Corporate Advertising – Does The Public Care?

The success of this led to it being proposed at a local level, addressing local rather than global publics: the editors of national newspapers as well as their counterparts at Newsweek or Time. This meant the use of local, terrestrial media and the certainty that motorists would also see the advertising, albeit incidentally. There was immediately some concern that there might be dissonance between this advertising and newly launched product campaigns aimed directly at motorists in Shell's key markets. There was also some anxiety about how motorists would react to corporate messages that, being in local media, appeared to be aimed at them.

Shell conducted qualitative research among motorists in several markets prior to the shift and has continued to monitor the impact of the corporate campaign on this incidental motorist audience. All the evidence suggests that there is no dissonance between the two advertising strands, but that they complement each other. There is no doubt that the motorist's image of Shell is positively affected by the advertising, although the question remains as to what extent this might affect future behaviour.

Corporate advertising

There is no satisfactory definition of corporate advertising because it can encompass so much that is not directly product-related, so this article will be very specific in its terms of reference. Any conclusions are limited to the case in question, and it is up to the reader to make comparisons with other cases. By their very nature, corporate campaigns have objectives specific to the individual company and its situation at a certain time. The solutions, including advertising, need to be tailor-made. This makes it difficult, though not impossible, to draw comparisons across the category of corporate communications.

Since 1998, Shell has been running a global communications programme, including TV and print advertising, aimed at 'special publics'. Initially, it was aimed at global special publics – people whose sphere of influence crossed borders, rather than being limited to one country. This meant that the media selected were global satellite stations and publications, and went largely unseen by consumers of local TV or newspapers. However, such was the success of that initial stage, the decision was taken to run a series of local tests.

Although media were planned against this special public audience it was inevitable that, once terrestrial TV and mainstream quality press were used, motorists would see the campaign. There was concern about the impact the campaign might have on this more general audience. However, there was no negative reaction: motorists understood and applauded the intent of the advertising, and also expressed a greater intention to purchase Shell products as a result.

This article looks in more detail at this reaction and the combined impact of this campaign, and more conventional advertising extolling Shell products – in particular new fuels such as Optimax.

The Shell brand

Throughout the 1990s, Shell engaged in an extensive process to develop a brand positioning that would satisfy all audiences and encompass its entire business, from up-stream exploration and production to down-stream retail.

It was aware of the greater public focus on corporate principles and values, and wanted to ensure that the company spoke globally with one voice. This positioning needed to acknowledge the responsibility to people and the planet that multinationals had taken on in the late twentieth century, as well as the critical role that energy companies played in ensuring supplies for the increasing demands of successive generations. All of this had to be achieved while also satisfying the demands of shareholders.

The result was the new Shell core purpose: 'Helping people build a better world', manifested in different expressions for different audiences. For motorists, where the brand, while trusted, was almost indistinguishable in a dull commodity market, Shell wished to be seen as a more caring innovator. The basis for this would be a number of new, differentiated products, the first of which was launched in 1999.

Corporate identity programme

In 1997, Shell conducted a survey to investigate its reputation among special publics in 24 countries. As the chairman of the committee of managing directors said of the results, 'We looked in the mirror and didn't like what we saw.' In broad terms, while roughly 50% were positively disposed towards Shell, there were 40% undecided and 10% who took an actively negative stance. There were, as one might expect, different reasons for not viewing Shell positively, but underlying them all was a strong common feeling that Shell did not care what people thought of it or its actions and that it had a rather arrogant and aloof attitude to their critics. Its strong financial performance had served it well among the financial community, but could be seen as a 'profits at all costs' approach among other elements of this constituency.

Shell therefore decided to initiate a communications programme that would seek to demonstrate its eagerness to engage in a dialogue with others and give greater exposure to the principles on which it based its activities. It was as surprised at the lack of knowledge of those principles as dismayed by the negative image that ignorance had encouraged.

The programme

At its inception, there was no certainty that advertising would be an essential component of the programme, which was conceived mainly as a process whereby Shell people would contact external special publics directly on a one-to-one basis or via a series of workshops, supported by a PR campaign. However, it became evident very early on that only through advertising could Shell demonstrate confidence in the values it was trying to convey, sufficiently to encourage belief among its critics.

Advertising was also seen as a cost-effective means of closing the knowledge gap between what Shell was doing and what Shell-watchers assumed from the evidence available. Thus the advertising campaign was created. Bear in mind, however, that for the special public it is only the tip of an iceberg of activities, mostly more direct and personal, that make up the whole programme. However, for the consumer audience, there was no such support and any judgment they made of Shell's principles was on the basis of the advertising.

Corporate advertising

The following three elements make up the advertising campaign.

1. Press

Normally run as double-page colour ads. This sets out Shell's business principles and how it applies them broadly to the issues it faces as a multinational energy company, and is summed up by the endline, 'Profits & Principles – is there a choice?'

2. TV

There are nine commercials in total, each of which features an individual who the audience might instinctively believe would be in opposition to Shell, but who, it is revealed, actually works for Shell. This allows Shell to show the diversity of its employees and of its business activities, as well as showing how it takes equal account of the needs of the planet, profits and people.

3. Single-page press advertising

This provides more, smaller-scale evidence of Shell's principles in practice. This activity has been most useful in allowing Shell to use local case histories in each country in which the campaign has appeared, so giving the global or high-level messages greater local relevance.

All elements included encouragement to contact Shell directly and were supported by internet advertising too.

Monitoring the programme

Throughout 1999 and 2000, the programme was aimed only at global special publics. A baseline study was conducted in 1999 before the activity began and then repeated at six-monthly intervals.

In 2000, on the basis of these results and enthusiasm for the programme among both local external affairs staff and senior Shell executives, it was decided to test it in local markets, targeting local special publics. Malaysia and Ireland were selected as the first test locations, representing opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of existing views of Shell, with Ireland typical of the cynical and critical northern European perspective on the company. The decision to go into terrestrial media with the advertising component brought with it concerns about the potential reaction of motorists. The advertising had never been tested among motorists prior to exposure, because this had not been considered, and testing among special publics had been necessarily small-scale and qualitative.

The concern over the campaign was twofold. There was some anxiety about possible negative reactions, particularly in Ireland and similar markets, to the environmental claims being made by Shell; and the potential risk of confusion caused by having product and corporate campaigns running in the same markets. It was essential that people saw that the retail and corporate faces of Shell are representing the same brand with the same core values and principles. Would this be true of these campaigns?

The product campaign

In the late 1990s, almost coincident with the development of advertising within the corporate programme, Shell was developing advertising to support the brand positioning among motorists and specifically to announce the launch of new, differentiated fuels in key markets around the world.

The most important element in the brief was the desire for a central idea that would be constant in all Shell advertising for the foreseeable future and would ensure that, whatever product or service was featured, it was clearly and strongly branded Shell. Shell had to be seen as the brand providing these new products, even if they themselves had sub-branding.

The Shell brand is trusted worldwide, and is one of the most familiar global brands. The advertising expenditure in any one market had historically been limited, so it made good commercial sense to give every element of the communication mix strong and consistent Shell branding.

Thus the idea of using the sea as the landscape for all advertising (and subsequently for all collateral material too) was developed. For Optimax, which was first launched in 1999 and reached the UK in 2000, the idea presented undersea life as a metaphor for everyday traffic. The idea and all its expressions have been researched in all key markets and, generally, the use by Shell of the sea has always been enthusiastically endorsed. It is seen as very appropriate for Shell, given the origins of the logo (and for those interested the company too), and distinguishes Shell's advertising from that of all of its competitors. Also, it circumvents all national or local cultural issues that could inhibit global usage.

The first research conducted into the corporate advertising among motorists was a qualitative survey in six markets. Shell loyalists and infrequent users were exposed to three TV commercials from the corporate campaign and three commercials promoting Shell differentiated fuels, including Optimax and Pura, the latter recently launched in Ireland. In several markets, none of this advertising in either campaign had been seen, nor were the products available. However, that may have given us a better understanding of any disconnection between the two strands of advertising.

The results, reassuringly, were universally positive, with a clear single brand clearly defined at the heart of each campaign, expressed differently at a more philosophical level, and a more practical, 'What's in it for me' product level. Interestingly, there was a sense of one campaign giving licence for the use of sea imagery in the other.

The relationship motorists have with Shell is, however, a pragmatic and functional one based around products and services. The key benefit is the empowerment it gives motorists and the best thing Shell can do for them is to be constantly available, accessible, offering quality, variety, value and service. There was clearly an increasing sensitivity to 'corporate' Shell in these markets, and this seemed to stem from growing environmental awareness, a growth in corporate communications generally, and an increasing business and marketing awareness among the general public. This affects their relationship with Shell, but only latently.

The research suggested that motorists would prefer to keep the relationship uncomplicated, but as consciousness grows, they want to know that Shell is behaving responsibly, giving its customers licence to go on trusting it and using it with an easy conscience. Here, the corporate advertising was not an active stimulant to further engagement with Shell, but rather a reassurance to continue as normal, perhaps with fewer reservations. One respondent commented that the campaign reminded him they were all in it together – 'If we didn't want petrol, they wouldn't have to drill for oil, and Shell seem to be doing it as responsibly as anyone, perhaps more.'

The greater, more reliable gauge of motorist reaction, however, was in the pre and post-testing of the corporate programme in the local markets, which began in Ireland and Malaysia in 2001. While the focus remained on special publics, and the key sample was the 50 taken from this group before and after the campaign, there were also 300 interviews with motorists conducted before and after. The same battery of image statements was used as in the special public interviews, plus a few statements regarding propensity to purchase Shell products.

Naturally, the impact on special publics would determine the future of the programme in local markets, but the increase in overall favourability of opinion in Malaysia, and particularly Ireland, among that group soon dispelled any reservations.

There were significant upward shifts in Ireland on all key metrics and in both countries in the proportion of special publics who would feel confident in Shell exploring environmentally sensitive areas: from 46% to 58% in Malaysia and from 15% to 31% in Ireland. The more dramatic increase in the previously more negative Irish market also determined that future efforts would be focused on similar markets, rather than those already more positively disposed to Shell.

That pattern was reflected among motorists. In spite of media being purchased against special publics, 45% of motorists recalled the campaign in Malaysia and 59% in Ireland. In Ireland, there were significant positive shifts in agreement to the following dimensions:

• a company with a long-term approach
• a company that develops local economies
• invests in renewable energy
• strong financial performance
• having a management style that enables change
• honest, trustworthy and ethical.

The other slightly tantalising result was an increase in stated propensity to purchase Shell products. This was true of both samples, but particularly motorists. Of those recalling the campaign, 38% in Ireland (17% of all motorists) and 47% in Malaysia (28% of all motorists) claimed to be more likely to buy Shell.

The programme, including collateral material and activity aimed at special publics, had rolled out into 12 markets in total by the spring of 2003, with more planned for later this year. Exhibit 1 demonstrates the consistency of the impact on motorists, even though they remain an 'eavesdropping group', with the focus firmly fixed on special publics.

These statistics hide many local variations, and can never tell the whole story. One of the more illuminating tests was in South Africa, where, at the same time as the advertising, local TV revived and transmitted a programme with a very critical view of Shell's activities in Nigeria. The research could separate people who recalled the programme and the Shell advertising from those who did not recall the advertising. While the improvement in Shell's image was not as great as in other countries, the image actually worsened among people who only saw the programme, whereas it remained stable among those who also recalled the advertising. This supports the wisdom of at least putting Shell's point of view in front of people and letting them take decisions with more information at their disposal.

Corporate and product combined

In autumn 2001, the corporate advertising followed immediately on the heels of the TV advertising that launched Shell Optimax. The research into the corporate campaign could identify the impact on the image of Shell among those motorists who saw only one campaign and on those who saw both. It is unsurprising, given the other evidence, that exposure to both had a greater and more positive effect on corporate image. However, it was an important step in establishing how the two strands, only researched together in focus groups 18 months earlier, might work together in real market conditions.

As in previous surveys, the stated propensity to purchase Shell products increased among those recalling the campaign. However, there has been no hard evidence of any real impact on purchase behaviour in any of the markets in which this campaign has run, so this remains a stated intention rather than actual fact.

Conclusion

Advertising was only ever conceived as one element of a concerted communications programme aimed at improving Shell's reputation among special publics, and used only as support to more direct marketing activity. The move from global to local advertising brought with it the risk that motorists who overheard the campaign might react negatively.

However, the experience of the last two years has shown that this advertising has a positive impact among that eavesdropping audience. There are also signs that if run in conjunction with product advertising, it can enhance the reputation of that product.

There are, so far, unrealised increases in intentions to purchase Shell products among motorists recalling the campaign, but the effect in terms of corporate image and general favourability to the Shell brand is proven. The case for running this advertising is only ever to support the corporate communications effort against special publics, so its effect on motorists is a welcome bonus.

It seems that as the public become more interested in the companies behind the brands they buy, the onus on those companies to ensure they are protecting their corporate reputation grows. On the evidence of Shell's experience they should be less concerned that sustaining two separate strands of communication is inappropriate or confusing – it may have positive benefits. The critical factor is not that the strands should look or feel similar, but that they should genuinely appear as two facets of the same central brand.