Talk to the consumer in their language

Some public officials have a bad habit of following old fashioned traditions rather than considering what they are trying to achieve.  We deserve the best.

There's no place to hide behind legalese

The best public campaigns focus on achieving an objective,  the worst are bureaucratic and legalistic.  Take this sign, from my neighbourhood. With wording like this it's no wonder it's been covered with graffiti!

Projectiles thrown at trams may cause serious injury or death to occupants.  Offenders will be prosecuted.

Real campaigns must talk in the language of those we are trying to influence

Two of the most successful public campaigns in Australian history have been the Grim Reaper campaign of the 1980s, and the Victorian TAC (Transport Accident Commission) campaigns since 1989.  In particular, the phrase: "If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot" has become a part of the Australian vernacular.

These campaigns were highly controversial at the time, as they were graphic, dramatic, and unlike anything before.  Yet, they both worked - Australia successfully dodged the AIDS bullet, and dramatically reduced the road toll.  An important part of their success was the way that their language was direct - not at all inhibited by legalese.

More recently, a series of ads to educate young men about alcohol fuelled violence have used the device of "championship moves".  Again, these ads use language and visuals that are consistent with the way young men act and speak. Likewise, the Save-a-Mate program talks to young people about drugs in a way that is realistic.

Stop with the bureaucracy and legal threats

Thankfully, most public officials are less bureaucratic than my local signage.  This New York example of a campaign against train surfing is direct, and doesn't mention one word of prosecution. In reality, the people that public service announcements are trying to talk to don't take much notice of legal sanctions.  But, like the Grim Reaper, TAC and drugs campaigns,  disincentives are those that affect them personally, like death, or social embarrassment.

We have no reason to use complex, legal language in communicating with our audience.  Let's be honest, and direct.  Everyone will benefit.

Let me know what you think.

Rejecting cake socialism - the operation of the free market in office morning tea

"Come have some scrumptious coconut cake near my desk ... Reviews from my team so far: "this is yummy" and "much nicer than it sounded, I think I'll have another bit"

Not the actual coconut cake

So announced the offer of a mid morning treat to all our team today. And an interesting example of social economics followed.

Apparently, the Marketing (email) was effective, the product (cake) good quality and the price (free) was attractive. Naturally, the laws of economics meant that demand was high, encouraging significant trial and repeat purchase. Soon the supply had been exhausted.


I wandered over for a piece of cake many minutes later to be told I was much too late. My suggestion that there should be rationing and "cake socialism" was rightly rejected. The free market had triumphed.

Let's dissect this cake giveaway market.

Supply: limited

• With the limited supply of product, the seller could extract a high price. Alternatively, they could control distribution, to ensure preferred purchasers were guaranteed product.

Pricing: Low

• Instead of setting price high, it was set low. Was this an error in assessment of the market need for cake? Or perhaps it was a deliberate tactic to generate "buzz"

Consumption controls: Low

• With such a great offer, why weren't any purchase quantity controls imposed? In fact, there were controls - only one piece could be taken at a time - this limited bulk purchase for resale, but there were no limits on returning for more.

In a controlled market, cake socialism might have ruled.  One piece might have been allocated per person.  Or even a ballot for who gets a piece. People who didn't even want a piece would probably be given one (and there is every chance that would create a black market for coconut cake with non coconut cake eaters onselling their portion to those who missed out)

Instead, by letting the market operate, competition for the limited supply ran wild.  Sure, I didn't get a piece.  But that's my own problem. Next time, I'll be faster.

So, how will the market operate next time?  The success of the coconut cake launch has generated positive brand trust for the cake provider.  She can increase her price (perhaps favors from colleagues), or maybe extend the product line into a more profitable offer.  Maybe she will increase supply to satisfy more colleagues.

In any case, the free market will find its level.  It's not perfect, but it's better than cake socialism

Let me know what you think (tick a reaction box)

Mark S

Postscript, with thanks to @almulcahy
Eddie Izzard- Cake or Death
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg&feature=youtube_gdata_player