Northern Planner

Ah, trends

I have a love hate relationship with 'trends'. Part of my job is knowing what's going on in culture of course, but it's also the job of every other planner out there. Of course, it's a shame that more than a few planners don't know this, but let's not go there.

Which means if you just 'replay' an insight or 'trend' back to your customers, you often find it's what others are doing too.

And to be honest, you can identify the kind of stuff most trend companies get by reading a few papers, watching lots of telly and generally consuming the same popular culture as whoever your customers are. Then just give that trend a silly name. Or even better, leave your desk and go out and meet them. 

What tends to cut through isn't playing back how people feel, or highlighting a problem - what gets noticed is providing some sort of answer.

Another thing is that ebbs and flows in culture don't happen in isolation, they interweave and add up to something much bigger and meatier. It's looking for the intersections and overlaps that usually create something flesh, especially when you add another layer of entertainment culture.

Let's take this Coke Zero stuff (and it's my opinion, I obviously had nothing to with this)

The commercial problem - blokes reject Coke Zero because they thing the taste is inferior when it's actually pretty much the same

Unlike Diet Coke which is not only a different taste, it's for girls

Now here's the recipe

Throw in the fact that young men are getting increasingly body conscious

Add that they reject health an dieting as girly and too self obsessed for blokes that are not supposed to care how they look

Throw in a bit of men are looking for overtly macho themes to buy into to relieve their anxieties about the role of men in the world

Now sprinkle liberally with the fact that popular culture is dripping with knowing irony and comedy that's uncomfortable and cringeworthy, mostly because it's set in real life

Drizzle with the knowledge that young men struggle to come to terms with 'selling out to the men' and don't like to fit it with corporate culture

And you get......

 

 

 

Add

Why you should consider making the logo bigger

One of the most boring conversations to endure with creatives is the debate over the size of the logo or the merits of the product shot. Put simply, most creatives seem to think that the smaller the logo, the greater the excellence of the work.Likewise, the more the product features, the more their idea is tarnished.

It's as if agencies cannot bring themselves to admit they're employed to sell things. Nothing more. nothing less.

It's true of course, all of Peter Field and Les Binet's great work on effectiveness shows a direct link with between highy creative work and ROI. Also, work that that makes people feel something and makes them talk.

This makes utter sense when you read Byron Sharp's work on the need for brand salience (get noticed, be distintive) to get on the radar of the buyers that matter for growth - the majority of light buyers.

But the most creative AND effective work is not that which makes the advertising famous alone, but ads and stuff that makes the BRAND and PRODUCT famous. Because, coming back to sharp, brands grow by building and refreshing distinctive memory structures. Creating distinct, long lasting symbolism and associations and building relevant and consistent meaning into them.

Put far less pretentiously, when people don't think about this stuff much (and they really don't) , you need to work with what they already know and think. Which means:

1. Building on and adding to the feelings and 'brand stories' already in their heads.In other words, don't change what the brand means to people, find ways to make that relevant, distinctive and likeable. In other words, try and change how they feel about what it means - because in the long term, that's all that really matters.

2. Making sure they can find you without much effort in the retailer, in Google search or whatever. In other words, don't hide the damned logo or the product, be proud and make them part of the story.

Good agency professionals are increasingly wary if bludgeoning customers into submissions with banal LINK tested 'messages' and seek to surprise, delight, seduce and even include them. Somehow, showing the product and brand has been lumped with the former.

Wrong.

Think about some of the most groundbreaking, talked about and succesful work of recent years.

Old Spice doesn't pretend it's not from the 1970's and overtly masculine, it's just makes that 'experience' and expertise in 'man skills' relevant, entertaining and culturally significant. And is built around the simple fact that the product smells 'manly' not 'girly'. And he's holding the product right up to you.

 

VW 'The Force'. It shows plenty of metal and is build around a product fact - you can't start the engine with a key.

 

The Eminem Chrysler commercial has him driving the car, shows it in the streets and is all about the fact the cars are built in Detroit - firmly breaking new ground for the brand's place as an icon of American identity.

 

Or, for that matter, compare the Market that continuously builds fame for the word 'market' for Google search. It still heroes the logo (though I wonder if people are beginning to talk about the advertising rather than the brand...and wonder how much this matters).

 

Compare that with the Gorilla. I'd wager it was massively effective short term, but failed to build long term memory structures, because people talked about the advertising, not the brand. However, note they still used purple, which is utterly owned by Cadbury in the catetegory.

 

That's why these John Cleesea ads bombed back in the 1990's. They arer completely apposite to the 'good food heroes' link people have in their heads about Sainsburys.

 

But this is less as much about design as it is about ads. Like I said, people need to be able to find you quickly on a shelf, because, as proven by Sharpe, most people can't be arsed to make the effort and will choose an alternative if they have to work too hard. That's why building up recognisable symbolism and imagery is so important.

Think about Stella Artois building on. not breaking, it's Franco-Belgian story with a distinctive chalice, that's a relevant,  distinctive symbol within the actual drinking occasion.

This is also why you change your packaging design at your peril.If people don't recognise it quickly, they'll buy something else

That's why, looking at the Coke bottle, you see slow evolution where decades later, you can still link the latest version with the very first (and why the bottle is used in ads rather than the more commonly bought can I imagine).

 And Coke is red. It won't change this because the powerful memory cue is too valuable.

Just like Orange is, well Orange.

In conclusion, rampant creativity alone is not enough. You should always insist in making the logo bigger, heroing the product and building and refreshing a distinctive brand meaning.

People can't be arsed to think about brands, they can't be bothered to look for them and they're only too easilly persuaded to choose something else.

If you don't build distinctiveness and recognition, you're just trying to make art or entertainment. Resign now and get a job with the BBC or HBO.

And one more thing, here's some work that doesn't just have a big logo, the logo is all it is (great use of low budget too).

 

 

TEDx Bradford - objects with stories, the story of the mix-tape and extreme hubris

So I went to TEDx Bradford the other week, which was loosely about the future of the internet. TED is a wonderful thing, I can’t remember anything else that offered so many of ideas and fodder for all sorts of stuff for free. The videos from the main events are fantastic, not just for the quality of the idea, but the delivery. The presentations tend to be showstoppers.

TEDx is a little different, these second tier events are orgnanised locally under the TED name. Same principle, but less guarantee of high quality inspiration.

This was my first take-out from the day. There’s an old saying that good ideas should be able to sell themselves. Up to a point that’s true, of course, but I saw a wide variety of aptitude for presenting ideas, not mention styles and it reminded me how important delivery of an idea really is.

There was a, quite brilliant, presentation that was funny, witty and entertaining – the person doing it was a natural performer. But then there was another where she was softly spoken and rather shy, but she was so open and enthusiastic she took us all with her. More importantly, she didn’t do a presentation, she told a story. Humans are hardwired to love storytelling and this really worked for her.

But then there was also an intelligent, focused and energetic talk from a guy who presented through a series of infographics. He was direct and simple, but his ‘props’ transformed the whole experience.

As a rather shy, un-flamboyant person myself, the best advice I was ever given on presentations was to just be myself  and find what worked for me. Whenever I’ve tried to do funny, I just look stupid. Whenever I’ve tried to do ‘slick’ I look even dafter.

But I put a lot of work into preparation, people can tell I’ve made a lot of effort, they can see I care and this helps a lot. I tend to look for great video and pictures, not to mention forgoing typed words and using my own handwriting. In other words, I work hard on props. Hopefully never letting them overshadow what I say, but adding weight depth and context. And I try to tell stories.

Anyway.

There were some talks where the speakers actually read out from a script and, despite what they were saying being interesting, you could see the audience fidgeting, twiddling with their phone and generally waiting for it to be over.

Some were too clever by half and instead of getting out the way of their story, they ruined it with gimmicks.

In other words, ideas should sell themselves, but there’s nothing like the (very varied) delivery people.

Second take-out was that people that live in the loose community of digital technologists, marketers and academics need to be careful they don’t disappear up their own behinds. You couldn’t help but notice a particular uniform for the day, which was largely based around skinny jeans, check shirts with national health specs, artfully dishevelled bourgeouis bohemians and the genuinely threadbare, thrown together outfit of the genuine, careless academic. There was an air of self important smugness to much of the day and the sense of a niche community talking to itself, incredibly pleased with it’s own cleverness without any genuine understanding, or care for the context of real people in the real world.

Much of this is fine or course, you need ridiculously clever people to care about the kind of things others don’t in the hope that others can apply their stuff to the everyday eventually. The World Wide Web came directly out of CERN for example and the cathode ray tubes that created TV images came from quantum physics that are still incomprehensible to most of us. Even the orginal algorythm that enabled Google to search so much more effectively came from an apparently useless, publicly funded, project.

But there’s always the danger of believing your own hype. The internet is littered with incredibly clever apps, platforms and other wheezes that no one ever bothers with, because their inventors forgot to put people at the heart of what they do rather than technology.

One thread of the day was the importance of net neutrality and freedom to post what you want and get what you want for free. No one seemed to want to say why, or discuss a point of view where a form of control or rules might be useful. It’s up to you what you think of course, but you can’t make an informed decision unless you see both points of view and the group think of the digital elite doesn’t seem to question itself that much.

Anyway, I’m not going to bother going through every talk. They’ll be published soon for you to see for yourself. I’ll just share the bits I found interesting or useful.

Jane Macdonald talked about Tales of Things. An ongoing project where objects are given their own QR codes and people can attach their stories about them to it. I love this, because so much of how we relate to ‘things’ is based on what we believe about them and what we know of our story. This very month, someone has paid thousands for a piece of old box that has some of Ghandi’s blood on it. The box is worthless, even blood is worthless, it’s because we know this is Ghandi’s blood that it’s so valuable. Just like my Grandmother’s china tea set has untold value to me. She taught how to make tea properly with that set, which was a wedding present to her nearly 100 years ago. Take away the memory of her and it’s just an old fashioned tea set. Daniel Miller in this book compellingly captures how important our relationship with ‘things’ really are and how much that’s about memories and shared history. 

This is why A History of the World in a 100 Objects was so popular. We relate to things and their stories in such a powerful way.

She also talked about the possibilty to preserve social history. Imagine a museum where you don’t just get the object, say an antiquated Nokia from the 1990′s, you also also get the stories from people about what it meant to them and how incredible it was to them to have a phone they could carry around, let alone the internet in your pocket.

Imagine going into the V&A and not just being able to admire Dior’s New Look from the 1950′s but actually hear stories from the women that wore them, how it liberated them and enabled them  to feel a little more spontaneous and free in very austere times. Imagine what the women in the 1960′s could tell you about their mini skirts, or what people could tell about what their original Sgt. Pepper meant to them, or in my case, what it felt like to get my prized Millenium Falcon replica in 1981 at a time when  Star Wars meant more to me than life.

She talked of Oxfam Shelflife, where clothes donors could attach the story of what they were donating to a QR code and the clothes sold out, as people responded to the added value they created for the object.

She forcibly reminded me that the point of digital stuff is finally coming to life, it’s not really about another virtual world, it’s about enriching the one we live in now and much of that is about what it will add to objects. To quote Heidegger, “Objects are points of conversations” what’s amazing about the future that is nearly with us, is that those conversations will live IN those objects.

Mark Graham discussed how knowledge is concentrated geographically and gave evidence that the history of the internet is actually one where this is exacerbated.  The pattern of history is one where knowledge production has been concentrated in the richest parts of the world, books, newspapers, periodicals etc have all been more accessable to those in well off areas and the greater education and knowledge reinforces the economic superiority.

These days, digital maps shape our knowledge of places and the people that live in them, from Googlemaps to Wikipedia, from Twitter feeds to the weight of personal blogs and reviews, not to mention visual history – Flickr, Facebook Instragram and so on. But, like print beforehand, because digital technology is distributed so unnevenly, history is still being written by the winners. Most people in the world can’t access the internet and even where they can, broadband, fast laptops and smartphones are a distant dream.

So there is more user generated content about Tolkien’s Middle Earth than most places in the developing world. There are more edits of Wikipedia from Hong Kong that all of Africa put together and more from Israel than the rest of the Middle East put together.

Makmende was an East African viral hit that couldn’t get an official listing on Wikipedia because the editors were all so removed from the region, geographically, socially and econimically that they didn’t believe it was genuine, and certainly didn’t understand it.

Why does this matter to me? Because as someone who grew up studying social sciences, and learned to question EVERY peice of source material, something I think is massively important for research for what I do now, it reminds me to never believe what I read on the internet until I get some proper proof. I see many strategy and research types presenting ‘researched’ ideas when what they really have is some desk research from social media or articles and such. If you want to understand what’s going on in any culture, any social group or anyone;’s head, you have to actually go out and meet them.

This is even more important if you do global stuff, which is what is taking up most of my days at the moment. You won’t get much insight from the web about most of the world because it’s written from the point of view of people like you, not them.

Even looking at what people do and say on your large Facebook fanbase, if you’re lucky to have one, isn’t of massive use because social media is digital showing off, it’s not what we’re really like, it’s what we want people to think we’re like. Not to mention, these ‘visible consumers’ are only the weird ones that can be bothered to spend time with a brand instead of  their peers, this is not representative of both the brands buyers or normal human beings at large. Going back to my sad Star Wars obsession, if the importance of friends and family in the lives of most people is the size of the Death Star, the size of real entertainment and fun stuff is roughly the size of Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer, so the size of brands probably equates to the size of the Millenium Falcon.

Finally, Dr Kieran Hulse did a talk on the history of mixtapes and editing your own music – from the classic cassette mixtape through to new streaming services like LastFM and Spotify. He showed how the original mixtapes were, more often or not, acts of romance and ways of forming and cementing relationships. Personally, I spent far too many hours as a teenager making tapes for girlfriends and friends alike. They always had the person and the relationship in mind, but they were also me telling others something about myself in a very subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) way. They were about basic human needs to share and communicate (and non-verbal communications tend to be more powerful that what we actually say), not to mention the objects with specific stories to them.

I know for a fact that an old girlfriend (we’re still good friends) has a few I made for her over twenty years ago, least importantly because she likes some of the songs, overwhelmingly because they’re a sweet reminder of our shared story and, dare I say, the person I was back then, naive, earnest and slightly odd (not much changes).

CD’s began to kill all that, then along came Itunes and suddenly it all became personal. Your playlists became your own mixtape, but they were rarely shared.

But along came streaming sites and we’re gone back to the sharing, personal side of things. But amplified a million times. Now we can make mixtapes of anything, through playlists, and share them with anyone. Not just our friends, but anyone. We can find new music thanks to sharing with people who like what we like – some say the web is killing serendipity, perhaps this is example of why it doesn’t have to be like that.

That’s the main point I got from this, but there is another. Technology is changing faster than we can keep up,which in turn is changing culture in many ways. Some good, some bad.  But human nature took millions of years to evolve, billions in fact, since much of what it is in us originated in tiny mammals evading dinosaurs and the first fish that crawled on land way before that.

The fundamentals of who we are, what motivates us and what we need does not change, it just responds to what is around it in different ways. The need for sharing, for community, to have our senses stirred by stuff like music, for love and companionship  and for a story (in mixtapes and other objects) are universal. And because the fundamentals of human behaviour does not change, that’s what we as marketing and/or technology folk need to address first, rather than be blinded by the latest innovation, trend or fad.

Coming back to slight self-congratulatory tone of the day, I hope that’s something everyone took on board.

What Dad Vader teaches us about making the everyday come alive

As a little boy who grew up with Star Wars, not to mention a Dad myself these days,  I love this.

 

Dad Vader captures the joys and frustrations of fatherhood told through answering the question, 'What if Darth Vader had tried to bring up Luke like a normal Dad?'

Worth thinking for ads and stuff. sometimes the best way to convey the truths, merits or dynamics of something is to place it in an unexpected situation. 

Make the familiar unfamiliar.

There's plenty of reasons why this works as far as humans go. We're hardwired to notice new and surprising stuff and filter out the familiar. Putting the anything in an unexpected situation, even the most familiar and banal makes us pay attention, which is, of course, gold in this over-supplied world.

One the most loved films from my childhood is Mary Poppins, which, of course, it really just a story about a family that has forgotten have fun together.

 

The underrated City Slickers conveys loads of stuff about male anxiety about being the 'other directed man' , mid-life crisis and male anxiety by subverting the cowboy ideal.

 

While Mad Men actually makes similar points about the hollowness of modern consumer society, the middle class ideal and  and the conflicts beneath the surface of corporate men who go to ever greater lengths to feel something in jaded world.

Everyone loves Carousel, but while I admire the pitch as much as the next agency hack, it's the juxtaposition of the the corporate guy and the loving father unable to reconcile both or even give them the love and support he so desperately wants to that makes it so powerful for me. The struggle between doing what you want and what you should is timeless.

While the inability to externalise what a man feels inside, either because you are not allowed or you simply cannot is not limited to older generations. Go to any pub and watch young men bonding through shared mockery and bickering and you'll see what I mean.

 

While we're at it, his toe curling embarrassment at Bizou Bizou, skewers the stilted reserve that presents so many limits on what men (and women) feel able to say and do. Who hasn't felt uncomfortable, rather than electrified around spontaneous people who are able to have fun?

 

And of course, there's the tried and tested time-travel story. In the case of Back to the Future, familiar teenage themes given a new lease of life in the 1950's.

 

The Jetsons, the Flinstones and the Simpsons - all stories about family relationships.

The Sopranos (I think) is all about confused roles modern men find themselves trying to fulfill - the conflict between traditional macho identity and more modern, metrosexual roles.

On the other hand, this, our Italian American, ganster panda conveys product quality for Fox's without having to spell it out in the conventional ways that no one really notices.

 

Stella Artois 4 conveys it's Franco Belgian heritage, and the 'smooth' badge value of the brand by setting it in the 1960's French Riviera

 

And of course, the Smash Martians conveyed the ease of using Smash rather than peeling, chopping and boiling your own potatoes.

 

 A lot of this is brand mascots of course, but much of it is finding the right situation and setting.

I've long wanted to steal the premise of the Incredibles- the struggles of a family with superpowers trying to get by in the modern world, with a bit more of an 'Outnumbered' tone -  for an outdoorsy family orientated brand, aimed squarely at the anxieties modern Mums feel about their kids getting out and playing, growing strong and independent in a world where they simulate fun on a Wii or Xbox connect rather than actually having it.

 

 

Or, come to think of it, take the idea of exaggerated masculinity to the extreme for a shaving or beer brand, with a funny,modern take on the idea of a male comic book hero at once poking fun at the category and male cuture at large (where most brands seems to only the answer of new-laddism) while conveying the true modern masculinity as embracing the contradiction in modern male identity - the strong, capable superhero AND the sensitive, vulnerable, more feminised alter ego (or is it the other way around?).

I always thought this bit of dialogue has a killer insight on this:

 

Anyway

Tesco's problems and why 'brand innovation ' is useless without 'business innovation'

There's an old saying, "Ask 6 economists a question and you'll get 7 answers back", which sort of applies to creative, brand, advertising types too.

Look at this article about Tesco and the advice shared from industry luminaries. Look at how everyone has a different answer to the problem, in fact, one doesn't even think there is one.

If you haven't read Why Most Things Fail  by Paul Ormerod then you should. He shows with proper data (yet wonderfully readable prose) that organisations cannot hope to predict what will happen to their business, markets and the economies they operate in are exposed to far too many complex variables, at the heart of which you find capricious human beings who are wholly irational and refuse to behave like the textbooks say they do.

The only way to really future proof youself is to move forward or die, continuously innovating and creating that future, because no one, no matter what bollocks they spout really knows what will happen.

This what I think has happen to think has occured here. I agree that they forgot to make people care about them, but I also think they just stood still. Rather than innovating in a recession, or before it, not leading, they followed and cut prices.

Compare this to what someone once told me about Sainsburys. Back in early 2000's is was on it's knees. The 'experts' in this business said they needed to go back to advertising that made them 'good food heroes'. What this person told me was that the infrastructure was in pieces.Food quality wasn't quite as good, but even worse, basis distribution wasn't working.

Shoppers, first and foremost need to know the things on their lost will be on the shelves day in day out. They were not. Sainsburys new they needed to get their ducks in a row before even thinking about changing the communications. Even more telling, a considerable segment of Sainsburys shoppers WANTED Sainsburys to do well, they were frustrated and tried to shop there anyway, or would come back as soon as they believed the cock ups would end.They didn't need to feel good about the brand, they actually wanted it to be a succces.

How many people want Tesco to do well?

So it's probably fair to say that ads and stuff might help to recapture the public's imagination, but that's not Tesco's only problem because I doubt the problem is just a 'brand problem' . It's fundamental strategy on pricing, range and services - these are things that ads won't solve and need to be looked at too. But good agency partners can, and should, want to help with the strategy that informs this.

While Tesco sat on it's hands, Sainsburys and Waitrose changed their business model.  When the economic shitstorm hit, they didn't just cut prices, they re-developed their entire offering with more value ranges and choice. Then they made people feel good about it. Morrisons on the other hand suffered orginaly by being too downmarket and re-developed their fresh 'market street' concept. 

Which also says something about the danger of brand models that force a business to doggedly stick to a rigid positioning come hell or high water.

One final thing, look at the advice from Interbrand. Talk about giving someone a hammer and all he sees is a nail (Mark Twain), tone of voice? TONE OF VOICE!!!!?? Only a brand consultant could come up with that sort of advice. And I fundamentally disagree with Tesco cannot be a 'cuddly colossus'. Her insinuation is that very big companies can't make people feel strong emotions, can't make them feel something.

I know that these are very different markets, but here are some behemoths that make their customers feel something.

 

 

 

 

What we can learn from interactive arty design stuff

I went to TEDx Bradford on Friday, which was mostly pretty good but it’s not what I’m going to talk about today.

Because I went to a breakfast thingy with some artists before; that was the REALLY good bit. It was at the National Media Museum, where they’re launching Life Online, an exhibition about the internet. That’s right, the internet is actually old enough to start appearing in Museums.

Makes me feel old. My nephews are 18 and 20, for them the internet is like air, it's fundamental to their lives and has always been their. Anyway.

They’ve commisioned an exhibition on open source culture and the threat to net neutrality. Your views on this are your own (they think curbing freedom and ‘free stuff’ online is mostly bad) but what I took from the work wasn’t much to do with the subject, it was more to do with the brilliance of ‘post digital’ stuff and interactive design to  free up new forms of creativity and inspire people to do all sorts of things together- in the real world.

Not using all their spare time as Clay Shirky would claim, which is frankly bollocks, and always will be until people stop having to work for a living, but around the edges, little spikes of entertainment and interest within the fabric of the everyday.

Ross Philips has created Read Aloud, an installation that that invites the public to perform lines from a chosen book in a collective effort to read the entire work.

 

While it enables us to experience literature, poems ore whatever in a different way, I think it captures the idea that any piece of content is always unfinished until people actually experience it, none more so than books where we asign mental images of the places and people portrayed, we hear their voices in our own heads and respond to them in different ways (like the way some see Shylock in Merchant of Venice as a sympathetic character pushed to the limit by discrimination, while others see him as a villian). That’s always worth remembering when you create content – leave room for people in there.

This idea of the way the internet lets people collaborate together to make real things, in the real world is also expressed in his ‘videogrid’ concept that has been used at the Liberty Store in London, The V&A  and by Nokia, where people touch a screen in a window to have a 1o second video made of themselves, automatically uploaded to a gallery existing as a real life and virtual video wall.

This is the V&A version:

  

People really will do stuff for you if it’s fun, not too  much effort and if there’s an end result they’ve influenced in some way. Instant feedback and instant results help too. Worth thinking about when you’re considering ideas people will play a part in – think about why it’s fun and interesting for them, rather than just pushing your agenda. Think about instant, or quick, real time results. Digital is about now, if you’re going to make it about ‘later’ make the result worth waiting for.

Content that lots of people have had a hand in tends to work really well for brands, because it tends to cut through more. The above stuff isn’t that different to Nike’s Chalkbot

  

This got lots of headlines and social media traction because of the people element – we’re social animals and like doing stuff together. It gets picked up by the press and people just like sharing it more. The value of the people that interact is negligable, it’s not nearly enough to alter sales figures or brand scores, but the noise and headlines they make IS.

Rather than presenting a finished ‘thing’ present a simple system for people to work in.

I also liked Thomson and Craighead’s  Portrait of Tim Berners Lee, an Early warning system.

 

I love this idea of a portrait made of webcams, it just shows how much amazing source material is there for us to re-purpose if we use our imagination. Naturally, a lot of good digital creativity is about newness, but equally, it can be about what you can ‘hack’.

Then there is their ‘Flat Earth’ a desktop documentary which takes the viewer on a seven minute trip around the world to encounter fragments of real people’s blogs, knitted together to form a single narrative, over a visual effect created from satellite imagery, that looks for all the world like Google Earth. You can view it on their website.

All this stuff demonstrates that thinking about the people experiencing the internet just on screens, be that a laptop, phone or TV isn’t the half of it. The internet will increasingly be about linking objects and imbuing them with all sorts of stuff. It will be about the real life context of where people are and what they are doing.

It will be about the real life we are living, not the virtual one.

By the way, while I was there I also loved Forms, in their Blink of an Eye exhibition.Sport isn't often thought of as beautiful, but there is a grace and artistry to the way athletes move and this work really captures that. Just shows what happens when you apply a bit of (digital) creativity to something to make people appreciate the familiar in a completely new way.

 

In the so called 'traditional' creative departments, TV, print etc was also inspired by art, it seems to me that digital creativity (is this really a credible distinction these days), if anything should be about this even more, some sort of magical fusion of code and story.

Anyway

 

The benefits of being stretched, as long as it's not to breaking point

I think I'm lucky enough to be interested in a lot of things, it's probably axiomatic to planners, but if I could pin down the stuff that has made me the most viscerally happy, apart from the obvious wife and children, it's doing sport.

I have an unhealthy interest with music, books, cooking, cinema and a very odd obsession with physics I'm just not clever enough for, but what has given the greatest joy is swimming and tennis.

Much of that was, and still is, the sheer joy of doing things well. That's swimming these days, I haven't picked up a racket in anger for much too long. The pleasure in bombing down a pool, heart just about to explode, but overflowing with ability and knowing this is something you were born to do is incomparable to me. I waffled about it here:

 

But there's also the pleasure in struggle. Knowing you've just overcome something ridiculously hard and performed beyond what you thought ever could. I remember when I was 12 and swam 200 metres butterfly for the first time. I really didn't want to do it, the pain in the shoulders, the lungs - everything, was overwhelming, but the sense of achievement, pride and self worth was amazing.Eventually it became routine.

Just like the times I played tennis against boys and girls who were much better than me, but pace and placement of their shots left no time to think - just do and survive. Then you adjust and the weight of their shot on your racket becomes less, you adjust to the pace and you begin to live with them, playing like you've never played before. You finish exhausted, mentally drained, but deliriously happy at surviving. 

Pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone is the best possible place to be. Not just because it feels amazing when you survive, it's the quickest way to be able to do tomorrow what you couldn't do today. Humans are amazing at adapting to new harder challenges (think about the way video games are built in levels, you gradually become proficient at one, fail for awhile at the next level then you get past that one) and that's how you get better quickly.

Why am I banging on about this? Because if you work as a junior in an agency, the worse thing you can do is coast along. For example, if you're scared of presenting, the only way to get over it is grasp the nettle and find an opportunity to do one. Hopefully something where there isn't much pressure to perform, so when it matters, you've done it enough times to not have to worry. My old swim coach used to say there shouldn't be any pain you feel in a race you haven't felt ten times worse in training. It's the same in planning and stuff.

You want to get good at detail? Copy check 200 supermarket deal ads at 11pm on a Friday. I did and learned how to never fuck up, despite the fact my natural attention to detail is shocking, as the spelling and grammar on this blog will attest.

Most agencies only promote you when you're virtually doing that job anyway, so behave like you are and look for any opportunity you can to do the things people above you do.

On the other hand, one horrific trait in agencies is stretching people and seeing if they snap. It's good management to push people out of their comfort zone, but to leave people in a constant state of anxiety, unable to sleep and permanently feeling the clammy grip of terror is just not on in my view. Sometimes that's down to very disorganised directors, group heads and the like,  who don't realise what they're putting you through.

But sometimes that's down to bastards who think the way to manage people is the sink or swim method. A certain agency head has been quoted saying that he has a massive churn rate of new staff, because the agency culture is to put them through absolute hell for the first three months and see it they can handle it.

If you're in a situation where you're terrified of what the day will bring and you think you're boss in unaware, for God's sake talk to them.

If you feel un-challenged demand to be pushed.

But if you think your boss is pushing you to the point of mental breakdown and either doesn't care, or thinks this is good management, get out as fast as you can.

Great blog that's nothing to do with planning (therefore everything)

Thanks to the serendipity of the web, Twitter specifically in this instance, I came accross this blog by Courtney Beck.

It's nothing do with planning, it's a long tail about dating (I'd like to state I'm happily married!) and she writes with wit, charm and grace. Makes me wish  could write like that.

I've often thought that really great planning types tend pretty good writers (excludes me from both).

I definitely think great planners are interesting and interested in stuff that's nothing to do with planning (and therefore everything to do with it) like this, they make stuff about it and put it out into the world for no other reason than they want to.

The internet's ace isn't it?

The things I wish I'd known

Someone emailed me, as they've just finished Miami Ad School and wanted my help in starting out to get work in New York, by sharing the things I wish I'd known when starting out.

As usual, I'm bemused anyone cares what I think,especially someone looking to work in New York.

Also, I thought I'd share what I wrote just in case anyone else finds it remotely useful. Here's what I wrote:

Congratulations on (nearly) graduating. Happy to help, but two caveats:

1. I’ll post my thoughts on the blog so the other 4 readers can benefit/disagree/dismiss
2. My experience is VERY different to New York, there are, of course, things that are true of most organisations, but still, while I’ve worked on global stuff that includes the US and worked directly with US agencies, I can’t pretend to have huge experience of the culture and practices of those places

I think what you mean by the question is what I wished I knew when I started out that would have helped me then, the stuff no one tends to tell you when you're new. So I’ll answer that stuff first.

But you might mean, things I know now that I wish I knew back then, so I’ll answer that too.

Do bear in mind that I started out as an account handler (don’t you hate that term ‘handle the client’)not a planner. I haven’t any experience as a junior planner because I’ve never been one. However, I’ve naturally worked with one or two and will try to share what they’ve told me or what I’ve gleaned from being around them and what their experience seems to have been like.

Finally, don’t mistake me for some guru. I really am not. Make sure you get as many insights from as many people as you can, especially those working in New York.

So, anyway, that’s plenty of prevaricating, even for a planning type, here are some thoughts.

1. When I started out, for personal reasons I won’t bore you with, I couldn’t attend a string of interviews with London agencies for their graduate schemes. This was a setback, but I wasn’t prepared to accept hanging around for a year for the next round. So I moved to London and worked for a newspaper in ‘media sales’ – the most hateful job I’ve ever done, and I’ve worked in a nursing home, on a health insurance screening helpline and even sold plumbing and drainage insurance. My reasoning was that any experience is better than none, that I’d build up contacts in agencies and maybe get in the ‘back door’and being in London was a whole lot more convenient for interviews and stuff. You see I had a fixed idea of the kind of place I wanted to work at and the kind of role I wanted – a suit at a big London agency. The trouble was, I soon found that I didn’t just dislike that job, I wasn’t too keen on London. Too big, too impersonal and definitely too expensive. So my focus shifted to getting a job with an agency OUTSIDE London. That’s my first point really, be sure you really want to work at the places you’re looking at. The job is bloody hard work, you need quality of life too. Be sure that New York or wherever you’re looking at is right for you, you need to work to live, not the other way around. I’ve known one or two people who have moved to New York for their dream job, one with enough money to enjoy New York to the fullest. But they’ve been disappointed to find you can live the fast life and enjoy all that teeming, thriving culture and sheer, but it’s tough and exhausting and not what they really wanted – they we’re really in love the idea, not the reality.
   
2. BUT you need to weigh all this stuff up carefully. In the US I think you tend to be fortunate that good agencies doing good stuff are all over the place, in major cities and less hectic locations like Portland or Boulder as well. In the UK, the concentration of agencies doing really great work on really great brands is concentrated in London. One really does choose between the very best job satisfaction and quality of life. I will always regret that I’ve only been able to do work we all really want to do once or twice. I don’t think I’m the best planner in the world by any stretch of the  imagination, but I’m not the worst. I’ll never really find out what I was capable of because I’ve never worked at those kind of places enough. You don’t want to finish your career thinking ‘what if’. So work at a ‘big name’ or ‘good name’ agency as soon as possible, wherever that might be. I’ve found it difficult sometimes in job interviews and stuff when talking about my experiences because many are looking for certain types of agencies and certain kinds of projects. If people get over their prejudice, I do fine, but certain names open doors for you, so it’s worth getting that on your resume as soon as possible, it will benefit you massively in the long term.
3. But in the end, when it comes to the first job, the objective is largely GET A JOB. Different agencies have VERY different cultures. Sometimes, very often to be precise, it’s not a perfect fit. It’s not a reflection on you, or them, it’s just the way it is. My first job wasn’t really right for me, my second was for a bit before the agency completely changed. I learned masses along the way, though, including the fact I was not very good at doing, but maybe OK at thinking and became a planner. My second job was at a coveted agency, hard to get into, which I did on the basis of what I’d achieved at the first place. What I’m saying is, the best chance of getting a dream job is having worked at any other place in any role, because it makes the kind of role you want so much more accessible. And you don’t yet know you’re really cut out to be a planner. You might find you’re better as a suit or even a creative.So do anything and triangulate.
   
4. I also wish someone had told me in those early days how important internships were. Now I didn’t know I wanted to be in advertising until after I graduated, I wish I’d know sooner because I would have spend my summers doing work experience there and of I didn’t get a job when I graduated, I would have pestered them to do internships. This really is your golden ticket into good agencies. I’ve had loads of students and graduates do internships with me and I’m so pleased they’re now at places like DDB, JWT, Publicis and others. All the books and courses (even Miami) are no substitute for learning on the job, agencies know this and hire people in addition to the graduate stuff if they perform well. Just like they’ll hire account  execs and junior planners who have worked somewhere for a year, even if they hated their job.
5. When you start your job though, I wish someone had told me the value of getting to know traffic. They’re the lifeblood of any agency, it’s their job to know what’s going on. Agencies have unwritten rules and cultures, the quickest way to get to know them is to get to know traffic. Now it depends where you work, but mostly, traffic keeps creatives behind a force field, the people you need to make friends with to prosper. Make friends with traffic and you get more access to the creatives.
6. Many junior planners (and account execs) are surprised how dull the job is when they start. Suits have do masses of contact reports, spreadsheets and other crap. Junior planners are doing masses of TGI analysis, competitor reviews, late night preparing workshops and being sent out to do street interviews. Be patient. This is called earning your spurs. Those senior people you see meeting clients, spending a whole day just writing a brief and doing the stuff you really want to be doing went through all this too. If you’re a planner, it takes between 5 and 7 years to find your voice and be really confident with this stuff. You can’t escape getting the experience.Embrace it.
   
7. But don’t be too patient. If you hear of a pitch, a great project coming up, try and get in on it and help as much as you can. Try and have an opinion on things. Contribute.The beauty of pitches is that are a big scramble, you’re up against it and everyone has to pitch in. The rules of who does what tend to stretch and you find yourself contributing more than you would in a ‘normal project’. Not enough junior people in my opinion fight for projects and work. I wish I’d known how much senior people respond to initiative and sheer enthusiasm. I spent too much time waiting for projects to come my way before  I got impatient once and got hold of the client brief (as an account exec) and wrote my own creative brief without being asked. There was plenty wrong with it, but I showed I had some sort of aptitude and more stuff came my way.
8. In any case, you might find you have enough on your plate anyway. I learned the fastest I’ve ever learned working on a supermarket account, because it all moved so fast everyone had to pitch in. In 4 weeks, just myself and another account manager effectively did 5 store openings (local campaigns more labour intensive than national ones), and a national telly campaign, while the account director was on paternity leave and the department head couldn’t be arsed to help. It nearly broke me, it was the only time in my career I found I couldn’t sleep with worry, but we got through it and it’s true what they say, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. After that, anything appears easy. You’ll have times like this, when you can’t see an end to it and you can’t see a way through it. It does end and it’s worth it. It wins you respect and teaches you so much. Welcome the chance.Endure.
   
9. I wish someone has told me how unimpressed people are with how cool you are. I thought succeeding in agencies was all about being a ‘character’, wearing the right clothes and, well, being cool. It’s not. It wasn’t for me, because I’m the most uncool person you could ever meet, I just looked stupid. It’s not for most people either, because people are really impressed with hard work and enthusiasm. This is even more true of planners. No one cares how clever you are, no one gives a monkeys about the latest theories or trends. No one really needs planners, creatives and suits got on find without them for decades. You need to be add value and be useful. For suits that means you’re going to make their lives easier – get great work out of the creatives, help get the client to buy it, make the client feel the relationship is really valuable. Creatives want to know you’ll help them do their best work and get it through the client and research-they judge their year on how many golds they’ve won. Clients don’t buy risks, they buy sure things, they want to know the agency output will help them sell stuff and if not, they can prove to the board they did all they could to make it that way. That’s it. That’s not cool, usually that’s hard work, mostly working harder than everyone else. I wish I’d known this at the start and not looked like such a tit.
10. Finally, I wish someone had told me to enjoy it. As I mentioned before, you’re impatient as a junior, you want to progress, you’re not on much money and sometimes it feels like hard, dull work with little reward. The money does sort of come in, but it takes time. But when it does, it quickly gets swallowed up as you find more stuff to spend it on, not to mention settling down and the money pit also called kids. You have more responsibilities to more people, while agency short-terminism and clients' too mean you always worry about job security even more. Sure, losing your job is bad for anyone, but when you have kids depending on you, it’s more important than when you’re renting and pretty footloose. At the same time, there’s a reason senior people get paid more – they have to worry a lot more about the actual job. It might seem you have the world on your shoulders when you’re in situations like my supermarket one, but that’s nothing next to what account directors or senior planners have to stress about. They might do more of the interesting stuff, but there’s pressure that comes with that. So enjoy where you are now, live in the moment. The brilliance of agencies is agency people and the fun you can have with them. As a junior, that means extra curricular fun too. Yes, you have to work hard, yes, the hours can be bloody long, but make sure you enjoy your youth and all that entails. You won’t experience life in Technicolor in the same way ever again, you won’t have the same freedom, you won’t have the same energy.  Don’t let your work define you, let you define you. Going out on school nights, being able to work with a hangover, drinks after work, the time to read what you want, see films, know all the good music and have time to listen to it. These are golden times, don’t waste them. This habit of making time to live life is something you should never lose either, it will make you a better planner, as in the end, it’s about people and what people are interested in, the more you’re plugged into this, as well as ‘category dynamics’ the better.
11. Oh, and one more thing, don't worry if you're shy and nervous talking to a lot of people in one go. So am I. Some people are just naturally flamboyant and can hold a room. That's not most people. The confidence comes from experience, the more you know, the more you have practised, the easier it becomes. Also, I think people really don't care if you're a bit nervous or don't appear slick, they respond to your enthusiasm and the fact you look like you've worked really hard. Don't try and be flamboyant and off the cuff if you are not, just do the work and you'll probably come off better anyway.
    

 

So that’s what I would have liked to have known about starting out. This is what I would have liked to have known about the long term:

 

1. Work abroad as soon as possible. Planning skills are transferable to any market, any agency. If you’ve worked in a developed market, you have a brief window where people in Asia will think you bring something valuable to the table (even if that’s the case, learn their culture as soon as possible, western rules just do not apply), don’t waste it. See the world, being a planner is an amazing passport to do that and when (if) you get back your broadened horizons will make you a better planner and person. I bitterly regret not doing this and always will. There’s an added benefit to this, it seems that consolidation is making more and more work global, having lived a more ‘global’ life will set you right for the future. I recently didn’t go to Australia and longer ago didn’t work for Rob Campbell because of starting a family. Nothing matters more than them, nothing in this universe makes me happier, but I do regret not having done all could have done before they came.
2. I wish I’d understood digital stuff a lot earlier. Plenty of planners claim to, but they don’t really. We’re all playing catch-up to an extent, you can’t do any form of digital planning without a rudimentary comprehension of the technology, you can’t do any form of planning these days without ‘getting’ digital and how it’s influencing culture. There’s a massive opportunity in any market for those who can apply old school skills to the new  disciplines, and few able to pick up the mantle.
3. On that, I wish I had known the consolidation that has happened with clients and agencies. Where I work, opportunities to do integrated, let alone ’advertising’ projects are few and far between, which can be frustrating since the ‘digital bit’ is often beholden to the strategy worked out by the advertising focused, lead agency based in London, or would you believe, the media agency. I don’t care what the medium is, I just want to do stuff that will change businesses, which can tough when your hands are tied by planning done by others that often haven’t really considered your bit. I enjoy the challenge of chipping away at the thought leadership of the London boys, and really enjoy pulling the rug out from under their feet when they’ve underestimated me because I don’t work in London, but as I mentioned before, I wonder what I might have done different if I’d known integrated work would dry up. I think that’s a salient point to anyone working in the west. When the exciting economies are in the developing world and there’s less and less opportunity in a shrinking industry in the UK and US (Australia?) perhaps one should think about working there?
4. I sometimes wish I’d shifted to the client side earlier on. My wife thinks I would have been bored and frustrated, perhaps she’s right,  I always feel like I have to keep moving forward or die, like  shark or something, repetition fills me with dread, but I sometimes I crave the longer term security and career path you get in a big, brand owning association. I would have liked to have given it a try to see what it was like.
5. But to be honest, I wish people in this industry would stop moaning. We’re incredibly privileged. It’s not big money like bankers or lawyers, but it’s so much more interesting (I think). We still get very good pay next to most people, we wear what we like, work with interesting people most of the time, we’re never bored for long and it’s in flux. Which means the future is not written. Never has there been a better time to create your own future. No one knows what the agency of the future will be like or the planner of the future. It’s not like the old days, but then the old days were not as great as people make out. They never are. Here’s to the new days and the people ready to create it rather than talking about it. Planners in my view.

We can all use good PR folk

Creative agency type people have looked down on PR types since the dawn of time. The cliche of the 'PR girlie' is still rife within the corridors of most shops- chauvinist and elitist in one fell swoop.

Of course, if you've worked with PR practitioners, you might feel aggrieved that they seem to only be judged on equivalent media value' rather than actual results in the way people think, feel or behave around whatever brand you're working on, but the dark arts of PR types have ben employed by the best in adland for ages.

Getting stuff talked about, generating headlines, getting on the front pages. These are the core skills of the Max Clifford's of this world - but also the key to ridiculously successful advertising, digital or integrated (shouldn't everything be integrated these days?) campaigns. Not just 'PR'.

Because:

1. 'Fame' campaigns, work that gets the brand talked is the most effective strategy you can pursue accrording to the IPA Databank.

2. Budgets are continuously driven down and clients want ever more return on their investment. While the attention of people is continually eroded by the ever increasing media clutter.

3. Honda Cog, Cadbury's Gorilla, Sony Balls, all had a much smaller media spend than you would think, they just got talked about a lot, they generated headlines.

4. Talk value is the real commercial benefit of digital and social campaigns. Ignoring the hot air from brand consultants and social media gurus, the value of digital or social media campaigns is not in the number of people who get involved- piddling in relation to the size of the audience or the category - but the headlines they generate and the REACH from the people getting involved. Chalkbot, the Old Spice Response campaign, The Best Job in the world the real value is talk value.

The sweetspot with the work highlighted above is they are suprising, entertaining and disruptive, with some sort of story behind them.

That's the sweetspot since the media are always looking for new and entertaining stuff to write about or report on.

Stunts in the loosent sense. Real life events or content that stops you in your tracks.

But never forgat that while stunts get talk value but the real objective is to get your client or your issue talked about.

That means more than shock value. It means 'stunt' must be inextricably linked to the brand or the product promoted.That's where creative agencies will always come in because PR wheezes always run the risk of getting 'headlines' that do sod all for the busines issue.

But we need PR folk too, they have the relationships, they know what the media is after and how to sell it to them.

In other words, like all inter-agency, inter-discipinary stuff, the key to fantastis results is pretty simple. Mutual respect, the surrender of egos, open mindedness and filling each other's gaps.

 

A quote about reason

"You do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into"

Jonathan Swift

Planners take note.

Few consumer decisions are really rational, so appealing to the common sense rarely works.

Even fewer client decisions are made based on logic and evidence. Logic evidence are simply used to justify them.

In other words, don't appeal to common sense, fire the imagination.

 

Doing what you should, not what you can

John Steel's Truth Lies and Advertising is still the first book anyone should read on planning. Much might have changed since it was written, but to be honest, the majority of stuff is the same.

Yuu really should take a look at this talk he did recently and pay close attention to the ditinction between doing something becasue you can, instead of doing what you should.

 

Cars, Girls Aloud Tango and the gulf between craft and enjoyment

In the last two months we must have watched Cars or Cars2 at least 3 times a week, thanks to our little boy;s utter entrancement with Lighting McQuenn and co. He doesn't take just one McQueen replica to bed, oh no, he takes two.

I happened to read the reviews on Amazon after we'd the films a few million times and went a little deeper with the 'proper' film critic reviews, finding myself a little surprised they seemed to get quite a pasting, especially the second film.

I wondered if they sort of missed the point, that these films are made for children, with some adult themes to maximise Mums and Dads taking their brood to the cinema or forking our for the DVD. I wondered how many of the reviewers had watched children watching the films, rather than the films themselves.

Just like I was saddened by the snide comments in the Guardian about the comeback of Girls Aloud (talentles, irrelevantm don't write their own songs etc), which missed the point that their fans really didn't and don't care about craft and talent, or maybe they do, that's not what Girls Aloud gave them.  They gave them fun, license to lighten up, the joy in ordinary girls made good and that knowing, cheeky, independent, sexy take on womanhood that Sex and the City delivered as well. In fact, that's probably rubbish too, they looked great and sang insanely catchy tunes.

Which also made me wonder how people in agencies really judge ads and stuff. If you want to know how peopl respond to TV advertising, sit with your own family and friends in front of the telly and see if they respond or enjoy any, let alone, 'talk about them' at all. Likewise with digital, sit with someone at an laptop screen, on their actual sofa while they half pay attention to Corrie etc.So if they eveb waver over banner ads or brand stuff that's snaked into their newsfeeds.

I was reminded of a comment in the blogs, to a quite good recent ad, slagging it off for being too much like Blackcurrant Tango.

 

First, the target customer wasn't even in long trousers when that came out and second, if they were, they won't really remember or care that much.

That's agency types talking to themselves.

Just like film critics judging childrens' content the same way they do a Orson Welles film, are missing the point.

Like Girls Aloud fans don't care an iota for what Guardian readers think.

That's not to say people are stupid, there's nothing worse than researched to death creative stuff, reduced to the lowest common demoninator, treating them like idiots. But then again, if it's stuff that only a few thousand people in adland find interesting, moving or enertaining, it's only really talking to itself.

What does your customer look like?

If you want to really get creatives to understand the target customer you're on about in a brief, you could do a lot worse than show a picture of them, even better, a video. I don't know why, but it works every time. Oh yes I do, creatives respond to imagery, video or metaphor, not lots of words.

Interesting or big?

I was chatting to someone about the pitfalls of working with, or for a big company and how company size seems to be inversely proportioned to its intelligence.  We agreed that most people in marketing seem to think being huge or being interesting (dare I say it cool) are mutually exclusive. Why?

Maybe that's what sets brands like Apple and Old Spice (modern incarnation) apart from everyone else. They see being interestingness as the key to bigness, rather than a barrier.

I hate W+K

I hate them because they consistently do work I would want to do.

They mostly manage that trick of not just doing work that people will talk about, but work that get's people talking about the brand and even better, the product.

Work where you can't help but admire the attention to detail and the sheer planning craft.

Like this.

 

Four truths - people are not dairy intolerant, they're lactose intolerant. All hedgehogs are lactose intolerant (and cute). Lactofree is dairy stuff without the dodgy lactose,so the lactose intolerant (which includes Hedgehogs) can enjoy dairy stuff.

Bastards.

 

The weakness of Empires and the power of words

I watched part one of Jeremy Paxman's BBC series on the British Empire the other day and found I loved it. Reminded me how much of where and who we are is shaped  by where and who we came from.

Two lessons also:

1. Massive Empire's are essentially confidence tricks. They always overeach themselves and end up as massive confidence tricks - doing eveything they can to appear stronger and more untouchable than they really are to the conquered,who collectively outgun the conquerers, so they don't realise how easily they could blow them away.

They make sure they have lots of massive displays of power therefore.

Reminds me how the whole Cold War was based on the fabrication of, not only what Stalin's intentions were, but how powerful the Soviets really were (not nearly as much as the warmongers would have everyone believe).

Also reminds me of the 'Empires' in the advertising business. With notable exceptions, they're not very good mostly, just very big and very good at 'displays of power' - the amazing buildings, the great suits and the fantastic props. 

2. Great writing is timeless. Forget all the blather over to  long copy or not. Great writing cuts through. The most memorable moments of the programme to me were the recitals of Rudyard Kipling's IF..

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

And Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum Este

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares(2) we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest(3) began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots(4) 
Of tired, outstripped(5) Five-Nines(6) that dropped behind.
Gas!(7) Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets(8) just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime(9) . . .
Dim, through the misty panes(10) and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering,(11) choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud(12) 
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest(13) 
To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.(15)

Both just skewer you straight away.

Anyway

 

Hard work and consistency

I grew up at the fag end of the golden age of tennis. Just old enough to witness Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker and the very young Agassi and Sampras. I always admired Lendl the most because he had the least talent and probably did the most with it.

Lendl wasn't a natural and certainly didn't have the advantages as poor Czech boy. But he pulled himself and MADE himself great. He was never an unstoppable talent like Becker or impish genius like McEnroe, but he made himself into a tennis machine that was never a jaw dropping joy to watch, but was always reliably consistent. His trademark killer forehand and rocket serve just never let him down. 

There's lots to be said for being more of a Lendl is this business and less of a  McEnroe.

On an agency level, there are 'hot' shops that burn very brightly for awhile then fizzle out, because they have had some amazing moments of inspirational genius, but can't get consistency. When they're good, they're very, very good but when they're bad, they're horrendous.

Only a few achieve both excellence and longevity. Yes, they might have famous iconic examples of genius, but what's more important is a look at the whole portfolio.

The actual money often comes from clients who are not ready for 'out there' work and more importantly, their agencies know when solid work is more important than the the fireworks. 

Look at the portfolio of long terms successful agencies, the ones that are not money making network behemoths, and you see consistency. Eventually hard work, determination and high personal standards always win over rampant creativity and waspish genius.

 

 

Brands aren't all they're cracked up to be

I wouldn't be the first to propose the notion those most market research about what people say they want or will do is pretty useless. It doesn't matter if that's NPD, creative development research or whatever. Research based on watching customers, observing them in their own environment, living with them can expose all sorts of opportunities. Expecting them to tell us what they want will not. Because they can't. We're all useless at predicting what we'll do,want or feel like because our frame of reference is how things are right now, or how they were. Look at Star Trek from the 60's and how archaic it looks, because it's based on how people looked and behaved in the 1960's.

Not to mention, we post rationalise what we've done anyway. Our memories work to make us feel about the past, for example believing we weren't that happy in a relationship when we get dumped - or believing we made a choice from careful consideration rather than gut instinct. Men have been proven to change their minds about how they felt in a sad situation - believing they were less emotional than they were because culture teaches us that 'men don't cry'.

So customers are pretty bad at creating the future for companies. And much of market research is about mentally removing risk for marketing folk. It's a placebo. It's snake oil.

Brands are accepted as future building tools though. But the idea of a brand doesn't always help that much either.

Companies spend a massive amount on 'brands' because they're seen as massively valuable when it comes to the bottom line. They have a point since for some of the biggest organisations, a significant proportion of the market capitalisation value (if they sold up) lies in the name, the reputation and the symbols in people's heads. If Coca Cola's entire production line blew up, they could still sell the company for billions on the name, the blood red colour and the instantly recognisable font next to the swooshy ribbon thing. Of course, maybe they would need to hold onto the secret recipe. Yep, brands can be seen as an 'asset' along with real estate, infrastructure or the R&D team.

But the people that own these brands are besieged by those who are, in many ways, nothing more than charlatans. Brand consultants, internal 'brand health directors' and the agency, design and, these days even digital partners who like to think of themselves as brand guardians.

It seems that every single one has their own version of how brands work, and, lets be honest, change it week in week out. From brand triangles, wheels, and onions to more exotic species like 'blueprints', 'disruptive brand idea', 'brand health pyramids' and even molecules.

Every week, if you follow the trade press (and hopefully you don't bother too much) there's a sparkling new methodology, tool or weird chart unleashed on the marketing universe, with all the furrowed brow gravitas of the discovery of the Higgs Boson or the key to cold fusion.

Brand people tend to have their own unique, all conquering recipe that will prevent, cure and eradicate all sorts of commercial problems.

Now only a fool would say 'the brand' is not a good idea, it's just that most have forgotten what that idea actually was. The way that mos claim they work and tend to use them is, at best, doesn't work and, at worst, causes more problems than the ones they're solving.

They stop us solving genuine problems

Most brand models have the brand as an end in itself. You move people from being 'unaware' through to considers to, God forbid, evangelists. Huge budgets are spent on brand objectives, 'awareness' 'consideration' and so on, without addressing real business issues. Decent advertising builds brands, especially stuff that makes people talk.If it uses relatively consistent symbols, themes and tone, it builds up long term recognition and distinctiveness. But this is an consistent outcome of all advertising (and I use advertising in it's broadest sense - DM, telly, digital, social etc) not the ROLE of advertising.

We're all here to use creativity and communications to solve business issues, mosty around how to grow sales. Thinking just in terms of brand issues gets in the way. I love this Chrysler stuff, love it. But I'm sure the brief for this wasn't 'we need a new relevant brand idea' but more like, 'People are put off buying our luxury cars because they don't want to be seen as ostentatious in times like these'. And it's not based on some ethereal brand idea, it's based on a truth - the cars are made in Detroit. This based on solving a very real business issue, not brand scores.

 

This was created to solve solve the issue that fashion has straight hair wasn't the fashion must have it once was and we needed to demonstrate the product could do a lot more.

 

Not solving brand problems, solving commercial problems in a way that continued to build the brand.

Claims on how brands work are exaggerated and in many ways, plain wrong anyway

The efforts of many organisations into measuring brand scores often come at the expense of delivering sales - assuming that if we get the brand scores right, sales will follow. Yet I've worked on more than one brand where the brand health scores are through the roof but sales are declining. In one case becaue penetratio in the one price bracket the brand was in has maxed out and was under attack from competitors. Leading to the search for product innovation.

Another argument is that if we get strong emotional loyalty, the more loyal and frequent their buying behaviour will be.

But both are not really true. In this book we discover that brand image etc tends to happen AFTER the actual purchase, how people's score brands alters from months to month anyway and loyalty in any category are pretty constant. And around half of sales come from people who don't very much ergo don't think about brands very much.

 

Just on the brand thing therefore, assuming no one is interested is by far the most sensible approach but still - solving brand problems rarely solves business problems. Solving business problems does!

Brands about your history, not your future

This is the source of biggest blockage to business building ideas. All that brand essence, values stuff is designed to be immovable. Unlike the rest of culture, brand are designed to stand the test of time. When in reality, people, markets, culture and economies are always changing and moving on.

At the very least, that requires re-evaluating the brand to new contexts and challenges. For example, I think Levis' Go Forth work moved from being a slightly sexualised symbol of youth rebellion through what you wear - very much part of you are what you wear - an irrelevant hangover from th 1980's and 1990's to a fizzing catalyst for the young to come together around and actually CHANGE stuff apart from just looking like they did.

The most stupid thing anyone can say is, 'That's not on brand' when they means it doesn't get a brand onion tick. 

So, yes, brands are useful. They're useful to people because they help them not think about stuff. They're useful to organisations because they do add to things like market capitalisations rates, they do enable a measure of coherence. But they do not solve busines problems on their own. Building brands is an outcome, not the goal.

If you want to know what someone is really like you have to actually meet them

I once met Amanda Holden. Let's be precise, I fainted 5 yards away from her for reasons I won't go through here.

And no, I wasn't star-struck. In fact,I didn't like her. Based on what I'd read and what I'd seen on TV. Which means I didn't like HER I didn't like her image or the accepted wisdom of what she was like.

When I fainted in front of her, it was in a busy hotel reception, she was been fawned over by loads of assistants and was about to sweep outside to the waiting press corps (they were filming Britain's Got Talent). But when I did my sparko act, she stopped what she was doing, picked me up, asked if I was okay and got her assistant to get me a glass of water, plus she wouldn't leave until she was sure I was okay. Amidst all that showbiz hurly burly and the waiting journalists outside, she showed genuine concern and helped a muppet like me.

Which made me realise she probably anything like I was led to believe. She was probably quite nice. She'd certainly been nice to me.

When I was a student, I spent 3 years months not really talking to what I thought was the most pretty girl in the swim team because I couldn't see what she has to do with me and she seemed very aloof. It was only at a reunion thing 4 years after we graduated that she asked me why I never talked to her and admitted she had a 'thing' for m (no I don't know either). I found out she was very shy and found it hard to make friends because everyone assumed she was super confident, super cool and super elite.

Yet again she was nothing like what I'd expected, or even like my superficial impression.

It's a bit like that with research and 'consumers'. Data, segmentation, analytics and all that are great. So's listening to social media conversations etc. But if you think you'll understand what people are really like and what they really care about from this stuff, you're sadly wrong.

(Picture from the wonderful We are What we Do.)

Take social media. So much of what people share on these platforms isn't what they're like,it's an idealised version of who they are, or who they'd really like to be. You won't get much truth from that. Just like the 'conversations' you see do not have the same conditions as real life (being anonymous, or at least not face to face makes you do and say all sorts of things you wouldn't do in the real world).

More to the point, I've banged on about the need to tap into what people really care about, not what your brand's agenda is. Much of that will come from habitually absorbing everything you can in popular culture, but also fishing where other don't fish. Anthropology and sociology papers are a useful bet for example. Not to mention dabbling in behavioural economics and stuff like that. 

But nothing beats meeting them. In their own environment. As soon as you take them out of that, you affect their behaviour, just like a monkey isn't anything like what it's like in the jungle if you put it in a zoo.

In particle physics, one of the core pillars of quantum mechanics is that you can't pinpoint both a particle's position and momentum, by measuring one, you're interfering with it and affecting the other. It's just like that with people, if you want to know what people do or think, you need to meddle with what they're doing as little as possible. An artificiality lit room with 7 other strangers talking about stuff you never usually discuss or have really thought about is as nearly as much 'meddling' as I can think of.

It takes patience and you have to develop the skill for striking up conversations with people you have never met, which is tough for shy people like me, but who said this job was easy?

For example, I spent half a day hanging around a motorbike retailer, talking to the staff and customers. I was shocked by how many women came through the door and completely changed my view of them. From reckless idiots that get in the way of my car to a weird tribe that see themselves as the last wolves in an overly cushioned world of sheep. They all wanted to feel something in a jaded existence. I began to admire them in fact.

I've learned more about Mums over 35 and coffea/tea and biscuits by being around when my, maternity- leave enjoying, wife has her cronies over than any segmentation study (and you know what gents, they don't talk about us).

Just like I was in no real position to judge what Ms Holden was like until I met her, I don't think you can really say you know your customers until you've spent some time with them in their environment.

Talking is good. In fact, it's critical.

I got an email from a creative group head today, asking me to give him a call. Naturally ignored him and went straight over to chat. Planners should never be too busy to talk to anyone.

Why? Any excuse to chat to a senior creative should be embraced. And because any chance to break out of the planning bubble should be grabbed with both hands. Let me explain.

If you're a planner it's always hard when you start at a new place, because we struggle for acceptance more than any other department or discipline. Creatives and suits managed quite happily before planners arrived on the scene and in many places they still do. Creatives tend to think they should own strategy while suits tend to think to same, or even worse, can't be bothered with it. 

I once worked somewhere where they were doing one of those pointless revamps of the creative brief format, so they did a quick series of interviews with the creatives to find what they wanted from planners and briefs in general. It became quite clear they wanted a say in strategy and in many cases, thought it was their job anyway. They didn't really didn't know what planners did, and to be honest, this is more common than you think.

So when you leave wherever you have worked, where you have hopefully won the respect of everyone and they WANT your input rather than avoid your interference, you have to do it all again when you start at your new place.

It's critical you get to know people quickly, learn what makes them tick and build relationships. It's easy for suits, their day job involves interacting with everyone. It's easy for creatives, their day job involves telling everyone to go away. It's easy for traffic or production, people have to talk to them or nothing gets done.

But planners tend to exist in their own little bubble or corner, quietly getting on with their intellectual (!) doings in splendid isolation. Even if you're lucky enough to sit in an integrated team with suits. planners are just a little more isolated.

So get off your arse and meet people. Find excuses for professional conversations with everyone, but have as many chats about anything as you can. And if you're in your first place, do it even more.

If you're starting out you should:

Make friends with traffic. They know everything that's going on and know everyone. They have to be evil bossy bastards to do their job, but usually, they're the nicest people in the world when they're not telling a suit they can't have it by yesterday. They can also help you find out what makes creatives tick and who to talk to.

Make friends with junior suits. If they're good, they'll rise through the ranks quickly and take you with them.

Creatives are a tough nut to crack. I've always started with bribery. Even as account exec plankton, creatives would talk to me if I was brandishing a tea pot or cafetiere. And include them as early as possible. Pretend you're stuck on a brief (or admit you are) and ask for their help. I guarantee that no creative will get testy over a brief they've had a hand in.

But never stop this. There does come a point when your seniority, or more subtle status, means you get involved by default. But there's nothing worse than losing touch with what's going on and, it doesn't matter what your job title is, the best work comes out of lots of collaborative conversations. I'm convinced the older, senior people lose their dynamism and originality because no one challenges them anymore and they just don't get enough in enough situations to be told something they didn't know.

What will the New Year bring? I don't know. Nor does anyone else.

So Happy New Year and stuff. You're probably bleary eyed and already facing a massive inbox and intray. That's the thing about New Years, by and large, they are not too different from old years. It's just part of the slow crawl of things gradually getting better.

Of course, another feature of this point in the calendar is the ubiquity of predictions telling us what to expect in the coming months. It's a shame they're all so useless.

Mostly this is because they're thinly disguised creds pieces. Seriously, look at the digital agencies looking to build social media clients and I bet you'll find some pressing things every client needs to do in social media. Give a man a hammer and all he sees is a nail (Mark Twain).

Also, we're rubbish at predicting the future because firstly, we base that on what we know now. Go back to 2004 ish and planning decks we're full of how brands need to get good at blogging because we all blogged and no one had a clue Facebook would get so big. Secondly, marketing is a branch of economics, both od which are based on thousands, no millions, of complex interaction between illogical, unpredictable human beings. We really don't know what will happen next.

Of course, some are right, because they're based on the obvious. People are spending less because they're worried about the future for example. We're enjoying and looking for bigger things to come together around because of this (X FActor, Strictly etc, but I argue we've always wanted this, the programmers just forgot. Otherwise how do you explain the incredible success big family cinema like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter which was pre-recession? Apart from big stories different ages could enjoy together?). They just add ridiculous names to it. Seriously, we all know that more people's lives are lived in bigger cities and this will affect all sorts of habits. Some bright spark has decided to call this Citysumers. Somehow, fusing two words into one counts as insight. But these predictions are not much use because it's stuff other brands know about and are doing something about. The trick is to provide a different answer.

 I always use this Chrysler example, sorry. But that's because it doesn't just join into some kind of austerity narrative like the rest which might lead to cutting price, justifying price premium or agreeing how bad stuff is. It provides a relevant answer - hard work, which feels like a new take on luxury, rather than joining in with the 'trends' like 'conspicuous experience' etc.

 

It doesn't matter if it's at the level of brand commication, product development or long term business planning, there is no point following, while it's suicidal to stay still. As Paul Ormerod persuasively argues in this book,

the only was to survive long term is to continuously innovate. Provide new answers.

 

Cultural Strategy

 The thing about planning is that every agency and some invidusals have their own process or schtick that's the answer to all the world's ills. That's great for creds and selling to clients but pretty useless to anyone trying to learn on the job because, to be honest, their is far more than one way of going about it.

All that matters is what works for you and whatever you happen to working on. If the outcomes is great, who cares how you got there?

In that spirit, I firmly believe that cultural strategy matters more now than ever, but that doesn't mean that the approach in the Account Planning School of the Web is the only way. If you haven't read Heather Lefevre's presentation on starting a cultural movement, you should. It's insanely helpful.

One thing to bare in mind in both cases though.

Great communications ideas tend to relieve tension in culture, they address real problems in people's lives. This matters of course, it gets you somewhere good since the real long term value of advertising in all its forms is to build distinctiveness and create strong and deep memory structures. In other words, it needs to make the brand stand out in a very cluttered world.

But that's only half the story. In the short to medium term, their should always be a 'hard' objective to solve. The IPA databank shows that campaigns that work to hard targets are far more successful than those with 'soft targets' like brand consideration, salience or, God forbid, awareness.

Therefore, whatever your doing, make sure you have a clear business issue and tightly defined communications task that will solve it first.

For example:

BUSINESS CHALLENGE Grow penetration by encouraging more people to consciously switch from buying standard fresh milk to Cravendale.
CREATIVE CHALLENGE Jolt people out of their milk-buying inertia. Create love and fame for the brand that gets people talking, buying and believing Cravendale’s milk is superior.

 

 

BUSINESS CHALLENGE IKEA can drive 24% increases in kitchen-related visitation by improving
awareness of IKEA kitchens by 10%. We hace to first make IKEA kitchens famous to get them to be considered

CREATIVE CHALLENGE The kitchen is the room, outside of the bedroom, where we spend the most time - it's the heart of the home.A common belief is that you always end up in the kitchen at parties. We need to dramatise this is the most culturally sticky way we can

 

(both taken from the respective APG case studies)

 

New Year Resolution (again)

Every year I make the same promise to myself and every year fail ingloriously.

(picture courtesy of Andy Smith)

That promise it to procrastinate less and be on time more.

It has become an unquestioned cliche that agencies tend to work late. Usually justified by the claim that it's a creative process, you need to let ideas ferment by themselves, we've too much to do and so on and so forth.

It's, yes, we're busy and usually have lots on.Yes clients' brief late and demand early. We need time to think, develop and shake things about.

But it's also true to say your not Dali, Mahler, Kubrik or Plath. You're just late.

A post about escapism v grim reality, 'the third way' men and shaving

I liked this article from The Observer to how entertainment culture in the US is responding to difficult times- basically, escapism or wallow in the situation with grim reality. 

Not only can this found in the UK, on many levels, including brand ones: thrift culture/back to basics v escapism and nostalgia, actually all dramatised to wonderful effect in this:

 

It's accross westerb culture in general.

Actually, you can see the wallowing or denial approach in all sorts of stuff. In the ageing population phenomenon in the western world, people of a certain age get frustrated at the way culture ignores them. They respond either with total denial and escapism, trying to fit in with the culture shutting them out, going for the mutton dressed as lamb approach:

Or wallow in it, with the grumpy old fogey, rebellious, sod the lot of you approach:

 Increasingly though, there is the emerging third way, where individuals decide lifestage is irrelevant and choose to defined by attitude rather than age. They embrace the opportunities that good health, decent money and freedom give them:

It reminds me of all those King of Shaves discussion from the APSOTW project, about the male reaction to their loss of status and uncertain role in the world. Much of culture and the ads and stuff that reflect take the this way or that way approach:

The wallowing, reactionary rebellion:

 

 

#

Or going the other way:

But, like the Helen Mirren example for baby boomers, there is a third way. Both for austere times and for men. Instead of giving in to one cultural pressure or the other, brands can relieve tension with another answer, rather than following the behaviour already there.

I'm suprised we're not seeing more examples of the 'man of action', and I wonder what the modern version of that might be.

Back in the 1930's Superman worked as both independent hero, outside of the system who got things done, in a time when men felt emasculated, helpless and resentful of authority and institutions that restricted their freedom but didn't deliver on the other part of that deal - security and prosperity. 

Marlboro man is another great example, as was the empowering, self motivated rallying cry of 'Just Do It' back in the late 80's early 90's when individual responsibility and merit were standards few felt they could live up to.

 

Of course, the idea of an earnest serious superhero probably isn't right for these ironic cynical times - or hold on, maybe it is?...., with the possible exception of the -  tongue firmly in cheek -  Iron Man, the string of comic book adaptations are pretty earnest and gritty. Not mention modern day hero icons without super powers:

Or even better, what about anti-heroes. Like Omar Little from the Wire, Christopher Nolan's Batman, Tony Soprano, Nucky Thompson from Boardwalk Empire or even Don Draper. Men who step outside the rules of the game to alter the status quo. They're morally ambiguous and contradictory, but they don't wait for permission, they don't worry for too long. They ACT. Something that isn't just an answer for masculine identity conflicts, but the helplessness we feel as the world around us collapses. Something that rubs against some of todays cultural norms, from the get rich quick for doing nothing of use myth that applies equally to the bankers, Peter Andre and sleb culture, to challenging the ruling elite that looked after each other while they fucked us all over. It challenges the convention of make sulking, while the world leaves them behind and champions men who..erm, act.

 On the other hand, it doesn't have to get so serious. I wonder what someone like KOS could do with the subculture of real life superheroes. Not only would they be a vehicle to convey all sorts of angles on the above stuff, it could drip in irony, avoiding the blood curdling earnestness of the category and be, well, rather funny and maverick. Something that category badly needs. Something that would cut through. Something that implies, rather than tells.

Imagine tapping into the rich love for slightly uncomfortable mockumentaries where people don't know how funny they are, like The Office etc. Let's face it, these guys are already doing it.........

  

 

 

Anyway.

 

WARC Planning 3.0 prize

WARC are calling for essays to tell us what the future of planning might be.

Picture thieved from Russell Davies

I'm in two minds about this prize, since I get impatient with planning intellectually talking to itself, rather than reaching out beyond it's faux academic walled gardens and engaging with the real world out there.

But on the other hand, the more people put in fresh points of view, the better we'll all be for it. I love planners and our enthusiasm for stuff other people can't be bothered with, it's a great skill to make dull things interesting for others, even if one of those things is planning itself.

So do have a go, especially you Young Turks, shake up the smug establishment. I dare you.

Why magic still matters. Someone else says it better.

Oh. I've just read Martin Weigel's post on why magic and stuff is still important. If you want better reasoning than the below post, on why it's still important to suprise and delight etc, you should read it.

In world where everything is available, is accessibility a sensible strategy?

I regret to admit that I'm old enough to remember the 1970's when nothing was open on a Sunday in the UK apart from news agents, off licences and pubs. It was rubbish of course, but on the other hand, it was a very real example of how things were just not as accessible as they used to be.

If you wanted to buy a record (not a CD in those days) you had to go to a record shop, sit in a listening booth and carefully, well, listen, to some choices before handing over your money. You didn't want to risk getting it wrong and wasting you're hard earned cash. It was a bit magic.

Similarly, if you wanted some new clothes, you got on the bus to the city centre and navigated the racks in the shops before you found something that roughly matched your budget and whatever self image you wanted to project. No fast fashion, clothes were expensive and the act of finding them was a little magic.

We've lost all that specialness these days in favour of access and ubiquity. If you want something, you can find it on the internet and buy it there and then, with music and film, you just download, probably without even paying. This is great of course, for all our lives, but on the other hand, having it all does leave us jaded.

When so much specialness and occasion has gone when it come to what we want and what we can have, it mystifies me why so many brands insist on being your 'best mate' or 'one of us'. From the ad with the consumer insight played straight back to you, to the overly familiar tone of voice, from the crowd sourcing NPD wheeze to the 'consumer as campaign ambassador' route.

In a world where you can have get hold of anything you want, at any time, brands need more specialness, intrigue and detachment. More magic.

Never more so than today in these uncertain times. You don't need an overpayed trend watcher to tell you people want their money to go further, but that doesn't mean the only answer is cutting price. It can also means making your stuff more magical so it feels worth it. It's a spark in otherwise grim times. Why do people continue to buy overpriced silver and white Apple gadgets? Because the believe the myth.

Another, rather obvious 'trend' is the way people are looking for comforting anchors. That's why so many brands are tapping into their heritage to justify a price premium. To simply read into it that people are looking nostalgia and signals of less troubling times is too superficial. They're looking for an escape from the realities of everyday.

Yes, to feel comforted and safe:

 

But also capable instead of helpless:

 

 

Part of the solution, rather than the problem:

 

Able to 'Open Happiness' rather than fear:

 

Or just in safe hands:

 

I guess I'm saying that access and downright subservience are very commone brand strategies in the times we live in, but the best approach, like it always was, is suprise,delight, instrigue and magic.

When it all comes together.

One the main faults of planning blogs is the habit of portraying the world as perfect. You see it in APG case studies too. If your only experience of life as a planner originated from these sources, you would get a very wromg opinion of the what it's like to do the job.

This stuff tends to propagate the myth that all a planner's job is startling original thinking, stuff that constantly shifts the paradigm. Work hard at examining the problem and all the stuff around, think brilliantly and everything will into the place.

As if everyday was an episode from the A-Team and a Hannibal is loving it when a plan comes together.

It doesn't. For a start, there's lots of very dull stuff to do also. Planners don't spend most of their days composing grand strategy, they're swimming against the tide of pointless meetings, writing decks for clients, Neilsen data and god knows what else.

It doesn't happen at the 'cool' agencies all the time either. Not at WK, not at Mother, not at Crispin Porter. They might megaphone their trophy work, but look at their entire reel and you'll see all sorts of pedestrian stuff and other bits that are just plain wrong. Getting it bang on is bloody hard. These organisations constantly look to do it better, but it's not just about specific departmental excellence.

Planning needs to gel with creative and account handling. More often than not, you need great research relationships and to be able to get on with the media people. Any dissonance here can be catastrophic. The research agency might ask the wrong question if they're pre-testing, or fail to see how the work builds on their original findings for example.

And then there is the client. You need to be able to inspire the client and persuade them. Make no mistake though, buying the best work is always a leap of faith for a client no matter how wonderfully you present it. Few get fired for following the category rules, which means not cutting through, as opposed to taking risks that don't come off. Or LINK testing until it's beating heart is completely ripped out

Then there is the culture of the region you work in. If you work in London, New York or some other 'creative hub' it's more expected to push things than regional outposts like, erm, Sheffield, where I work.

If it's not often it comes to together in Madison Avenue, it's a hundred times harder in Birmingham.

But if you're at a place where 'doing it right' is that much harder, should you give up? No way. If you can't constantly push things to get better, to open the eyes of those around you, I don't see how you do the job. Planning needs to add value or it shouldn't be in the room.

So I don't care where you work, or what client you work on. It's not acceptable to say the client, suits or even the creatives don't 'get it', are too conservative, don't care or whatever. There is always something you can do the make a difference and make things better than they would have been otherwise.You're job is not be right, it is to inspire, persuade and bring change. 

For myself, I made a decisions that I wanted my kids to grow up happy, near family and fields. I wanted to be able to get home for bathtime and stuff. That means my work circumstances are such that it's that much harder to do the kind of work we all want to do. But not impossible. There's satisfaction every day in knowing you made a difference, and the quest to get into that place when everything comes together.

Just once, to do it really right. If you don't believe you can make that happen, even worse, if you don't care, you're in the wrong job.

Okay okay, where you work you might get...

..Bauhaus furniture, an thriving agency community in one square mile, impossibly attractive receptionists, artfully designed decor (you know, the knackered warehouse look, the lego land look, or if you go a media agency, the shiny metal corporate look) and the like.

I get a chef that cooks me stuff like fresh cullen skink, every day.

Cognitive Surplus? Hmmmmm

Just finally got around to reading Cognitive Surplus. And you know what, I find it disappointing.

Maybe it's because what he's on about has already seeped into the way we go about our collective day jobs and I've jut got to it too late, so it's not new.

But I'm not so sure. I like books that compress half formed thoughts, suspiscions, opinions and  and habits I have into something simpler. Somtimes I need someone else to tell me what I think (that's why I like colloborating with certain people at work). Where Good Ideas Come From is one those books. It re-arranges much of what you already know pr believe into something bigger and simpler somehow.

I don't think this book does. Mostly because I don't agree with his main point. He goes on about lots of stuff we already know (social humans, technology changes but people don't etc) but adds it all up to the premise that people wasting spare time watching telly and stuff is an artificial construct and actually we'd all rather be making things and joining movements together.

I just don't buy this. If there's a fundamental principle of humans, it's that we always go for the path of least resistance. TV, reading books and stuff or just playing with the kids is easy. And most people need that because they work hard. There will be busy bodies around the fringes, but most people can't be bothered really, and until we take away long working days, that won't change. Digital stuff is really a more interactive (possibly social) form of entertainment.

That's why most people can't be arsed to upload vidoes to brand sites, vote in a manufactured community based campaign or anything else that requires too much effort.

Or at least that's what I think.

Anyway.

Creative strategies to avoid twelvety seven

The spoof training camp where staff are put through their gruelling paces to ensure second to none results/service etc for you

The bumbling Dad who always gets it wrong and the reseourceful Mum who always quietly saves the day with a knowing glint in her eye

 

Ad cliche to avoid number eleventy nine

Turning the enemy into evil little, but slightly cute characters.

You know, the smug germs in your toilet suddenly shaking with fear when Mum (always Mum) appears with New Improved Bleach Brand.

Or the evil little bacteria critters skulking between your gums, suddenly on the retreat from New Impoved Mouthwash or toothpaste.

 

Why slagging off the competition might not be that smart

It's not news to you (hopefully) that most of how marketing communications works is as much about how it makes you 'feel' as what it 'tells you'. Due to a quirk of human nature, this possibly calls into the question the REAL effect of campaigns that parody the competition. Let me explain.

Gossip lubricates the cohesion of every social group. But be careful how you do it. Sharing juicy news and speculating over half baked rumours really is way to bond with co-workers, friends or whatever. But talking about people behind their back in a negative way backfires, in fact, saying negative things about people in general isn't advisable.

That's because whenever we hear someone talking about someone bad points, subconsciously, we attribute those bad points not just to the subject of the conversation, but the person slagging them off. Talk to someone about how lazy and unreliable Rob is and they'll end up withe the impression YOU are lazy and unreliable. Gleefully tell me how arrogant John is and I'll end up thinking you're more arrogant than I would otherwise.

Which makes you wonder what the long-term effects of these two financial services campaigns were. I don't mean what feedback people gave in unreliable research, or even shifts in awareness or consideration etc, but the longer term implicit memory planted in people's minds, the thing with the longest and, in the end, the most important effect.

 

In the case of Natwest, I know the resolution is the brand as the solution, a lone alternative in a morass of unhelpful, untrustworthy enemies, but you do wonder if people just lump Natwest with the brands they were trying to criticise.

 

And in the case of Nationwide, is it even worse, when you also personify the brand as fat and annoying?

You can see why they might have shifted the strategy the focus on the solution rather than problem..

 

'Brand ads' v 'product ads' and why it's a non-argument

One of the oldest, and probably most boring, debates in this business is the endless arguments over the merits of 'brand ads', especially in the context of 'product' ads. You know, ads that are described as purely focused on how people feel about an organisation v ads that focus on something to with the product.

Like most 'it's black, no it's white' arguments, the answer is really sometimes it's white, sometimes it's black and sometimes it's grey.

That's because the fundamentals of strategy remain the same. Where are we now? Where could we be? What do we need to do to get there? That's it.

What's the fundamental challenge we need to overcome and how do we overcome it?

Sometimes the problem is image, sometimes the problem is what people know or don't know about the product or service. 'Brand' or 'image up' campaigns are not always wrong, but they're not always right. Nor or are  'product attribute' campaigns. It all depends on where you are now and where you need to be.

For example, once upon a time, Skoda had an image problem. Hence stuff like this:

 

But when enough people didn't have a problem considering a Skoda, not enough went on to test drive because they didn't know enough about the cars themselves. Leading to stuff like this:

 

Now, let's look at the first ad again. A 'brand' ad according to common parlance. It wasn't as simple as that, it never is.

There were more than enough people who didn't have a problem with Skoda's image. What was getting in the way of them considering a Skoda was the grief they would get from the majority of the population who DID. In other words, this wasn't a vacuous 'brand ad' it was work that addressed a specific problem that was blocking sales..THAT HAPPENED TO BE MORE TO DO WITH IMAGE THAT PRODUCT QUALITY. So the solution wasn't to address attitudes head on, it was to collude with the people who thought Skoda was OK and gently make fun of the people who didn't get it yet. More sophisticated than that, Skoda made fun of itself too and positioned Skoda owners as smart, informed reasonable people. 

A 'traditional' brand ad with a sweeping manifesto about the company's vision wouldn't have had the same commercial effect, because the problem wasn't what potential buyers though of Skoda, it's what others people would think of them.

But both ads reward your attention, they make you, or me at least, want to talk about them, they make you feel something about Skoda.

That's the real truth about brand ads and stuff. Sometimes you have to address something specific about a company or product image, sometimes you have address something to do with how people use a product, what they know about it or what they think they know about it. Sometimes it's black, sometimes it's white.

But if every piece of communication doesn't build how people feel about the brand, if it doesn't make you feel something and cut through, it's a waste. Because we remember how we felt a longer than we remember what we were told. We don't think about brands and stuff very often and make decisions on emotion far more than marketers realise or admit, and more than we can admit to ourselves. So sometimes, in fact, all of the time, it's grey. It's just what shade is right for right now. 

It's rare that the problem or opportunity is purely 'image', usually, it's about showcasing something about how it's used, made or features about it in way that, not only cannot be missed, it continues to build the correct, unique, positive feelings about it.

This is a 'product' ad for Nokia. But it does a hell of a lot more than tell me about how the product works.

 

All of this campaign is based on the product and who actually buys it, namely how it smells and the fact women buy it for their men.

 

This campaign is based on new product news - it now curls and flicks as well as straightens hair.

 

One final thought. This is lovely work from Ikea.

 

You could argue this is the 'brand led' curtain raiser to more product focused stuff like this:

 

But it does a lot more than re-position Ikea as the place to come to create a happier home (rather than the unvalued place for disposable throwaway furniture it was becoming) it showcases the store and the products available.

More importantly, it does the 'brand thing' in a different way. Rather than the usual, sort of self-obsessed,  'Do things our way' manifesto thingy, you know. 'Just Do it', 'Think Different' it's more of an offer, an experience, an invitation into a particular kind of world you might like to be part of. 'Happy Inside'.

What a night in a pub tells us about the need for humanity in agencies

I went to a pub quiz last night. With my in laws. A small pub where they serve good beer, they don't have Sky and they don't play music. That's right, I'm approaching middle age.

Anyway, I had a chat with the landlord. He's leaving the pub and new tenants are coming in. He's not retiring, he hasn't got anything else lined up. He's, to quote him directly, 'running away'. This is a man who doesn't want riches, he just wants run a nice pub  that's like they used to be, and be able to afford to live.

The pub is thriving, but he can't stand to work for the brewery anymore. He used to love it, but since they were taken over by a bigger group, they've made his life impossible. So he's leaving his life's work, not much but it mattered to him.

Why am I telling you this? Because out there in the real world, beyond our fake world of NHS rimmed glasses, 'brand innovations' and aching coolness is an extraordinary world of very normal people that's full of more passion, drama, romance, tragedy, heroism and importance than most people in adland can imagine, if they even bother to try. That's what great stories are about, that's what great communications are about.

It's not just ads and stuff though. Most of the movie's released are big on 'talk value' and low on heart. Take the sci fi genres. Compare Transformers bollocks:

 

With ET:

 

I think people miss the point about Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Both may have great special effects and stuff, but they're stories about people you care about. People in cinemas for the final Harry Potter film are actually cheering and crying.

This is one of the problems with even the best campaigns. agencies create So many of them are high on talk value and low on heart.

The stuff people actually care about. I'm not saying that shouldn't be done in an entertaining way, quite the opposite, it needs to be jaw droppingly great, better than the stuff it's interrupting. But like ET was insanely great, but also a story about a lonely little boy (and so was Harry Potter) our work needs the beating heart of humanity at it's centre, not just influences from German cinema or the latest fad for brand characters (what the competitors don't get about Compare the Market is that people respond to humanity of the character and the way he doesn't know he's funny.

 

There's a story about misunderstandings and the fierce pride humans have in things they've built themselves, no matter how irrelevant it is to everyone else...that's where an annoying Opera singer goes wrong. He might be a brand icon, 

 

but he's just, well, annoying).

This spellbinding work for Chrysler is about people, specifically, the deep romance America has with the values of hard work and perseverance and the right for everybody to live with dignity (or that's what I think).

 

One final thing about my friend in the pub. He's like lots of people who work in agencies. Most of them want to do great work, they want to work somewhere they feel pride in. They want to work with interesting people. They don't really care about their face in Campaign or doing a TED talk. They just want to do what they love with a level of security and fun. Because let's face it, if working in an agency isn't fun and stimulating, why else would you do it? But most of them work very, very hard in spite of the huge groups most of them now work for, you know the ones to whom they are just a number, where their livelehoods can be taken away from them with the flick of a pen. The ones that do their best to extinguish every flicker of originality, personality and spirit in everyone who works for them.

You wonder how many people take the decision of my pub friend. Not because they're retiring, not because they're off to something else great. But because they've lost all the joy in something they should love.

The absence of role models

Back in the day, in the UK at least, you found the main protagonist in drama, comedy or whatever seemed to be someone who did real work for a living. Morecambe and Wise were unashamedly populist (and funny)

 

The stuff that did feature the middle classes ably poked fun at them, mostly without irony. The middle classes could laugh at themselves, but so could everyone else.

 

Nowadays, it seems that any stuff starring 'working classes' at all, does it's best to mock them for the benefit of their so called betters.

 

I know I'm making sweeping statement here, you'll be able to find examples that are exceptions, but I suggest this is the general direction of travel.

So it's not too difficult to work out the enduring appeal of soaps like Eastenders and Coronation street , finding romance and drama in the kind of lives most people actually live. It's not real if course, but the context is very much in real life.

US drama and comedy seems to find it really hard to base much of it's work in the less than glamorous life of the majority. Or maybe my view is coloured by what the British media shows here. In any case, the view from here is that stuff like Roseanne was an exception rather than a rule.

It's easy to work out why people like Jordan or Coleen Rooney are so popular. Yep, they are pretty much talentless, they are famous for doing absolutely nothing of value, but most of us are talentless too and live rather mundane lives.

No wonder young men want to be footballers, there's not much else the media gives them to aspire to is there?

No wonder Cheryl Cole is so loved. She can sing, she can dance, she's unquestionably pretty, but when she goes in the X Factor, she's one of us.

 

This matters. We live in times when the many are being asked to shoulder the burdens of the elite who have fucked things up somewhat. Where ordinary people are seeing there disposable income slashed and live in fear of what might be around the corner. In short, where people are going to have to define themselves by what they 'do' a little more, a little less by what they 'want'. But popular culture still sells the lie of accessible fame, success, riches for anyone who is beautiful, is able to kick a ball well, or manages to marry one. 

The responsibilty for new roles models and values to aspire to lies with anyone involved in creating culture. That includes people who create advertising and stuff, which at it best, not only mirrors culture, it influences it. But most people in agencies despise the people they create their ideas for and only really care about influencing a small community of peers who tend to work in West London.

A wise man once told me the best way to find a way to connect to customers is not to merely put yourself in their shoes. It is to admire them. How many people who work in agencies can honestly say that?

 

 

 

Damascene transformation only happens in scripture, not shopping

You can't move for transformations these days. It doesn't matter if you're trying to shift brand preference, doing some sort of direct response, nine times out of ten the objective tends to be transform people thinking this to thinking that, from considerers to buyers. You'd think customers were all living in biblical times, awaiting Damascene epiphanies that would divinely transform them from 'Saul' into 'Paul'.

Of course, it's useful to have a clear starting point and a clear goal. The classic 'where are we now and where do want to be/could we be?' is still  basic (and often forgotten) discipline of good strategy.

But it's not so good when applied to people as some sort of golden rule...'get people from here to here'. It assumes they have a very clear opinions and easily defined patterns of behaviour. You know, you either like Nike or you like Adidas, you're either a high value customer or a low value customer, you're either loyal or a repertoire shopper.

But the opinions people have on brands and stuff is far less even and consistent than the brand consultancy gurus would like us to believe. People might like one brand a little more than another, but it rarely goes much further than that.And our preference opinions fluctuate. Think about it, if customer preference was so fixed why bother advertising at all? We do of course, usually to either defend a big share of customers by stopping them liking someone else instead, or get new ones by changing who like from someone else to us.

People are also really annoying when it comes to their behaviour. The received wisdom likes to put people into convenient segments, but it doesn't really work like that. Luxury buyers also buy economy, people buy healthy food and downright artery furring, life shortening food too. Nike buyers also buy Adidas and probably Converse and Puma too. of course they do, in depends on mood and the situation. When it comes to food, you might be 'good' all week and eat really healthy food, then pig out on Fridays. If you work in an agency, it's highly likely you might wear Nike for running and Converse for work. If you like wine, you might drink plonk during the week and but good stuff to go with your 'pig out meal' on Saturday night.

So if people don't really have rock solid beliefs about brands, and they don't behave in simple, one dimensional patterns what are we to do? It comes back to boring data.

The IPA Databank shows that campaigns that build 'Fame' have the greatest effect, because create a talking point and cut through the brand clutter. They also provoke a strong emotional response, and neuroscience shows us this is far more critical to how customers make decisions than 'information'. When you need to attract mostly uninterested people, the primary objective needs to be gaining attention in a favourable way. In turn, that's why adding some sort of value to the issues and tensions in their lives is so effective. They don't care about your category, but they care about themselves.

It also shows that campaigns with proper commercial and /or behavioural objectives, rather than soft 'preference' or 'awareness' (God forbid!!) objectives have a higher success rate. Obviously if you set out to understand what's really happening around your product service etc, you have a much better chance to affect it. Put another way, the first stage of any strategy development should be converting a commercial objective into behavioural objective.

Here's two examples where brand preference and behavioura objectives are brought into sharp focus.

The first is a very small bed retailer I used to work on. On a limited budget, we couldn't affect brand perceptions in a useful way, and in such a low interest market, we argues at the time that the word 'brand' was getting in the way. I much more relevant problem was the terrible levels of purchase v footfall. Why were people not buying when no one bothers researching new beds unless they really need to, and, let's be honest, want to get the job out of the way as quickly as possible?

We found that people just didn't have a clue how to choose bed and didn't trust sales people. So they drifted around retailers until the settles on something. Then bitterly regretted their purchase when they found it to be uncomfortable afterwards.

The problem was simple, help people choose the right bed with minimum fuss and without the need of a salesperson. The solution was even simpler - an idiot proof bed guide. The solution wasn't a huge ad campaign, it wasn't very clever or sexy. It was a simple printed leaflet and some point of sake. Sales went up exponentially.

(By the way, I still don't think that 'brand preference' is the most commercially effective approach. There's a much more potent blockage to clear. The main reason people put off buying a new bed is that they can't be bothered getting rid of the new one. It's too much hassle, so they put up with bad backs and bad sleep. I'd rather bring procrastinators into the market quicker and and straight to a  client. Maybe it would involve creating a national talking point around how Britain seemed to be willing to do without decent sleep (a cultural fact, we all manage on less sleep and even brag about how knackered we are).

Another example if the, often discussed old Spice Guy. Brilliant creative, of course, but what makes it stands out is two key points:

1. The 'Fame' element comes from tapping into lots of issues young men have with masculinity and what it means to be a man these days.

2. It's built from two key pieces of behavioural information. Most men's shower gel is bought by women, so they needed to create conversation between men and women. Most of the  shower gel men use smell's perfumy and girly, they needed make the manly smell of Old Spice attractive, or, if you like, make guys want to smell more like 'jet fighters and punching'.

 

How champions are really made and what planners can learn from it

I'm reading this book.

It's a must for anyone who wants to understand how superhuman sports performers REALLY got that good. I think it also provides a great lesson for planners.

The main thrust of the book is that incredible performance in any field isn't determined by talent, what matters is the work you put it. In essence, practice DOES make perfect, as long as there is lots of it and the kind of training you do is always pushing you towards slightly unattainable goals.

Champions are made, not born.They just put more hours in and fill those hours trying to do things they can't quite do just yet.

Planners have loads to learn from this. First and foremost, don't believe that rubbish your brain being wired the right way or not, you can train your mind to operate differently. If you're an Account Exec that hates schmoozing and thinks contact reports are really, really boring, start learning to think like a planner now....

Start talking to them about their work and how they go about it, they'll only be too happy to share, no one tends to make any effort to talk to planners unless they really have to.

Think about the creative work you like, try write what you think the brief might have been, get feedback from planners and creatives, do it a lot.

Cultivate a curious mind, read lots of stuff that has nothing to do with advertising, watch lots of popular culture stuff and every month, and every month, from what you are constantly absorbing, share three things you believe are really relevant and useful to your client and the category at large.

Start getting hold of the lots of data to do with your category. Get planners, the client's research agency or your analyst (if you have one) to take you through what they look for and how they find patterns in numbers. Start doing this yourself.

There's lot more of course, but as a start, if you begin to work hard at doing and thinking planner type stuff, if you want to be one, you can. Oh, and since the biggest criticism of suits within and outside agencies is that they don't think, they just sell, you'll make yourself the best suit in your agency anyway.

So don't believe the hype about rock star planners and so called 'genius' planning directors. They were not born that way, it's the benefit of experience and hard work. That's right, great planners are not cleverer than anyone else, they just work harder.

So goodbye News of the World

I guess few middle class skinny latte drinking planner folk will lament the demise of News of the World and I guess, from an ethics point of view they might have a point, but that's not really for me to say.

 

I will regret its loss for slightly more mundane reasons.

The News of the World knew its audience and what they were interested in. There was no pretense in being something it wasn't, it had an incredible instinct to know what its buyers were interested in and deliver it.I will miss a direct line into the real beating heart of UK plc, which was invaluable for my job.

Evidence of mistaking what people care about for what you care about is the way broadsheets went Tonto over phone hacking into the lives of the rich and famous, but the public didn't really care that much. When the hacking became about normal people like them, well, you know what happened. That's a problem many politicians, media folk and ad folk have, they just can't relate to real people and what they are really bothered about. There's a lesson in there too somewhere.

 I wonder if certain planners could learn something from an organisation that really took the time to deliver content people really wanted, rather than what would impress their peers. 'twas always thus, but now you can't afford to start with what people care about and work back. What interests THEM, not a small community based around West London,Maddison Avenue or whatever agency hub you might work in. That doesn't mean yo shouldn't seek to change their minds of course, but it needs to be about something they're bothered about in the first place.

What agencies really do and who does it

Peer beneath the hyped up claims and overcooked proprietary processes of creative agencies and you soon discover they are all variations of the same thing - creative thinking that generates business success. Of course that's mostly about creative work, but at their best, agencies supply creative thinking that goes much deeper into the business, into NPD and distribution for example.

Look at that phrase again....creative thinking that generates business success. Put crudely, you'll find that the 'creative thinking' bit is the creative department and the 'generating business success' is planning. Naturally it's more blurred than that, a big chunk of creative thinking needs to be done way before it's condensed into a creative brief, and not just by planners, but you get the point.

But look at the amount of people agencies employ who actually DO that. In any agency I've worked at, and 90% of those I've worked with, account handlers outnumber the creative department by at least two to one and the planners by at least twenty to one.

In other words, agencies may claim they exist to create business transforming creative ideas, but in reality, most of the people at best enforce a linear, methodical production line, or at worse 'get the client the work they want'. Yet a read of this book will quickly dispel the myth that great ideas come from a production line process, or specialists working in silos, while we've all met suits who do their best to put a stopper on any idea that's beyond the first page as they try and second guess the client.

 
 

Put simply, most creative agencies have a system that is best suited to churn out average work and gets in the way of the extraordinary stuff that can cut through the clutter of popular culture or indeed, the client culture.

I'm not saying 'kill the suit' of course. Without someone to bring sanity to bedlam, deal with those client situations and keep and eye on the budget, nothing would get done or no one would make any money from it. But there needs to be a re balance between the people who contribute to making stuff and those who make sure they're making stuff.

That's why I find Mother so interesting for example, where there are no suits, but traffic gets stuff done, strategy make stuff work and creative makes stuff great - and all have client facing responsibility.

One of the most enjoyable and interesting times I had was working in direct partnership witj a creative, why not follow this model, and maybe add a technologist in this digital age? Or even a comms planner?

More so than ever, agencies need to focus on business building IDEAS, not 'selling a process'. Let's hope more and more re-organise to make this happen.

Changing Behaviour

John has written a great presentation in Behavioural Change. You should read it.

 

Tennis, game plans and why it's ok to change your mind

One the greatest comebacks I ever saw was the Lendl V McEnroe in the final of the mens French Open Tennis in 1984 (showing my age I grant you).

 

It was classic chalk v cheese. McEnroe's waspish, pointillist genius - classic serve volley tennis, all touch, impossible angles and passion, taking on Lendl's bulldozer - pounding groundstrokes from the back of the court backed up by a thumping serve - all straight lines, repetitive resilience and stoicism.

With deliciously added bite from the fact they couldn't stand each other.

For the first two and a half sets, McEnroe wiped him off the court. Darting little sorties to the net, before putting the ball away at stupefying angles, while Lendl pounded his groundstrokes to no avail, in the hope McEnroe would run out of steam. If you looked at the court, you could see McEnroe's footprints in the blood red clay all over the play, a tapestry of his genius, in comparison with Lendl's churning out the back of the court. And that's how it would have stayed, McEnroe's impish game winning point after point while Lendl glowered in the fierce sun.

But then Lendl starting hitting some precision lobs over McEnroe's head. Immediately, the American got a little more cautious and didn't come in so close to the net, and Lendl got a little more room to hit some rasping shots past his outstretched racket. Just like that, the match changed. It was still close and Lendl didn't actually take the lead until match point in the 5th set, but the change in gameplan proved decisive.

Which is a very long way of saying that while you need a gameplan or a strategy, very few plans survive contact with the enemy. Of course you should stand your ground, but only a fool isn't prepred to change their mind when they are so obviously wrong, or something so obviously better is staring them in the face.

Balls to pride or saving face, the 'biggest' person is the one who has the courage to admit their wrong or agree someone else has a better idea.

So don't stick doggedly to the words on your creative brief when someone suggest something better, or work off brief isn't just great, it's a better strategy. Don't dig you heals in if someone who doesn't have 'planner' in their job title, or from another agency or, a client, has a suggestion that's better thab yours. That's the beauty of digital campaigns by the way, they're really an evolving, real time experiment, flexibility should be baked into your plans from the start.

The job of the planner isn't to DO all the best thinking, it's to make sure the best thinking emerges. A crucial difference that is lost on too many. So leave your ego at home and remember that changing your mind isn't a sign of weakness, it's a source of strength. 

Best planning blog ever

There's that old saying saying, (incidentally by Arthur Conan Doyle)that mediocrity knows no higher than itself, but talent instantly recognises genius.

Whichever I am (not genius of course), I know genius when I see it.

After reading Martin Weigel's blog for the first time in awhile, I'm doubly pleased I stick to basics and stuff over here. It's The Best Planning Blog Ever.

Junior planner or old hack, you must read it. Simple, brilliant, insightful advice. Seriously, just read.

English social diseases and global campaigns

If anything sums up the English, it's social awkwardness. We're useless at relation or communicating with others. It's normal here to never talk to strangers in queue or on a bus - it's a social no no, mostly because we just don't know how to do it.

Here we don't complain loudly, there is just the subtle 'tutting' when someone jumps the queue. We rarely complain in restaurants that don't serve us well and we often still tip, promising ourselves we will simply never go back.

Neighbours tend to be people who just live next door, we don't know them very well but say hello to them everday. Redundancies, illness and other significant stuff will be a complete secret. We are open, welcoming and tactile with our pets, but rarely other human beings.

So we're incredibly private and guarded. So much of how we communicate is built on irony, chronic false modesty and should rarely be taken at face value. We hate earnestness and pomposity and love to cut people down to size, because if there's one thing we hate more than earnestness, it's boasting and showing off.

No wonder ironic, subtle, self deprecating  advertising is so succesful and so loved by English people. Little mystery then why we tend to hate boastful, earnest and, dare I say it, American advertising.

Every country will have their own social and cultural patterns that will dictate how they respond to popular culture of which advertising is a facet., and something that rarely comes up in the kind of focus groups global (or local!) companies use to help develop strategy and creative development. But if you're developing any kind of multi-national campaign, you need to take this into account.

Account Planning School of the Web project - cultural strategy

Right, it seems to be my turn to do the Account Planning School of the Web. If you haven't a clue what that is, start by reading this.

 

If you can't be bothered following the links, basically Saint Russell was kind enough to set some homework projects for aspiring planners and gave free feedback. He passed it on to me, Rob and Gareth and Paul Colman has done one too (what am I doing on this list? You had better ask them).

This time around, we're going to do a task based on what I think should be at the heart of planning, but it rarely happens that way in most cases. Let me explain.

The usual approach to strategy is finding a way to communicate rational and/or emotional benefits of a product or service to a chosen audience in the most relevant way possible. If your lucky, in the most entertaining way possible.

It usually follows that once you've nailed what you want to say to people, then, and only then, you sprinkle this with some trends, influential celebs or try and link it all with something popular or cool in your target's lives.

In other words, sell a product benefit and try to 'buy' attention by piggybacking on their interests. It rarely works well because of two major faultlines in this conventional approach:

1. It's not authentic and today's web enabled, marketing savvy human will see the brand isn't 'walking the walk' and reject it out of hand. Take all those brands using soccer as a shortcut to brand involvement- how many add to the experience, enriching fans enjoyment of their sport? How many just get in the way? Exactly.

2. Worse, this approach is still based on people making rational decisions, making choices because they know that something is better. It simply doesn't work that way. We mostly make quick decisions based on emotion and instinct - how we feel about something. The rational stuff is mostly a smokescreen our own brain blinds us with. And these days, few products don't stay superior for long, before someone copies it or outdoes it.

That's why campaigns that build fame for a brand, that make you feel a specific way about it and want to talk about,  are proven to be the most effective. That's really how we buy stuff in most cases. Most things we buy builds our identity, a way to tell others, and ourselves, who we are and what our values are. This isn't vacuous image marketing, it is constructing the person you want to be. And, amazingly, campaigns like this are MORE effective at creating belief in product superiority and price premium than 'telling people' why it's better.

AND they save money, because you don't have to enage in an escalating NPD arms race. Naturally, you have to be credible and relevant to what you're selling, but that's the real art - discover what people are interested in or what really matters to them, and work back from there.

With me so far? Good.

 A major trait of these fame campaigns is that they don't follow culture, they seek to influence it. They don't just follow popular opinion, they don't just mirror what people are thinking, they seek to change their minds. Rather than communicating a better product, or better 'image', they communicate a better ideology. It's a cultural innovation, not a product or emotional one'.

So that's what this task is about, it's about cultural strategy. I urge you to read this book,at some point,  but with apologies to Holt and Cameron, we're going to do a task based on their approach. To be honest, is something many great planners are doing already and have been for a while. So I'm going to set out a process in a bit, here, and I want you to go through it for this project. First, here's why it works.

Some, and maybe most, of the most powerful brands in the world got there by offering an innovative cultural idea, or expression if you like. Throughout history, cultural expressions have played a pivotal role in helping people organise their lives within societies, what is moral, meaningful, what we should strive for and what we should despise. They're the linchpins of how we construct our identity - how we view ourselves and how we want others to view us, the foundation of what we want to belong to, how we want to be recognised and what we want people to think we care about. Truly successful brands are much more than a 'badge' or some sort of product innovation, they're one of these linchpins.

Amazingly successful brands provide an anwer to some sort of tension, contradiction or struggle that contempory culture enforces on the lives of real people.

Nike's 'Just Do It' gives people the feeling they have the willpower to succeed on their own, no matter what the odds -when in reality, most people can't live up to ideals of success and individual attainment capitalist societies enforce on us.

 

Ben and Jerry's provides easy access to 'counter culture' for middle class people who need to pay the bills but don't want to feel like a 'sell out'

Sainsburys 'Try Something New Today' resolves the tensions between the current pressure to be a great cook and the realities of budgets, time and talent

 

Jack Daniels is an outlet for men looking for an expression and independence and masculinity in an ever increasingly 'soft' and feminised world.

While Starbucks brought  accessable artisanal sophistication to people felt they should be a bit more cosmopolitan but didn't have the courage palate or to leave their comfort zone.

Patagonia do the same for armchair eco warriors or outdoors types.

ghd resolves the tension between women who hanker for the indepedence and exitement of The Sex and The City, Generation Y Women, but also feel the pull of suty and a woman's natural need sacrifice, care and nurture those around her.

 

It's not easy to pull off, you need to find the right tension, create the right ideology and then communicate it with the right cultural expressions (well come to that in a bit). But when you do, it does functional benefits stuff far more effectively than  traditional 'benefit led' brands.

When a brand has proper cultural resonance, when people love you for your better ideology, they naturally assume your products will be better. In other words, if you get people loving, and talking about the brand r'aison detre, you do the price premium, product superiority job too.

So......................

I want you to show us what you would do with King of Shaves. They might be successful in the UK, but they want to go global and even in Britain, their success is piddling next to the lumbering behemoths that are Gillete and Wilkinson Sword. This is mature market that's brimming with masculine cliches, NPD arms races and sciency marketing. What's your cultural strategy to turn this on its head?

And don't worry about keeping anything they are doing right now doing, it's all dire in my book. Just take into account every market will have limited budget. You won't be able to afford much TV or outdoors beyond very well target stuff that will create much more noise than it normally would.

This is the six stage process I want you to follow (read the case studies here):

1 Map the shaving category's Cultural Orthodoxy

Every market tends to use the same cultural expressions, with only variation around the edges. What are the conventions in this market, what cultural/social status quoe is this reinforcing?

2. Identify the social/cultural shift that can blow it to bits

There's nearly always something happening in culture, some sort tension, contradiction or you can help resolve and latch onto. Something that's far more potent and relevant than the cliches the category sticks to. Naturally, it has to be relevant to how people feel about the category. What is happening in male culture, that can turn the conventions on their head? What specific audience is this important to and why?

3. Create the ideology

Now you've nailed your cultural shift, you need to detail how this is impacting on how consumers feel about the category and what resultingh brand idea, what ideology it can share with the people.

4. Gather source material

There's no need to 'brainstorm' what people will be interested in ten years from now. Rather, cultural brands repurpose stuff already out there. Stuff already lurking in subcultures, in media (past or present). What's your best source material?

5. Define core tactics

This about defining what tactics will best create the most conversation and noise - a blueprint to how you'll get people talking and flocking to your 'movement'. This is the blueprint to your communications strategy

6. Define your cultural strategy

Write a manifesto, no more than 300 words, something anyone involved can read, so they can get excited about what you're setting out to do.

 This is not an easy project, and since this is a 'school' like with all good projects, over the next week there will be examples to hopefully inspire and help you go about your task.

In terms of output, I don't care. There are no rules. Can be powerpoint, a written document, blog post, Youtube video. That's up to you. But make it impactful inspiring and succinct. Email me wither the document or the link. Be prepared for others to see and admire your work.

There will be judges. Rob Campbell, Gareth Kay for starters, but there will be others.

You have until 1st May to submit your work. Feedback and winners etc will be announced 1st June. I want judges to have time to give your ideas the attention they deserve.

But please don't submit until at least a week on Monday. I want to take a week absorbing what you can find out about KIng of Shaves, the category and the whole cuture around and attached to (and what you might add!!!) to shaving.

At the same time, come back to this blog and spend time with the case studies. I know the process might not make complete sense right now, the examples I'll share will bring it to life. Think of them as 'tutorials'.

While your waiting, read some of the case studies on here. I think Clear Blue is very relevabt but it's your project, not mine.

For the time being, good luck and enjoy.

A guide to the dark side

Alledgedly planners are the 'voice of the consumer', 'the voice of objectivity' and many other well-worn monickers. You know, the saintly, pure, unflinching voice of logic and reason. Only planners can tame the rampant, red in tooth and claw nature of the creatives, or the 'how high Sir' tendency of suits - all by our admirable devotion to truth, justice and the strategic way.

 

But dark planners know different. They know that truth and justice is too much like hard work. Few planners are allowed into the secret society of Dark Planners and learn the naughty tricks that have been secretly passed down through generations. But, risking the wrath of this secretive, but powerful society, here are the easiest 5.

1. Know some core pithy, de rigeur phrases and deploy carefully. Rather than having to 'know stuff' just bamboozle clients and colleagues alike with bollocks planning speak that sounds really clever but means very little. For example, blah blah blah, 'WE NEED AN IDEA WE CAN ADVERTISE, RATHER THAN AN ADVERTISING IDEA', blah blah blah, 'THIS IS A GENUINE TRANS MEDIA IDEA', blah blah blah, 'WE SHOULD SET UP AN SCRM CO-CREATION PANEL THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA' blah blah blah blah, 'WE PROPOSE INSPECTING THE CULTURE BEFORE CORE COMPETENCIES'

2. Make friends with research Most researchers spend their lonely evenings in viewing facilities in Slough or Derby. Extend the hand of friendship and they'll welcome it with tearful joy. Buy them a coffee, compliment their choice of attire they'll be only too willing to 'collaborate' on the finding and recommendations.

3. Monkey with the animatic Pre-testing is dull and promotes dullness. Collaborate with the producer to get cunningly boost the sound levels for brand name mentions and core messaging.

4. Always start with your conclusion, then make the evidence mind shatteringly dull. You want everyone to think you take small, careful baby steps towards a rigourous, well rounded strategic gem of a conclusion. But life can be too short. Sometimes you just know it's right, and have better things to do than reassure the bean counters. So start with you shiny conscusion and make it jaw droppingly gripping, pretty and inspiring. Then take them through the flimsy, hastilly gathered evidence that you've put into the dullest. most impemetrable chart you could find

5. Insert a glaring mistake into everything All creatives ignore the brief if it's perfect. Why? They want to have thought of everything themselves. So insert one or two fatal flaws, let them correct you and they'll work from the brief with the gusto of Charlie Sheen in a buy one get one free brothel. Client's are no different, they want to think they've made the big strategic breakthrough. So make sure you present something crushingly, obviously wrong and let them correct you. They'll naturally assume they've saved the day and rewritten the marketing paradigm and sign off the strategy with said Charlie Sheen enthusiasm. In other words, don't waste valueable time and energy crafting perfection, take the easy route with craft imperfection.

Objectivity, prejudice and changing people's minds

There's this cliche that the role of planning is to be the voice of objectivity in the development of campaigns. But that's nonsense really, there isn't really any proper objectivity, just better informed points of view.

Mostly in the business we're in, it's not even that. It's dominant ideas and received wisdom. But that's good. Dominant ideas are there to be exploded. Take Galileo's exploding the idea of the earth at the centre of the universe, there are plenty of dominant ideas to crush in the world of brands. It's built on false assumptions and prejuduce.  

I'm coming round to the view that this is what my job is about. Exposing the prejuduce and failings, starting with my own, to get better points of view. Looking for dominant ideas to crush.

 From how we actually go about developing ideas to changing people's minds about whatever culture exists around a brand, product or category.

 

Failure, but Account Planning School of the Web is coming soon

I was going to publish the next Account Planning School of the Web project today (if you don't know what the hell that is read this), but I've run of time. A miserable failure, I know.

 

And it won't happen next week, since I'm off to go lo-fi doing family, non-work things away from phones wireless and such.

So the project will be up a week on Tuesday.

See you in a week or so, tara.