Nobody likes being patronised. Even small infants boil with fury when some dough-faced adult leers into their pushchair and makes 'woo-woo' noises at them. Probably.
I think being patronised takes us back to school, when we were bound by the superiority of adults who insisted they knew better than us, and would occasionally spare a few shreds of praise. "Well done!" they would say, if we had pleased them.
Of course, when we finally pass the age of consent and become grown-ups ourselves, we can leave that head-patting attitude behind. We can judge our own triumphs and failures for ourselves, in the knowledge that we now have a modicum of wisdom and self-awareness. That is, unless we're unfortunate enough to be watching an iteration of the current Halifax campaign.
That's right, Halifax. The brand owned by HBOS - the people so skilful, adept and clever, they managed to bring their own business to its knees and went some way to crashing the entire UK financial system.
"Who's smiling now, Vicky?" asks the script. Unbelievably.
I'm sure you're familiar with this work. Each execution focuses on an individual customer (actually, it doesn't as they're all very obviously made-up characters). The script describes all the little, super things the person does in their life. From ushering punters around a DIY store, to taking photos, the voice-over says "If anyone's giving extra, it's you!" - in just the same way as we were told "Well done!" when we were kids. The reward for all these 'trivial' achievements is to be endowed with some half-arsed account from the fiscal geniuses at Halifax. "Who's smiling now, Vicky?" asks Mr. VO in one spot. Unbelievably.
Where did this concept originate? With the client? The agency? It's so rotten, I'd dearly love to know the answer. What's more, I'd be intrigued to discover why nobody, at any stage, thought this was a dreadful way to address an audience. Particularly when the messaging comes from an institution which has failed so spectacularly, and required public money (our money) in order to stagger on. At the script meeting, the client presentation, the storyboarding phase, the shoot, the final approval, it is incredible no-one intervened and insisted on a re-think.
This is the stuff that gives advertising a bad name. It exemplifies the notion many people hold: that advertisers take us all for compliant, insecure idiots, hungry for corporate approval. Doubly so when the advertiser is a bank. Although the copywriting and direction are horribly weak, it's the tone of the campaign which is so desperate and inappropriate. 'Lucky you...' the overarching proposition tells us, '...we've decided you can bank with us, because of your clever little lifestyle.'
It's more than rubbish, it's insulting and repugnant.
Naturally, I'm not at all surprised to see a British bank tumbling headfirst into an expensive marketing mess. We've seen the quality of their decision-making, and it isn't pretty. What's depressing, is the picture this work paints of the state of creativity in the advertising business. I'm sure many shops would be delighted to have Halifax on their roster, despite the brand's tainted reputation. However, the honour actually belongs to Adam & Eve/DDB, and look at the result. I hope there was good money in this campaign, because it is creatively comatose and the worst work to appear on my telly in quite some time.
Magnus Shaw is a blogger, copywriter and consultant
Stephen June 11th, 2014, around noon
A great post, Thank you. Financial brands - still - obfuscating their snouts in the trough methodology need to be exposed at every point.