Above: if we were to open the box marked "royal wedding" what intangible attributes might we find there?
I didn't intend to write about the Royal Wedding today. Not because I want a republic (far from it) but because there didn't seem anything new to say. Everything seemed to have been said many many times over.
But an article in today's
Independent by Economics Editor Hamish McRae asked what the wedding was worth in terms of brand awareness for the United Kingdom. Which made me think about the Royal Wedding from a marketing perspective. To do this I've tried to leave on one side all subsidiary factors and just concentrate on the business case.
Above: both The Times and The Guardian today carried on their front pages audience estimates of two billion.
The cost of the wedding is supposed to be £22 million. Assuming the television audience estimates of two billion are correct that gives a media cost per thousand of £11 for the whole session. Obviously if you split the hour of the actual ceremony into 30 second spots you get a cost per thousand of 9p (3p if the audience watched on average for three hours).
By any standards that is good value for money, even without counting the hundreds of thousands of column inches the event will generate in magazines and newspapers around the world.
This makes you ask: what was this event intended to do?
It was of course a celebration of a wedding; and it was certainly a national party; but in many ways it was also a free gift to the world (France 24 covered it live, the Chinese news channel CCTV covered it live, the Indian news channel NDTV covered it live etc).
Having "given away" £22 million, what can we expect to get back?
Many people have attempted to quantity the direct benefits in terms of tourism etc. And "goodwill" must have been generated on a fairly large scale. But I want to look at more intangible factors, since they are often overlooked.
I think we can identify three likely subliminal messages unintentionally encoded in today's event:
1) The United Kingdom is a well-organised society where everything functions superbly well. Anyone who travels by public transport will no doubt disagree with this statement, but most of today's global audience will have gained the impression that this is a country where things happen on time and to a very high standard. This has value particularly in terms of inward investment, since no investors want to go to a location that is shambolic or where the people are poorly motivated.
2) The demographic of the British population is relatively wealthy, subscribes to middle class values and has a cheeful optimistic outlook (looking at the two thousand guests in Westminster Abbey and the million or so people around Buckingham Palace). Of course, this is not really true (as a walk through Woodberry Down estate will soon tell you) but as Marshall McLuhan said perception is reality. Companies around the world looking for new markets will see the United Kingdom as an attractive place to do business.
3) The United Kingdom is a safe and stable country where institutions (the monarchy, the church, the army etc) can endure for centuries without any calamity. This is not to devalue the argument that royal occasions give the "wrong" impression of Britain as old-fashioned. But looking purely at the flows of "hot" money around the world, cash always gravitates to a safe haven - and today's event above all said London was "safe" (and possibly the safest place on earth).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11767495