# How not to do marketing – exhibit 1

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2012/03/13/how-not-do-marketing-exhibit-1/
- Published: 2012-03-13T20:09:05+00:00
- Author: Kevin Baughen

**Marketing is simple in principle: deliver your message to an audience that wants
or needs to hear it via a channel they pay attention to and in timely manner. **

OK, there’s also engagement to think about but these core principles pretty much
underpin that too. So, this week’s blog focuses on the first of a couple of cracking
examples of organisations getting it wrong.

## **Exhibit 1**

[Here is a letter from my MP](https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9saas62S_kZWWZFSjRTV25RUzJvQ2xmQ2NzTm1yQQ)
in response to my enjoining him to support the FairFuel campaign last month via 
an organised email campaign.

## Advertisement

 [⌊Posthub advert. You create the campaign. We'll handle the postal journey. Get started at post-hub.co.uk.⌉](https://fundraising.co.uk/ads/posthub-20261007-300x250/)

First up, in spite of my repeatedly stated preference for email correspondence, 
it is a letter. Sent through the mail, wasting paper and taxpayer money.

Second, the letter does not directly address the questions asked – missing the point
of me contacting him in the first place.  It does contain a caveatsentence which
explains that because so many constituents contacted the MP about this issue, the
letter contained only a generic response.

Thirdly, the response they did send talked about a) how things were much better 
than under the last government and b) how some actions that this government has 
taken in the past have made this issue a bit less damaging than it could have been.
It contains a reiteration of an idea (the fuel stabilizer) which has been an idea
for several years now but that hasn’t, to my knowledge, turned into action. Therefore
not a lot on what is or will actually be **done** moving forwards.

Taking the political aspect out of the equation, what has this piece of communication
actually done?

 * Didn’t follow audience communications preferences
 * Wasted time and money as a result
 * Didn’t address any of the points made that are important to the audience
 * Didn’t make the audience feel that the organisation cared at all about their 
   views and proffered a standard response
 * Didn’t take any responsibility for the issue at hand and in fact blamed others
 * Didn’t suggest any actions or even an unrealised plan of actions moving forward.
   So no call to action for the audience and no accountability (or so they believe)
   from the organisation’s side
 * Didn’t really focus on positive outcomes in terms of how things will be better
   for the [target audience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_audience) as a 
   result of their intervention.

For any of you tasked with writing communications to your target audiences, what
would you key customers, volunteers or donors do if you adopted this approach?

More examples to follow next time but do please share your thoughts and horror stories.