FSCS admits £4m ad push failed
Share
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has admitted its £4m advertising campaign has not had a significant impact on levels of consumer awareness of the scheme.
It launched its first consumer-awareness campaign in January, with advertising on television, posters, in newspapers and online running until the end of March. The FSCS is aiming to raise level of consumer awareness of the scheme to 24 per cent by 2012 but by October last year, it stood at 4 per cent.
The FSCS also wants to increase the number of financial services firms providing information to consumers about the FSCS from 42 per cent, as measured in mystery-shopping research at the end of 2010, to 60 per cent by April 2012.
In its annual report and accounts, published last week, the FSCS says: “Early evidence shows that although well received by the public, the campaign has not had the impact on awareness we were hoping for.
“The key findings are that there was no significant uplift in awareness of a compensation scheme and total awareness of the FSCS is largely unchanged.”
Thameside Wealth director Tom Kean says the FSCS’s television advert, which featured animated characters, did not send a strong enough message to consumers.
He says: “A serious subject requires a serious advert. It should not be belittled with patronising cartoons. This advertisement did not feel like value for money to me.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (7)
Phil Castle | 8 Jul 2011 9:01 am
Who speak to consumers the most on a regular basis and can cost effectively highlight the FSCS?
IFAs of course. Why spend MILLIONS on advertising when all that needs to happen is a cascade of stating it is important that Compliance Managers ensure that explaining the FSCS trhough the IDD is NOT just a formality.
As soon as the layout of the IDD ceased to be mandatory, we added to the section on the FSCS, by explaining the limits for depositing taking too. When explaining how we work at our first meeting, we go trhough the IDD (which has had the Keyfacts logo removed as mentioning the deposit taking limit, when we are not a deposit taker means the format is not standard and hence the logo cannot be used). We do this so that our clients KNOW that if they sell their house, receive an inheritance or sell their business, that if they leave the money on deposit in excess of FSCS limits with one banking institution, there IS a serious risk.
Why doesn't the F-pack work with us instead of taking our money off of us (levy's) and paying it to other quangos, becuase they think they know betetr how to get the message to OUR clients. It woudl be fine if the adverts were paid from general taxation as all would be benefiting, but by charging US, they are charging the people we tell about the FSCS and spending it on those who don't care about the FSCS.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8 Jul 2011 9:26 am
I suspect this will induce a chorus of "What a waste of [our] money", but bear in mind that the majority opinion when it launched was "Why should we pay to encourage people to manufacture grievances against us". So the fact that the potential claims-mongers have universally ignored the advert should surely be celebrated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris F | 8 Jul 2011 9:27 am
The FSCS cannot explain their own workings, never mind anybody else.
Every client of mine knows about the FSCS and how it affects investments with banks.
I have also met many clients who were under the mis apprehension that the FSCS had something to do with investments underneath another contract, even when it doesn't cover them.
So, firstly, simplify (and hence reduce the cost of) the FSCS. Then, produce a nice little leaflet we could give out to each and every client and make the giving of the leaflet mandatory.
Simples.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8 Jul 2011 9:54 am
Is it reasonable to assume then that the person or persons responsible for wasting 4 million pounds of other peoples money on a failed scheme will be sacked or possibly sued for negligence ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Greg Heath | 8 Jul 2011 10:31 am
The FSCS sadly does not seem to think in terms of a simple clear message. Whether it is MAS, the original IDD, stakeholder pensions and I suspect personal accounts next - the results are always the same; people dont get the important message.
Surely it is time the regulators and its various arms spent time with actual real clients, less focus groups and the advisers that are successful. They would quicky realise that very few clients respond positively to complexity or vague messages. The true message is in between - and that is what advice is about surely.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevensd | 8 Jul 2011 10:38 am
Oh well, it was just £4m of other peoples' money, so what the hell? If at first you don't succeed, just throw yet more money at it, as seems to be Adair Turner's approach. Next month they'll probably think up something else costing £8m.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martin Rivers | 8 Jul 2011 12:31 pm
I would love to read the cost benefit analysis report relating to the campaign!
Seriously frustrating.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment