“turning in some of the finest, most important cultural criticism being produced today”
“Internet personality extraordinare”
“Wicked, but funny”
“Advertising’s enfant-terrible”
Just some of the things some quite famous people have said about the genius who is Marcus Brown.
And he's looking for a new job, so this genius could be yours to own.
More info here.
Two Twitter strands intersected for me yesterday, and demonstrated something fundamental about the potentially corrosive nature of value perceptions.
One the one hand, you have the launch of Chris Anderson's new book, Free (which will actually be free in some formats...tho not all ironically...but is it still OK if I 'borrow' the £18 hard back?).
Aside from some of the finer nuances in the Gladwell vs Anderson debate, 'free' in this (digital) context at least, seems universally positioned as a good thing: positive, empowering, interactive, unifying, the way the future will be. And the implication is that to think otherwise makes you some kind of cultural Luddite.
Which may or may not be the case.
At the same time I had a Twitter conversation with @charlesfrith, triggered by news that staff at Primark, home of all things cheap, had been commenting on Facebook about the 'pikey' nature of its clientele - those always on the look out for a 'bargain', who can't see why you would pay £5 for a t-shirt (let alone £15) when you can get one for £2.
But as Charles said: "wait till third world trainer makers can leave a comment on the Nike fan club in Facebook". Now the fact that Nike are (per se) expensive isn't the point. It's the expectation we now have, driven by 2 decades of price cutting retail competition (enforced through purchasing muscle), that cheap is our consumer right and damn the consequences for others (what 'others'? what 'consequences'? = precisely).
Accepting that affluence and monetary requirements are culturally relative, we cannot hide from the fact that our 'right' to cheap is built on the penury suffering, even slavery, of others. With environmental problems often running alongside. THAT is the reason why everything from clothes to fruit is as cheap as we expect it to be.
Which is clearly wrong and has to end.
This belief is why I originally got into Fairtrade products back in the early 90s, way before Tesco realised they could sell them at a premium (all theirs obviously) to the hand-wringing liberal middle classes, becaming a wholesaler for Traidcraft. Because if money doesn't get back to the producer they will (in the worst cases) die because of our desire for 'good value'. Something we don't often think about. And no, I don't believe the theoretical yet patently non-existent benefits of 'free' (sic) trade can solve this problem.
And the end of the day, whether you side with Malcolm or not, what could happen to a subsistence farmer in Africa who isn't paid fairly is unlikely happen to him (or any 'creative' person in the developed countries).
Which brings us back full circle to my concern about the current debate in the digital space re Free. Which is nothing to do with how Gladwell, Matellica et al (or even less famous names) get paid for their efforts.
Rather, it's a concern that the digital drive to free (which I broadly agree with) will simply reinforce our more generally reduced conception of 'value', and the transitory, disposable nature of 'stuff' this causes (if it cost me nothing, what does it matter). And that this, in turn, exacerbates our expectations that 'stuff' should be cheap if not free in ALL areas of life by right.
Because this is the positive modern way for things to be. And 'producers' who say otherwise are just 'the man' out to make some excess profit.
Just don't tell the third world wage (and literal) slaves that.
It's just wrong, and time therefore to recognise the distinction between 'cheap' and 'free' and do something about the former as vigorously as we champion the latter.
Because the implications are not just for the producers we are screwing. Toxic materialism makes us unpleasently and narrow mindedly selfish and self-centred, which has personal, social and cultural consequences for us all.
And that's not who I want to be.
Last week, I was given a bit of an advanced head's up on the new Economist TV commercial. Obviously, I forgot to write about it. But I still think it's worth some comment.
From the note I received...
"RED WIRES marks the beginning of The Economist talking to people who might not yet consider themselves to be Economist readers through its marketing and advertising. It was sparked by research undertaken by the magazine last year which discovered that, because of the rise in the number of people going on to university, there are now over 3 million people in the UK whose interest in world affairs, travel, news and politics suggests an unconscious affinity with what The Economist reports on every week. The Economist describes these people as the 'intellectually curious'."
So does the film deliver...
I think it looks lovely. And that it does clearly communicate the sense of intellectual curiosity mentioned above.
The only question I have (and it is a question not a criticism, as I don't know the answer) is whether this is the right strategy for the Economist to be following. Because, as the film dramatises, this takes you in a quite different direction to the magazine's famous poster campaign.
In fact, if there is a downside to the film, it's that all the jumping from wire to wire could give the impression that the Economist is simply offering 'bite sized info chunks for flighty intellectual dilettantes'. Which is obviously far from the product truth - it's about 'proper', in-depth reporting and analysis. And those looking for the magazine equivalent of a Google search or quick Twitter hit may find it not for them.
But then maybe the intellectual superiority of old, where reading the Economist was positioned as a challenge not everyone was up (which, along with 'No FT. No Comment', was why people wanted to read it), is just no longer right in our touchy, feely, social media world.
And I do like it as a piece of film.
But is it right for the brand.
Oops - going round in circles.
Any thoughts?
(Borrowed from the BBC)
OK, here's the thing. The last couple of posts where I've tried to embed a Youtube clip have had a total FAIL.
See here (posted July 2nd) and here (posted June 26th), where all I get is this (click to see big)...
But go early (e.g. here, posted on June 17th) and things seem fine.
I'm running IE8 at work, but have the same problem on IE6 at home. If I view via Firefox there's nothing there at all. My Feedburner feed looks like the image above. But, rather bizarely, the film shows and plays via Bloglines.
Any ideas cos I'm stumped?
UPDATE
Appears that this is some kind of coding conflict issue with IE8, which I installed about 10 days ago - hurrah for upgrades!?@#!
I've re-embeded via Firefox, and the vids now work in FF and IE8.
So sounds like one for Microsoft to sort out (again!)
My very first exposure to quant pre-testing was in a debrief where someone who isn't now the British Prime Minister said this commercial would bomb big time...
It was at this point that I decided here was a branch of research with a huge potential for ARSE-ness, both methodologically and in interpretation.Over the years, my opinion hasn't changed. And has often been reinforced.
And it was only today. One of our clients is putting all their existing work thru a well known quant methodology, to see if it throws up any new insights. A valid objective, and some interesting stuff is coming back.
But you do have to shift thru the nonsense.
Example: one commercial had only average'persuasion' (whatever that means) and was predicted to have only an 'average' impact on short term share. The same film delivered big, huge, massive ROI when modeled by Ohal, and was amongst the best performing FMCG ads they had looked at.
I also have a sneaking suspicion the predicted ad awareness was less than actually achieved in tracking. Not sure. But a big oops own goal if so!
Some clients may have binned this film as a consequence.
Quant pre-testing ARSE and FAIL.
It happens to all businesses. Something innocent turns into a catastrophe. And whilst sometimes you are culpable - you were lazy, taking shortcuts or taking your eye off the ball in some other way - there are other times when you do nothing wrong, but still get buried by a big pile of badness dropped from on high.
Take Q Magazine.
In recognition of a major titan of pop returning to the live stage, and doing so in the UK, they decided to make him their cover star. The singer in question - Michael Jackson. Other articles in the issue that popped thru my letter box yesterday - a feature on dead pop stars. Oops.
In Q's defense, they did nothing wrong - the issue was a long time in planning, and had already been printed and shipped before news of Jackson's demise broke.
But they will still need to pick up the pieces.
As Q's editor Paul Rees says...
"Michael Jackson’s record-breaking residency at London’s O2 Arena was always destined to be the year’s biggest music story, one way or another. As such, three months ago we decided to put Jackson on the cover of the issue of Q that will go on sale tomorrow and throughout the month of July, when the first batch of dates were due to take place.
Work on this issue was completed a fortnight ago and it was printed shortly thereafter. When news of Michael Jackson’s death broke in the early hours of Friday morning, it was already being distributed. As such, we have had no opportunity to change any of the editorial content within the issue. Such is the risk inherent in producing a monthly magazine – that events may overtake a story that you are committed to.
If you do take offence to any part of the issue in light of Michael Jackson’s tragic passing, I can only apologise on behalf of Q. Hopefully, you will understand that no offence was intended or meant.
I hope instead that Q’s salute to the Thriller album within the issue stands as our tribute to Michael Jackson. It remains a remarkable work by a truly remarkable pop star. We shall not see his like again."
And I guess the lesson is, even when you're doing everything right things can still go horribly wrong…probably in ways you could never have anticipated - I bet no hands went up in the editorial meetings at Q to ask "what if Jackson dies".
So it's probably a good idea to have someone somewhere empowered to respond rapidly to that disaster which will happen sometime. Before things get really out of hand.
(Borrowed from the BBC)
As the World mourns Michael Jackson, it's also worth pointing out that another, equally important musical figure died today - Sky Saxon. Saxon was lead singer of The Seeds, one of the leading garage bands from 60s America, who defined the way four decades of 'white boys with guitars' went on to play.
Get some 'best of' action on Spotify.
Or check out this super bad miming from US TV.
When we launched our new campaign for The Porkinson Banger, we joked that we should put our pigs on sale.
Well, it now looks like we might have to! As well as a big old impact on sales, in just a few weeks of what is a quite light weight campaign, we've had well north of 50 inquiries. Here's a few examples...
"Apart from your wonderful sausages, are the pigs featured in your adverts for sale? I particularly like the silver one who looks like he is wearing chainmail.I collect pigs and they are great. If they are not yet for sale, maybe you might consider it! Here's hoping."
"I have always enjoyed Porkinson`s sausages, but what has attracted me to write is the beautiful silver pig which is used in your advertisements. I am an avid collector of silver and pigs in particular, and would love one of these. please can you tell me where I could beg, borrow, steal or buy him?"
"I just love the piggies in your new advertising campaign. You just have to make them available for sale, they are gorgeous. Or run a competition to win them .... I won't be the only one to want a Porkinson Piggie!"
"We absolutely adore your sausages,they're the best we've had for many years.I saw your advert in at the weekend and wondered where we can obtain the silver pig. He's gorgeous,like your sausages.
Just goes to show, there are always other revenue streams...and you may not always be selling what you think you're selling.
Loving how the new Mos Def album, The Ecstatic, is being sold - alongside more conventional formats, it comes as a t-shirt.
Buy the shirt, which has the album art on the front and the track list on the back, and you get a code to download the songs on the shirt’s hang tag.
Brilliant way for fans to 'live the brand', and just goes to show that 'social media' is more than digital.
Only downside - making your fashion statement isn't cheap...it's about twice the price of downloading or buying the CD.
But Radiohead and others have shown that there are those who will pay a premium for innovative formats. So it's worth putting them out there.
As someone who still has a guitar and bass in the attic (never mastered but student days' hangovers that I just can't get rid of), and who constantly feels they should be doing 'something else' with their life, this piece from Lateral Action struck a chord...
When I was young, I wanted to be a rock star.
Not a pseudo-celebrity social media rock star.
A real rock star.
I didn’t become a rock star because I didn’t try.
I told myself I couldn’t do it, or maybe I was simply afraid to fail.
Knowing what I know now, I know I could have done it.
Knowing what I know now, I know I can do anything I truly want to do.
Not that it’ll be easy… just that it’s doable.
Listen.
Skip directly to what you truly want to do.
Don’t substitute.
Don’t settle.
Do.
(So maybe I just need to bite the bullet and 'do'!)
MIT's new media guru, Henry Jenkins, gives us a 5 minute insight into how new technology is helping ordinary people reclaim the world as storytelling.
Henry Jenkins on Transmedia - November 2009 from niko on Vimeo.
One key point he makes, which I think I knew instinctively but hadn't heard so clearly articulated, is that the real power of UGC lies in documentary not fiction (where the quality of true amateur productions is often prettypoor); it's in people finding their voices and reasserting power over their own stories...as we have seen so dramatically in Iran.
As the film puts it about half way through, Orwell thought the future was one of Big Brother watching us; the reality is that we are watching Big Brother...and telling other people what we see.
(Borrowed from the BBC)
Just finished a great article by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker, on how and why underdogs win when the odds are stacked against them. Which raised some interesting questions in my mind about the implications of this for businesses.
Because the answer can be boiled down to one simple lesson (if you like, it's Eating The Big Fish in one line).
It's not simply a case of zigging while others zag, in that 'do the unexpected'/'do your own thing sense' (good as that might be). It's about a much more knowing, deliberate, even aggressive breaking of the rules (whatever these might be, whether formally agreed or unwritten conventions). Because, more often than not, these rules are defined by the strong to defend their position.
This is a situation many smaller/'weaker' businesses and brands find themselves in, but which they do nothing about. Instead, they stick to rules and conventions that reinforce their position, as if they are scared to do otherwise, or locked in by training that says 'this is the right way', or simply because it just feels 'wrong' in some way; not the honourable 'done thing'.
The fly weight shepard boy vs the heavy weight Philistine warrior is the archetypal expression of this rule breaking. Settling major battles using champions engaged in one-on-one combat was fairly common in Biblical times. But like pistols at dawn, there were clear rules of engagement. Champions, fully armoured and sworded up, would meet in no mans land, observe formalities, cross swords and fight.
But what did David do? He rejected the armour and sword as too heavy (unconventional…some would say foolish), then after engaging in some long range 'banter', charged at Goliath, possibly gaining important territorial advantage in the process (bad form), before shooting him in the head from a distance (like Indy in Raiders). And that definitely wasn't on!
So David won, but he did so by breaking the rules (albeit rules that favoured the much more powerful Goliath): he cheated, he was dishonourable, and he was happy to cause 'offense' by ignoring popular convention. But he walked away victorious.
In fact, the Bible is great for such rule breaking victories. There's Gideon's 300 defeating the Midianites thru deception. Or even Jesus' pacifist self sacrifice precipitating an unstoppable revolution, where the Jewish people were expecting, and the Roman's could have defeated, a conventional militant rebellion.
MG illustrates his argument with many such rule breaking examples. And he quotes political scientist Ian Arreguin-Toft, to provide some numerical underpinning. Examining every war fought in the last 200 years which conformed to the David vs Goliath mismatch (in this definition, Goliath's forces had to be at least 10x as powerful), Toft found that David still won 28.5% of the time (possibly surprising in its own right). But where the David force was a rule breaker everything changed, and they won a staggeringly improbable 63.6% of the time.
From the original David via early revolutionary America (ironically), Vietnam and on to post-conventional war Iraq, it's only in breaking with expectations that the weak can fight on an equal footing.
The problem with this tho, and why it's a difficult lesson to for us to learn and apply elsewhere, is that when you view David thru the eyes of Goliath (remembering that we in the west are usually in a position of strength, militarily speaking, nowadays), you see something not altogether positive: irregulars and insurgents willing sometimes to step over that line generally accepted to mark the boundary between right and wrong, good and evil, to defend what they see as their rights and freedom. Even to be a terrorist, in our current perceptions.
But that shouldn't disguise the fact that David's is a good strategy for those in a position of weakness, not just in war but sport and business. Nor does it mean being aggressive and 'war-like' in your approach. And neither is it an argument for anything goes anarchy. Some laws and rules are universally right and proper, and there not to be broken. Plus you don't want to end up in prison necessarily!
Rather it's an argument for not playing by 'rules' and practices that simply favour the strong and reinforce the status quo. And to do more than play lip service to this ethos. Because there is a far greater chance of success in (really) breaking free of the constraints set in place by those on top or in power...to the point admittedly that you might well feel you are (or even be accused of) 'cheating', or being 'dishonest'. It's about not being scared of causing 'cultural offense' or being 'socially horrifying' (to quote Gladwell)...in whatever context it is you opperate - telling retailers your brand will never prove promote for instance.
Just remember that 'they' would say that wouldn't they. And would you rather gain advantage or lose appropriately?
Of all the pieces I've seen from Banksy's 'highjack' of the Bristol Museum, this seems one of the simplest yet most profound statements...
(from Art Of The State)
It is with some excitement that we can announce that Lizzie has awarded Trevor an OBE in her Birthday Honors list. Officially, it's in recognition of his 'services to Advertising'. But the positive role model he has become as a successful and self made creative entrepreneur from an ethnic minority background, and his tireless work with kids in this area, undoubtedly helped.
For those that know him, Trevor has issued a decree that he will only communicate through his man servant from now on. He also requests that you please refrain from making direct eye contact when you have an audience with him.
Bowing is acceptable behaviour, however.
But seriously, you can find more info here.
And I'm sure the new biz drive centred around tentative royal approval will start shortly ;-)
We the consumer believe (correctly) that great service is our God given right, not a 'point of difference' to be added if you feel like it. Our expectations are very high, but our experience is (unfortunately) generally very poor.
Hence (to pick one current example) the cynicism that greets activity like the new NatWest campaign. At best they are saying "our service is as good as you already think it should be" (not a great claim). At worst, they are asking for "yeah right, not in my branch" response to one of the culprits of the current financial crisis.
The fact is that, unless introduction a revolutionary innovation or already recognised as a 'best in market' operator, good service is always something better experienced than claimed in advertising.
Especially, as our bad experiences mount up by the day.
A current example...
My son and 4 friends went paint-balling today at the local branch of Skirmish. My wife paid for some extra pellets but, as we hadn't been before, didn't realise you needed to collect these there and then. We assumed they were handed out as needed. Nor did the guy taking our money try to correct our misunderstanding.
When the boys went to get these pellets they were told, in no uncertain terms, that they had been given to my wife (an assumption or a lie, I'm not sure). A phone call from our son later, and we were talking to a representative of the Skirmish brand, custodian of customer satisfaction and future business.
His opening gambit: "I'm not saying you're lying, but". Which obviously translates as: "you are clearly lying, and trying to pull a fast one". One conversation with an irate wife later, and he finishes with "well, when you come again (big assumption, matey-boy) make sure you pick your pellets up at the start". As if all this was somehow our fault. And then to the boys: "well I better give you these to avoid more arguments".
I know people at the sharp end of retail and experiential service aren't necessarily the best paid. But come on. This wasn't a cheap trip, and we expected more.
Which is why service claims in advertising tend to be a complete and utter waste of money, often doing more harm than good. Because we know they are not true (even if they are!).
(Borrowed from the BBC)
Dave Trott's blog always makes for a good read. And tho it's the height of laziness, I want to repeat in full his post from yesterday (Creative Paralysis). It resonated powerful with me, capturing as it does the tortuous, never ending (apparently) cycle of brand definition 'good practice' found in many client organisations; processes that may work in theory (theoretically) but don't always lead to something distinctive and effective in the marketplace. It isn't that anything goes. But sometimes it is just better to keep it simple and trust your instincts...
"When Bill Shankley managed Liverpool he had a very gifted young striker playing for him. His young star worked hard, trained hard, and studied the game. In one particular high-pressure match he found himself with the ball at his feet and only the goalkeeper to beat. He thought about everything he’d learned. Should he wrong-foot the keeper and go round him? Should he bend the ball around the keeper into the top corner? Should he try a power shot and hope the keeper can’t hold it? Should he hold up the ball so he could lay it off to someone in a better position? While he hesitated a defender took the ball off him and booted it upfield to the other end of the pitch. When the young striker eventually came off the pitch, Shankley asked him what had happened. The striker said he’d been trying to pick his best option. Shankley said, “Look son, if you ever find yourself with the ball at your feet and just the goalie to beat, stick it in the net and we’ll discuss all your options afterwards.”
I often think advertising is like that. We’ve got young copywriters and art director getting confused by concentrating on complicated things that aren’t their job. So they can’t do the simple job they should be doing. Instead they spend all their time thinking about brand theory, new media, cultural memes, and social latency. Now maybe brand theory and the all rest has some relevance for planners. But that’s their role in the team, not ours. It’s our job to stick the ball in the net. And that’s simple, or it’s nothing.
Let’s look at how it breaks down. To be successful, all advertising has to fulfil 3 simple criteria. 1) IMPACT 2) COMMUNICATION 3) PERSUASION If there is no IMPACT no one notices it, and nothing happens. (And the numbers say 90% of advertising doesn’t get noticed.) So that’s the single biggest job for any creative: get noticed before we do anything else. Assuming we get noticed, the next job is COMMUNICATION. Our ad has a lot better chance of working if people can understand what it’s about. We’re not talking about winning awards for whacky-zany ads that no one understands here. We’re talking about effective advertising. So let’s assume our ad is impactful enough to be in the 10% that actually gets noticed. And it communicates so everyone can at least understand it. The final step is PERSUASION. The reasons people might actually want to buy what we want to sell. Is it brand, or product performance, or distribution, or price or what? This is where that conversation belongs. After we’ve done IMPACT, after we’ve got noticed, after we’re on the radar. Not before.
Three of my heroes: Ron Greenwood, Brian Clough, and Bill Bernbach all said the same thing. “Simplicity is genius.” This is demonstrated by the difference between two football managers. When Glenn Hoddle was England manager, the team were winning and Hoddle decided to change the formation. The TV camera showed him in the dugout, briefing the substitute with pages and pages of notes and diagrams. The substitute came on, tried to explain to the team in detail what Hoddle had said, and confused everyone so much that England lost. In one of Harry Redknapp’s first games as manager of Spurs, the team were losing. Harry decided to make a substitution. The player was from Eastern Europe and couldn’t speak English. So Harry had to keep it simple. He said to the interpreter, “Tell him to go on the pitch and run about a bit.” The player did just that. He totally unsettled the opposition’s defence with his runs and movement off the ball, and Spurs won."
(Borrowed from the BBC)
As someone whose family roots, spiritual home and probable final destination lies firmly in the West Country, I have a lot of affection for the West Cornwall Pasty Company. Their products are great (tho still missing the pudding option) and have often been a lifesaver after a late night's work or a few too many beers.
But their 3-fold claim does trouble me: traditional pastys, handmade in Cornwall, freshly baked each day. I know the 'handmade in Cornwall' is oozing with authenticity. But it's also a long way away. And the food miles/environmental downside is a bit of a concern.
This eco-authentic tension is something a lot of brands have to contented with. Particularly as those concerned about authenticity are also those likely to be most concerned about the environment (the Fiji Water backlash springs to mind).
So, personally, I would be happy enough with 'handmade' alone, or 'to an original Cornish recipe'. Because as a pasty connoisseur, I know the product delivers...and the roots of the business.
I'm just not sure I'm happy with it being shipped up for my enjoyment.
After the end of 9 very successful years working with Heat Magazine (new owners = new agency = just the way it is), we've been lucky enough to strike up a relationship with IPC.
First up a project for Now, swiftly followed on the back of this win by another title we can't announce as yet. With both promising bigger things to come - always good to hear in the current climate.
And it offers the possibility of working with Mr Neil Perkin, which is obviously exciting.
The only disappointment is that they are no longer in Kings Reach Tower, converted spaceship of the Mighty Tharg from whence he unleashed 2000AD on the world.
Spoke yesterday at the 2009 UK Book Industry Conference, as one of 8 people given 10 minutes on a specialist subject. Building on my FutureScoping sideline and blogging endeavors, my 'specialisation' was trendspotting (although I broadened this to encompass spotting anything new, fad, fashion or trend, that can positively impact on your business).
Just to encourage me on the morning before, my son questioned my ability to spot trends in the first place as I am 'not very trendy'. But I thought it all went rather well.
I've not done this before, but I thought I would chuck the deck up on Slideshare. It's pictures more than words, and delivered in a quick fire fashion, so maybe a case of you had to be there. But it will hopefully make some sense!
(Borrowed from the BBC)
Just to let you know, the latest edition of my trends newsletter is now out: "emerging trends, new ideas and general thought stimulation"...or so it says on the cover.
FutureScoping is now also available as an effective workshop technique, designed to maximise the number of great ideas generated with the minimum use of your valuable time.
Our new work for the Porkinson Banger.
Brief: in the 'serious and worthy' premium sausage market, where your packaging can be any colour as long as it involves black, get the Porkinson Banger on people's radar by 1) heroing its distinctive new pack design and 2) giving the brand an engaging personality that nods to (but doesn't make a song and dance of) the brands original founder, photographer Norman Parkinson.
...which all sounds like agency tosh when I type it out ;-)
An interesting spin on the impact of 'new' media on 'old'. And why the 'old'...or is that 'new'...can still have a lot going for it. All beautifully visualised as well...
(Borrowed from the BBC)
Recent Comments