livingbrands

Creativity or theft?

Trevor Beattie and BMB have just produced a new commercial for French Connection, and it has created a bit of a stir.

In part this is because scantily clad women fighting, sweating and snogging is always guaranteed to get middle England writing in to complain. But a behind the scenes debate is also raging, because this isn't a new idea.

The commercial is based on a Groovecutters video from last year. Well 'based' is maybe a little generous: it is exactly the same apparently - same setting, action, actresses, styling and director. All that's different is the music. Not surprisingly, this has rather pissed off Grovecutters, who were never asked if they minded someone else using their idea, or even told it was happening.

And the big question? Is this creativity or theft. The agency will obviously argue the former: cultural appropriation is one of ad lands main tools of the trade. But to do so lock, stock and barrel is rather like the burglar arguing he should be let off because he was clever enough to get into a locked house methinks.

So far, I've not found one creative who knows the genesis of the idea and isn’t shocked.

To make up your own mind, check out the Groovecutters website and see if you can spot the difference

Spiderman advertising

David Putnam was made a fellow of the British Film Academy at Sunday’s BAFTA awards. As part of his acceptance speech he explained why he effectively retired from film making 8 years ago: he felt there was no longer a market for the kind of films he wanted to make; films which married entertainment with social comment (he was pleased to admit that the best of 05/06 had proved him wrong).

All of which got me thinking about parallels with the world of advertising. Because (and I can't believe I'm unusual in this) there are times when Putnam’s views of film making are not a million miles away from how I feel about making ads; times when I feel like little more than a dodgy snake oil salesman...and it's not even my snake oil.

But there has to be more to what we do than just selling ‘stuff’ surely? Collectively, we wield great power (it must be true: how often have you been told that advertising is the cause of most of the world’s ills). And as Spiderman was once told: with great power comes great responsibility.

So as ‘communications specialists’ what IS our responsibility to our clients and their consumers? Are we beholden to unfettered capitalism and driven by profit before all else? Are the requirements of business always at odds with social responsibility? Or is it possible to make the world a better place and make money?

The success of ‘wellness’ retailers like Body Shop and Aveda, and fair-trade operators like Cafédirect (6th biggest coffee brand in the UK and now expanding into other markets with Teadirect and Cocodirect) show it is definitely possible to marry the two. Or if that's all a bit too worthy, what about those brands with principles rooted in a more loosely defined social responsibility, who just seem to be generally nice and on the side of their consumers (Innocent, Jones Soda)...and no, I won't mention Goo-'do no evil'-gle here (shows why this is such an important and difficult area - where do you draw the line between beliefs and profit when a dubious opportunity beckons?).

But what does this mean for us? Do we wait for our clients to feel pangs of social conscience? Or do we take more seriously our role as facilitators and custodians of the relationship between our clients’ brands and their consumers?

If business success is rooted in meeting the needs of these customers (as most marketers would believe), are not issues like climate change, poverty, crime, racism, slavery, abuse (sexual, mental and physical) and all the other myriad forms of oppression and tyranny (whether big or small) that exist in our world things we should be concerned about?

At a very fundamental level, they effect the physical, emotional, spiritual and social well-being of all of us, even if we don’t realise it. And as we become ever more linked as part of a global community, and ever more aware of these links between us, our macro-social needs will become more important.

So rather than focus myopically on the bottom line and nothing else. And rather than deal in prosaic needs that have no real value (does this taste nice? Does it go fast? Does my bum look big in it?), maybe it is time for us to start focusing on needs that really matter (and not just as a bolt-on CSR programme); to demonstrate that monetary and social profit are not at odds. And maybe it is our job to drive this agenda with our clients.

Or maybe I’m just a naive old lefty in the wrong job.

Radio Silence

Off to Scotland for the week, so no posts for a while.

Will see what I can rustle up on my return.

New Ken

Ken has had a makeover.

As Brand Republic tells it:

Ken, the doll last heard of after he broke up with Barbie two years ago, is back with a new look and hopes of a reconciliation with his former paramour. Ken has been given a new look by his own personal stylist, Phillip Bloch, and according to Mattel, he hopes that this will show Barbie that he is a new man. Fans of Ken will find him transformed with two new looks. One look shows him in rough jeans, a black leather jacket, a courier bag and a necklace. His second is his "everyday look" -- board shorts, a white T-shirt and blond hair. Bloch said: "Ken has revamped his life -- mind, body and soul. Everyone knows how difficult it is to change, especially when you've lived your life a certain way for more than four decades".

Makes you realise that some people maybe take their jobs just a little too seriously.

FutureScope 41

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.

Don't generalise

A good new article from Malcolm Gladwell. Looks at the problems that come when you (over) generalise, and how the conclusions you draw can be as wrong as they are right. Given that a lot of what we do in the comms arena is rooted in generalisation (conventional broadcast media buying for example), suggests we maybe need to think more before reaching for the stereotypes.

I found this on Brand New, which spotted it at Brandnoise - which is all a bit like a Malcolm Gladwell theory in its own right.

Integration: all in the mind?

Integration. We all know we should be doing it. Why else would agencies bang on so much about coming up with media neutral ideas? Which is all well and good. But that nagging question still remains. Just what IS this integration thing anyway?

Well, here’s an illustration the most excellent John Griffiths over at Planning Above & Beyond shared with me recently over a cup of coffee. And it all boils down to the difference between mechanical integration and mental integration (John used the example of his children and Croatian t-shirts, but I'll leave that particular story to him). It's not really rocket science. Just one of those things that, when someone says it, you go: "that's just so right".

Mechanical integration is probably what most of us instinctively think of when the I-word comes up: it’s about making sure everything looks the same wherever it appears – same colours, design, logo, ad characters (same whatever). No denying: consistency definitely has a place; it can provide much needed structure to campaigns and a turbo-charge to awareness (I’ve done it…and will do again).

If this is all integration means though, the danger is that you become fixated on what something looks like rather than on what it actually says to people. Saying inconsistent things in a visually consistent way? That’s OK…that’s integration!!

Which is where the concept of mental integration comes in. This turns everything on its head. Rather than being concerned with consistency of look it says consistency of meaning is what’s important. Does it really matter if things look different if they are communicating the same thing?

Have a look at these two, one for 'Britain' and one for 'London'. The first goes for obvious visually consistency, but says very little beyond the superficial.

The second has nothing about it that is visual consistent. And you may not recognise every image (and one of them is French!). But it’s no less clear what it’s about…and arguably leaves much deeper, richer impressions.

This isn’t to say that looking similar has no benefit, but what would you rather have?

Now for some of you, this may seem like so much old news. But I’ve found it strangely eye opening and empowering. Yes, I know it’s not what advertising ‘does’ to people that matters, but what they do with it. But I’d just never really joined the dots on this for integration.

If nothing else it shows that you can always learn new stuff, even when the ‘right’ answers seem really obvious.