long the relationships might be. It may well be that this is a money saving exercise by Unilever, but I’m not sure you can begrudge them that; clearly they have the IP rights for the campaign and so they’re fully within their rights to do what they please. My guess is that this will be a fairly short term plan to get one last hurrah from their current campaign before looking to appoint a new agency in a few months.

I can absolutely understand the anger of creatives about this, this is ultimately their lifeblood being challenged, but I’m sure there will still be applications in their scores for the competition, as it’s still a great opportunity for the winner, even if they might feel a little like they’ve danced with the devil.