Supplementary memorandum by Diageo (AL
18B)
In response to the further requests set out
in the letter of 21 July, we are able to respond as follows:
(i) All the documentation that Diageo and Carat
have on file relating to Smirnoff Appleback or Russian Cider was
included in our original submission to the Committee.
A specific written brief would not have been
given to Rob Mitchell regarding the Smirnoff Mixability campaign.
However, the Smirnoff team wished to develop a marketing programme
based around a specific product serve and the enclosed document,
entitled "Mixability has a pivotal role in F05 and beyond",
was created by Rob Mitchell and outlined the strategic thinking
and concepts for two signature drinks. This document is contained
within our original submission. The premise was that by delivering
the right "product serve" with the right marketing support
it would be possible to switch consumption from lager and into
a proposed Smirnoff mixed product serve.
Consumer research of different product serves
was then carried out by LINK Consumer Strategies. The notion of
potency first surfaced in the debrief produced by LINK as an interpretation,
made by LINK Consumer Strategies, of the responses from consumers.
By its nature, this research was conducted with consumers and
as such the debrief from LINK contained the views of consumers
and the interpretation of those views by LINK, not Diageo.
Ultimately, following the end-to-end marketing
process (as outlined in the Diageo GB Marketing Process flow chart
enclosed (copies of which were shared by Andy Fennell at the Committee
Hearing on 9th June)), the output of the Smirnoff Mixability project
was the Smirnoff Appleback executions which were included in the
original submission. Smirnoff Appleback was a finished drink,
comprising a 50ml serve of Smirnoff, with ice and lemonade or
ginger ale and equating to 1.9 units. This is clearly within
government sensible drinking guidelines.
(ii) We are confused by the question that has
been asked. There is no "link for the Smirnoff mixability
research that produced the "pub man" slide. However,
as stated above, "LINK" is, in fact, the name of the
market research agency responsible for the debrief that contained
the "Pub Man" slide. The "pub man" was developed
wholly by LINK as an interpretation of their findings from consumer
research and does not reflect the views, or strategic thinking,
of Diageo.
(iii) We first commissioned the Smirnoff Online
Reputation Reports in November 2007 from an online specialist
at the PR agency, Splendid. From November 2007 to March 2008 these
reports were provided to us monthly and thereafter have been provided
on a quarterly basis.
The reports were commissioned as a means of
understanding and measuring the levels of positive statements
from consumers towards the Smirnoff brand in the digital space,
particularly given the strong on line presence of one of our key
competitors, Absolut. The reports enabled Diageo to measure whether
our marketing activities for Smirnoff were making a difference
in the digital space.
As the main focus of the reports is to monitor
real consumers' views on Smirnoff, they also pick up on uses of
Smirnoff imagery, logos or references in posts by consumers on
non-Diageo social networking and blogging sites. These are personal
posts by individual consumers and are not posts made by Diageo
or its representatives.
The first Online Reputation report was written
on 16 November 2007. The intention of the reports is set
out in the summary on the front page of this first report, together
with some of the concerns that can be associated with consumer's
posts. Page seven of this report helps to put things in context—of
over 500 Facebook sites that mention the word Smirnoff, only
36 have more than 100 members. The total reach of these
36 sites is c. 15k people (and Facebook has over 3 million
users in GB).
In producing the report, Splendid has looked
at each Facebook site with references to Smirnoff and the extent
to which the material contained therein would have breached Diageo's
Marketing Code. However, unlike Diageo generated online content
which is subject to the Diageo Marketing Code and approval process,
dealing with problematic user generated content on third party
Internet sites is, by the very nature of the internet, almost
impossible given the ease with which such content can be spread
and replicated on different sites and forums and the resource
that would be required to try and continuously monitor and police
content. Indeed, Diageo has learnt from experiences on other brands
that when a brand owner attempts to police references to their
brands online this often has the effect of drawing attention to
such content and therefore broadening its dissemination, which
is clearly not what we would want to do.
However, one action that we believe has helped
in this area is the creation of our own official Smirnoff Facebook
page. This currently numbers over 61,000 members and we are
able to monitor and remove content from this page that would breach
the Diageo Marketing Code. A further development, which we believe
should also assist in reducing, at least on Facebook, the amount
of inappropriate content, is that Facebook has recently asked
Diageo for the URL details of all official Smirnoff Facebook pages
so that all other pages can be closed down by them. We would encourage
site operators to adopt similar strategies. Our primary means
of enhancing the online reputation of our brands, is to actively
create positive consumer experiences that will result in positive
posts. The kinds of action that we have undertaken in this area
are encouraging consumers to attend Smirnoff events around the
country, at which responsible consumption messages play a key
part, and then subsequently post their comments, pictures and
videos online on our official Facebook page, and hosting briefings
for bloggers and providing them with exclusive information that
they may choose to post in their blogs.
18 August 2009
|
