IMAGES FILE

Below are links to detailed information and history of the long drawn out acrimony involving numerous legal proceedings over many years.

Alfred Donovan has been associated with gasoline retailing for over 50 years with a trading relationship with Shell since 1957. The links commence with an article about one of his garages in Ilford, Essex.

East & Donovan advertorial: The Recorder Thursday 5th November 1964

Letter from Shell U.K. Oil to John Donovan 3rd June 1981

Interactive TV Games contract signed between Don Marketing and National Broadcasting Company Inc: Signed by John Donovan for DM and Ray Timothy, President of NBC: February 1982 (Included NBC Option)

The Pint Size Guinness Book of Records: Incentive Marketing and Sales Promotion Magazine, March 1983 (Supplied to Guinness by Don Marketing in conjunction with Ad Agency Allen Brady and Marsh)

Selection of Don Marketing Full Page Colour Ads in various magazines including Marketing, Marketing Week and Incentive Marketing & Sales Promotion: between 1983 and 1985

Marketing Magazine Cover Story on Guinness 27 October 1983

(Quote from "The verdict on Guinnless" article: "During the advertising gap, between the end of the JWT reign and the start of ABM's 'Guinnless' campaign, sales promotion took on a special importance. One promotion - the 'Great Guinness Challenge' scratch card game - was claimed to have boosted sales by up to 30% in participating pubs." ) The Great Guinness Challenge was devised by Don Marketing.

Fast flowing Don: Marketing Magazine 16 February 1984

Shell Make Money full page advert: Daily Express 21 February 1984

Shell Make Money full page advert: Evening Standard 21 February 1984

Shell is back making money: Incentive Marketing and Sales Promotion March 1984

COVER STORY

Shell Re-releases the “Golden Oldie” of the Sixties

Contents Page

Cover Story

Essex speciality print and promotions company Don Marketing has inherited the legendary Shell Make Money promotion which was 're-released' last month. Page 30.

Page 30

A return to the Sixties - an 18 year old legend is back with us again; but times have changed and Don Marketing had to trim the old technique to meet the needs of the more hard-bitten consumers of the 1980s.

Shell is back making money

The 1984 version of the famous Shell Make Money campaign has set alight the battle among the petroleum companies, and could lead to a renewal of the sort of promotional campaigns that were so familiar in the late 1960s.

In those days the petrol majors ran a succession of massive campaigns, most of which were based on collectables. Esso's World Cup and FA Cup Centenary medals, Texaco's regimental badges and Cleveland's historic campaign medals were examples. But Shell's campaign was certainly the most successful, boosting the company's petrol sales by a staggering 30 per cent, and becoming a sales promotion legend in the process.

Shell is not expecting its current promotion to equal that sort of achievement.

For one thing, it probably could not cope with the extra gallonage, and for another, the promotional environment has changed a lot since the 1960s. As Shell's retail advertising and services manager Mike Beach puts it: 'There is a lot more promotional noise now than there was then, and consumers are rather more hard-bitten than they were.'

Nevertheless, the promotion is on a massive scale, costing Shell more than £lm and involving the distribution of more than 60 million game pieces through more than 2,000 of Shell's sites. And its attraction to the public, with more than a million prizes and top prizes of £10,000 (100 times bigger than the top prize in 1966) should ensure massive public response.

Like the original game, the 1984 version is based on giving drivers half a note, printed like a banknote, when they visit Shell stations.

If they can match the note with another half collected on a later visit to a Shell forecourt, they win the amount shown on the matching halves.

No purchase is necessary.

Filling station staff will give one game piece per day to the driver of any motor vehicle, including motorcycles.

In 1966 the game caused something of a fever among the public even leading to a spate of ads in the classified columns as people advertised for matching halves.

This time, as well as the top £10,000 prizes, there are others at £1,000, £100, £10, £1 and 5Op.

There are some other important changes in the game, apart from the value of the prizes.

Don Marketing, the Hornchurch based promotional games specialist, has structured a much more sophisticated game piece, involving a high level of technological innovation to remove the risk of fraud - so necessary with the large amounts of money involved.

Don also undertook the massive and complex task of ensuring an even distribution of winning notes - not easy when the numbers are so great that, if the pieces were stacked one on top of each other, the pile would be nine miles high!

The reasoning behind Shell's surprise move back into promotions is explained by Beach:

'After so many years of price cutting, the past year has been relatively stable where the majors are concerned, even though some of the minors have continued to cut hard.

'We hope for a continuing stability in the coming year, and there is clearly some growth in the market. There is an increasing number of cars on the roads and petrol is now a good buy.

‘It takes fewer hours of work to earn the money to pay for a gallon than it did 20 years ago - even though that is not how it is perceived - and cars have better fuel economy.'

At the same time as the market was stabilising, Shell came to the end of a massive programme of rationalisation, refurbishment and conversion to self-service, so that it was in a strong position to handle a big promotion successfully.

'In this situation', says Beach, 'we felt it was important to re-establish the Shell brand, following more than a decade in which we have not promoted it, either above or below the line, other than through price.

'Our advertising has been purely corporate in nature.'

Beach explains that after so long a gap any promotion had to be a real blockbuster.

'We looked at collectables, but they were not big enough in impact, and Make Money has the advantage that it is intrinsically ours and there is lots of residual affection for it among the public.

'We could not find anything better, and we finally accepted the argument Don Marketing had originally put to us in its favour as much as two-and-a-half years ago.'

There are, of course, a number of important differences between the 1966 and 1984 games.

In the first place, where the half note was contained within an envelope in the earlier version, this year it is printed on the inside of the envelope, which represents a big cost saving.

But Don managing director John Chambers lays more emphasis on the improved security of the new version.

He explains that nobody had used a similar type of envelope game for many years, and this meant that its security had not been tested against the much greater sophistication of today's consumers.

'We had to be sure that, with all the electronic gadgetry at their disposal, they could not find a way of beating the system.

And with the big increase in the value of the top prizes that was an important consideration. '

That is why the game incorporates eight different security devices. For instance, the smaller denomination winners are being paid out on the forecourt (those of £100 and upwards are being handled by Don), and the Shell dealers can check their validity by activating a special fugitive ink incorporated in the note.

And where the big denomination notes are concerned, a special secret code will even make it possible to trace the area of the country in which they were handed out.

The envelope can be opened only by tearing along perforated lines, and, to prevent see-through, special printing techniques were used. The reverse is printed in silver, and the inside front of the envelope incorporates a special design that makes it impervious to light.

Complex mathematics and printing arrangements were necessary to ensure that the right number of winning notes was printed, and that they were distributed in such a way as to ensure that each filling station gets a fair share of winners. With more than 60 million game pieces this called for a high level of expertise.

The printing operation itself was carried out under conditions of tight security.

The plates for the winning half notes were held in the printer's local bank, and never left the sight of Don Marketing director Don Redhead from the moment they left the bank right up to the moment when the necessary number of halves had been printed and the plates were broken up.

Both Shell and Don Marketing were delighted that a British printer, Dobson and Crowther, was able to do this sophisticated work, even though, at one stage, the threat of a national printing dispute put this in doubt.

Don Marketing chairman John Donovan, who has extensive experience of sourcing print requirements from all over the world, reckons that very few companies could have coped with either the technical requirements or the time pressures of the Shell job.

'You cannot go to just any printer and expect it to turn the tap on for a job like this,' he explains.

The promotion is being backed up by a national TV advertising campaign through Ogilvy and Mather that is aimed at reaching 80% of motorists at least five times on average. This is being supported by full pages in the popular national dailies and by a £250,000 campaign on radio, aimed at catching motorists while they are on the road.

During the promotion, there will also be press advertising and a public relations effort announcing the big winners. Presentations will be held on the forecourts of the fillup stations that have given away the big winners, and these events will be supported by local TV and press coverage.

The campaign is being reinforced by an incentive campaign based on Bonusbonds which will be awarded to staff on retail sites. When they payout a prize to a motorist, they write their name on the half note and send it in to the appropriate Shell regional office to take part in a weekly draw.

And, of course all participating sites receive a full pas kit including a poster to mount on a free-standing sign, hose nozzle stickers, stanchion flags, shop door stickers, cash till wobblers, change mats, staff badges and car stickers to give away.

Mike Beach is hoping that, after some limited initial price cutting by competitors, the battle will settle down to a promotional battle rather than a price battle.

He would simply like the best marketer to win, and that promotions will offer a way out of the cripplingly expensive cuts of recent years. The cost of even a major promotion like Make Money is far smaller than taking pence off petrol, and Make Money should bring some fun back to the driver's life.

Photo Caption: Don Marketing managing director John Chambers with the new Make Money.

London Evening Standard article "the old lady with the right-hand halves" about the "spectacularly" successful Shell Make Money game: 1984

Anatomy of a Shell winner: Campaign Magazine 27 April 1984

Campaign Magazine 27 April 1984

Anatomy of a Shell winner

The inside story of the Shell Make Money promotion. By John Chambers, MD of Don Marketing

Make Money ... the game was so successful that Shell had to work hard to maintain supplies to some stations

The Make Money game, which has started a new promotional war among the oil companies, increased Shell's petrol sales by more than 20 per cent - surpassing all the expectations of the team from Shell, Don Marketing and Ogilvy and Mather which put the promotion together.

Indeed, the game was so successful that Shell had to work hard to maintain supplies to some of its stations. And it was not only the petrol that was in big demand. Such was the clamour for the half-note game pieces, which formed the basis of the promotion, that 150 tons of them were used up.

The original 1966 Make Money promotion was probably the most successful of all time. It became a legend in marketing circles.

According to Shell sales development manager Ken Danson: "The increase in sales, after six weeks of the promotion, was 85 per cent and we ran out of fuel, even though in those days we were still linked with BP and had far more extensive sources of supply than we have now. It almost doubled our market share." The current campaign, though wildly successful, could never match the 1966 figures. As Danson points out, the previous incarnation was the first of its kind and there were no other petrol promotions running at the time. The 1966 Make Money was immediately followed by Esso's brilliant tiger tail campaign, and the ensuing promotional battle went on for years.

Shell followed up with man in flight and historic cars coin collections. Then came more blockbuster promotions, including Esso's World Cup and FA Centenary cup collections, Texaco's regimental badge replicas and Cleveland's campaign medals. This spate of promotions ended eventually, not only because the petrol companies ran out of ideas, but also because the campaigns tended to cancel each other out. Stamp trading took over, because it was both easier to handle and more continuous in its effect.

Trading stamps fell out of favour when high rates of inflation meant that, by the time the consumer had collected the required number of stamps to obtain a given product, the number of stamps needed had often doubled. The oil companies, following Tesco's example, threw them out.

After that, came the oil crises of the 70s, with steep increases in the price of oil and the market thrown into disorder. Danson explains that the industry has been into glut and into famine twice over and, in a situation where supplies were often doubtful, there was little point in trying to promote. In any case, with the severe price competition of recent years, there was no money to spare for either above or below-the-Iine campaigns.

Happily for the petrol companies, the blood baths of the 1980 to 1982 period have been followed by a period of relative price stability. This was helped by a two per cent volume growth last year, the brighter prospects that stem from the increasing number of cars on the road and an increase in the money people have available for spending.

The more optimistic market outlook coincided with Shell's completion of a multi-million pound refurbishment programme for its filling stations, including rationalisation and conversion to self-service. But, even though the company had maintained its joint leadership of the market with Esso (both have around 20 per cent, followed by BP National at just under 15 per cent and Texaco at eight per cent) without any activity either above or below the line for a decade, Shell decided a year ago that it ought to re-establish the value of its brand.

After such a long layoff, it was felt that any promotion should be really big. It was decided that collectables would not have the necessary impact and Shell was persuaded by us that the right answer was to produce a 1980s version of Make Money.

CAMPAIGN 27 APRIL 1984 Page 39 Associated full page Don Marketing ad in same edition of magazine

The play's the thing: Marketing 31 May 1984

Shell Press Release for Shell Mastermind Promotion July 1984, plus FULL RULES and Game Piece (Promotion launched Monday 2rd July 1984)

EXTRACT FROM PRESS RELEASE: John Smeddle, Sales Manager, Shell UK Oil said: "The successof Make Money, which we launched in February, is now a matter of record. It increased our trade and helped to change the petrol market from one concentrating almost exclusively on price to one where we could create interest and excitement for the motorist buying petrol at a fair price. "The fact that so many of our competitors followed into national promotions is testimony to the power of a properly structured forecourt game."

Shell Mastemind full page advert: London Evening Standard 2 August 1984

Shell Mastermind half page advert: Daily Mirror 27 August 1984

Don Marketing full page ad relating to Shell Mastermind in Marketing Magazine, 6 September 1984

Why games became big business: Campaign Magazine 14 September 1984

Campaign Magazine 14 September 1984

PREMIUMS & INCENTIVES SPECIAL REPORT

Promotional games ... the petrol companies made them the hot marketing tool of 1984, The Times made them the acceptable face of marketing

Why games became big business

The story of a marketing boom. John Chambers, MD of Don Marketing, opens a 27-page report

Chambers ... 'the experts must rise to the challenge of creating new concepts'

Promotional games are undoubtedly the hottest marketing tool of 1984.

When The Times newspaper decided to use an up-market bingo-style game to boost circulation, it was clear that games had finally become the acceptable face of marketing. And they have taken off this year largely because of the decision by Shell and the other major petrol companies to mount an intensive forecourt promotional battle for market share, using games, ranging from Shell's Make Money to Mobil's version of the Scrabble board game.

In July, a second round of promotions was initiated by Shell with the Mastermind promotion - a new match-up game developed and structured by us. All these add up to a £30 million injection of spending by the petrol companies.

Last year they spent nothing on such promotions. So, why have promotional games suddenly become such big business?

The answer is that games have been growing in popularity for several years. This is as a consequence of better and more secure printing technology, as well as renewed public interest. The surge of public lotteries operating in the late 1970s whetted the consumer's appetite.

John Player's Spot Cash promotion, in 1979, proved just how highly successful promotional games could be in boosting sales. Its success led to a major row with rival cigarette companies, which eventually wound up in the House of Lords.

But what has spurred on the popularity of games in the 1980s is a combination of factors set against a background of recession. Consumers have reacted to the harsh realities of life in a number of ways. They have demanded good value in products and services because of financial stringency, yet have been more critical of the services and products retailers provide. Price cuts are no longer an automatic solution to all marketing problems.

And price cuts can erode a brand's perceived value. "Value for money" can quickly become "cheap and nasty" in the consumer's mind. Moreover, price cuts as a marketing option often have the unpleasant effect of rebounding and embroiling consumer product manufacturers and retailers in a vicious price war, causing damaging long-term effects on profit margins and profitability.

Promotional games offer a real alternative. They can be produced for far less than the cost of a price cut, yet can still achieve an improved consumer perception of the brand without damaging its long-term credibility. The attraction of games to the petrol companies is clear, since the millions spent on games pales into insignificance beside the cost of even a small price reduction, on the huge volumes of petrol sold. A full-scale price war at the pumps could cost up to ten times more than the games.

The new generation of skill linked games can initiate real consumer involvement in the promotion, because they demand some genuine thought and effort. They can even involve the whole family and add an entertainment value to the product.

Successful games have three key elements - talkability, play-ability, and heart-stopping effect. Talkability is the infectious word-of-mouth excitement triggered by the launch of a good, stimulating game. Playability is the powerful compulsion to try it over and over again - even after a win. The heart-stopper element is when the consumer, casually playing a game, suddenly realises he is very close to a major prize.

The Great Guinness Challenge had all three elements. It was a sports quiz game which ran in 22,000 pubs in the summer of 1982, with considerable success. Every Guinness buyer was given a game card. They had to establish the predominant qualities of a group of eight sportsmen, who were revealed by scratching off the protective covering.

The gamester had to choose, for example, an expert panel's ranking in four different areas of eight famous midfield footballers' ability. Easy with contemporary footballers, but younger fans would know little about Tommy Docherty's skill at throw-ins.

The game card had four columns, A, B, C and D, and contestants had to find four win symbols out of eight chances in each column. For a column A win, the prize was another free game; for a column B win, 20p off a pint of draught Guinness, and winners in both columns could try their skill in column C, for minor cash prizes. And - this is where the heart-stopper element came in - they then had to choose whether to risk their column C prize by attempting column D, which offered a much larger cash share-out of £30,000.

The game was even more popular than Guinness had hoped. It established interest, created goodwill and is said to have added 30 per cent to sales of draught Guinness.

Putting together a successful promotional game is not easy. There are the security aspects of printing it, the calculations of the likely number of winners - to avoid an embarrassing and potentially fatal liability - and the avoidance of legal pitfalls to be considered. There is also the question of what type of game is best suited to a particular marketing effort. There is one to suit every product or service, although promotional games fall into two main categories. There are the "no purchase necessary" games, where skill is not involved, and the "skill" games which require the competitor to buy a product or service.

The no-skill games of chance promotions have to be offered to all consumers who want to play, irrespective of brand purchase, to avoid falling foul of the lotteries regulations. These types of game have been developed from the instant lottfries run by sports clubs, charities, and local authorities in the-late 1970s, and usually involve a simple scratch card, or winning ticket, enclosed in an envelope.

Most of these game cards are predetermined losers, and there is nothing consumers can do to nfluence their chances of winning a prize. Winning cards are seeded to ensure an even distribution of winners, but also to limit the total pay-out to a specified figure.

They have a limited play value since the game is over in seconds, and the customer is usually a loser.

Interest and enthusiasm tend to evaporate within days with this type of promotional game, with the consequence that game cards are often given away in handfuls. Some can even end up lying on the floor, unplayed.

However, such games do have a traffic building role for retailers of high volume goods or services, such as supermarket chains or petrol stations. They are more attractive to the garage owner or retailer than more complex, with-skill games because it is important that the game is over in seconds, to avoid congestion on the forecourt or at the check-out.

The Shell Make Money promotion sought to combine the advantages of a quick, traffic-building game with playability appeal.

Each visitor to a Shell station - whether or not he or she bought petrol - was given one half of a special banknote, worth from 50p to £10,000, in a sealed envelope. On subsequent visits, other envelopes were collected by customers who won when they collected matching halves which made a complete note.

Thus, repeat traffic was built up, but there were no long delays at forecourts. And motorists were anxious to get as many half-note envelopes as possible.

The first Make Money game, in the mid 1960s, was a runaway success. There were even ads in the classified columns as people advertised for matching halves.

Shell's decision, in 1984, to return to promotions rather than price cuts, was greeted in a similar blaze of publicity. There was even press comment about the lengths people were prepared to go to find matching halves. So the promotion had talkability.

It also had the heart-stopping element. Motorists who already held £100, £1 ,000 or £10,000 half notes knew that the next envelope could lead to a sizeable win.

While Shell's game was an exceptional success, the clear trend is towards promotional games of skill. With these, every card is a potential winner. Competitors use their knowledge in relevant subjects, or exercise visual skills, to increase their chances of winning. And even losing gamesters can enjoy playing.

It has been observed that contestants respond to a popular subject with considerable enthusiasm which actually builds through-out the promotion. Some retain losing cards to accumulate knowledge - which can increase participation and interest in the closing weeks of a game.

Regular competitors very often play as a team, and pool their knowledge. Syndicates are sometimes formed to combine effort. In the face of such determined challenges, it is vital that companies offer only a shared pool of, say, £25,000 prize money . Otherwise, if large prizes are guaranteed to all winners, some experienced gamesters may "break" the game and ensure they win every time.

Typhoo Tea, for example, was recently reported as facing a cash payout running into hundreds of thousands of pounds because its
promotional game guaranteed that winners received a £5, £10 or £20 cash prize, rather than a share of a prize amount. Expert competitors, realising this, formed syndicates which bought several thousand packs of tea-bags to enter the games, hoping to recoup their outlay many times over in prize money. The dangers should have been foreseen.

To avoid such disasters, it is advisable to involve a specialist game designer or consultant in the promotion. And, although the establishment of a prize fund pool should eliminate the need for insurance against over redemption, such insurance can usually be relatively cheaply obtained - provided the under-writers have confidence in the games company responsible. And, if the game is insured, it is an indication that it is relatively hazard free, since insurers know the pitfalls that can trap the inexperienced promoter.

A hurriedly withdrawn game can generate almost as much bad publicity as a share-out where each winner receives a derisory share rather than a handsome sum, and is almost as bad as the loss caused by over redemption. Yet many blue-chip companies are prepared to put their money and reputations at risk by using agencies inexperienced in this complex and specialised activity.

The most successful efforts result from close co-operation between games specialists and the client's advertising or promotional agency. This can ensure a cost effective' package which includes all elements of advertising, point-of-sale promotion and public relations. The Guinness and Shell games demonstrated this.

Skill games are best used to create maximum brand awareness or extend a customer's visit.

For example, the Japanese photographic company Konishiroku wanted to boost brand awareness of its Sakura supershot share out" scratchcard game, previously not used in the photographic industry and easy to promote. A game card was given with each film bought. This was a perspective game.

Contestants were shown a shop window with nine dots representing nine Sakura film packs.

This was then compared with the identical window photographed from a different perspective. Contestants were invited to uncover
the nine panes of glass out of a total o f36 panes which would then show the word Sakura if they had correctly judged the new perspective.

If this was achieved without uncovering more or fewer than nine panes, they would win a share of the £25,000 prize pool and qualify for a tie-breaker competition with prizes including an Austin Maestro for the winner.

The promotion, which we developed in co-operation with Marketing Drive, was a success.

130 new retail trade accounts were opened by Konishiroku during it, and sales of Sakura film rose by more than 80 per cent. More than 1.2 million cards were distributed, and 10,000 successful entries were received.

This game highlights the crucial importance of printing techniques for game promotions. As does the Guinness one, for which ten million game cards were printed, and the Shell one which required some 60 million Make Money envelopes.

New techniques have significantly improved the security of printing and the scratch-off materials are virtually impossible to breach, even with the most so-phisticated methods. The choice of game will influence the printing effort involved, but the multiple-choice games necessitate computer printing methods, because every card has to carry a different pattern of winning marks. Advances in printing technology have been so rapid that, earlier this year, Cinzano was able to run a scratch off, instant win game printed on the inside of bottle labels.

Once printed, the game needs to be distributed in such a way as to guarantee security and ensure the maximum impact. Promoters must ensure there are limited opportunities for collusion among participating outlets, and try to spread the winners fairly. The Shell Mastermind game, for example, produces an average of 40,000 winners every day, 15 for each filling station.

So, although 1984 is definitely the year of the game, it is also the year in which promotional games companies must rise to the challenge of creating new and exciting concepts, to satisfy the aroused appetites of enthusiasts who make up an important target market among consumers.

Marketing Magazine Sales Promotion Survey 6 September 1984: Covers Shell Make Money and Mastermind Promotions

EXTRACTS": So why did ShelI, in February of this year, spark off the first promotional battle in petrol marketing for more than a decade? The answer, so the trade suggests, may have some-thing to do with ShelI wanting to put the squeeze on those minor majors and the smalIer operators. Shell and the other oil majors had become rather shelI-shocked by the bitter price wars of recent years, as marketing men were forced,' not only to weather fluctuating prices of world oil and currencies, but also to keep an eye on what each competitor was doing.

Over the years, motorists had clearly come to the conclusion that petrol was simply a commodity purchase and there was no reason for brand loyalty. Price became the key factor, and the motoring public was quick to switch its custom to areas where there were many competing filIing stations. But in such a competitive market, and with such smalI operating margins on petrol sales, price wars were simply becoming too expensive.

So, in the latter part of last year, price stability became the dominant feature of the market. However, the majors were stilI vulnerable at the margin to the cheaper prices offered by the smaller operators.

The ShelI 'game plan' clearly foresaw that its major rivals would be forced to compete along similar lines, thus cancelling out most of the initial market share gains. However, the company obviously reckoned that the smaller operators would be unable or unwilIing to compete as vigourously on non-price promotions, and would thus lose to the majors.

ShelI, to be fair, had other reasons for wanting to boost market share by promotions rather than by price cutting. It had just completed a massive investment in rationalising, refurbishing, and converting its filIing station outlets to self-service, and needed to boost customer traffic to make the investment payoff. 'We felt it important to re-establish the Shell brand, following more than a decade in which we had not promoted it, either above or below the line, other than through price,' points out Beach. 'The company's advertising during that time was purely corporate in nature.'

Persistence

The decision to go for a promotional game had been prompted by the persistence of Don Marketing, the Essex based promotional games company, which had, for more than two years, been pressing on ShelI the potential of a game to boost sales. Any doubts that ShelI may have harboured about the popularity of the game with motorists were quickly dispelIed when the promotion received massive press and television publicity, and sales at many petrol stations soared by more than 25%. game.

Round two, however, is expected to prove a very different affair, with ShelI unlikely to have it alI its own way, as it did at the beginning of round one. At the end of July, ShelI's new gambit was another promotional game, a sort of 'son of Make Money', but this time calIed Mastermind. This game is loosely based on the BBC television series and involves motorists matching up half notes bearing questions and answers to win cash prizes of up to £10,000.

John Chambers of Don Marketing, which was heavily involved in developing and implementing the new game, claims that the question and answer approach 'is a good way of retaining interest'. He also points out that the new game has a more generous win ratio than the previous ShelI game, with 50% more prizes. The game is due to run until the end of this month or early October, and is being backed up with a £lm national TV and press advertising campaign through Ogilvy and Mather.

Marketing 6 September 1984

Shell Make Merry Harrods themed Scratch card game launched November 1984 (Devised by Don Marketing)

"Shell starts up a new promotion" (Shell Make Merry) Marketing Week 2 November 1984

Shell is starting another round of forecourt hostilities among the oil majors with its third promotion. Called Make Merry, it is launched on November 5. It will cost the company little short of £4m.

The new promotion, again devised by Don Marketing, is offering more than two million prizes, of Christmas food and wine, plus a number of £10,000 shopping sprees at Harrods as top prizes. Based on matching symbols on a scratch-card, it will last to the end of. December.

“My impression is the public has become rather blasé about these promotions,” says Philip Stein, head of public relation’s for the Motor Agents Association.

“There aren’t many people now who want a particular brand. “However, I think Shell is out of sight compared to the others when it comes to marketing, and this theme is a very alluring compared to Mastermind, which was too complicated. “

But Mike Beach, Shell’s manager retail advertising services, says: “People are far from tired with promotions, and this is quite a different one, especially as there are instant ‘prizes.”

So far this year, Shell is estimated to have spent about £12m on forecourt promotions, more than any of its competitors. But industry sources reckon the promotions have little impact on market share after 12, weeks from the beginning of the campaign, when share begins to erode.

Shell is advertising the campaign with a ten million leaflet drop and national press cover-age, but there will be no television promotion.

Don Marketing launches duel forecourt attack: Campaign Magazine 2 November 1984

Campaign Magazine 2 November 1984

Don Marketing launches dual forecourt attack

Don Marketing, which specialises in promotional games and con-tests, is launching two major promotions for motorists.

On Monday it launches Make Merry, a Christmas version of the Shell Make Money and Mastermind petrol promotions. Two mil-
lion prizes of Christmas food and wine are on offer with £10,000 Harrods shopping sprees as top prizes. Scratch cards are available
from Shell stations.

At the same time, the Trading Stamp Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Don, is launching Bonus Stamps.

LEARNING THE RIGHT RULES OF THE GAME: Marketing Week 11 October 1985

Promotional games can be a powerful friend to today's marketer- or a deadly enemy if mishandled. John Donovan picks his way carefully through a potential minefield

Games are one of the most powerful promotional weapons available.

But when they make headlines, it is not always good news - as the Mirror Group, Esso, Asda and Cadbury Typhoo found to their cost recently when their games had to be curtailed or withdrawn. The media take a disproportionate interest in such disasters, often giving them front-page coverage to the exclusion of more important events.

It is still not clear what went wrong with Esso's Noughts & Crosses game, but reports indicate that too many prizes, big and small, were claimed in the first days of the launch, and a printer's error is thought to be responsible. The AsdaCash game seemed to have a flaw on the Cashcards, and syndicates of competitors "broke" the Typhoo Cashpot game.

The immediate cost of getting a game wrong can run into millions, but the damage done can be even greater in the long term. A disaster game can cause enormous harm to a brand by tarnishing an image that may have been carefully and expensively built up over many years. In some cases further damage can be done if, for example, claims have to be deferred because of litigation with the game's suppliers.

The mistakes made in the past ten years in some disaster games are astonishing to a games specialist. For example, there was the quiz game with no game variations, so competitors only had to remove the scratch-off material from one game piece to be able to answer all the questions on the next.

The Mirror was acutely embarrassed when it published an incorrect combination of "called numbers" for its bingo-type game, resulting in a long queue outside its offices one Saturday morning, with thousands thinking they had won a big prize.

Don Marketing's file is full of such stories, and nearly always the chief cause is a lack of expertise in a complex matter.

After decades of experience, marketers in the US would not dream of relying solely on advertising or promotional agencies to run a promotional game, as happens in the UK.

Instead they or their agencies brief one of the several specialist games companies.

Most disaster games are the result of inexperience and a failure to recognise the important distinction between the specialist printing needed for game pieces and the printing needed for ordinary promotional material. Indeed producing game pieces often needs tighter security than printing currency, because higher denominations are involved.

The security of printing game pieces includes the need to avoid printing too many winners, misregistration and variations in colour and size. See-through and other flaws can result in "winner pick-out" - that is, the identification of winners at any stage before distribution to consumers.

See-through can also enable people to get skill and probability games right every time.

Many other pitfalls must be avoided.

Security has to be a priority at all stages, from the moment the game is created to when the prizes are paid. Taking all these requirements into account, it is often unfair of a promoting company to put the burden of responsibility solely on the print buyer, who is rarely experienced in this specialised work.

It is crucial for the company to be aware of all the potential hazards right from the start. For instance, it is important to know how many outlets there will he and the maximum number of game pieces to be stocked at any one outlet. These figures determine the number of game variations necessary to avoid a breach in the game's security.

Another vital matter is whether the game will be legal. For example, a game that is deemed to be illegal can result in criminal charges under the Lotteries Act being brought against the directors of the game promoter.

Another requirement is that consumers must be able to understand easily how to play the game. So the game mechanic and play instructions must be unambiguous.

The game mechanic must also be checked to make sure that it does not breach a patent application or a patent that has been granted. Several game techniques are protected in this way in several countries, such as Don Marketing's Match the Experts.

Even the proposed name for the game should be checked to ensure that it does not infringe a trademark or copyright. Shell's Mastermind game was approved by the owners of that name, whereas a national newspaper that tried to use Mastermind in its promotion was prevented from doing so at a late and embarrassing stage.

There is a new phenomenon that also has to be considered, particularly in skill games. This is the emergence of professional competitors, syndicates and bureaux in the past two years or so. Many of their names are on Don Marketing's computer files and they operate in most parts of the country.

Some even advertise in specialist competitors' magazines, saying that they will buy used game pieces.

This enables them to build up a "library" of the variations of a game so that they can break it. They then advertise that, for £5 and an unused game piece with the person's name and address written in the appropriate place, they will turn it into a winner and post it to the claims address. There have also been attempts to use computers to break games.

With such people watching for their chance, great care must be taken with skill games to ensure that game breakers are restrained and their influence minimised.

This can be done by using hi-tech printing to produce millions of variations, with built-in security.

A specialist games company can often save a lot of money on printing by structuring the game mechanic and rules so that it is possible to use conventional printing.

For one big game recently, in which every game piece was a potential winner - the most tempting challenge to a would-be game breaker - it was possible to save the client nearly £500,000 on the print costs, which was used to boost prizes and the promotion's appeal.

The main objective must nevertheless be to ensure that the effort is not worth the reward for any game breaker and this should always be remembered when a game is being developed. For this reason the use of sophisticated printers may be unavoidable. The more advanced offer ink-jet, computer-controlled, hidden imaging, which can generate millions of different game combinations printed on foil-coated stock which cannot be penetrated.

Promotional games are popular because they let consumers know immediately whether they have won and so have an advantage over traditional competitions which most people consider boring and not worth the trouble of entering. Many games have had spectacular results - for instance the Shell Make Money game in 1984, which is claimed to have lifted sales by more than 25 per cent, and the Great Guinness Challenge, said to have boosted sales of draught Guinness by 30 per cent at a time when the brand was not even advertised on TV.

However, the division between success and disaster can be fine. British marketers who want the advantages of promotional games but not the risks to their brand or perhaps even their own jobs should therefore insist on using a specialist games company with a good track record. Similarly the wise executive in either a sales promotion consultancy or an ad agency should think twice before risking his and his client's reputation - and profits.

John Donovan is chairman of Don Marketing

Picture Caption: Donovan: Disaster games can cause enormous damage to an Image

Picture Caption: Headlines: The media are not slow to pounce when a promotional game turns into an embarrassing disaster

MARKETING WEEK OCTOBER 11 1985

Shell UK "Bruce's Lucky Deal", "Every Card Can Win" Scratch Card Game launched May 1985 (Devised by Don Marketing)

Shell UK "Bruce's Lucky Deal" Daily Mail advert 24 May 1985

Old favourites that never die: Campaign Magazine 14 June 1985

Campaign Magazine 14 June 1985 SALES PROMOTION SPECIAL REPORT

EXTRACT FROM THE ARTICLE: Old favourities that never die

Similarly, Shell's "Make Money" scheme - which was originally launched in 1966 - was updated last year by promotional games specialist Don Marketing.

Through the use of the latest printing technology, the 1984 version was produced for one-third of the cost of the original promotion.

"We redesigned the game piece so that it formed part of the envelope itself and then used a special camouflage design and security inks on the reverse side to prevent people from seeing through the envelope," explains John Donovan, chairman of Don Marketing.

"We normally pride ourselves on developing new ideas and concepts - but the 'Make Money' scheme had been so successful that we felt it could be used again," adds Donovan. "It took us four years to persuade Shell to run it again."

Ironically, Shell's relaunch of the "Make Money" scheme forced its arch-rival, Esso, to respond by resurrecting another old-style promotion - a free glasses offer which had been enormously successful in the early 1970s. This type of promotion - first launched in 1971 - offers free glasses to
motorists who spend a certain amount on petrol in Esso filling stations. The only change from the old scheme was a reduction in the amount of petrol which had to be bought to qualify for a free giass.

"It was the first time we had used the promotion on any scale since 1973," explains Esso's sales promotion manager, Tony Wingrave.

"We started again because Shell fired the first broadside with the relaunch of the 'Make Money' promotion and we felt we had to respond with appropriate strength. We decided to launch a free glasses offer again because we know it works for us."

Irish Shell "Bruce's Lucky Deal launched August 1985

Don Marketing insider cover colour advert in Advertisers Annual 1986

Marketing Magazine article "Games people play" involving John Donovan: 18 Sept 1986

John Donovan displays Shell Singapore "Make Money" game pieces - a national promotion devised and supplied by his company, Don Marketing. The same promotion was also conducted in the UK and in Ireland. (Enlarged photo from above article)

Marketing Week Magazine: RESEARCH: ENSURING THE RIGHT RESPONSE: 23 SEPTEMBER 1988

Scratch 'n' miff: Marketing Week 14 October 1988

EXTRACT: The first scratch-card promotion to appear on-pack has been one of the most innovative promotions of the past few years. The game, on the back of a Cinzano bottle label, gave consumers the chance of winning a share of £100,000.

No research was available to test consumer and trade reaction and for security reasons it was impractical to test the promotion. But it proved the most successful ever pre-Christmas promotion run by Cinzano, generating immense trade support due to the appeal of the new technique. Related Don Marketing Advert: If you've gotta lotta bottles...: Campaign Magazine 30 September 1983

New DPP ruling: plain paper entries are 'legal and acceptable': Promotions & Incentives Magazine: Article including comment by John Donovan: February 1992

John Donovan, managing director at Don Marketing, a company which specialises in promotional games said: "Don Marketing first contacted the Gaming Board Authority, Scotland Yard and the Home Office about this matter in 1985. Discussions held then have culminated in this decision. It's unsatisfactory and not what we expected."

Donovan claimed guidelines were set in 1979 when the now famous Imperial Tobacco Spot Cash promotion went all the way to the High Court and was ruled illegal, even though there were two alternative routes of free entry, according to Donovan. "Following that ruling, we put all our energy into designing skill games. We're disappointed that after all that, the DPP is changing the law." Donovan also felt that laws should only be passed following a proper passage through both houses of Parliament. "This is just a policy decision from the Crown Prosecution Services" he said.

According to Donovan, there are still many illegal promotions taking place. He cites a Noel Edmond's TV programme on Saturday nights, which features a phone-in competition to predict future events. "There is no skill involved, but people are still paying, in effect, with their telephone call," said Donovan.

National Lottery takes its chances: Promotions & Incentives Magazine April 1992 (Expert comment by John Donovan on awarding of franchise to operate UK National Lottery. Photocaption: "Donovan: who gets the franchise?")

Is a national lottery necessarily a good thing? Or is it too early in the game to predict a result?

A national lottery looks set to make a reappearance in the UK by 1994, after an absence of 166 years. We find out what the experts think.

John Donovan, Managing director, Don Marketing

"Compare this country with California, which is about the same size as Britain, and it gives some indication of the likely effects of a national lottery here. California has had a state lottery for about ten years and there are now more promotional games running than ever before. Another development has been the move by television networks into promotional activity.

"A National Lottery Board would decide who will have the franchise. The Pools Promoters Association must be very much hoping that they'll be asked to run the national lottery. I think that's fairly likely - after all they have the existing organisation and public confidence. But lots of US companies that supply electronic equipment in Europe for lotto-style cards have been lobbying as well."

Photocaption: Donovan: who gets the franchise?

UP TO SCRATCH: PROMOTIONS & INCENTIVES MAGAZINE: JUNE 1993

Picture Caption: Having shelved its Collect & Select promotion, Shell's 1991 Star Trek scratch card campaign featured the first Star Trek series. It coincided with Star Trek's 25th anniversary, Paramount launching a new series and BBC screening the original 1979 episodes

EXTRACTS FROM THE ARTICLE

But while there may have been a few disasters, there have also been countless successes. John Donovan, managing director of Don Marketing, an agency specialising in promotional games, says he has supplied more than a billion game pieces without any problems. He counts Shell's Make Money game (said to have raised sales by 25%) and the Great Guinness Challenge (which boosted sales by 30%) among his biggest successes.

Donovan says: "I can't see anything replacing them. Other techniques have been tried, such as lift-off windows, but people don't like bits of card falling in their car, and scratch cards are a more secure format." Don Marketing's most recent scratch card campaign for Shell is Aqua-Valet, where punters scratch off boxes in columns, winning from 25p off a car wash right up to a free wash.

Shell faces libel threat from Don: Marketing Week 31 March 1994

Sales promotion agency Don Marketing is threatening to sue Shell UK for libel while at the same time circulating the results of a poll it claims to have carried out among Shell retailers.

The two companies are due to meet in court over Don's accusation that Shell used its ideas in a series of promotions without permission or payment.

Don has sent a letter to Shell from solicitors acting for Don claiming a press release the company issued two weeks ago was defamatory and untrue (MW March 24) and is demanding a retraction.

Among issues covered in the press release was Shell's application to the court for security for its costs in the event of Don losing the case, to ensure Don will pay Shell's legal expenses.

But Don also says Shell's press release amounted to an "unfounded personal attack" on Alfred Donovan, the father of John Donovan the managing director of Don Marketing, who runs the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group (SCCPG) even though "Shell is aware that Mr Donovan is a 78-year-old ex-regular army, war-disabled pensioner".

A spokesman for Shell says the company has no plans to retract the press statement.

Picture Caption: Shell: Faces legal threat

Shell struck by writ: Marketing Magazine front page headline article 20 October 1994

Shell struck by writ

Shell: denies claims it has repeatedly used ideas put to it speculatively, and says: "There is no case against us"

By Alex Benady

A sales promotion company is suing Shell UK for over £350,000 for allegedly using its ideas in promotions worth more than £1Om,
without permission or, in some cases, payment.

Don Marketing alleges in the writ issued at the end of Iast month that Shell, with which it has had a 13-year relationship, has
repeatedly used ideas put to it speculatively and in confidence.

Don claims that Shell took its proposal for a promotion provisionally entitled "Hollywood Collection " and ran it in July under the title "Now Showing", despite the fact that Don was already involved in two similar disputes with Shell.

John Donovan, managing director of Don UK, said he could not comment on the case because of a confidentiality clause in an earlier arbitration. The claim mentions Shell's promotional manager Andrew Lazenby and seeks £50,000 for loss of concept fee and a further £150,000 for commission lost on the cost of printed materials.

The writ also mentions the other actions taken by Don against Shell. It says that Don has already served one writ on Shell in April this year concerning a Nintendo promotion which ran in 1993.

And it claims that Shell has paid a "substantial sum in settlement" to Don following a writ issued in April this year concerning a third promotion entitled "Make Money".

Shell declined to comment on the case other than to say "It's a long running saga and has been in the hands of legal experts.

We are contesting it because we believe they have no claim against us," said a company spokesperson.

(We have corrected a misspelling in the article by changing "Dom" to "Don")

SHELL STOLE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ALLEGES DON: Debrief November 1994

SHELL SHOCK: EDITORIAL BY INCENTIVE TODAY MAGAZINE: November/December 1994

IT HAD TO HAPPEN - although it would be naive to think that it hasn't happened before because out-of-count settlements have usually kept the quarrel well out of the industry's gaze. An agency is to sue its client not, as I say, for the first time, but the issue is one that is close to the heart of all marketing consultancies: the agency claims that the client has stolen (let's not beat about the bush) promotional concepts which were presented by the agency speculatively and confidentially.

The claim, for £350,000, is being made against Shell UK by Don Marketing, a sales promotion agency which alleges that its client of 13 years has repeatedly used the agency's concepts without permission and sometimes without payment. Exactly how a business relationship can be maintained over this period in these circumstances remains a mystery and whether or not the allegations are proved also remains to be seen but, whatever the outcome, the case will highlight a concern which, although always close at hand, is usually mentioned 'strictly between you and me' or 'off the record'.

The obvious reason for this hushed confidentiality is the difficulty in proving that a promotional concept has a specific ownership. It is impossible to claim ownership of an intellectual property, which is what a promotional concept is, until the concept is first committed to paper as text and supporting graphics - as of course they are when presentations of concepts are made. But in rumours and stories I have listened to about 'We pitched for this account, didn't get the business, but our idea was pinched because the campaign idea ran nine months later', elements of the original were changed which would then make ownership of the concept exceedingly hard to prove - and litigation costing what it does, many a managing director has sagely thought twice about entering the fray however convinced his team may feel that they've been ripped off.

I do not know how widespread the rip-off experience is because the majority will keep schrum for fear of losing favour with other potential clients, I would guess that the incidence of client companies knowingly using promotional concepts without acknowledgement or payment must be very small but one important service to the industry made by the Don Marketing v. Shell UK case is that it highlights a widespread concern and it acts as a reminder to all marketers that promotional concepts are not up for grabs.

Shell fails to block agency's legal action: Incentive Today Magazine January 1995

Shell, it has been claimed, has failed to block a legal action mounted against it by one of its sales promotions agencies, writes Jonathan Bracey-Gibbon. The claim was made by sales promotion agency, Don Marketing, which has issued a writ against Shell for an estimated £350,000 for allegedly using its ideas in promotions worth £lOm without permission, and in some cases, payment.

Don Marketing has alleged that, having presented Shell with a brief called Hollywood Collection, Shell went ahead with the same idea under another name, 'Now Showing'.

The company, which devised Make Money, has also received a substantial sum in settlement after it issued a writ in April over the re-use of Make Money. The writ also mentions other actions taken by Don against Shell in a working relationship that has lasted 13 years. The claim refers directly to Shell's former promotions manager, Andrew Lazenby, who was transferred to Shell in The Hague earlier this year and is for £50,000 for loss of concept fee and a further £150,000 for commission lost on the cost of printed materials.

There is due to be a further hearing next month, on 17 February. Shell has said that the hearings so far were part of the ordinary legal proceedings, a further date for which has yet to be confirmed.

'At this stage it is in the hands of legal experts and as such we cannot comment,' said a Shell spokesperson.

It is understood that another agency has confirmed to Don Marketing that it too had encountered similar problems with Shell's promotions department.

Shell 'legal block fails' in promotions agency row: Forecourt News January 1995

Text as Incentive Today Jan 1995 article above except for changed headline and no mention of Jonathan Bracey-Gibbon as being the author.

Promotion Wrangle: Forecourt Trader uncovers the background to the legal dispute between Shell (UK) Ltd and promotions company Don Marketing UK (Ltd): January 1995

Forecourt Trader uncovers the background to the legal dispute between Shell (UK) Ltd and promotions company Don Marketing UK (Ltd)

A legal dispute between Don Marketing (UK) Ltd and Shell UK (Ltd) is now spilling out into the public arena following the placing of advertisements in the trade press by Don Marketing, requesting information from Shell dealers.

The following is an attempt by Forecourt Trader to uncover the facts behind the dispute - from both sides.

In total, Don Marketing has issued three High Court writs and a County Court proceeding against Shell, alleging wrongful use of retail promotions developed by Don Marketing. Shell has already settled one of the three writs out of court.

Over 13 years, Don Marketing claims it has devised multi-million pound forecourt promotions for Shell such as Bruce's Lucky Deal (1986) and a Star Trek game (1991). Problems arose, however, over the development of two further promotions - a Nintendo Game Boy competition (1993) and Make Money (1994).

Where Make Money was concerned, Don Marketing and Shell agreed joint rights when the competition was first introduced in 1983. At that time, Shell partially funded the development of the promotion. The joint rights were still in force for the 1994 project of the same name. According to John Donovan, managing director of Don Marketing, Shell decided to go ahead with the 1994 promotion without Don Marketing's consent or knowledge, and despite the fact that Andrew Lazenby, Shell's promotions manager at the time, informed him that the company had no immediate intention of proceeding with the competition.

"I was highly suspicious. I phoned my contact who said the game was in production, so I went back to Shell and asked them if this was the case. I was sent a letter saying there were no plans to run the promotion which would in any way clash with my company's rights," said Mr Donovan. "My sources confirmed, however, that the game was definitely going ahead."

As a result, Don Marketing issued its first High Court writ and threatened to advertise in the trade press warning Shell dealers that legal action would be taken against them if they went ahead with the game.

According to Mr Donovan, Shell apparently then issued an ultimatum to Don Marketing warning it to accept Shell's settlement offer or else.

"Shell was prepared to run another promotion of its own which had reached an advanced stage of production so we accepted and settled out of court for a substantial sum," said Mr Donovan.

The Make Money promotion ran between May and June 1994.

A second High Court writ was issued against Shell over a Nintendo Game Boy promotion which ran in June 1993. In February 1993, Don Marketing received a fax from Shell's Andrew Lazenby which stated that Shell would be back in touch when they had made further progress. Mr Donovan claims he heard nothing further from Shell until, in June 1993, he opened a copy of the Daily Mail and saw an advertisement for the competition.

Shell accepted Don Marketing's invitation to put the Nintendo dispute to mediation with the objective of settling the dispute amicably. Mr Donovan said that this was done "to gag us from making public our belief that the Make Money game was flawed".

The mediation meeting took place on July 25, 1994, at Shell Mex House in London.

"The terms were that the mediation would be carried out forthwith and that someone in authority from Shell UK would attend. It took two months to get to mediation and no-one of authority from Shell was present, only their lawyers," said Mr Donovan.

"They said at the end of the session that their solicitors would be in touch with our solicitors, but on August 30, 1994, we received a letter which said Shell had no offer to make.

"We then issued legal proceedings against Shell for breach of contract in relation to the mediation."

Writ number three was issued on September 30, 1994, and involved another Don Marketing promotion idea, originally entitled The Hollywood Collection and retitled as Now Showing by Shell.

"We received a fax from Shell saying they would let us know when there was further progress on the project but it was suddenly launched without any credit or payment to Don Marketing," said Mr Donovan.

Shell UK "categorically denies" the allegations made by Don Marketing and has served defences to each action.

In a written statement, the company said: "Shell is surprised that Mr Donovan of Don Marketing, having initiated proceedings, has chosen the unusual course of publicity to ventilate his allegations. Shell believes that the appropriate forum for resolving this commercial dispute is the legal process currently taking place. Shell UK has complete faith in the strength of its defence and will rely on the Court's eventual decision. Shell is convinced that the legal process will find all allegations to be ill-founded."

According to the statement: "Shell agreed to participate in a mediation process to resolve the dispute on terms put forward by, and with a mediator proposed by, Don Marketing. It was agreed that the method, content and conclusions of the mediation would remain confidential so that the court proceedings that are running would not be influenced. Unlike Don Marketing, Shell proposes to honour that agreement.

"Shell UK is sorry that Mr Donovan has not felt confident enough to await the outcome of the legal proceedings which he initiated and which Shell is keen to conclude."

Sub text: Shell's Make Money promotion, was followed by other joint ventures between Shell and Don Marketing, such as Bruce's Lucky Deal and a Star Trek game

Picture Caption: John Donovan (centre), managing director of Don Marketing Ltd, with two colleagues at the launch of the Make Money promotion in 1983

Don Marketing trade ad seeks help of dealers: Marketing Magazine 12 January 1995

Don Marketing trade ad seeks help of dealers

Sales promotion company Don Marketing is publicly appealing to Shell dealers to help provide evidence for legal action against Shell over the company's use of three of its promotions.

The agency has taken the unusual step of placing a half-page ad in Forecourt Trader asking Shell dealers whether they are "willing to complete a questionnaire which may assist us in our legal actions".

The ad specified the "Make Money", "Now Showing" and the "Shell Nintendo Game" promos.

"We want to know whether Shell dealers had made a contribution to the Nintendo and Make Money promotions and whether they would have continued if they had known what we know," said John Donovan, managing director of Don Marketing.

A writ issued last October by Don Marketing against Shell claimed not only that Shell had wrongfully used Don's ideas, but also that the Nintendo promotion was "insecure".

"We are surprised that Don has chosen this unusual course," said a Shell spokesman.

Marketing Week News 20 January 1995

Don Marketing, the sales promotion company in a legal dispute with Shell UK, is taking an advertisement in Service Station Magazine. The ad asks for people who are concerned about the ethical conduct of Shell to join a Shell corporate conscience pressure group.

Irate Don hits Shell investors: Marketing Week 27 January 1995

Shell UK: Don has issued three writs and a court proceeding alleging wrongful use of retail promotion

By Jon Rees

Shell UK dealers and institutional shareholders have received letters from sales promotion company Don Marketing accusing Shell of a cover-up involving a "flawed" promotion.

Don and Shell are involved in a long-running legal dispute, due to come to court in February. Don has issued three high court writs and county court proceedings against Shell, alleging the wrongful use of retail promotions developed by Don Marketing.

Shell has settled one of the three writs out of court.

Now Don has formed the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group, put ads in the petrol trade press rallying support from others who have had dealings with the firm and written to institutional investors. Those who have received a letter include the pension fund manager of The Equitable Life Assurance Society, a heavy investor in Shell.

"This pressure group has been formed by more than a dozen individuals and companies owning shares in Shell because of our growing concern about the ethical conduct of Shell UK," says Alfred Donovan, who founded the group in support of his son John - who runs Don Marketing.

Shell UK says Don initiated the legal proceedings and that it will wait for its day in court.

"Shell UK is sorry Donovan has not felt confident enough to await the outcome of the legal proceedings which he initiated and which Shell is keen to conclude."

MARKETING WEEK JANUARY 27 1995

DON MARKETING STEPS-UP ITS ATTACK ON SHELL: Debrief February 1995

Pressure group to target Shell: Forecourt Trader February 1995

Picture Caption: Don Marketing's managing director, John Donovan

The protracted legal wranglings between promotions specialist Don Marketing and Shell (UK) have prompted Alfred Donovan, father of Don Marketing's managing director, John Donovan, to form the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group, dedicated to changing Shell's "lack of interest in settling disputes amicably" and the way in which the company controls the flow of information to the people it works with.

The move is an attempt to bring together other interested parties, such as shareholders and dealers, who are "unhappy at the ethical conduct" of the company.

The group claims that it already has "a dozen individuals and companies owning shares in Shell" as members, and that "many [more] are also unhappy". Mr Donovan senior said that he felt compelled to set up the pressure group after his son found it necessary to issue High Court writs to Shell.

Meanwhile, response to Don Marketing's advertisement and questionnaire (see January issue) has been encouraging, according to John Donovan. In the questionnaire dealers were asked to state whether they knew that Make Money and other promotions " ... were flawed" and whether they would have continued to run the promotions if they had been made aware of the fact.

"We confirmed to dealers, licensees and other operators, that information would be confidential and the response was very interesting," said Mr Donovan.

The company and its legal advisors have also prepared a response letter, explaining Don Marketing's current legal position and elaborating on its allegations against Shell.

The letter is intended for dealers who have replied to the questionnaire, and a copy has been sent to Shell which, according to Mr Donovan, has "until midday [on January 26] to comment on its accuracy".

It states that forecourt staff could "identify the hidden prizes on a large proportion of the [Nintendo] game leaflets", and that although this had been pointed out to Shell promotions manager Andrew Lazenby who "accepted the game was open to abuse", the promotion continued. The letter describes the Make Money promotion as "seriously flawed".

Commenting on the letter, a Shell spokesman said it was one of many and that Shell "didn't intend to comment on every single letter from Mr Donovan".

"A legal process has been initiated in which Shell is participating and the company intends to see the action through court," he said.

The dispute continues.

Membership Recruitment adverts for SHELL CORPORATE CONSCIENCE PRESSURE GROUP plus seperate questionnaires directed at Shell retailers: Forecourt Trader and Forecourt News February 1995

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

NOTICE TO SHELL DEALERS!

We have issued a number of High Court Writs against Shell relating to proprietary rights to the following promotions

"MAKE MONEY" "NOW SHOWING"

THE SHELL NINTENDO GAME

If willing to complete a questionnaire which may assist us in our legal actions against Shell UK Ltd, please kindly fill in, detach, and return to us your Station details in the panel below. We will then provide you with confidential background information which you may find quite intriguing.

Issued by:

Don Marketing UK Limited

St Andrews Castle

33 St Andrews Street South

Bury St Edmunds

Suffolk IP33 3PH

Tel: 0284' 388308

Shell Dealer Name: ………………………………….…………………….

Station Name:………………………………………………….…………...

Address:…………………………………………………….……………….

Post Code:…………………………………………………………………..

Tel No:……………………………………………………………………….

Membership Recruitment advert

SHELL CORPORATE CONSCIENCE PRESSURE GROUP

If concerned about the ethical conduct of Shell UK Ltd please join our pressure group. Shell shareholders especially welcome.

Details on a "no obligation" basis. Just fill in and return to us the panel below. All enquiries treated in confidence.

Your Name:…………………………………..

Address:………………………………………

Post Code:……………………………………

Issued by:

Alf Donovan

St Andrews Castle

33 St Andrews St, South,

Bury St Edmunds,

Suffolk IP33 3PH

Tel: 0284 388308

'Shell knew of flaws in Make Money': Forecourt News front page article February 1995

'Shell knew of flaws in Make Money'

Shell was made aware of the major flaw in its Make Money promotion, but went ahead with it anyway, alleges John Donovan of Don Marketing, the agency at the centre of a dispute over stolen promotional ideas.

Donovan says that when Shell relaunched Make Money last year, he presented the company with evidence that the game
was flawed and open to fraud by cashiers, evidence which he says he has proof the company accepted.

Shell went ahead with the game, although Shell lawyers, in a letter to Donovan, said, "[Shell] has decided they do not want to take the point any further ... The reality of the situation is that there is no advantage to [Shell] by knowing."

Mr Donovan said "Despite ramifications for Shell dealers and the public, the management preferred to turn a blind eye."

Subsequent mediation led to a recommendation from Shell's lawyers for a settlement between the parties, although Shell then
rejected this, and is pursuing the matter through the courts.

Shell, which issued a statement relating to the proceedings at the end of last year saying it was keen to conclude the matter in the courts, now says the Make Money game was 'secure'.

The two parties had initially agreed not to publicise the case, and all along Shell has refused to comment about the mediation process, the lawyers recommendations or Mr Donovan's allegations that the process was delayed, saying that it is sticking by the original agreement. Donovan claims Shell was the first to break media silence.

There are also similar allegations surrounding a flawed Nintendo game, which has also led to mediation, which was agreed to subject to a gagging order being put on Mr Donovan.

Meanwhile, Mr Donovan has instituted the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group in response to the depth of feel-
ing among many Shell retailers about the case.

Marketing Week News 24 February 1995

Don Marketing and oil giant Shell UK's latest round in their continuing legal battle (MW January 17) was adjourned until April 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday...

Shell seeks guarantee over costs in Don case: Marketing Week 24 March 1995

In the latest chapter in the long-running legal dispute between Don Marketing and Shell UK (MW February 24), the oil giant has broken its silence by publicly casting doubt on the sales promotion agency's financial position.

In a statement Shell said it is applying to the court for security for costs in the event of Don losing the case. Shell is asking for £62,000 costs security. Don says it will fight the claim. The application will be heard on April 13 and Don says it will go to the appeal court if it is asked to pay.

"Shell is doing all it can to stop these cases coming to court and using its financial weight against a small firm," says Don managing director John Donovan.

In a similar vein, Shell says it will not be responding to Don's invitation to instigate a libel action because it believes the agency would not have the funds to pay costs and compensation.