FSCS scraps £4m advertising campaign
Share
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is scrapping its £4m advertising campaign after it failed to raise consumer awareness of the scheme.
The FSCS launched the campaign in January but now admits the ads did not have the desired impact. Speaking to Money Marketing, FSCS chief executive Mark Neale (pictured) says: “We have looked at the market research flowing from that campaign and asked ourselves some fundamental questions about what is the best way of communicating our messages.
“We need to home in much more on the contexts in which we really matter to consumers, for example, when they are buying financial products. We want to work with the industry to get the FSCS messages across in those contexts.”
Neale added that introducing the concept of the FSCS to consumers and clients at the point of sale and during times of market volatility may prove more successful than running ads.
Plan Money director Peter Chadborn says: “It sounds more logical that the FSCS should be promoted at the point of sale and made clear in product literature.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (18)
John Bloomfield | 29 Sep 2011 9:52 am
all they really need to do is provide IFAs and Mortgage Brokers with a free simple flyer/brochure that can be given to clients with initial disclosures that explains the FSCS and what it does and does not cover.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Smug | 29 Sep 2011 9:57 am
John Bloomfield - great simple cost effective idea. Will probably never happen.
People only need to know about FSCS when they are buying a product so why not give a flyer at the point of sale. It might even feel like the FSCS were working with us rather than against us.
After all, the FSCS is a huge selling point for any financial product covered.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
steven Farrall | 29 Sep 2011 10:08 am
It was just fishing for business anyway. The FSCS is just part of the looneytunes extra legal above the law unaccountable fabianistic social control system created by New Labour. Shut it down.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 29 Sep 2011 10:13 am
Traffic light system. Red, Amber, Blue, Green
Colour code all financial products and then point out not only is red a warning that there is NO FSCS cover (UCIS and most structured investments for example), lack of a colour coding is RED be default. Structured deposits would be Blue or Green, bank and building society accounts up to £85k would be Green and over £85k woudl be Amber. OEICS etc could be anywhere from Amber, Blue to Green depending on equity content.
This is NOT FSA pre approval, which I accept will NOT work, but just as nature has colour schemes which act as a warning, so COULD the FS system.
The FSCS spending a modest amount then on highlighting the colour coding and getting the leaflet/booklet out via IFAs and mortgage brokers would be the most cost effective way of getting the message across. (in my opinion) about both the FSCS and being aware of warning signs...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ned Naylor | 29 Sep 2011 10:14 am
The FSCS is moving into areas it was never set up to work in.
It is the fund of last resort when firms go bust, not the promoter of complaints or the resolver of them.
As for how it is funded, it has a responsibility to its funders (us poor saps) to use our money wisely, not spend it on advertising its services
Which idiot decided to spend compensation funds on advertising? They should be censured or sacked for incompetence.
All IFAs should write to the FSCS and complain about this misuse of funds
This sort of abuse of our trust is apalling.
.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Sep 2011 10:20 am
John Bloomfield - a stunningly simple idea and yet for that reason will probably never happen.
Just think that for one inexpensive leaflet the awareness of the scheme could be raised, consumer confidence increased etc..... etc..... but why do that when you can blow £4m of someone else's money on an advertising experiment? I guess that as usual no one is personally responsible for that rather silly idea that I could have told them wouldn't work - I probably wouldn't even have charged them for my time.
When they are dreaming up these rather expensive experiments why don't they first of all spend a few grand on getting some IFAs, Tied agents and even bank counter staff together at a venue (outside expensive London) and listen to people who deal and meet with consumers on a daily basis and ask them for ideas; they might even find out themselves that we don't wear black masks and stripey shirts carrying bags marked 'swag'. Most of that lot wouldn't know a consumer if they bit them on the face!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Missold | 29 Sep 2011 10:37 am
Yes, put the effort into informing people at the point of sale, but please make sure the messages are clear. The FSA's review of structured product brochures in 2009 found that in many cases mention of FSCS was confusing. Investors were assured by mention of FSCS but did not get the point that counterparty failure would not be covered.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Sep 2011 11:03 am
Massive advertising spend to justify its own existence. Typical of the thousands of quangos in this country - unelected, unaccountable and stuffed full of jobsworths who deliver very poor value for money measured on any scale.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Lakey | 29 Sep 2011 11:07 am
Like the FOS this organisation is intent on taking on a self-perpetuating role and with unlimited access to industry funding it feels enabled to do so.
Rather than waste funds on such profligacy they should use the £4m to support necessary payments and reduce the industry's bill accordingly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
RW | 29 Sep 2011 11:11 am
I agree with all the comments so far.
It is so easy and simples to spend other peoples money especialy when bureaucrats are doing it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment