April’s top five most -read sto­ries

New Zealand Marketing - - Front Page -

Brands un­leash April Fools’ Day trick­ery They’ve got the whole bridge in their hands: 2de­grees and Spe­cial Group get set to light up Auck­land Axis 2015: DDB named agency of the year, Cle­menger’s ‘Mis­takes’ nabs Grand Axis Sky brings Game of Thrones back to Aotea Square, asks Ki­wis to choose be­tween Iron Throne and Bri­tish Monar­chy Read a mag­a­zine, no­body die: Bauer and FCB at­tempt to breathe life into Woman’s Day —and help mod­ern women cope—with bold $1.5 mil­lion cam­paign

Colenso BBDO and Google col­lab­o­rated to de­velop Found, an app that as­sists dog own­ers in find­ing their lost pets by send­ing out cus­tomised ‘lost dog’ ads via the search en­gine’s ad net­work as well as push no­ti­fi­ca­tions to those signed in. It’s a clever dig­i­tal so­lu­tion to a prob­lem that pre­vi­ously had dog own­ers post­ing sheets of pa­per to lamp­posts. To put the Kiwi spot­light on the 6.5 mil­lion peo­ple who have been dis­placed in Syria due to the on­go­ing civil war, the NZ Her­ald and World Vi­sion com­bined to pro­duce a con­tent-led cam­paign called the ‘Forgotten Mil­lions’, which ul­ti­mately raised more than $300,000 for those in need. Burger King took the moral high ground and threw the toys out of its kids’ meals as part of an “on­go­ing com­mit­ment to the Ad­ver­tis­ing Stan­dards Author­ity’s chil­dren’s code for ad­ver­tis­ing food”. Kath De­war, the man­ag­ing direc­tor of eth­i­cal mar­ket­ing ser­vices com­pany Good­sense, wel­comed the move and sees it as an op­por­tu­nity for Burger King to po­si­tion it­self as a leader in the cat­e­gory. Neon promised a simul­cast stream of the pre­miere episode of sea­son five of Game of Thrones. Set to start at 1.30pm, the stream failed and didn’t get go­ing un­til 3.30pm—by which time the prom­ise of a simul­cast had turned into a Twit­ter night­mare for Sky. Me­di­aWorks con­firmed that Camp­bell Live was un­der re­view due to low rat­ings, caus­ing Kiwi view­ers to sign on­line pe­ti­tions, jump on so­cial me­dia soap­boxes and ac­tu­ally tune in to watch the show for a change. It’s yet to be determined whether the show will be can­celled, but the fact that Me­di­aWorks is re­view­ing the time slot il­lus­trates that le­gacy alone does not guar­an­tee safety from the axe. Across the ditch, Wool­worths’ at­tempt to at­tach its brand to An­zac Day back­fired when the com­pany was ac­cused of ex­ploit­ing An­zac her­itage for com­mer­cial gain largely due to the “Fresh in our mem­o­ries slo­gan”. So­cial me­dia users then hi­jacked the cam­paign im­agery and pro­duced a flurry of in­ap­pro­pri­ate memes, lead­ing Wool­worths to pull the ini­tia­tive en­tirely. But the on­line dam­age had al­ready been done, and this once again served as re­minder of the fine line that com­mer­cial en­ti­ties tread when latch­ing onto good causes.

ex-cre­ative direc­tor at Me­dia De­sign School and au­thor:

“When I saw this ad it made me: A) want to see the ex­hi­bi­tion. B) be pissed off it’s in Welling­ton. And C) want to go to Welling­ton to see the it, fly­ing Air New Zealand, of course. Don’t let the fact that the cre­atives here had to use ex­ist­ing footage dis­guise the fact that this is a well-crafted, en­ter­tain­ing and in­for­ma­tive piece of work. A cheap as chips pro­duc­tion I’d be happy to have done my­self … I would also ar­gue that there is plenty of in­sight in this be­cause at any given time Air New Zealand, like all air­lines, is a re­flec­tion of that time.”


as­so­ciate cre­ative direc­tor at Y&R NZ:

“I’m pretty sure this was about Air New Zealand an­nounc­ing that they’re bring­ing back whole lob­ster as a meal op­tion. Bon ap­petite?”

gen­eral mar­ket­ing manager at Mitre

“If you’ve got it then spend it. The idea to lever­age the brand fur­ther into the na­tional psy­che and per­haps in­tro­duce a whole new gen­er­a­tion to it was well achieved and even if you don’t head to Te Papa to see the ex­hi­bi­tion, Air New Zealand’s brand eq­uity is get­ting fur­ther ab­sorbed into your own be­ing through the use of her­itage footage. Air New Zealand was and is us.”

Agency: BrandWorld Client com­pany: Cere­bos Greggs Brand: Orb Cof­fee Me­dia: TV, so­cial me­dia Cam­paign De­scrip­tion: “Cap­tur­ing the art of re­ally great cof­fee takes an artist. BrandWorld part­nered with Kiwi artist-ac­tor Dwayne Cameron to show­case Orb Cof­fee’s amaz­ing award wins and to let con­sumers know they can now buy Orb cof­fee them­selves from their su­per­mar­ket. In just 30 sec­onds and a few beau­ti­ful brush strokes on BrandWorld’s Dis­cover plat­form.”

Agency: The Goat Farm Ltd Client com­pany: In­vivo Wines Brand: In­vivo Me­dia: TV, out­door, on­line Cam­paign De­scrip­tion: “Af­ter last year’s cam­paign helped land Gra­ham Nor­ton as a share­holder (and wine­maker!), In­vivo wanted to open win­ery own­er­ship up to ev­ery­day Ki­wis. A Snow­ball Ef­fect crowd eq­uity cam­paign sup­ported by so­cial, PR and bill­boards helped #In­vestIn­vivo crush its $500,000 tar­get and set a new New Zealand record at $2 mil­lion.” Agency: Joy Client com­pany: Hal­len­stein Glas­sons Brand: Glas­sons Me­dia: TV Cam­paign De­scrip­tion: “Glas­sons is an in­sti­tu­tion in Australia and New Zealand, but there was a real dan­ger of los­ing its iden­tity in a mar­ket sat­u­rated with in­ter­na­tional com­peti­tor brands. We needed to re­mind con­sumers that Glas­sons isn’t just an­other face­less cor­po­ra­tion in the crowd. Glas­sons isn’t like ev­ery­one else. They’re the lo­cals that made it. They em­body the fight­ing spirit of New Zealand and Aus­tralian women ev­ery­where. They’re dif­fer­ent, proud and de­fi­ant. We felt the best way to re­store Glas­sons’ home­grown, strong im­age was with dif­fer­ent, proud and de­cid­edly de­fi­ant ad­ver­tis­ing. And a lit­tle less (or more) bull… depend­ing on how you look at it.” Agency: Sugar & Part­ners Client com­pany: Daikin Australia & New Zealand Brand: Daikin Me­dia: TV

HW: I think that other prod­ucts like fast food and soft drinks are prod­ucts that peo­ple con­sume as part of their ev­ery­day diet. When con­sumers start to re­place wa­ter with soft drinks, this is where the prob­lem arises. But with choco­late it’s some­thing you have on the odd oc­ca­sion as a treat. There are times when a birth­day cake is al­lowed or a glass of Cham­pagne. It’s about a sense of oc­ca­sion. PP: We’re the only com­pany in New Zealand that does the whole man­u­fac­tur­ing process from bean to bar: im­port­ing the co­coa beans, roast­ing them, re­fin­ing them, and do­ing the whole nine yards un­til the fi­nal prod­uct. We could im­port co­coa liquor, but we don’t do that be­cause we want to main­tain the qual­ity. An­drew and Brian have built up a huge knowl­edge in terms of where to source the best in­gre­di­ents from, be it co­coa, al­monds or macadamias. HW: I just had a bit of look to­day and spoke to our me­dia strate­gist. Go­ing back five years the split was 90-10. That’s 90 per­cent in tra­di­tional me­dia and ten per­cent in dig­i­tal. And now the split is 60-40, so 60 per­cent in tra­di­tional and 40 per­cent in dig­i­tal. And that shift to­ward dig­i­tal is likely to con­tinue. PP: Most of this dig­i­tal spend goes to­ward Face­book, YouTube and Google, but tele­vi­sion is still very im­por­tant for us. The emo­tional val­ues of a brand are im­por­tant, and I think TV is still very suc­cess­ful in com­mu­ni­cat­ing th­ese to con­sumers. PP: This in­dus­try is very com­pet­i­tive, but we have a clear strat­egy that has been very suc­cess­ful for us over the past ten years and that has seen our mar­ket share grow. We will con­tinue that, but the com­pe­ti­tion isn’t go­ing to go away. That’s why we’re still com­pletely fo­cused on be­ing the best, and that’s what we work to­wards. We have a rel­a­tively small group of very hard­work­ing and smart peo­ple work­ing to­wards that. HW: In terms of a small team of peo­ple, we also have very strong re­la­tion­ships with our ad­ver­tis­ing, me­dia and sales agen­cies. Th­ese are all long-term re­la­tion­ships that have con­trib­uted to the suc­cess. PP: We cur­rently use As­sign­ment Group for our cre­ative work, MBM is our me­dia agency and Tell works on the dig­i­tal side. Cre­atives Howard Greive, John Plimmer and Chris Bleak­ley have worked with the busi­ness since the mid 90s—at dif­fer­ent agen­cies, but the peo­ple are still the same. [This is also the case] for Matt Bale who drives the me­dia at MBM. PP: In terms of the brand, we’ve got sig­nif­i­cant plans to con­tinue build­ing the brand, but any­thing we do will al­ways be mea­sured against whether it’s adding to the qual­ity of the brand and the qual­ity of the prod­uct. That is al­ways our fo­cus. PP: I think pres­sure is a good thing. It gets the adren­a­line run­ning. And we’re lucky in that ev­ery­one that cur­rently works on the Whittaker’s brand re­ally en­joys it. I don’t think we would be suc­cess­ful if we didn’t en­joy what we do. And we en­joy what we do and we will con­tinue to do that. HW: For­tu­nately, in choco­late-mak­ing, it is very vast and there are many di­rec­tions we could go in. There are al­ways new ideas com­ing to the ta­ble from mar­ket­ing, ex­port, the di­rec­tors, and so on. Ev­ery­one is al­ways very forth­com­ing with new ideas. So, we’re stuck in terms of in­no­va­tion. It’s gen­er­ally a ques­tion of how we’re go­ing to do it. That’s re­ally ex­cit­ing and it gets ev­ery­one work­ing to­ward the goal. PP: The short an­swer is ‘yes’. And the next one is: ‘I can’t tell you what they are’ … We do have some­thing com­ing and when it’s re­leased, we’ll send you [ NZ Mar­ket­ing] sam­ples of it … Strangely enough, we have the agency out­side the meet­ing room at the mo­ment and they’re go­ing to present the next cam­paign for us.

Of course, hav­ing a de­sire to do world-class work is a lot dif­fer­ent than ac­tu­ally do­ing it. But Brad­bourne quickly reels off a list of cam­paigns that he be­lieves back its claim up: Or­con’s Cannes Grand Prix-win­ning ‘Iggy Pop’ cam­paign; the gi­ant duck to launch Me­di­aWorks’ chan­nel Four; ‘The Smirnoff Night Project’ and #PurePo­ten­tial cam­paign; Unitec’s doc­u­men­tary se­ries ‘Change Starts Here’ and the fol­low-up ‘We make the Peo­ple who make it’; and 2de­grees’ ‘Play the Bridge’.

As a re­sult of all this work—and the con­certed ef­fort to raise its pro­file by en­ter­ing and win­ning awards for it—it at­tracted plenty of at­ten­tion, both here and over­seas, and from clients and staff. And it de­vel­oped a rep­u­ta­tion as one of the re­gion’s hottest new agen­cies, be­com­ing the first in­de­pen­dent agency to win NBR Agency of the Year and the first in­de­pen­dent agency to dom­i­nate Axis. But that cre­ative rep­u­ta­tion wasn’t al­ways a good thing in the early days.

“We were get­ting meet­ings with clients who said ‘we love your work but we think you’re too cre­ative for us’,” says Brad­bourne.

He felt that was an in­ac­cu­rate per­cep­tion and he says its early work was “re­ally com­mer­cially ma­ture”, point­ing to the Green Party cam­paign and the Or­con work, which both won mul­ti­ple Effies. But per­cep­tion is nine tenths of the brand. And, gen­er­ally speak­ing, the big­ger an agency gets—and the big­ger the clients it works with—the bet­ter its sys­tems and pro­cesses need to be. So it worked re­ally hard on pro­mot­ing its strate­gic think­ing and bol­ster­ing its ac­count ser­vice ca­pa­bil­i­ties.

Red­wood’s ex­pe­ri­ence has cer­tainly helped in that re­gard, and he’s also helped the agency nav­i­gate the of­ten choppy seas of run­ning a boom­ing busi­ness (it was rated New Zealand’s 16th fastest-grow­ing com­pany in 2011’s Deloitte Fast 50). But whether it’s DDB, BBH, TBWA, BBDO or any other ad­ver­tis­ing acro­nym, he says all of the great agency brands have at least one cre­ative part­ner in their name. Spe­cial has three and at its heart, it is still cre­atively ob­sessed, which was an­other rea­son he was con­fi­dent about buy­ing in.

“As the Ad Con­trar­ian says, ‘cre­ative peo­ple make the ads, ev­ery­one else just makes the ar­range­ments.’”

Now the agency has 30 clients, in­clud­ing 2de­grees, NZTE, AA In­sur­ance, TSB and Smirnoff. And it’s in a fairly en­vi­able po­si­tion.

“We’ve had clients come to us be­cause they’ve seen some of our in­no­va­tive work but, if it’s been the right thing to do for their busi­ness, we’ve ac­tu­ally had to work quite hard to sell them a tra­di­tional ad­ver­tis­ing so­lu­tion,” says Red­wood. “And that still works when it’s done well.” Red­wood says the lack of hi­er­ar­chy al­lows “any­one to get ac­cess to any­one im­me­di­ately, rather than hav­ing to wait a week to get a meet­ing with the cre­ative direc­tor in a larger agency” and that’s an ap­peal­ing part of work­ing for and with a smaller in­de­pen­dent agency. But that brings us to the old chest­nut of the se­nior mem­bers of a fast grow­ing agency not be­ing able to main­tain the con­nec­tion to clients that sold them »

of 64 per­cent each year, rev­enue has in­creased by an av­er­age of 67 per­cent each year and profit be­fore tax has in­creased by an av­er­age of 58 per­cent each year.” As with any busi­ness, there are cer­tain wa­ter­shed mo­ments that take it to the next level. Spe­cial Group has had a few of them. But win­ning 2de­grees against the in­cum­bent Why­bin/TBWA, Colenso BBDO and sim­i­larly suc­cess­ful indie Barnes Cat­mur was one of them and sent a sig­nal that it was now a gen­uine threat to the big boys.

Mal­colm Phillipps, 2de­grees’ chief mar­ket­ing of­fi­cer, says he liked a lot of the work Spe­cial had done for other clients. And de­spite be­ing known for its cre­ativ­ity, he says it was the strat­egy and plan­ning of­fer that re­ally im­pressed him.

Spe­cial also has a broad and com­pelling range of skills, with a par­tic­u­lar spe­cialty in de­sign. Not too many agen­cies have been able to suc­ceed at both th­ese dis­ci­plines and they be­lieve ad cam­paigns made by agen­cies with­out a de­sign sen­si­bil­ity of­ten don’t have the aes­thetic ap­peal or fo­cus on user-ex­pe­ri­ence, while de­sign agen­cies don’t tend to com­mu­ni­cate quite as ef­fec­tively with peo­ple like great ad­ver­tis­ing can.

“We win a lot of clients for our ad­ver­tis­ing and a lot of clients for de­sign. They buy the story,” says Brad­bourne. “They know the days of solv­ing ev­ery mar­ket­ing prob­lem with an ad are long gone. So we can think about things like brand ex­pe­ri­ence, prod­uct de­sign, pack­ag­ing de­sign, re­tail ex­pe­ri­ence, all the way through to an ad. De­sign helps be­cause we look at the whole cus­tomer ex­pe­ri­ence.”

And with Phillipps ad­mit­ting the changes to me­dia con­sump­tion have de­creased the power of TV, which it used so ef­fec­tively to launch the brand, he says you need to change your ap­proach to mar­ket­ing. And, as ev­i­denced by the ‘Play the Bridge’ cam­paign, which brought its new plans, its con­nec­tion to Google Play and its de­sire to be seen as more than just a chal­lenger brand into one idea, he says that’s some­thing Spe­cial has been able to do. When Cannes Li­ons chair­man Terry Sav­age vis­ited New Zealand a few years back, he showed a few clips of se­nior clients ad­vo­cat­ing for cre­ativ­ity, in­clud­ing Di­a­geo’s Andy Fen­nell, who said the com­pany be­lieves “you sell more at higher prices if you’re cre­ative”.

James Hur­man ex­plored this idea in his book, The Case For Cre­ativ­ity, and dis­cussed re­search by Coca-Cola’s Jonathan Milden­hall that tracked the per­for­mance of Cannes Li­ons’ Ad­ver­tiser of The Year win­ners like P&G, Nike, Volk­swa­gen, Swatch and Honda dur­ing the lead-up to their suc­cess. And they all en­joyed their high­est share price when they were pro­duc­ing their most cre­ative work.

Lind­sey Evans, who ran the Cam­paign Palace, Happy Sol­diers and TBWA Lon­don be­fore be­com­ing found­ing part­ner and chief ex­ec­u­tive of Spe­cial Group Australia, says the agency’s goal is to “re­move the bar­ri­ers be­tween magic, logic and de­cency”. And she thinks those three things can co-ex­ist.

“Of­ten you can have the magic with­out the logic,” she says. “[That phi­los­o­phy] feels re­ally true to what they’re do­ing in New Zealand and how we be­have. And the same goes for clients.”

Brad­bourne be­lieves smart clients un­der­stand this con­cept en­tirely. And he says there’s no client that wouldn’t ben­e­fit from a dose of cre­ativ­ity.

“You can do ex­cep­tional work on any big brand. You just need the right peo­ple with the right at­ti­tude work­ing on it.”

2de­grees un­der­stands its im­por­tance. Un­like its big­ger com­peti­tors, Phillipps says its bud­get is com­par­a­tively small. So it needs its cam­paigns to work harder. And Brad­bourne says the agency’s ori­gins mean it knows “how to make smaller bud­gets do ex­tra­or­di­nary things”.

“The Smirnoff Instagram cam­paign was done on a limited bud­get, but it’s done great things for sales. Ev­ery year in our ex­is­tence you’ll see cam­paigns like that. Maybe it comes down to the lean­ness of our struc­ture, but our be­lief is that ev­ery sin­gle brief is an op­por­tu­nity to do ex­tra­or­di­nary work for a client.”

But just be­cause it can work with small bud­gets, it doesn’t mean Spe­cial clas­si­fies it­self as a cheap op­tion.

“We’re def­i­nitely not cheaper than the big agen­cies,” says Red­wood.

Brad­bourne: “We think we of­fer great value. We know what agency rate cards around town and we’re in that band, but we of­fer some ex­cep­tional peo­ple for a sim­i­lar price to av­er­age peo­ple.” It hasn’t all been beer and skit­tles, of course. Agency life is full of failed ex­per­i­ments, ups and downs and com­ings and go­ings. But Brad­bourne says it never

Lind­sey Evans.

the global net­work, which isn’t sur­pris­ing given the agency’s im­pres­sive re­cent track record. But it’s fair to say the em­pha­sis will al­ways be on fight­ing fires in the home­land.

But be­cause they’re share­hold­ers, Brad­bourne says there is an in­cen­tive to sup­port them and work on Aus­tralian busi­ness—and pitches—where ap­pro­pri­ate. It even has a fi­nan­cial agree­ment called the ‘play pool’ where they put a cer­tain amount of time aside to help each other. Although, as the “stand­ing army” is in New Zealand, there hasn’t been quite as much as­sis­tance flow­ing in the op­po­site di­rec­tion.

So has the fact that the part­ners’ at­ten­tion has been else­where alien­ated any New Zealand clients? Red­wood doesn’t be­lieve so. In fact, just as some of its staff have been work­ing over in Australia, Red­wood says some of the Aus­tralian heavy hit­ters have been able to bring benefits to New Zealand. Phillipps agrees and says it has had a pre­sen­ta­tion from Heyde on the cre­ation of O2’s bril­liant ‘Be More Dog’ cam­paign. While Australia and New Zealand both have stel­lar cre­ative rep­u­ta­tions and gen­er­ally per­form well in in­ter­na­tional ad­ver­tis­ing awards, Brad­bourne says there hasn’t been much cre­ative ex­cite­ment in the Aus­tralian agency mar­ket since Droga5 and The Mon­keys started up al­most ten years ago. In the early days, Spe­cial en­tered a num­ber of awards in Australia, largely in an ef­fort to at­tract staff but also with an eye on fu­ture ex­pan­sion, and it won B&T’s emerg­ing agency of the year ti­tle in 2011. So it al­ready had a pro­file there. But they say they’ve been sur­prised by the ex­cite­ment over their ar­rival. And now, when pitch doc­tors are asked by clients to add a wild­card to the list, Brad­bourne says Spe­cial is fill­ing that role.

All ad­ver­tis­ing is a leap of faith. But for an es­tab­lished brand like Qan­tas, which is cur­rently go­ing through a ma­jor turn­around and look­ing to ce­ment its fu­ture brand strat­egy, sign­ing up with an agency less than one year old seems like a pretty big one. So how did it hap­pen?

“Fun­da­men­tally, what it comes down to is tal­ent, fit, cul­ture and track record,” says Brad­bourne. “Have they got the smartest peo­ple in the in­dus­try work­ing on it, do they be­lieve in the pas­sion, and if all those boxes are ticked, that’s who you have to go for.”

Evans says Australia is still a very com­pet­i­tive mar­ket so it cer­tainly didn’t just walk in. It had to prove it­self.

“All the se­nior part­ners have worked all over the world on big global brands,” she says. “Matty and Dave could be ECDs any­where in the world. It’s not easy, but we’re all hands on and we’re all solv­ing clients’ busi­ness prob­lems … A lot of agen­cies get so big it’s hard to be ag­ile and nim­ble, so they or­gan­ise around de­part­ments and ad­ver­tis­ing briefs rather than prob­lems and ideas. They’re en­cum­bered by le­gacy sys­tems and struc­ture.”

Brad­bourne says it has tried to re­move those lay­ers and, as a re­sult, he be­lieves they have cre­ated a highly suc­cess­ful model. He says it’s also an en­joy­able place to work and while the early stages were gen­er­ally about look­ing out, or look­ing to­wards the next dead­line, it has started to look in a bit more now and try to main­tain the cul­ture.

“[In New Zealand] we all have a communal Fri­day lunch and sit on the steps out­side [the Free­man’s Bay of­fice].” And Red­wood says they’ve even had boot camps on those same steps.

“Be­ing in­side is a re­lief af­ter that.” So can that cul­ture be ex­ported? Brad­bourne ad­mits it’s far be­yond the four New Zealand part­ners. But Red­wood says it looks to mi­cronet­works like Wieden + Kennedy, Goodby Sil­ver­stein and BBH as ex­am­ples of agen­cies that were able to re­tain their in­de­pen­dence for a cou­ple of decades, have al­ways done great cre­ative work and seemed to have been able to repli­cate their cul­tures in other mar­kets. Evans adds Droga5 and, in its hey­day, Naked to that list, although, as the fail­ure of the New Zealand arm of Droga5 showed, suc­cess in other mar­kets is cer­tainly not a given.

“It doesn’t mat­ter where you’re re­sid­ing,” Evans says. “If you’re not con­strained by si­los and in­di­vid­ual P and Ls and if you’ve got a gen­uinely flex­i­ble model and al­low tal­ent to be liq­uid and move around, it will all come back to tal­ent and tim­ing. That’s what has to drive it. And I think the way New Zealand guys have set up Syd­ney is tes­ta­ment to that. You’ve got to find the best lo­cal part­ners and em­power them so they can call it their own. That’s the main thing. I don’t think you can just open an of­fice and put your name on the door.”

Brad­bourne and Red­wood didn’t want to dis­cuss fu­ture plans in de­tail, but it has had some dis­cus­sions with peo­ple in other mar­kets and the trade winds ap­pear to be blow­ing them in the di­rec­tion of the West Coast of the US and Europe. And, as they’ve been do­ing for the past seven years, they’re back­ing them­selves. “Why couldn’t an of­fice in Auck­land or Syd­ney work on the global cam­paign for Adi­das, Nike or Stella Ar­tois? We can, we could and it would prob­a­bly be, un­doubt­edly in my opin­ion, bet­ter than what they’re do­ing now.”

I look for­ward to re­ceiv­ing a few more sug­ges­tions for story an­gles when that hap­pens.

fan­tas­tic work for them across their dif­fer­ent di­vi­sions, from re­tail cam­paigns and brand devel­op­ment through to their an­nual re­ports.”

As a cre­ative, Libby thrives on this project di­ver­sity and says that the agency prides it­self on be­ing able to de­liver ef­fec­tive work through­out the cre­ative cy­cle.

“We build brands so our work varies from iden­tity cre­ation and re­brands through to ad­ver­tis­ing, pack­ag­ing and dig­i­tal so­lu­tions,” she says.

She points to Har­vest Oil as an ex­am­ple, say­ing that the agency led the brand’s process from pack­ag­ing devel­op­ment through to launch­ing their new range of pre­mium oils via a na­tion­wide cam­paign. And she adds that the agency is able to de­liver at ev­ery stage of the brand jour­ney be­cause of the team’s fo­cus on en­sur­ing a con­sis­tent story is told no mat­ter where a brand and cus­tomer come into con­tact with each other.

“We’re in­ten­tion­ally re­cruit­ing cre­atives who have broad skill sets, are great sto­ry­tellers but have dif­fer­ent back­grounds. So we can pro­vide clients with a range of con­cepts that ad­dress their brief from a va­ri­ety of an­gles.” Given the qual­ity of work pro­duced for th­ese clients among oth­ers, the cre­ative agency is catch­ing the eye of other high cal­i­bre play­ers in the in­dus­try at a rapid pace, such as the AA, Stir­ling Sports and TOWER In­sur­ance.

“We were re­cently asked to pitch for a body of work for the AA to re­launch their Ve­hi­cle In­spec­tions prod­uct,” says Ben. “To win the job against some large agen­cies was a great way of re­in­forc­ing to us that our model is at­trac­tive to clients and the re­sult­ing cam­paign is some­thing we’re re­ally proud of.”

Libby points out that many new clients are drawn to the core prin­ci­ples of the agency.

“We have clients com­ing to us say­ing that they’re de­lib­er­ately seek­ing a smaller agency for its fresh ideas and nim­ble­ness. They’ve been work­ing with big­ger agen­cies and they’re get­ting to the end of that re­la­tion­ship”

And this ap­proach is also prov­ing lu­cra­tive. As the agency clocked in its sec­ond full year of busi­ness, it dou­bled its year-on-year rev­enue. And while this is im­pres­sive, nei­ther found­ing part­ners are ready to slow down and rest on their lau­rels.

“For us, it’s about con­tin­u­ing the jour­ney that we’ve started,” Ben ex­plains. “It’s about be­com­ing New Zealand’s most well-re­garded in­de­pen­dent agency. To con­tinue on our growth tra­jec­tory over the next 12 months with­out sac­ri­fic­ing our core prin­ci­ples.”

And given how far the agency has al­ready come in such a short space of time, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to see them achiev­ing just that by the end of this year.

many as 20 dif­fer­ent re­ports com­ing through as part of a cam­paign. It’s pun­ish­ing.”

For this rea­son, a slew of com­pa­nies have en­tered the mar­ket, of­fer­ing au­to­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy ca­pa­ble of in­form­ing de­ci­sions and ex­pe­dit­ing pre­vi­ously ar­du­ous pro­cesses. And as the pro­gram­matic mar­ket con­tin­ues to grow (it is still just a sliver of the to­tal on­line ad spend, here and around the world, but it ac­counted for nine per­cent or $3 mil­lion of the to­tal $31.4 mil­lion spent on on­line dis­play in the third quar­ter of 2014 and, ac­cord­ing to SMI data, in 2014 in Australia it ac­counted for just shy of 14 per­cent of all dig­i­tal dol­lars), it’s cre­at­ing a tech­nol­ogy arms race. In the last two years, Twit­ter has ac­quired MoPub for $350 mil­lion, Face­book has picked up LiveRail for $500 mil­lion, Ya­hoo forked out $640 mil­lion for BrightRoll and Google bought Adom­e­try for an undis­closed sum. And all of them in­di­cate that the qual­ity of the ad tech will play a ma­jor role in the fu­ture.

At its sim­plest pro­gram­matic ad tech­nol­ogy gives the user a cen­tral con­trol sys­tem through which on­line cam­paigns can be bought, sold, mon­i­tored, mod­i­fied and mea­sured, in­stantly and re­motely.

As ex­plained by AdRoll’s APAC mar­ket­ing manager Cat Prestipino: “Brands can ac­cess in­ven­tory from over 200 dif­fer­ent ex­changes and sup­ply sources, in­clud­ing on mo­bile and tablet, as well as Face­book and Twit­ter all through the sin­gle AdRoll in­ter­face. They can see ex­actly where their ads were shown, how much they paid for them and what the ROI for that cam­paign is. Our cus­tomers also have com­plete con­trol to edit their cam­paigns and to pull re­ports at a mo­ment’s no­tice.” In most in­dus­tries—and life in gen­eral—the prom­ise of au­to­ma­tion is treated with at least some level of mis­trust. And this is also the case with pro­gram­matic ad buy­ing.

The Mag­a­zine Pub­lish­ers As­so­ci­a­tion chair and Bauer chief ex­ec­u­tive Paul Dykzeul has pre­vi­ously crit­i­cised pro­gram­matic, say­ing it puts ad­ver­tis­ers ev­ery­where and nowhere at the same time, in ref­er­ence to the fact that ad buy­ing de­ci­sions are of­ten made in terms of au­di­ences no mat­ter what sites they might be vis­it­ing.

“This can be true if the ap­proach of the trad­ing desk is to sim­ply op­ti­mise spend to the cheap­est in­ven­tory while ig­nor­ing the en­vi­ron­ment that the ads are run­ning in,” says Andy Wylie, the group gen­eral manager of ad­ver­tis­ing op­er­a­tions at NZME. “How­ever, lo­cal me­dia own­ers are in­creas­ingly mak­ing qual­ity in­ven­tory avail­able via pro­gram­matic chan­nels, which al­lows mar­keters to in­flu­ence the per­cent­age of their bud­get that is de­liv­ered on qual­ity lo­cal sites.”

In­ter­na­tion­ally, the Guardian, CNN, the Fi­nan­cial Times, Reuters and The Econ­o­mist are at­tempt­ing to cir­cum­vent the prob­lem of low-qual­ity in­ven­tory—and com­pete against the net­works—by form­ing the Pangea Al­liance, which al­lows clients to pur­chase ads pro­gram­mat­i­cally that run across th­ese ma­jor pub­lish­ing brands.

“The Pangea al­liance of­fers mar­keters an ef­fi­cient way to reach high qual­ity au­di­ence in trusted en­vi­ron­ments at scale,” says Wylie. “Th­ese fac­tors may re­sult in me­dia buy­ers »

“you can be ab­so­lutely sure you’re serv­ing an ad­vert to the right per­son, on the right de­vice, in the right for­mat, at the right time, but if the cre­ative doesn’t ap­peal to them, they still aren’t go­ing to en­gage with your brand.” Fur­tado says that by 2017, pro­gram­matic is ex­pected to be the only way me­dia is bought in ad­vanced mar­kets. That seems un­likely, but it’s clear the in­flu­ence of ad tech is only go­ing to in­crease over the next few years.

As things stand, me­dia own­ers are be­com­ing in­creas­ingly com­fort­able us­ing in-house ad tech (NZME works very closely with dig­i­tal sales house Adhub) and they’re also reg­u­larly sell­ing dig­i­tal na­tive ad­ver­tis­ing prod­ucts di­rectly to clients, by­pass­ing me­dia agen­cies in many in­stances. So, if pro­gram­matic ad buy­ing is set to con­tinue grow­ing and if the tech­nol­ogy be­comes more user-friendly, then does this threaten the longevity of me­dia agen­cies and the sales peo­ple that fa­cil­i­tate com­mu­ni­ca­tion with them?

Me­dia agen­cies aren’t just sit­ting around and wait­ing to find out what hap­pens. They are quickly po­si­tion­ing them­selves as pro­gram­matic ex­perts by in­vest­ing in staff and tech­nol­ogy aligned with the chang­ing in­dus­try. They are also in a good po­si­tion be­cause clients con­tinue to rely on me­dia agen­cies to man­age the buy­ing process for them.

“Glob­ally, we’ve seen clients tak­ing tech­nol­ogy in-house, but in most in­stances they get close to the tech­nol­ogy, but they get their agen­cies to man­age it for them,” says Smith.

Baker doesn’t think me­dia agen­cies are fac­ing ob­so­les­cence ei­ther, say­ing that they will con­tinue to play a vi­tal role in the in­dus­try be­cause “cre­ativ­ity and strat­egy can’t be pro­grammed” and some­one will still need to lead th­ese re­spon­si­bil­i­ties.

How­ever, some would ar­gue against this. In the stock mar­ket, com­plex al­go­rithms are al­ready be­ing used to ef­fect trades au­to­mat­i­cally and it isn’t far-fetched for this to start be­com­ing more com­mon in an ad-buy­ing con­text.

Also, late last year, Google Cre­ative Lab’s Tom Uglow told NZ Mar­ket­ing that cre­ation is sim­ply a “very, very com­pli­cated pat­tern recog­ni­tion al­go­rithm” and we’re now get­ting to the phase in his­tory where AIs are step­ping close to the abil­ity to in­tuit or cre­ate.

In re­sponse to this, Baker jokes: “The next thing you will be sug­gest­ing is al­go­rithms cre­at­ing ed­i­to­rial con­tent based on big data. Oh, wait ...”

Christie says there are a num­ber of is­sues be­hind the lack of mo­bile ad­ver­tis­ing up­take in the Kiwi mar­ket, not just the mem­ory of more dif­fi­cult eco­nomic times. There’s also a tal­ent deficit and short­age of New Zealand-spe­cific re­search, both in­evitable re­sults of a small pop­u­la­tion that leaves us short of peo­ple able to guide us to the bleed­ing edge of mo­bile ad­ver­tis­ing prac­tice. “It has made a mar­ket that is more hes­i­tant to look at mo­bile as ag­gres­sively as per­haps other mar­kets have—and most of those rea­sons are per­fectly un­der­stand­able.”

To be fair, New Zealand mar­keters aren’t alone in their un­der­util­i­sa­tion of the mo­bile tool­box. The IAB’s Amer­i­can coun­ter­part re­leased fig­ures com­par­ing per­cent­age of time spent with var­i­ous me­dia types ver­sus their per­cent­age of ad­ver­tis­ing spend for 2013—and the re­sults, though per­haps un­sur­pris­ing for those pay­ing close at­ten­tion, do serve as a good il­lus­tra­tion of the point. De­spite con­sumers spend­ing 20 per­cent of their time with mo­biles, it ac­counted for only four per­cent of ad spend. The story is bet­ter for the wider in­ter­net, which ac­counted for 25 per­cent of con­sumer at­ten­tion and 22 per­cent of ad spend (like­wise, ra­dio at­tracted slightly more at­ten­tion than ad spend). Both print and tele­vi­sion, on the other hand, at­tracted sig­nif­i­cantly more spend than at­ten­tion. The ef­fec­tive­ness of ban­ner ads are be­ing ques­tioned. And the same is true of mo­bile ban­ner ads. Back in 2012, a study by Goldspot showed 50 per­cent of clicks on static mo­bile ban­ner ads were ac­ci­den­tal, although Google made ef­forts to ad­dress ‘fat fin­ger syn­drome’—and ad fraud—by adding an ex­tra step when users clicked around the edges of an ad. This is lead­ing to dif­fer­ent so­lu­tions, such as rich-me­dia ads or, in­creas­ingly, na­tive ads. Com­pa­nies like Face­book are ac­tu­ally in­creas­ing their over­all rev­enue on the strength of mo­bile ads, largely through spon­sored posts and the rapid growth in mo­bile video con­sump­tion. Per­haps counter-in­tu­itively, the so­cial me­dia stal­wart ac­tu­ally re­duced the amount of mo­bile ad in­ven­tory to cre­ate scarcity. Ad­ver­tis­ing Age re­ported this move, while con­tro­ver­sial in­ter­nally, forced it to fo­cus on qual­ity over quan­tity, and en­abled it to charge a pre­mium for it. So ef­fec­tively, it sold less ad space for more money. Mo­bile ad rev­enue cur­rently ac­counts for 69 per­cent of its to­tal over­all rev­enue, and all in­di­ca­tions are that will con­tinue to grow.

The typ­i­cally low ad spend on mo­bile (Face­book notwith­stand­ing) in re­la­tion to time spent in­di­cates hes­i­tan­cies about the medium for many of the rea­sons Christie out­lined. Com­bine that with its rel­a­tive in­fancy as a chan­nel and the seem­ingly lack­lus­tre of­fer­ing of ad for­mats, and it’s un­der­stand­able why mar­keters might not

Mo­bile de­vices aren’t used as much as the desk­top in­ter­net to com­plete on­line pur­chases (yet) but they are of­ten used to begin the re­search process, of­ten when out and about. And this is par­tially why search-re­lated, lo­ca­tion-based ad­ver­tis­ing is so im­por­tant: busi­nesses need to be able to guide con­sumers to their points of pur­chase—dig­i­tally or phys­i­cally—in a lo­ca­tion and de­vice-aware way. But that means busi­nesses need to be out in front of con­sumer de­sire to search, in­ter­act and com­plete pur­chases on mo­bile de­vices. If an omni-chan­nel ap­proach hasn’t been part of your busi­ness’ strat­egy be­fore now, it’s prob­a­bly time to re­con­sider (a change to Google’s al­go­rithm in late April has al­ready pun­ished web­sites that aren’t mo­bile-op­ti­mised by push­ing them down the rank­ings).

El­lis says busi­nesses that hes­i­tate to im­ple­ment re­spon­sive omni-chan­nel strate­gies across de­vices, ones that stay seam­less across mo­bile, desk­top and in-store ex­pe­ri­ences, will lose out. “Your bricks and mor­tar is be­com­ing more and more de­pen­dent on hav­ing a mo­bile ex­pe­ri­ence for your prod­uct,” she says. “Be­cause if [cus­tomers] are re­search­ing on­line and they can’t find you, then they won’t look for a store. You’re miss­ing out on the foot traf­fic now as well.”

And a few years down the line, as the In­ter­net Of Things gains a foothold in our daily lives and mo­bile de­vices be­come the equiv­a­lent of a re­mote con­trol for the real world, El­lis says mo­bile will be­come less rel­e­vant as a de­vice de­scrip­tion. She says we’ll talk more about screens than tele­vi­sions ver­sus tablets, and where to push the con­tent we want to ac­cess as and when we want to ac­cess it.

“What mar­keters and busi­nesses re­ally need to con­sider, as a whole, in a world of con­nected living is that con­sumers will ul­ti­mately choose the best ex­pe­ri­ence they get—prob­a­bly start­ing from a mo­bile de­vice,” says El­lis. “Ev­ery­thing else is an ex­ten­sion thereof.”

Out­door had a good year, up from $76 mil­lion in 2013 to $83 mil­lion last year. That brings it back to the peak ex­pe­ri­enced dur­ing the Rugby World Cup in 2011.

OMANZ says the 9.2 per­cent year on year growth was gen­er­ated by a wide se­lec­tion of ad­ver­tis­ers across nu­mer­ous cat­e­gories, most no­tably telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions, coun­cil and gov­ern­ment agen­cies, gro­cery, brew­eries and me­dia. And with an in­crease in share to 3.5 per­cent and de­clines at the top of the ta­ble, it is con­fi­dent it can reach its ob­jec­tive of achiev­ing a to­tal mar­ket share of five per­cent even­tu­ally.

Ad­dressed and un­ad­dressed mail were both up by $1 mil­lion to $61 mil­lion and $54 mil­lion re­spec­tively. And cinema, the small­est chunk of ad rev­enue, was also up by $1 mil­lion, fin­ish­ing up with $9 mil­lion.

It has been ru­moured that the ASA will stop col­lect­ing ad spend data from in­dus­try bod­ies as it doesn’t see that as a cen­tral role and there are also other sources avail­able, such as SMI and Nielsen’s AIS. So how do the ASA fig­ures com­pare?

SMI doesn’t claim to cap­ture the en­tire mar­ket and doesn’t fac­tor in di­rect sales, but it does cap­ture 95 per­cent of the me­dia agency spend in New Zealand. As such, its over­all num­ber is lower than the ASA’s, with its 2014 fig­ures show­ing a to­tal of $882 mil­lion.

This was down 3.7 per­cent on the same time last year (this com­pares to a five per­cent in­crease in to­tal spend in 2013). But when ad­justed for the top ten cat­e­gories, which make up 71 per­cent of to­tal spend, it was down by 1.3 per­cent. And SMI’s global direc­tor, an­a­lyt­ics, Tris­tan Masters ad­mits that the de­crease in to­tal spend could show a “cer­tain el­e­ment of spend mi­grat­ing away” from agen­cies to di­rect re­la­tion­ships.

Across all cat­e­gories, SMI data showed dig­i­tal in sec­ond spot with $179 mil­lion for the cal­en­dar year 2014, up 16.6 per­cent or $25.6 mil­lion. That was be­hind TV on $414 mil­lion and well ahead of news­pa­pers in third place on $82 mil­lion, although Masters points out that some of the dig­i­tal rev­enue gen­er­ated by pub­lish­ers goes into that dig­i­tal pot.

Nielsen’s AIS fig­ures are based on rate­card value, which many clas­sify as works of fic­tion, and it says it uses them more at a brand level. Its 2014 fig­ures to­talled $3.36 bil­lion—around $1 bil­lion more than the ASA’s to­tal. That’s up from $3.3 bil­lion in 2013 and $3.2 mil­lion in 2012.

con­nec­tion be­tween cam­paigns that use mul­ti­ple chan­nels and the ef­fec­tive­ness of the cam­paign. Multi-chan­nel cam­paigns of­fer ad­ver­tis­ers deeper in­ter­ac­tion with cus­tomers and pro­vide con­sumer con­nec­tion through con­tent, in­ter­est and pas­sions.

“We know the me­dia land­scape has changed, and the re­lent­less fo­cus on vol­ume met­rics like read­er­ship and cir­cu­la­tion pro­vides an overly sim­plis­tic and dated mea­sure of to­day’s cam­paign per­for­mance,” says Fair­fax Me­dia NZ mar­ket­ing direc­tor, Camp­bell Mitchell. “The eval­u­a­tion model should be based on en­gage­ment with cus­tomers de­liv­ered through a range of chan­nels and ef­fec­tive­ness; the re­sult. It’s not just about a reach num­ber, but that the au­di­ence is pas­sion­ate, en­gaged and mo­ti­vated to act.”

Mitchell adds:“Our multi-chan­nel me­dia busi­ness pro­vides a qual­ity to­tal au­di­ence of­fer­ing for our ad­ver­tis­ers across our prod­ucts, en­sur­ing they get their mes­sage to the right peo­ple at the right time—and de­liv­er­ing hard re­sults.”

In ad­di­tion to me­dia sched­ules, con­tent plays, event align­ment and dig­i­tal ser­vices, spon­sored mar­ket­ing pro­mo­tions can be in­cred­i­bly ef­fec­tive in boost­ing reader en­gage­ment in an ad­ver­tiser’s cam­paign. Fair­fax Me­dia tai­lors mar­ket­ing pro­mo­tions to its cus­tomers’ busi­ness and cam­paign ob­jec­tives en­sur­ing all ac­tiv­ity works hard for them and de­liv­ers re­sults.

The re­cent ICC Cricket World Cup cam­paign is a great ex­am­ple of this multi-chan­nel ap­proach, serv­ing au­di­ence needs through up-to-the-minute live cov­er­age, photo gal­leries, statis­tics and videos, as well as sto­ries track­ing the ac­tion on and off field.

In ad­di­tion to ed­i­to­rial con­tent, there were so­cial el­e­ments through Stuff Na­tion as­sign­ments; a school con­tent pro­gramme; na­tion­wide me­dia sched­ule across print (news­pa­pers and mag­a­zines) and dig­i­tal, in­clud­ing cover wraps; and sev­eral mar­ket­ing pro­mo­tions, in­clud­ing re­tail pro­mo­tions and eDMs that drove fan en­gage­ment and ticket sales.

In Fair­fax Me­dia’s view, it’s not about the ef­fec­tive­ness of tra­di­tional ver­sus new me­dia, it’s about the au­di­ence. It’s cru­cial to in­te­grate all avail­able me­dia and in­no­va­tions to connect with au­di­ences in the way they choose to con­sume con­tent. Tar­get­ing au­di­ences by lo­ca­tion, be­hav­iours and in­ter­ests al­lows ad­ver­tis­ers to get the right sto­ries and brand mes­sages in front of the right peo­ple at the right time.

Make it real

In re­la­tion to spon­sor­ships, this all means brands must fa­cil­i­tate the fan ex­pe­ri­ence. Their par­tic­i­pa­tion must en­hance the ex­pe­ri­ence for the au­di­ence and in so do­ing, hope­fully earn some love from the fans. That holds true whether the spon­sor­ship plays out at live events, through me­dia, qui­etly at com­mu­nity gath­er­ings around the coun­try, or via a com­bi­na­tion of plat­forms. So there are re­ally two parts to any good spon­sor­ship: the deal with the spon­sored prop­erty it­self, and how you ac­ti­vate it with the au­di­ence.

“What you’re try­ing to do with a great spon­sor­ship is at­tach to a prop­erty peo­ple love and have that love re­flected onto you,” says Chris Brown, man­ag­ing direc­tor at Sput­nik, a PR agency spe­cial­is­ing in am­pli­fy­ing ex­pe­ri­en­tial and spon­sor­ship cam­paigns. “If you do it right and it goes re­ally well, peo­ple love you. If you do it poorly you get the op­po­site of love, which is in­dif­fer­ence.” And, oc­ca­sion­ally, an­noy­ance for in­ter­rupt­ing some­thing spe­cial.

Brown says the onus is on brands to “earn” their place as a spon­sor, through ac­ti­va­tion. Take ANZ for ex­am­ple, which Sput­nik has worked with on sev­eral spon­sor­ship ac­ti­va­tions. The bank backed the Black Caps (a part­ner­ship that dates back to the Na­tional Bank days) and spon­sored the ICC Cricket World Cup, but that was just one facet of its sup­port. As part of its Dream Big cam­paign, de­serv­ing com­mu­nity cricket clubs were asked to tell their story and a few were se­lected to get the things they needed in terms of gear, uni­forms, spruced up pitches and club­houses. Watch one or two of the ac­com­pa­ny­ing videos on YouTube and you’ll see gen­uine emo­tion and grat­i­tude ev­i­dent from grant re­cip­i­ents. While each spe­cific grant may not have gar­nered na­tional me­dia at­ten­tion, they did at­tract plenty of lo­cal press and so­cial me­dia, es­pe­cially in ru­ral ar­eas. That’s an ap­proach Brown reck­ons peo­ple ap­pre­ci­ated—and thereby earned ANZ the right to be as­so­ci­ated with Kiwi cricket. “[Spon­sor­ship is] a por­trait painted with a thou­sand brush­strokes,” he says. “You’ve got to [ac­ti­vate it] with a com­plex range of ac­tiv­ity that proves to the con­sumers that you have the right to have your logo on a prop­erty they love.”

Tui’s Catch a Mil­lion cam­paigns, which of­fered cash to spec­ta­tors who caught a clean one-handed six and saw the na­tion’s sta­dia filled with or­ange Tui t-shirts over the past two sea­sons, have been great ex­am­ples of a spon­sor en­hanc­ing the ex­pe­ri­ence for fans. It was a sim­ple idea that cap­tured the imag­i­na­tion of the na­tion—and the com­men­ta­tors—and it showed why ac­ti­va­tion is so vi­tal: it works hard to make the in­vest­ment in a prop­erty pay off; it re­minds pun­ters why a spon­sor de­serves to be there; and, in rare cases like this, it takes on a life of its own and gains a fair swag of me­dia at­ten­tion.

In the past, the gen­eral rule of thumb was that brands should ded­i­cate three dol­lars to ac­ti­va­tion for ev­ery dollar spent on the spon­sor­ship. But some be­lieve that ra­tio has in­creased to five or maybe even six to one now. Very few brands an­nounce how much their spon­sor­ships or en­dorse­ment deals cost. But to ser­vice them, brands are now turn­ing to hy­brid PR agen­cies that am­plify the ac­ti­va­tions on the ground as well as through the paid, owned and earned me­dia model.

Not just sport

De­spite Gemba’s in­ter­nal re­search show­ing sports only take up two of the top ten spots on the list of Ki­wis’ na­tional pas­sions, twothirds of spon­sor­ship dol­lars are di­rected there. So what else is there? Char­ity and com­mu­nity ini­tia­tives can of­ten be suc­cess­ful, again, as long as the spon­sor­ship is en­gaged in gen­uinely. So while a bank like ASB has the clout to spon­sor a

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.