Brett Macfarlane

Advertising Theory Deadlock

It seems there are new battle lines drawing up in the world of advertising.  Simplisticly, they followed a journey that went like this:

1. Model A is no longer relevant.  It is replaced by Model B.

2. Oh wait.  Actually, we didn't move from A to B, but now models A though Z can work. 

3. Hold on, all that stuff in Model A still works.  I did some of that Model B and then M stuff, not sure if it was any different or better.  So Model A still works and is therefore the focus of most efforts supplemented with a smattering of other stuff.

4. No, you didn't actually ever commit to B nor anything one thing C through Z.  Actually, you tried to do them all, at the same time, badly.  Just as I can buy personalised Nike I want personalised ads.  Stuff for me, only when I want it where I want it.  This is the post industrial mass advertising revolution damn it.  Don't you get it?  A revolution!!!

And there you have it.  Two factions lined up behind Stage 3 or Stage 4.  It's not communism, or socialism nor even anarchy.  In fact, it looks a lot like the US Democrat Vs. Republican divide.  Two parties closely fighting every election collectively representing most of the country. 

One for big government, the other for small government.  One about the individuals, the other about the macro economy. 

Each are a system of governing.  Each with different values, personalities, divergent self interest and ways of working.  Both kind of do the same but to different ends through different means yet still with a lot of overlap at the macro level.

If I was creating a business from scratch today I would almost certainly look to work in a way aligned with point 4.  That would be so fun.

If I was handed one brand/category in a conglomerates portfolio of brands in a commodity category used by 75% of a country's population and no discernible beneficial historic perceived differentiation or spastic inconsistency I would probably align with Point 3.  Can still do some amazing stuff such as what 98% of Old Spices activity is, stuff under Point 3.  I would try to do Point 3 really brilliantly and break all the rules inside that model as much as I can get away with inside the machine of super conglomerate company culture.

Marcus, Bloggers Drinks and Bubble Bobble

Last Friday an internet worm hole opened up landing me in Shoreditch of East London.  A "Bloggers Drinks" event instigated by the presence of The Kaiser himself - Marcus Brown.  

I have internet known Marcus for about 5 - ish years - amidst all his extensive commenting, conspiring and publishing enable by the power of the internet.

It was about time our paths crossed in the analogue world.  Partially to snuff my curiosity whether he really exists or is an elaborate post-digital trans-media ARG narrative invented and curated by an idiot savant holed up somewhere deep in the axis of evil.

In fact, Marcus exists, and refreshingly was just as one would exist.  There were discussions of Bubble Bobble, meta-media, trans-gender-media,  jukebox functionality and WAM respectfully.  The Truman's Beer at Ten Bells was brillaint.

It is always fun meeting folks you know from the internet, like chatting with someone you grew up with for a period in life.  You have mutual reference points and a shared interest. It only gets weird when someone inevitably mentions how weird it is - which was Marcus' one obvious fault.

See you again Marcus.  

In defense of social media, no, actually, in defence of any media that doesn't suck

You have probably Noticed a lot of articles of late looking at different stages of "digital" things and how people jumped on board expecting a panacea.  Currently the "participation" model is under heavy review.  The baby is mid toss out with the bath water.

An article today from Tim Malbon is particularily well argued. Arturate.  True, and something to hold up in the mirror.

But, and this is a big but, are we not missing the bigger point?  Not because they are wrong.  The smart folks writting these articles, no, they are very right.  They need to be read.

But, are we not debating ultimately, regardless of the medium, what is great versus crap?  Are we not finding that the "participation" world, like every other world, is based on being insightful, interesting and truely in touch with the consumer?  Just doing it doesn't really do it.

It is cool now to talk about Old Spice and the 48 hour thing they did.  But, it is rarely discussed why they did what many other brands could have done, but didn't.  Like when the first mile was run under 4 minutes, quickly many others could too in subsequent weeks, despite so many for so long being so close for many years with the potential but never pushing into the perceived dangerous terrain.

I am, embarred to say, on extended vacation in the alps, but just read this amazing speach by a lead researcer at Bell Labs presented in 1986.  Found it from the blog of Jelly Helm.

The speach is powerful and direct, it ultimatley looks into what makes great first class, versus good or prolific researchers.

Read it, put the word advertiser instead of researcher throughout and it will hopefully inspire you to think harder about how to make what we do better, more compelling and effective.  Regardless what medium.

We must ask ourselves if we are at peak medium range of selection - are we at the point now where deciding what medium we choose is increasingly less important than what we do with any one medium we do chose?

Is the medium is no longer the message, what you do with a medium is your greatness?

Or something like that. Back to vacation...

 

 

Curse of Trends

I am fascinated by our industry's pursuit and obsession with trends.  The types who go into marketing tend to like to think they are always in the know and up on the latest trends.  Inherent in the notion of being up on trends is the scarcity of access or knowledge to what the trends are.  And depending on who you are your definition of what a trend is varies dramatically, but that's a whole other topic.

But is there any scarcity in "trend" hunting anymore?  Even if you aren't on Twitter, Facebook and avoid blogs everyone seemingly subscribes to Tend Watching and the same trend reports - or are certain to have someone send a cut and paste at least a few times per year.  Tublr itself is essentially tens or hundreds of thousands of individualized trend reports.

Now Google can update you on trends in a near real time basis through Google Trends.

As a parallel the financial markets used revel in arbitrage - knowing a little bit more on a company than someone else or seeing an inconsistency in price between two markets.  Inconsistencies are discovered in milliseconds and special info is of great interest to the SEC and folks with handcuffs. 

A trend itself is fools good.  A lazy latch on.  The real gold is in understanding why trends exist in the first place.  Look at them as symptoms not the end/beginning.  

At a meta level our tend obsession demonstrates our unchanging desire to express individuality - which as unchanging is done through rather conformists means.  Even the non-conformists have a uniform.

The one certainty when looking at trends is the fragmentation of cool.  Call it tribes, communities or whatever.  Basically there are more ways to fit in than ever.  This also means the barrier to creating a new way to fit in or participate in a movement has never been lower.  Smart brands, as they have always known, can start a movement by doing something interesting or profound. 

Why follow a trend when you can create one?

Post of the Month

Post of the Month is back thanks to Neil Perkins.  Or maybe it was always there just hidden from me on a planner's blog in another corner of the webosphere.

As always some great thinking and dialogue.  I particularily like the post on banning leadership

Caught ya looking

This article in the weekend New York Times on NBC's tests to prove that fast forwarding commercials has economic value.  At first, it seemed obvious that the test were performed with tobacco company type logic of knowing what you want to prove and finding a test to prove it. 

But I would have to agree with NBC that there is some value, rather than zero economic value.  Think of a thirty second commercial as a bag of chips.  You can eat just one to give you a sense of that taste of the whole bag.  Essentially, this is NBC's argument.  That's fair.  But, in all reality, you don't walk away with any sense of satisfaction, or even certainty that the subsequent chips would also taste the same (what if you just brushed your teeth?)

It would be a real shame if advertisers start mandating they build commercials in a way that ensure they still communicate in the 1.5 seconds of exposure during fast forwarding.  If they are fast forwarding them, isn't that an indication there is nothing attracting the interest of attention of a consumer to begin with.   At the end of the day will this be any different that just slapping up the logo.  And  in a rudimentary sense wouldn't the engagement response simply be the pre-existing feelings towards a brand, both good and bad. 

Wouldn't a better way to get attention be to make an ad, with an idea, story or great execution, that would draw people in to slow down and view it in the first place.  Make 1.5 second ads kind of just seems like shouting louder to me.  Some day we'll learn.

(Thanks to Brand New for pointing out the article.

Planner Survey

A kind lady at Martin Agency is doing a planner survey.  Here are her details:

I’m starting to love this time of year… it’s when I send out the now annual planner survey and get updates from lots of people around the country and some really nice notes from people I don’t even know that they appreciate the survey.

This year is the 3rd year of survey fun and I’ve added some new questions about supervisors (what makes for a good one), where we might aspire to work, what do we think about the quality of planning and what’s driving it up/down/sideways, if we plan to switch jobs, why and will we stay in planning. Then there are the old favorites that let us know how much people make based on years of experience, geographic location, degree and so forth.

Since the blogosphere has taken off, I’ve asked everyone to post the survey on their blogs, and even though mine is far from world famous, I’m posting too. So if you are a brand/strategic/account planner working at any type of agency, freelancing, even client-side in the US or outside the US, please take the survey.

Then enter your email address so you can receive the results and keep your answers separate from your email identity.

In day one they are already at 75 surveys, and are well on the way to topping last years 192.  Go plannershere, Go!

Conference Central

It must be hard working in the London advertising scene.  There are so many conferences about advertising that one must attend.  Such as, and, and these guys, let alone the need to pop across the channel each July for this little shindig.  All these are just things that popped up on my computer this morning.  Can only imaging how many others there are.  When does it leave time for work?  I don't know, but damn it, if only I could find a way to attend one of these shindigs... I mean excellent learning opportunities that will add tremendous value to the thinking and creative product of our agency.

Power of Details

Much has been said about the Power of Dreams work WK has done for Honda in the UK.  It's flat out brilliant. As the pool of work broadens what is really amazing and impressive is how they do such an amazing job of taking elements of the brand, tangible elements at that and not just a tag line, to develop great TV spots.  Below is the new spot Asimo which got me thinking about great ideas that are true to a brand versus just great ideas that are retro-fitted to a brand.

As planners we often post rationalize our briefs/strategy, which is wholly justifiable as a strategy and its justification are only as good as the creative it supports or that support it.  But when it comes to creative itself, often you see a lot of work that is first a great idea, and then retrofitted back onto a specific brand or product.  Maybe we could call this post-randomization or post-briefization.  But that's besides the point.  What this means when you start with an idea and then try to fit it to a brand or a brief, you can end up with work that isn't truly all that ownable to the brand or it's product.  For example, one could argue that as great as Sony Balls is, it could just as easily have worked for LG or Toshiba.  It's just a great way to talk about pixels and colour. 

But, anything that comes out of the Power of Dreams platform works solely for Honda. Whether it’s taking the components of the car to show the detailed synchronicity of how they work, or by training a symphony to highlight the audio tuning the results from excellence in vehicle design and manufacturing they are true unique to Honda.  Not just in how they talk to consumers but in what they say.  Not to mention the fact they prominently feature tangible Honda products. 

But it’s probably unfair for me to place the blame on creatives being irresponsible in just coming up with ideas and then forcing into a brief.  Maybe the problem is more from weak briefs or just brief that haven’t been brought to life properly.  It may be as simple enough as not taking the effort to shlup down to the factory to talk to the people who actually make the product and get to know every intimate detail.  As the details are often where great inspiration comes from.

 

Movements that Move.

Just finished reading a stunning book - Terry Fox by Douglas Coupland.  It is the inspiring story of a courageous 20 year old Canadian who shortly after losing his leg to cancer set out to run across Canada in an effort to raise funds for cancer research.

Canada is a very cynical country, shaped by long distances between it's cities and towns.  Often what divides us is more powerful than what unites us.  And having a province like Quebec where the dominant political party is the separatist party doesn't help either.  As such, Terry's story is amazing as it brought the country together and to this day is something shared coast to coast.  Oddly, it is one of the few times in my knowledge or memory the country truly united.  There's the 72 Canada Russia hockey series and the 2002 Olympic hockey golds.  But apart from that we just don't seem to be a country into movements.  We don't rally well.

We as advertisers at times will say that we like to create movements.  I've even used it in a briefing.  But is this a realistic term or expectation?  Maybe not in Canada.  But I wonder if in other smaller or more tightly packed countries it is possible to more easily generate a critical mass of interest and excitement to create a real movement. The incredible documentary Czech Dream comes to mind.   Whatever the conclusion to whether movements through advertising are possible in Canada alternate terminology might be in order...

Canada through a UK perspective

It never ceases to amaze the caliber and sophistication of planning and strategy within the UK ad world that the wonders of the blogosphere has exposed.  There are so many great minds that through the standard British self effacing manner, showcase their smarts and advertising know-how through a matrix of self referencing blogs.  It's great, but I sometimes wonder if little me in a corner of the Canadian advertising world gets intoxicated by all this delightfully inspiring work happening on the other side of the planet (literally) to a point of frustration because marketers and sometimes creatives, just don't get it. 

As such it was great to come across this article on ihaveanidea.org written by a Canadian planner working in London looking back at our market.  It all comes down to risk and buy in that entertainment (not telling) is necessary.  Great article.  I can sleep better tonight better understanding my frustrations...

Better version of ownership = Engagement

After yammering on about brand ownership yeterday I came accross a much more thorough and erudite posting on the same notion at the fantastic blog Brand Tarot by the brilliant John Grant.  His take on brand ownership falls under the banner of "engagement".

Brand Ownership

  Anyone wanting a primer on Web 2.0 can check out the Guardian's weekend edition which comprised of a cattle call for all Web 2.0 entrepreneurs.

The one really intriguing interview is of Craig Newmark - founder of Craig's list.  He talks about how the ideas and ethos of Web 2.0 originate from Science Fiction.  And that the original blogger was John Locke - who for those who don't know was a fellow who back in the 16th or 17th century wrote about this crazy idea called "property" and the notion and importance of individual ownership.

When you really get down to it, Web 2.0 is also about individual ownership, but instead of physical plots of land it's of the little bits of our lives - the images, conversations, interactions and relationships in a digital form.  This also comes to the brands we choose to represent or identify who we are.  We, the consumer, also define who the brands are.  Nike is generally cool because we accept it as cool, and the trend setters (or judges of cool) bless it as cool.  Not because they tell us it's cool.  We own what is cool and tell them they are cool. 

This is where the viral works best.  But as any blogger or enlightened marketer knows, part of the ground rules for being a web 2.0 brand is accepting there will be some negativity.  If there are people who love you, there will be a segment who dislike you.  But many marketers, in particular in North America, still have the mindset of not wanting to upset anyone or receive a complaint to their toll free line.  And so over-tested and safe advertising results.  But while people go out of their way to talk about and champion brands they think are cool (or preferred, liked, attractive - whatever you want to call it if the word cool doesn't jive) they simply could careless about brands they don't like.  They don't feel any sense of ownership.  They also don't go out of their way to say - "you are irrelevant to me."  Nope.  They just carry on without a though or hint of love for you.   So if I'm a brand of today, don't I want to have consumers feel ownership of me?

Hmm.. I know I shouldn't like this Axe spot but it does deserve credit for a solid good old fashion insight into the male mind. It's true, we're always looking. Though the original Asian version of the spot featuring Ben Affleck is better - he's not as big of a tool as Nick Lachey and get the fact he is a parody of himself.

Update: He's the Ben Affleck version:

Death of Corporate Speak - Part III

Thoughts by Paul Bennet of Ideo in a Business Week article on the absurdity and failure of buzzwords.  Dang it, and making up new words was always such a fun hobby...

Companies have feelings too...

Recently I posted a quote from Paul Bennet, creative director at ideo.  An incredible firm.  His quote was really striking.  And here's the expanded version from a Sept. 11 article in AdAge "Consumers have massively shifted in their expectations of productions, services and the marketing of them.  Increasingly, companies are valued more for what they can offer tomorrow than what they can offer today."

   

In this vein, there is no other company that is taking their country by store more than Innocent Juices in the UK.  Started by a bunch of ad guys and build off the premise that being healthy shouldn't be difficult.  It's a mainstream cult.  Their blog is a fantastic real time catalog of their manifesto.  Spend some time with the company and you'll wish it was actually someone you knew.  Check out their story.  There are some you wish you could have over for dinner, and who will wake you up in the morning with a great smoothly to get over a hang over. Fab.

Demise of Group Think

Recently, I posted on one of my favorite topics, the demise of corporate speak.  Anyone who knows me will find it ironic I'm fascinated by this subject as I at times suffer from corporate speak-itis.  I blame a corporate lawyer for a father and an American university education.

In business, the leading corporate speak language schools are MBA programs.  A degree that more and more people are becoming skeptical of.  MBA's don't create new ideas, they deal in processes and valuations. Things we've mastered and technology is replacing.  They aren't innovators but followers.  It's group think really. 

Adage recently wrote about the liability of MBAs in marketing:

http://adage.com/news.cms?newsId=48355 (registration required)

That said, in all fairness there are some interesting theories you can pick up from an MBA program to get you thinking.  But why spend all that money when you can just go to a library, or get a personal MBA.  A very cool idea.

Though anyone who has an MBA will secretly reveal as a friend from Wharton once told me "the only real value of the MBA is networking."  But that's a hard way to justify $150,000.

People through their passions.

It seems of late that everyone's talking about niches and personalization.  Blogs for whatever you're interested and tools like NikeID to make what you want.  Interesting but not overly insightful.  Nor does it highlight emotionally or humanly who people are.  In this regard it's surprising that few are talking about one of today's greatest emerging social barometers - action sports films. 

Action sport culture is fascinating.  What started as a hyper niche in the 70's with skateboarding has become mainstream.  Few over 30 understand just how big of a shift has occurred.  If you're a teenager today, do you think you relate better to an overpaid big four sports star or an individual action sports star like Tony Hawk who is real and relatable.  Not to mention the fact that music, film and expression are an integral part of the sports themselves, which are really a culture.  I was thinking about this today when watching the trailer for one of the big action sport flicks of every year put out by Matchstick Productions.  Typically the leading ski movie of the year. The trailer for this year's film, Push, has been posted. You can check it out here:  http://www.mspfilms.com/theatre/

Some pretty sweet stuff in there. What's quite interesting with these films is that each year the artistry and production values improve. (Not to mention ever more killer tricks and bigger air.) Artistry and expression have become a huge driver of all action sports, not just skiing and snowboarding. Films are a great window into this. Each film, be it skiing, snowboarding, surfing, dirt bike, BMX, skateboard, express uniquely for their own sport and the values of its participants. There is lots of cross over, but each has it's nuances.

You can see this through the music each sport tends to gravitate towards. For example the surf vibe is a little more chill and Jack Johnson-ish. Snowboarding, more of an adrenaline sport with much higher risk factors tends more towards hard edged hip hop and punk. Skiing tends to have a more soulful and ethereal sound to it, but still energetic, though it tends to cross genres more freely. 

A cool thing Matchstick did this year is there is a second version of the film called Pull. It was edited by the athletes themselves. It would be very cool if they went on step further and offered the raw footage to the general public and allowed them to edit their own versions. People may do this anyways and post on YouTube.  Word has it Terry McBride, a Vancouverite tearing apart the music industry paradigms, and his baby Nettwerk Records, is going to start releasing ProTools versions of songs with all tracks independent so that fans can remix their own versions.  This may have already happened with the new Bare naked Ladies album.  Any BNL fans out there can let me know.

Sympathy for the People

  Brands talk about being consumer centric, customer driven and other corporate propaganda.  But people see right through it.  Consumers (aka people like you and me) more and more want to spend their hard earned money on products that excite and surprise with innovation and great experiences(think Ipod) or if it's a commodity product, they want to spend their money with a brand they can relate to. A brand that emphasizes and respects them.  Ryanair, the Irish no-frills challenger airline exemplified empathy for the people with the posting of their new security procedures. 

It reminded me a while back when we were doing some research sessions with various police departments and emergency service personnel.  Each department was relating experiences responding to car crashes. The police investigation team, the folks who go in after the first responders and collect the brain chips, blood and other morbid things to decipher what happened, relied a lot on dark humour to cope with the fact they deal with death and tragedy all day.  We as humans have a odd peculiarity that in challenging, tough or frustrating situations, humour is our catharsis.  Ryanair, a brand, shares this catharsis with their flyer's.  Will be interesting to see the reaction.