Evian Effie Award Notes

I had a read of the first of three effie papers that was shared here, the evian one. It’s a bit scatter shot but here are my notes.

Notes on the effies papers

·      Outdoor and cinema are described as “high value touch points”

·      I wonder what the mean by “badge value”
“badge value”-imagery that consumers associate with the brand and want to be connected with. http://www.brandpackaging.com/articles/83129-spirits-and-beer-brands-with-badge-value

·      Goal for mainstream countries was to increase purchase frequency amoung potential Evian consumers. Spot on Byron Sharp approach.

·      They describe 16 million as a “ridiculous” media budget. We would be jizzing in our pants over a media budget of that size.

·      I think by patrimonial brand they are trying to say “brand with brand value” sounds like a mistranslation of some sort

·      Note the importance that is put on understanding price promotions

·      KOL means Key Opinion Leader. I’ve heard the health PR team use that terminology

·      Their take on how social has developed as reflected by the different evian campaigns kind of feels right: In 2009, it was about virality, in 2011, it was about co-creation. Today it is about brand content and sheer entertainment.

·      Brand insight: Start acting like a big lovable soft drink brand. I like it, there’s obviously been thinking around “if water is bad then why is soft drink okay?”

·      “Prioritise eventful activation and maximize the quality of brand experience”

·      “Push but don’t impose” – Lines up with my current thoughts that our digital inventory sucks

·      I’m not convinced of the claim that 90% of the views were from shares. I’d have to see more stats.

·      All they say in terms of business impacts is that it has had a “significant” impact on the business. I’m not sure whether that’s hand waving, or whether the business is just tight lipped about its econometrics and let the effies judges know on a “need to know” basis.

·      Quite impressed with the structure of the paper. It does not rely on one big idea that goes through the whole thing, instead the channels and approaches are fractured but well considered. This reflects how we’re saying we need to start thinking about how things live on digital.