New ethical advertising strategies at Wonga

‘quick loans’ provider Wonga has been in the news recently on account of the widespread changes they plan to implement in terms of their marketing strategy. One of the biggest impacts of the planned changes will involve less advertising exposure to children, but the changes that are planned have re-ignited the debate as to whether the payday lending industry really deserves the negative publicity they have attracted in recent months.

Ethical advertising strategies at Wonga

A whole plethora of ethical advertising strategies are being put in place at payday lender Wonga – one of the world’s most established short-term lending brands, and by other payday lending services. This is in addition to compliance with a raft of legal regulations that have been put in place for the payday lending sector, within the UK.

The incoming Wonga chairman, Andy Haste has emphasised that the firm no longer want to be seen to be inadvertently attracting the interest of children and as such have scrapped their advertising of the Wonga brand on junior athletic team shirts and have scrapped a TV ad that featured puppets. The Wonga logo has been removed from the Newcastle United children’s kit, and there are more changes planned.

Are we being fair to Wonga?

The changes that are being implemented by Wonga are expensive (not just for Wonga but for the companies they can no longer advertise with) and they are diverting valuable income away from organisations like football teams, so we have to ask the question of whether the “crackdown” on Wonga advertising is really in the public interest? Indeed, whatever happened to free speech?

The flip side of payday lending

People who criticise services like payday lending focus on the negatives of high interest rates and horror stories of people who get into more debt as a result of a payday loan. However, there is a flip side that we don’t see. Take the situation of the busy mum who has a job interview and her car breaks down. Who can she turn to? The government? No. A payday lender? Yes. So, if a payday lender bridges that gap between when a busy mum is working and not working by facilitating a quick repair of her car – how is that not in the public interest? There is a related question – what if that busy mum has kids? Won’t these kids benefit from having a mum in employment because she made it to the job interview because she got a loan to fix her car in a hurry? The simple answer is that you should not believe everything you read in the newspaper, because payday lenders actually provide hidden benefits for the community that we don’t really think of until we are stuck in a bind where we need some cash fast to enable us to grow and develop.

Another side of the debate is the question of whether the busy mum is forced to approach a loan shark for that loan to fix her car. Why happens then? It seems quite horrific that people heap criticism on the payday lending sector despite the facts clearly demonstrating that payday lenders – like all other lenders provide a valuable service to the community in the form of credit to solve immediate problems.

Have your say!

Why not post a comment?

Leave a Reply