Don’t Crunch the Gears Engaging with Social Networks!

April 29th, 2014   •   no comments   

Every trade association or membership organisation should have a social media presence, right? Yes, but think hard before leaping in! It’s not something to be tackled halfheartedly, so be sure you’re doing it for the right reasons, and have the right resources – human and financial – at your disposal.


Nuffield Type Writer 1.1

As a former trade association CEO, if my inbox is anything to go by, some of the most hyped training courses are about getting the most out of social networking. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t get an invitation to attend a course where I will learn about the effective use of the Internet and social media to drive business growth. The idea being to harness Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google +, and others to drive sales.

There is anecdotal evidence that it works. Contrary to tradition, and In a reversal of their usual approach of shouting about the unique benefits of their product in the hope of snagging customers who are ready to buy, some companies are trying to build a community of interest around their activities and employing engagement marketing to bring customers to them. It is one stage on from transactional marketing and it clearly works for those companies that have employed it to best advantage.

But will it work for membership organisations? The key words, of course, are ‘community of interest’; or the people who buy into the ideas, brand, or lifestyle that is being promulgated, or share the same beliefs as those doing the talking. It’s the basis on which all membership bodies work, so the concept is not new, it’s just the method used to achieve your objective. For instance, back in the olden days, retailers had local high street shops, and they developed a community of interest by talking to their customers and understanding their lives and needs. Membership bodies did the same using print media, social events, and meetings. But now, because we enjoy less personal contact, and a businesses’ ‘community’ may be flung far and wide, we need to use new tools to achieve the same ends, so social media appears ideal.

But beware! What might seem at first glance to be a cheap and cheerful marketing tool – beloved of trade associations – may swiftly become an albatross around your neck if you don’t have the resources to see it through? And by that I don’t just mean money! Before membership bodies take the leap they should be mindful of some of the pitfalls.  Because, once committed, there is no going back!

The Internet is not the sole preserve of the young, but it’s a fact that having been brought up in a computer based environment they take more readily to the medium. The age of your target ‘community’ will influence your tone and how you communicate, but don’t imagine you can just hire a ‘youngster’ and let them get on with it! Plus, social media sites aren’t a broadcast medium. The traffic isn’t all one way and they rely on action and reaction; developing a conversation over time. So, ask yourself, can you develop an enduring narrative; are you comfortable writing persuasive informal text; and can you keep it up day after day and night after night. Considering the websites I’ve seen that haven’t been updated since the year dot, and the lamentable rubbish I’ve read online, the evidence isn’t looking too good!

Consider the amount of precious time consumed just reacting to your email inbox, and the time commitment is pretty clear! And have you, personally, got heaps of sparkling ideas with which to entice your eager waiting community? Describing your breakfast every day simply won’t cut it – unless you own a café – and what happens when you want to take a break? Going silent for a fortnight isn’t an option, so without help you can wave goodbye to uninterrupted holidays, your life will never be your own again.

So, the tools may be free but the content isn’t. It takes resources – both human and financial – to develop engaging content, and there can be reputational risks too! It’s all well and good when your community loves you, your ideas, service and product. What happens when they don’t? Or, more likely, when a vocal minority, or a disgruntled customer doesn’t! An old customer service mantra used to run something like, ‘a happy customer will tell his best friend and an unhappy one will tell everyone’. That was in the days of neighbourhood gossip, today the Internet has given rumour an exponential boost. Just look at current world events to see the power of social networks and the inherent risk if they disseminate unfettered and un-moderated comments.

But these aren’t reasons not to proceed, just why you mustn’t assume social media is a cheap option that can be easily delegated. It requires, clear objectives, defined resources, excellent content, measurement and management. And, once you commit to the process, you’d you better get your running shoes on to keep up with the ‘next big thing’. Because as surely as night follows day, when the pioneers and acolytes of social networking realise that their chosen medium has been debased by cynics, they will move on faster than you can say Twitter. With effectively half the UK population having an account, Facebook is now arguably mainstream, and the corollary of that is that it’s no longer ‘cool’ for the younger generation – and probably hasn’t been for a couple of years at least. I guess that’s what we call progress folks!

But, with a little bit of help, it doesn’t have to be like that.

Michael Hoare

No Rest Required!

April 12th, 2014   •   no comments   

The big retailers are making another of their periodic attempts to abolish Sunday Trading restrictions.  But why? According to the Daily Mail, Philip Davies MP, the vice-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Retail Group, supported by Asda, Morrisons and Selfridges, intends to table a series of amendments to the Deregulation Bill currently going through Parliament. Under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, shops of over 300,000 sq. ft. can only open for a maximum of six hours on Sunday, and not before 10am. New proposals include abolishing restrictions altogether; giving local authorities power to decide; and allowing large garden centres to open for eight hours on Sunday.

What is this obsession with de-regulating Sunday Trading? The last attempt was back in July 2011 when Mark Menzies MP tabled a Ten Minute Rule Bill which aimed to allow temporary relaxations of Sunday trading regulations for the duration of the Olympic Games. The justification was that it would accommodate the demand from thousands of visiting tourists. The inconvenience to thousands of shop workers was, it seems, of no consequence!

Many commentators saw the amendment as the thin end of a wedge which would eventually tear the Sunday Trading Act asunder. Some retailers weren’t too keen either, and believed that relaxation of the rules would merely spread existing trade thinner  while increasing operational costs. Apparently, Davies believes the rise in online shopping me

Daily Mail

ans the time is now right to change the law. The argument that longer hours will enable retailers to compete with the internet’s 24-hour presence has been wheeled out before. I don’t follow the logic. Surely the idea of internet shopping sites – mostly run by retailers anyway – is to trade while shops are shut? Staying open 24/7 to compete with your own website seems counter intuitive and pointless. Wouldn’t it just increase overheads for retailers already struggling for meagre returns?

So, if longer hours are a mixed blessing for retailers, does the public have a thirst for change? Not on the evidence of the long forgotten  Red Tape Challenge, which asked the electorate to answer the question, ‘should they (the regulations) be scrapped altogether?’ Of the 2,695 comments logged, the overwhelming majority seemed to be against! Hardly a ringing endorsement then!

Court in the Act!

March 13th, 2014   •   no comments   

P1020900It seems that on-the-spot justice is back on the agenda again. But isn’t right-leaning think tank Policy Exchange just putting old ideas in new bottles by revisiting an idea that was first floated – in a different guise – nearly four years ago? Last time around the motivation was to bring justice back into the centre of the community by putting courts in places accessible to the public – like supermarkets! This time, according to recent reports on the BBC, the motivation is cutting Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service budget by 37% before 2016. All the old arguments for and against still apply, but a new thought occurs. Will so-called ‘Police Courts’ do more to harm the image of the police than aid efficiency?

As the opening sequence of ‘Law & Order: UK’ reminds us every episode, “In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the Crown Prosecutors who prosecute the offenders.” If we undermine the public’s faith in the distinction between these two aspects of the law, do we also call into question the impartiality of the court system, and undermine the presumption of innocence which is every citizen’s right until proven otherwise? Furthermore, in an age when police credibility is continuously under attack, do they really need the public to form the – mistaken – impression that they are judge and jury rolled into one? Surely this is another burden the police don’t need to shoulder!

Here’s what I wrote in Jewellery Focus in October 2010: –

Presentation1

The newspapers have been full of gleeful stories about courts in shopping centres with the more extreme foaming at the mouth at the prospect of handing out summary justice to shoplifters and other miscreants. As usual, the story isn’t quite what it seems, but it does prompt an interesting train of thought.

It seems that the Magistrates Association, which represents 28,000 members, is to call on the Ministry of Justice to set up improvised courts in empty shops and unused council rooms to deliver “summary justice that is as speedy and local as possible”. The proposal comes as the government consults on closing more than 100 courts to save money; instead it wants to send offenders to fewer, larger courts. Currently Her Majesty’s Court Service operates 330 magistrate’s courts and is concerned that some hear too few cases. Many buildings are also not fully accessible for disabled court users and do not have secure facilities for prisoners.

But by reducing court numbers the Magistrates Association is afraid that the result might be longer journeys to court, thus discouraging offenders from turning up; and increasing the number of ‘no-shows’ resulting in more delays and extra expense. Shoplifting and drink–driving, where offenders have been caught red-handed and will plead guilty, and can normally be handled quickly, might also create bottlenecks. “Petty offenders commit crimes that should be dealt with as quickly as possible and as locally as possible,” said John Howson, the association’s deputy chairman. “Justice should not be hidden away and people should be able to see it in operation. We could have a court in the Westfield shopping centre for instance, so that instead of a shoplifter being taken to a police station and it taking hours to build a file, even if they are going to plead guilty, they could be dealt with far more quickly.”

Clearly the idea has some merit, and it is sensible to have police stations and courts in places that are accessible to the population, and increasingly shopping centres fulfil that role. Plus, if shopping mall courts deal predominantly with shoplifting and driving offences, they may speed up the process. But doesn’t this proposal prompt a number of other questions? For instance, doesn’t everyone, even those who are ultimately found guilty, have the right to prepare a defense, and have adequate legal representation? If shoplifters are frog marched straight from shop to court, is it good enough to rely on the evidence of private security operatives alone, and what quality of evidence should be required? And aren’t we in danger of undermining the basis of English law, which assumes the defendant to be ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

The popular papers might capture the imagination by conjuring up mental images of summary justice, and the doling out of swift public retribution, but I don’t think we should be rebuilding the stocks any time soon. Popping down the shops for a couple of pounds of spuds and a ritual flogging might appeal to some, but I think cases should be heard in places that reflect the solemnity, majesty and weight of the law. That could be in a shopping centre, but hopefully not, as the papers would have us believe, in the front window of Tesco. We all know errors occur. Imagine yourself, for one moment, being apprehended by mistake. Even when your case is dismissed and you are found not guilty, your friends and business contacts will still give you a wide birth at the golf club, because mud sticks, and reputations are easily destroyed.

Lastly, and perhaps cynically, might this be the thin end of the wedge whereby the argument is advanced that because shoplifting puts a heavy burden on court time, retailers should pay for the courts?  Planning approval often comes with a 106 agreement stipulating that developers stump up cash for infrastructure improvements like roads and drainage. Why not police stations or courts? If we go down that route then the next logical step would be to hold driving offence hearings in motorway service stations. Now that would be justice!

High noon on the high street

January 27th, 2014   •   no comments   

A couple of weeks ago I wrote (Wait for it…wait for it!) about the  adrenaline kick from the instant gratification provided by shopping; remarking that we need look no further than the hysteria generated by Black Friday discounts as an example of retailers harnessing this effect to their advantage.  I went so far  as to suggest that retailers’ USPs might soon include ‘best fist fight in pursuit of a bargain’, or ‘best Black Friday riot’. Little did I think I might be predicting the future, or that 99p Stores would be so far ahead of the curve. But then in last Wednesday’s Guardian newspaper there appeared the headline, ‘Police called to quell riot as 99p store halts sale‘. 

sale bannerApparently police were called to a 99p Store in Wrexham, north Wales, after crowds flocked to a half-price sale, enticed by posters offering everything for 50p! But trouble flared when shoppers laden with cleaning products, toilet rolls, crisps and drinks, were told the sale was over – and everything was again 99p – as they queued to pay. Bedlam ensued, and the shop had to be closed when shoppers refused to leave, but no arrests were made.

Now, giving shoppers a thrill is one thing, but the roller coaster emotions engendered by a ‘now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t’ sale are taking it a bit too far don’t you think? And just how have we got to such a sorry state that a sale in a 99p shop generates this much excitement? It’s made me think though. I was always against moving police stations – and even courts – into retail premises to save money. But now – if we’re regularly going to experience ‘shopping-as-soap-opera’ – I’m not so sure! Shop, arrest, court, all in one place is so much more efficient. Or is this what they meant by bringing drama back to the high street. What do you think?

Michael Hoare

 

 

 

Let them eat cake! Or is that corned beef?

January 13th, 2014   •   no comments   

Thirteen million people are believed to live below the poverty line in the UK. Rising costs of food and fuel combined with static incomes, high unemployment, and changes to benefits are causing more and more people to seek help with their basic needs.

Food banks are one answer, and with almost 400 already launched, the Trussell Trust is one of the biggest providers. Its aim is to open one in every town; providing those who are referred to them in crisis with a minimum of three days emergency food. But for all their good intentions charity food banks can only provide a temporary sticking plaster. Now there is another contender gearing up to supply the poor!

20140109_090237_edited

Church food bank

Just before Christmas Britain’s first “social supermarket” opened its doors, offering shoppers on the verge of food poverty the chance to buy their supplies at up to 70% less than normal high-street prices. If successful, the Community Shop, in Goldthorpe, near Barnsley, South Yorkshire, could be replicated elsewhere in Britain. It is reportedly backed by retailers, manufacturers, and brands like Asda, Morrison’s, Co-operative Food, M&S, Tesco, Mondelez, Ocado, Tetley, Young’s, and Müller.

Community Shop is a subsidiary of Company Shop, Britain’s largest commercial re-distributor of surplus food and goods, which works with retailers and manufacturers to liquidate their mistakes. Selling on residual products, such as those with damaged packaging or incorrect labelling, to membership-only staff shops in factories. The new project goes one step further, located in the community for the first time and also matching surplus food with social need.

Goldthorpe is an area of social deprivation and membership of the pilot store will be restricted to people living in a specific local postcode area who also get welfare support. Community Shop customers will not only get access to cheaper food, but will also be offered programmes of wider social and financial support, such as debt advice, cookery skills and home budgeting.

Should the pilot prove successful and sustainable, Community Shops will open in London and elsewhere next year. However, not all commentators welcome the move. Some, whilst conceding that the scheme offers access to cheap food without the humiliation associated with using food banks, suggest this is just the thin end of the wedge. The introduction to society of ‘second class citizen shopping’, and providing retailers with a positive message with which to divert lingering criticism of food waste are just two of the accusations levelled at Community shops.

In the USA, about 1 in 7 Americans receive food stamps – vouchers exchanged at specified stores – to supplement their low-income. Critics of Community Shops have voiced concerns that they are simply a covert way of introducing something similar in the UK. As one blogger put it, “It is still a division of classes, the haves and the have-nots. There would be riots if food stamps were issued in this country, this is why these stores are being introduced. Slowly and surely they will spread and when there is one in every poor community, vouchers for these stores will begin to replace some benefit payments.”

It is early days for the Goldthorpe shop, and the jury is still out on this particular initiative. But with food adulteration stories reaching the press, one can’t help wondering just what kind of damaged or incorrectly labelled foodstuffs are going to be foisted on the long-suffering shoppers, who in return could potentially have to endure ‘good advice’ on cooking, budgeting, and debt. Whatever the rights and wrongs, isn’t there just a hint of Victorian style philanthropy about all this?

Fox meat found in Walmart donkey dish

January 13th, 2014   •   no comments   
20140113_093932-1

Another food scare?

This headline in the January 3rd edition of The Daily Telegraph has to be one of the most intriguing of the year so far – just for its sheer improbability! Not that food adulteration stories are anything to laugh about. Especially in China, where contamination of baby formula milk, and cooking oil, have both led to dire health consequences and severe punishments for the perpetrators. But the thought of tucking into a delicious plate of donkey and finding a bit of fox in it puts our own squeamishness about horse meat in the shade don’t you think?  Now, if you’ve quite finished your hedgehog, can you pass the salt!

IofAM: Prompted on Pensions

December 11th, 2013   •   no comments   
P1040003

IofAM Seminar

Running anything – let alone a trade association – is never easy, but to do it with your head buried in the sand requires not only a certain level of athletic ability but also a facility for decision making without the benefit of evidence and information. Risky, one might think, but plenty of association CEOs are choosing to adopt this position when it comes to the government’s upcoming changes to pensions. Lulled into a false sense of security by the phasing in of ‘Auto-enrolment’, many employers have assumed that it will be ages before the rules are applied to them; that they are too small to be affected; or the rules will suddenly and magically disappear!

The reality is of course that none of the above is true, and that the changes affect all workers including full-time, part-time, agency, zero-hours, offshore – even possibly contractors on the payroll – aged between twenty-two and the state pension age. In other words, an awful lot of people, as IofAM members who attended the Association’s latest seminar recently found out. On hand to give them the bad news was Mark Stevens, an employee benefits consultant with Close Brothers, a specialist financial services group with expertise in banking, securities, and asset management.

The changes came about as the result of the realisation that the ratio of working people to pensioners fell from 10:1 in 1901, to 4:1 in 2005, and looks set diminish to 2:1 by 2050, according to estimates from the Department of Work and Pensions. The alarm having been raised, Lord Turner, Chair of the Pensions Commission 2003-2006, set out the new ground rules, which included a fairer and more generous State Pension; low cost pension aimed at low-to-moderate earners; automatic enrolment into workplace pension schemes; and compulsory minimum employer and employee contributions.

Mark Stevens

Mark Stevens

All well and good, you might think, but even the Pensions Regulator is quoted as saying ”Employers should be under no illusion: implementing auto enrolment will take time, including assessing the suitability of their existing pensions arrangements or choosing a scheme, and adapting their payroll, HR, pensions and IT systems” – and that was in December 2011! The fundamental message is that there will be no escape from the 270 pages of legislation, and that all employers will have to comply between now and 2016. And if you think that’s a long way off, think again, as most IofAM members will have to comply within 12-18 months! Not only that, but they will come under increasing pressure from their own members to provide them with advice and guidance as the deadlines draw closer.

Finally, if nothing else convinces you that it’s time to take advice, then a quick look at the penalties for non-compliance will surely do the trick. An infringement at stage two of the process can incur a fixed penalty of £400 – a wake-up call for the unwary – whereas daily penalties escalate from £50 – £10,000 for serious and persistent offenders, dependent on the number of employees. But, if you still want to go it alone, it’s time to get stuck in. The first step is to collect complete and accurate data; assess your workforce; model the financial impact; and then establish a qualifying Workplace Pension Scheme. Then you can move on to assess payroll processes and functionality, review the market, and select appropriate technology solution(s). After that it’s just a case of communicating compliantly; continually assessing your workers; managing Opt-in/Opt-out; and maintaining you record keeping. Easy!

The Institute of Association Management (IofAM) is an independent professional body made up of managers and senior staff responsible for the management, development and governance of trade bodies, professional institutes, societies, chambers of commerce, voluntary organisations, charities and other representative groups. The purpose of the Institute is to develop, promote and share best practice for the benefit of IofAM members and all those involved in the governance of associations. To achieve its objectives, the IofAM offers a forum for education, training and development, dissemination of information, networking, and research.

IofAM: Digital Democracy

December 11th, 2013   •   no comments   
IofAM Seminar

IofAM Seminar

As a trade association manager, how many times have you been asked your membership’s view on a particular issue, policy, or piece of legislation, only to realise that you are completely in the dark? And, in all honesty, how many times have you responded to such an enquiry – possibly from the press – with your own best guess; hoping that the majority will tow the party line and follow you over the barricades into the thick of battle? We’ve all done it, and because we’re all seasoned campaigners – with our ears to the ground – we generally get away with it. But what if your judgement call goes awry? Second guessing the mood of your constituency is a risky business, and careers can be seriously dented by getting it wrong. Why not limit the risk by asking your members what they really think? The answer to that question is that to do so would be costly, time-consuming, and wasteful. But what if it was none of these? Enter the Digital Democracy!

Recently, during a fascinating IofAM instigated discussion, which utilised SMARTvote devices to take quick polls from the floor and encourage discussion around various points in their presentation Luke Ashby and Munni Musa from Electoral Reform Services (ERS) asked delegates to consider if digital technology could be applied to democracy. Along the way they demonstrated that online voting is an effective way to reduce an association’s printing costs, provide wider communication choice for members and be more environmentally friendly.

However, not everybody is comfortable with computers and it is vital in a democracy to ensure that no voter is disenfranchised: the right mix of communication methods need to be employed. Maximising communications and using social media within an election context is a powerful way to raise the profile of an election and foster engaging discussion with the electorate. Digital democracy is about much more than just social media, however. For example, the effective capture and use of data allows for targeted communications and buy- in to cost saving online elections.

The discussion also focussed on other barriers to voting online. These include lack of trust in the security of the process; technophobia; and voter fatigue or cynicism. However, as more commercial transactions take place digitally, and security improves, electorates are becoming increasingly comfortable with online voting. And this might be just the opportunity to learn what they really think!

Electoral Reform Services are the UK’s leading independent supplier of ballot and election services, whose expertise is recognised worldwide as independent scrutineers of voting as authorised by Parliament. Working for not-for-profit organisations and government bodies, typical assignments include leadership or board elections, proxy voting, independent scrutiny of AGMs, membership votes, employee representative elections, housing ballots, referendums, and elections of pension scheme trustees, board of governor elections, community consultations and independent audience vote verification.

The Institute of Association Management (IofAM) is an independent professional body made up of managers and senior staff responsible for the management, development and governance of trade bodies, professional institutes, societies, chambers of commerce, voluntary organisations, charities and other representative groups. The purpose of the Institute is to develop, promote and share best practice for the benefit of IofAM members and all those involved in the governance of associations. To achieve its objectives, the IofAM offers a forum for education, training and development, dissemination of information, networking, and research.

Wait for it…wait for it!

December 2nd, 2013   •   no comments   

sale bannerLong ago, I, like most well brought up children was taught that the satisfaction of acquisition was made all the sweeter if you had to wait for it. It was called deferred gratification. Toys, meals, a new bike, all would be much better if you could only exercise enough self-control to wait a little bit longer. It went hand in hand with having the discipline to buy things only when you had saved up the money. It may have been a hangover from the rationing of the war years, or it may just have been a way of fobbing kids off. Whatever the reason, my generation spent ages staring in shop windows or flicking through catalogues lusting after things we one day hoped to own, and all the time saving our pennies.

Today, instant credit and infinite choice brings everything within easy reach, and traders pander to our every whim. But who would have thought that instant gratification would become the new secret weapon of bricks and mortar retailers in their fight back against the online scourge? Now, according to an article in esciencenews, a new study from Columbia Business School, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, finds that the positive feelings consumers experience when receiving a discounted price fades dramatically if the consumer is then forced to wait for the product. “This might spell trouble for online retailers like Amazon that offer discounted items and then force consumers to wait for the product,” said Columbia Business School’s Associate Professor of Marketing Leonard Lee, who performed the research with Rotman School of Management’s Associate Professor of Marketing Claire Tsai. “Our research shows that even if the wait is relatively short — as little as 15 minutes — the consumer’s enjoyment of the product decreases dramatically.”

Lee continued: “Keeping in mind that instant gratification has become a hallmark of society, brick and mortar businesses can add value to their bottom lines by offering in-store promotions on the products they know people want to experience immediately rather than waiting for delivery. This is a key competitive advantage they could have over online retailers and one that might secure their long-term survival in an expanding online marketplace.”

The research titled, How Price Promotions Influence Post-Purchase Consumption Experience over Time, defies long-standing conventional wisdom that discounts cause consumers to enjoy products even more. For concrete proof that instant gratification gives an extra adrenaline kick we need look no further than the hysteria generated in response to so called Black Friday discounts. One disgruntled ASDA shopper was reportedly wrestled to the ground before being led away in handcuffs by police when he didn’t get to buy two cut-price tellies. While elsewhere a stampeding queue of shoppers allegedly broke an elderly woman’s arm.

Whatever next? Will retailers’ USPs soon include ‘best fist fight in pursuit of a bargain’, or ‘best Black Friday riot’?

Next step facecrime?

November 13th, 2013   •   no comments   

 ‘Tesco is to tailor adverts in petrol stations by using face scanning screens’ according to The Grocer magazine. Detractors are already lining up to condemn the idea; likening the retailer’s efforts to something out of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and threatening to never darken their doorsteps again. The company’s cause hasn’t been helped much by the MD of Amscreen, the makers of the technology, allegedly saying, “It’s like something out of Minority Report”. The hyperbole is almost guaranteed to cause apoplexy amongst civil liberties campaigners, and is a gift to conspiracy theorists, but is this latest development as sinister as it first seems?

At first glance the technology isn’t nearly as advanced as the facial-recognition tools used with varying degrees of success in many security applications to identify individuals and place them at the scene of a crime. If Tesco’s scanning can only establish age and gender, the data generated is stereo-typical rather than specific, rather like that collected by social media sites. So, maybe the real issue here is not this actual development but the sheer ubiquity of Tesco – its TV advertising already resembles brainwashing – plus the plethora of bigger questions it prompts!

Will legislation governing the disclosure of data captured by face scanning appease public concerns about snooping?  Will capturing children’s images be acceptable when the technology migrates from petrol stations – where most customers are adults – to supermarkets? And if so, will all the effort of putting tantrum inducing sweets out of sight have been wasted once kids are stimulated into a frenzy of nagging by checkout adverts aimed right at them?

Michael Hoare

Page 5 of 7« First...«34567»