Obscene spending on Aviva "celebrities"

KMK

What are Norwich Union thinking of spending 9 millions on the fatuous, unimaginative Aviva advert which has lined the pockets of wealthy individuals like the charmless Ringo Starr? The new name is unnecessary, meaningless and sounds like one of those juvenile teams on "The Apprentice"

My husband has paid into a stakeholder N.U pension for many years and the thought of any part of his hard earned contributions being squandered on this crass advert is hard to bear. Have the financial institutions learned nothing form the past traumatic weeks? Their conceit, lack of judgement and arrogance beggars belief!

ManAtHome

Normally time to run when they get the "celebs" in - remember Equitable Life..?

Schnorbitz_2

Yes, I spotted a billboard advert in Croydon that said "Arpanet to Internet, Bamboo Harvester to Mr Ed, Norwich Union to Aviva".

And I thought to myself "Post Office to Consignia to Post Office."

More ads here, if you feel like looking:

http://www.aviva.com/index.asp?PageID=19&filter=Online&show=all

dunstonh

What are Norwich Union thinking of spending 9 millions on the fatuous, unimaginative Aviva advert which has lined the pockets of wealthy individuals like the charmless Ringo Starr? The new name is unnecessary, meaningless and sounds like one of those juvenile teams on "The Apprentice"

If you are a shareholder then you can make your feelings known. If you are not a shareholder then it doesnt matter.

Whilst £9 mill may sound like a lot, it isnt as far a European Insurance company goes. Plus, that £9 mill also covers product advertising and normal advertising that they would have done anyway.

My husband has paid into a stakeholder N.U pension for many years and the thought of any part of his hard earned contributions being squandered on this crass advert is hard to bear.

It's a good job they are not then. The advertising has not a penny impact on your husband.

Have the financial institutions learned nothing form the past traumatic weeks? Their conceit, lack of judgement and arrogance beggars belief!

Or perhaps misunderstanding on your part and not realising the size of advertising budgets in this day and age has a bit to play with it.

Schnorbitz_2

I'm more inclined to KMK's opinion than yours, Dunston. Surely the advertising budget would have ultimately been derived from the car insurance premiums and annual management charges on investment funds held by customers and pension schemes? It's a tiny proportion, sure, but if it has the cumulative effect of not increasing the number of Norwich Union customers (the John Cleese Sainsbury's adverts come to mind) then surely it won't be shown for too long.

Although, given the reduction in advertising revenue in line with a lot of the rest of the economy, I'm sure the commercial channels and the owners of billboard sites would be very glad for the money.

I have reasons to be very thankful to some parts of Norwich Union, and reasons to be infuriated by other parts of Norwich Union, but I'm going to continue to call them "Norwich Union." Like I still call Opal Fruits "Opal Fruits".

dunstonh

Surely the advertising budget would have ultimately been derived from the car insurance premiums and annual management charges on investment funds held by customers and pension schemes?

Car insurance runs at a virtual loss. Annual management charges are consistent regardless of what NU decide to do. If they didnt spend £9 million on advertising then it would go to the shareholders.

Most businesses will tell you that brand recognition is vitally important to their strategy. Indeed, a lot of the time you dont have to advertise your products just your brand.

Personally, I wish they would stick with NU. I dont like the way traditional brands are going. Be angry about that. However, there is no reason for a policyholder to angry about the advertising as its not impacting on them at all. And remember that £9 million is not a lot of money to an insurer that has annual sales of £49.2 billion. and funds under management of £360 billion

Ivrytwr3

excellent advertisement. I think it is very clever:

1. It covers a broad spectrum of viewers ie Bruce Willis for the action movie watchers, Ringo for music lovers etc etc

2. I will remember this advertisement above most others.

3. It gets people talking ie here!! (all publicity is good publicity!)

4. I actually remember what they are advertising and even though i am not a customer, i now know they are undergoing a name change!

exil

dunstonh wrote: »

Car insurance runs at a virtual loss. Annual management charges are consistent regardless of what NU decide to do. If they didnt spend £9 million on advertising then it would go to the shareholders.

Most businesses will tell you that brand recognition is vitally important to their strategy. Indeed, a lot of the time you dont have to advertise your products just your brand.

Personally, I wish they would stick with NU. I dont like the way traditional brands are going. Be angry about that. However, there is no reason for a policyholder to angry about the advertising as its not impacting on them at all. And remember that £9 million is not a lot of money to an insurer that has annual sales of £49.2 billion. and funds under management of £360 billion

By that logic the shareholders may have cause to be angry. I think what gets people upset is that a bunch of celebs get huge amounts of money just for the use of their name and face and a few hours work - just because they're celebrities. It's just a moan about the absurdness of the world really.

KMK

I don't think it is a clever advert. In fact it is very tedious and contrived.

And is all publicity good publicity? Certainly my opinion of a company which I quite admired has gone down. There was nothing wrong with the former name as Dunstanoh said and using over paid celebs to endorse the new bland title seems wasteful and against the current financial zeitgeist.

Ringo Starr recently announced that he could no longer respond to his fans because he was too busy.He was probably working on lucrative dross like this.

doulikegingers

The advert is incredibly clever, and works a charm.

Also, Aviva has been Aviva since 2002. It is only now that they are changing their name in the UK from Norwich Union to Aviva.

And your complaining about the Celebs in this advert, Are you also complaining about Marks & Spencer's advert? Iceland Advert? the other many adverts with celebrities that also appeared over the holiday season? Roy Walker in the new Churchill advert? Rolff Harris?

I'll tell you this, out of the many adverts on for insurance products etc - the new Aviva advert is the only one that I can clearly recall.

Debt_Free_Chick

dunstonh wrote: »

Personally, I wish they would stick with NU.

I wish they'd stuck with CU!!!!

But probably only as I worked for them - in fact, it was my first ever job so I'm probably being over-sentimental