Carbonated copy; is emulating Coke’s success just a question of bottle for charities?

Give a little nod if you’ve heard someone talking about the ‘Share a Coke with...’ campaign in the last few months. Now clench a fist and shake it either in celebration or frustration at the amount of times you’ve seen it on social media, or if someone has sent you a picture of your name on a Coke bottle. In the last two weeks, I’ve read a news article reporting a stagnation in sales and one shouting about a boost on the same website, but there can be little argument; Coca Cola has captured people’s imagination. So should charities be doing this?

For me, the ‘Share a Coke with...’ campaign is a stroke of genius for two reasons. First, Coke is advertising on its own bottles. I’m sure there are some costs (although maybe not many) associated with this, but aside from some white ink it doesn't look like it was too much hassle. Second, and more important, is the free advertising it generates. Every time someone posts a picture on Facebook, or sends a photo message by mobile (there’s that fist again), it’s free advertising. It is very easily 'shareable' and desirably so. Any charity would give its eye-tooth to have a campaign that was easy to implement and raised awareness like the Coke campaign has. The question is, is it possible?

In 2005, French footballer Thierry Henry kicked off the ‘Stand Up, Speak Up’ campaign against racism. Top players like Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo wore black and white entwined wristbands and pretty soon sales hit five million, with the proceeds going the 'Stand Up, Speak Up' fund to combat racism in football. Five million sales at a pound apiece is easy maths, but that’s across Europe not the UK. The trouble with charity campaigns like this is they’re often very niche. Can charities ever capture everyone’s attention?

Well, Make Poverty History was more mainstream - remember those wristbands? It was a very successful campaign in terms of raising awareness. Pretty soon though, kids were completely wrapped in wristbands and consequently the various messages suffered a mutual muffling. The key is to act fast, or better still, act first.

The best ongoing example I can think of is probably the one you’re thinking of right now; the Poppy Appeal. The Royal British Legion’s fundraising target last year was £42m. The Poppy Appeal has all the vital ingredients really: a well-known symbol you can buy and wear, a cause almost everyone would care about and few could disagree with, along with the kind of national exposure other charities can only dream of. When the Prime Minister and the Queen are wearing a symbol of your charity, you're in the big leagues. But surely this is the exception rather than the rule. Is it a realistic target for most charities?

The short answer to that is a clear no. Charities often don’t have the resources to mount national campaigns and their cause is often so niche, it wouldn’t catch on if they did. Those that have both the reach and the money face a Catch 22. If they launch a campaign that is fairly standard and without risk, will people notice it, let alone embrace it? If they take a risk and try something new, or even outlandish, will it work?

No one is immune from failure. When Coca Cola launched their own brand of water (remember Dasani?), a terrible overall campaign led to a swift withdrawal and an estimated £25 million loss. Is it any wonder that charities are reluctant to innovate with campaigns when they don’t have Coke’s billion pound mattress to cushion any falls?

So what am I suggesting? Well, at the very least some piggy backing, or as it's now known - 'trend jacking'. You can’t move for Royal baby coverage at the moment. Where are the charities using that publicity? Have a quick Google and see what companies are doing. Asda's George range is now apparently "fit for a King."

Ok, charities might not have the resources to respond that quickly, but Pampers have a campaign saying "Every baby is a little Prince or Princess. Share pictures of yours!" A bit hokey? Maybe. But the point is, as a company in the 'baby industry', they were ready for this. So were Coke, Starbucks, Nintendo and Dominos apparently.

What's to stop charities having prepared something months ago? Where are the children’s charities using Royal baby publicity? Are they going to sell branded items saying “Keeping babies like little George safe” (I’m sure the irony wouldn’t be lost on most). Or are they going to advertise saying “Donate to us - because not every child gets to grow up in a palace”? You can hitch a ride on this and many other news stories, but I rarely see it.

There are successful national charity campaigns, but I think the sad fact is most charities and their campaigns will struggle to capture the imagination of the mainstream and most don’t have the resources to try. Small gains are how charities roll. Ring-fencing rather than the ring-pull has been their success and it has little chance of changing.

This isn't meant as a criticism. It’s understandable that charities are not making national strides when innovative campaigns are so fraught with risk. "Share a Coke with.." has been a huge success, but even a giant like Coca Cola can provide £25m lessons about how campaigns can go wrong.

Remember, there’s definitely something in the water...

Rob White