Fishburn Hedges

21.04.2011

When is it right for a major consumer brand to embrace its saucy side?  That’s a question to ponder today on the news that M&S has not responded to the new Ann Summers S&M Squeal Deal campaign with the view that it is a “respectful nod” to the M&S Meal Deal. Instead they’ve called in the lawyers.

In the world of issues and crisis management, more often than not, the advice from the comms experts is likely to be not to call the lawyers in unless you absolutely have to.   But in this case, I’m not so sure.

On the one hand, M&S looks a little po-faced and this reaction seems to be a long way from the beautifully judged “we boobed” response to the outcry that followed their short lived decision to charge more for larger size bras.  Yet, on the other hand selling the nation its knickers is as much a part of the M&S offer as its food so why should they allow a competitor to steal any value from their marketing activity?  Perhaps in the era of the husky Dervla Kirwen voiceovers, M&S could have looked for a way to try and harness Ann Summers’ cheeky move to their advantage; but today it would jar with the current style of M&S food advertising.  So, probably calling the lawyers was the right move from an M&S brand management point of view. 

But as for Ann Summers – surely this is an out and out win.  If they’d got away with putting the campaign out, no doubt it would have worked well for them.  But as it is today, the acres of coverage that reference their products must be worth every bit as much as the campaign would have delivered. And in terms of image, it positions them clearly as a high street agitator – perfect for their brand.  

In fact, it’s such a good result for Ann Summers that you have to ask whether or not it was a stunt.  If it was, it worked.  If not, who would blame the marketing team if they claimed it was?

Posted by Fiona Thorne