livingbrands

Don't write TV off just yet

 
(Forty Photographs)

Now, whilst I fully embrace the World of Digital (tm), Social Media and all that, I definitely wouldn't place myself in its Stalinist wing: those who see 0s and 1s as the 'only way'. In fact, I think the digital fundamentalists can actually end up doing their discipline a disservice (as fundamentalists do in all aspects of life - social, moral, political, cultural, technological or religious).

Because great as it is, new, exciting and ripe with possibilities, at the end of the day digital is just another channel. A very powerful, very 21st Century one, admittedly, particularly when it comes to engaging certain people in certain ways. But it is just a tool nonetheless, not a cure for all ills.

Digital (in whatever form it takes) can't be all things to all people on all occasions. And in trying to claim it can, and so replace all other channels (particularly TV), the more blinkered digital evangelists are in danger of alienating just as many as those they also send off down the garden path. Neither is a good outcome.

So to provide some debating points, I'd just like to point out a few recent articles that argue a more balanced, and sometimes strongly oppositional case.

First up, Andrew Harrison in last week's Marketing Week, under the banner of "social networking is merely the emperor in his latest new clothes", who makes some points worthy of consideration for those of us who love our blogging and Twittering...

"Twitter has an active user base of only 1.2 million. That’s worldwide. About the circulation of one issue of The Sunday Times in England. Yes, Twitter’s growing fast – but if advertising on private mail exchanges is the best way to deliver commercial messages, then letters would have evolved ahead of TV as the biggest display advertising medium of the last century...

...Last.fm is now a mature business in the UK and yet only has a reach of 0.3% of the UK’s 36 million regular internet users...In comparison with established media, these reach numbers are minuscule. Compare Last.fm’s 100,000 users each month with TV: Dancing on Ice gets 9 million viewers each episode (84 times Last.fm’s entire monthly reach from just one programme).There’s a similar chasm between Spotify’s 55,000 monthly music subscribers and the 20 million listeners who tune into radio breakfast shows every single day...

...of course lots of real people are gathered on these virtual sites, but that doesn’t make it an appropriate advertising medium any more than Wetherspoon pubs or Costa Coffee are a new important medium for advertisers because they are each a home for social networking in real time."

And 'BOOM' goes the put-down, as Andrew compares Twitter et al to a coffee shop or pub in terms of usefulness as an advertising medium. But though he makes some useful points in his article, I think this one was actually a rather glib conclusion.

It does, though, allow me to make a neat segue into another decent recent read, in which Asi Sharabi makes the very important point that 'everything is social media', no matter what and where it is...

"When people have the ability to share and converse in real time, beyond the physical world, everything becomes social. Every object can potentially become a social object and a point of conversation. The gravity of conversational tools simply suck in everything worth talking about. Everything. Think about the most a-social media: a 48$ billboard. Nothing social right? wrong. If I can take a picture of that billboard and tweet, blog, twitpic it and make it a point for conversation this billboard became a social object and hence social media."

Which is why (for example) Twitter's 1.2m users are important: the first grains in an avalanche with the potential to spread across the web (potential being the operative word here: we're not talking exact science!).

But ideas are the catalyst for this avalanche (if it happens). And digital is simply a convenient and efficient space in which to talk about them. But then so is chatting down the pub or over coffee, as part of the broader chain of conversations. Which is why I said Andrew's point is a bit glib. Because, arguably, a Costa Coffee has just as much potential to be a social media space as Twitter - SM needn't be digital!

Finally, a piece by the Ad Contrarian (pointed out by Scamp - thanks), which references a story in the New York Times on viewing habits in the US.

Mr Contrarian's post is worth reading in its own right, as he has some strong points of view on the pronouncement of TV's death...

"It is a story built on shabby journalism, ad industry buffoonery, and the willful suspension of skepticism on a scale unprecedented during my time in the advertising business. This story has been advanced by a gullible press, confused advertising and marketing executives, web promoters, and careless pundits caught in a feedback loop of such proportions that it's possible it has done serious harm to the media and advertising industries."

...and highlights some of the more amusingly extreme 'expert' predictions on the digital vs. TV future amongst Google's 124,000 search results.

But the NYT article is the one with the numbers, and so the most compelling. Key figure (amongst many): 99% of 'video content' viewing in 2008 took place on TV, although this did fall by a massive 1% to 98% for 18-24 year olds. 

Now I'm in no way trying to be an apologist for conventional media, or to say TV is (still) the only way. That would be falling into the same trap. There's loads of rubbish programmes out there, and adverts clogging them up (much as is the case on line as well, it should be pointed out).

But even though our future may (eventually) be a wholly digital, interactive, social one, we are not in that place yet. And are probably still a long way from it for the vast majority of people.

Which is why conventional media, and TV in particular, continues to have such an important role to play: when done right and well, there is still no other way to engage so many people so quickly, generating fame, common understanding and social currency in the process...that a few of us may then go and Tweet about.

At the end of the day, we live in a mixed media economy, and a balanced approached approach is what's required: it's about creating engaging (brand) experiences that get talked about (and meet brand objective) wherever they happen - on line, on tv, on the bus, in the pub...whatever. It's not about whether my 30" TV commercial is better than your Facebook app (or vice versa).

10 things we didn't know before the 12th week of 2009 (UPDATED)

1. Tits are also known as bumbarrels (that's the birds by the way, as on re-reading I realise it could come across differently :-) - ed).
2. The Daily Sport website is banned in the House of Commons.
3. Teenagers don't like pink light.
4. Crabs feel pain.
5. Britons spend six months of their lives queuing.
6. A broken heart is known as Takotsubo cardiomyopathy and it can be cured.
7. Britney Spears's family comes from Tottenham in north London.
8. People like their tea to have a temperature of 56-60C.
9. Hyenas have the strongest jaws in the animal kingdom.
10. Charles Darwin loved eating vegetables.

(Borrowed from the BBC)

Trailer for Primeval series 3

Looking good. May have to take priority over Robin Hood...

Your memory is a liar

 
(Limonada)

I think it is now a fairly well established neurological fact that our memories aren't that reliable. And that things we remember incorrectly become 'fact' and 'truth' over time as they become 'hardwired' into our brains.

Well we had a good example of this phenomenon at home this morning.

Our son had to take something to school last Friday. What this thing was (we'll call it X) doesn't really matter, and is actually too complicated to explain. But the event he needed it for was postponed till today.

Last night we of course had to obligatory "where is X?". Apparently he had removed X from his blazer pocket the week before, putting it on a table downstairs. Now it was nowhere to be seen. Questions were asked about checked pockets. "Yes" we were informed with the usual (pre)teen 'don't you believe me' grumpiness. Knowing the risk signs (and sometimes you do just have to show a degree of belief and trust!), we said we'd leave looking till the morning.

This morning, X could still not be found, despite much searching. But now the events of the previous week were being reported in considerable detail - what happened when he came home, what was on the table in question etc. We were blamed; the cat was blamed. Where had X got to?

Then my wife remembered we had actually gone away for the weekend last Friday. Which meant a quick 'come in, upstairs, get changed and out the door' scenario.

There had been no downstairs and putting things on the table...despite the apparently clear memories. As a more thorough search of the nooks and crannies of the blazer revealed.

Which, sifting focus, makes you wonder why we trust research and asking people about their behaviour in any situation.

It's probably as reliable as boys remembering where they've put stuff!

Ideas are nothing without execution

One of the things that sets Quiet Storm apart is that we are that rare beast in the comms industry: a vertically integrated business.

Normally integration in our industry is horizontal (if it happens at all), defined by the ability to come up with ideas that can work across disciplines/media. And even when media planning is added to the full service mix, this is arguably just another step on the horizontal (the medium is now the message more than ever before!).

But beyond some of the digital players with programmers in the basement, hardly any agencies do what we do. Which is to actually make stuff. Specifically, film-based content.

The original rationale for this was very simple: if ideas only exist in execution, why would you want to farm out this last and most important step in the process to someone else? Someone with a completely different agenda to yours, with little understanding of the business challenges you face, and what you are trying to achieve.

Instead, keep strategy, idea and execution integrated, with the core team involved at ever stage, and the client reaps many rewards: understanding, insight, responsiveness, flexibility, quality control and, as a consequence (and most importantly), effectiveness.

Nor are these benefits limited to conventional media. Increasingly, we define our core competency as having less to do with 30" TV ads and more to do with film content per se, wherever it appears...and especially in the digital space. Because, as The Guardian's online special report said recently: "video in interactive campaigns is becoming the key element in connecting with an on line audience and creating buzz".

But as a live example, I will just mention something that is happening in the 'real' world as I type.

Two weeks ago one of our clients came to us with a media opportunity: broadcast sponsorship of a major, ongoing CH4 series. The only problem: the need to produce two full sets of idents in 2 weeks.

With the green light given on the Wednesday, we had a planning and creative brainstorming the next day to agree the 'brief' (little time for writing one of those!). Ideas were presented the following Tuesday, signed off by Thursday, with the shoot last Friday. Post was carried out over the weekend, and initial cuts presented on Monday. Play out of 2x15", 12x5" and 2x10" is today/Thursday (more details when they go live).

Though not our preferred way of working obviously, it's not a bad fortnight's work! And something that, arguably, you can only deliver if you have all the relevant skills in house.

As the world continues to speed up, and the recession continues to bite, we can only see more clients needing the combination of responsiveness and value in execution which doesn't compromise on quality of idea, that only vertical integration can offer.

Which is no bad thing if you can deliver!

Are low budgets the mother of invention?

Well, according to Watchmen writer and general comic guru Alan Moore they are...

"If you haven't got any money, you're going to need lots and lots of imagination. Which is why you'll get brilliant movies by people working upon a shoestring...People are pushed into innovation by the restrictions of their budget. The opposite is true if they have $100 million...to spend upon their film, then they somehow don't see the need for giving it a decent story or decent storytelling. It seems like those values just go completely out the window. There's an inverse relationship there".

As a consequence, he also doesn't have a lot of time for CGI...

"The ease with which we can accomplish or conjure any possible imaginable scenario through CGI is almost directly proportionate to how uninterested we're becoming in all of this. I can remember Ray Harryhausen's animated skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts. I can remember Willis O'Brien's King Kong. I can remember being awed at the artistry that had made those things possible. Yes, I knew how it was done. But it looked so wonderful. These days I can see half a million Orcs coming over a hill and I am bored. I am not impressed at all. Because, frankly, I could have gotten someone, a passerby on the street, who could have gotten the same effect if you'd given them half a million dollars to do it. It removes artistry and imagination and places money in the driver's seat, and I think it's a pretty straight equation—that there is an inverse relationship between money and imagination".

Whilst clearly opening up more possibilities, it does makes you wonder if we're over dependent sometimes on the size of the comms budget. And what we could achieve by working to a budget, rather than cutting corners or pulling favours to get more expensive ideas made.

A day's thoughts, and what I do with them

So very true...

 

From Dave Walker

10 things we didn't know before the 11th week of 2009

1. Wuthering Heights is known as Les Hauts de Hurlevents in France.
2. The shoes that take Dorothy back to Kansas were originally silver.
3. Champagne that's 184 years old can still have a few bubbles left in it.
4. Elephants can be pink.
5. False memory is called confabulation.
6. Mining output fell more in the periods before and after Mrs Thatcher, than during her time as prime minister.
7. Kim Jong-il likes pizza. North Korea's first pizzeria has opened.
8. Parts of cremated bodies are recycled.
9. Monkeys in Thailand use public transport.
10. You should warm up before gardening.

(Borrowed from the BBC)

Who's the minority? Why we ignore ethnic audiences at our peril

As an agency whose founder/owner/creative director is black, Quiet Storm remains somewhat unusual in the business community...let alone in the comms industry, where ethnicity seem to remain the final employment frontier.

For this reason, we are often asked to comment on ethnic issues. Case in point: the IPA's up-coming diversity 'handbook', which I wrote the following for. Although, you can also get a sneak peak on Utalkmarking, where Trev gets a co-writing credit...and the only photo! (is it cos I is white?)

What is it about the word ‘minority’ that makes us feel uncomfortable; that creates a sense of ‘not worth talking to’? Because a minority isn’t necessarily small. A dictionary definition of ‘less than half’ makes 49% a minority. And that’s a lot of people. Or what about that mainstay of FMCG targeting: ABC1 housewives with kids, aged 20-45. No one would raise an eyebrow about targeting this group. But there are only 2.7m of them in the country. Or 5% of the adult population. And if that isn’t a minority, what is? Why then do all the rules change when it comes to Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups?

In no small part, the issue is emotional, because no one likes being outside their comfort zone. So when it comes to minority audiences of any kind, our lack of knowledge acts as a barrier: with limited resources, why risk making mistakes in an area you don’t understand? Which is why a document such as this is so important. By raising awareness of the issue, and highlighting the reality of the situation, misconceptions are challenged and confidence increased.

The usual argument used to explain away talking to ethnic minorities is that they only account for 10% of the population (so that’s twice our typical FMCG audience then). And most businesses are after the big volumes that come from talking to the mass market. But even if you accept that this is too few people to be a primary focus, it isn’t a credible reason not to engage with these communities. The tools are in place if you want to reach discrete audiences after all, with specialist and digital media channels making targeted activity easier and more cost effective than ever before. And in the economic climate we have today, where every sale counts, finding (profitable) incremental volume must be a good thing.

But are there even bigger issues at play that businesses need to be aware of? Because the fact that the most powerful man in the world is of mixed race points to significant socio-cultural shifts that marketers need to be aware of. We believe that businesses which recognise this changing reality, and engage BME communities now, will reap big rewards further down the line. Whilst those which don’t, will experience negative consequences to the bottom line.

The evidence for these socio-cultural shifts can be seen in changes to migration and birth rates which will see the UK’s non-white population will reach 15% by 2020 – that’s 1 in every 6 people. Clearly the nuances that exist between different ethnic groups will still need to be reflected in execution and media use. But what these shifts demonstrate is why BME audiences can no longer be demoted to a marketing afterthought. 1 in 6 is a not insignificant proportion, a reality most of us will perceive when walking down the street or shopping in the supermarket. If nothing else then, the changing reality of our ethnic landscape should be captured in the casting and context of broadcast marketing communications (avoiding tokenism obviously). The days of advertising populated solely and exclusively by white, middle class suburbia must pass. It no longer reflects the world most of us live in, and will start to be rejected as unrealistic as a consequence.

For certain organisations and brands though, these trends will have even greater implications; a sea change that will impact fundamentally on the way they do business…and who with. There are 3 interlocking areas where this shift will be most keenly felt, all of which have ethnicity at their heart: the under 30s, those living in urban centres and what we call Dis…Communities™ (more of which later). Over the coming years, any organisation trying to engage with these groups will no longer be able to do so effectively unless they place those from ethnic backgrounds at the heart of their activity. Because the lived reality of these groups will be (and in many ways already is) truly multi-cultural.

Even today, the average age of ethnic minority groups is significantly younger than the white population (32 vs. 40), with 1 in 5 under 15s non-white. A situation that will only accelerate given birth rate differences (for example, over the last 10 years birth rates in the white population have decreased by 5%, but increased by 40% in the Pakistani community). Add to this the more superficial, but no less significant, role that black culture in particular plays for many teens and 20-somethings, and you see why any youth targeted business can’t ignore ethnicity.

Urban centre communities are also heavily biased to BME groups, with 40% of Londoners forecast to be non-white by 2020. Given the significance of the capital to many businesses, can they really afford to effectively ignore, even alienate half their audience? But the importance of London goes beyond its size: culturally speaking, what happens here impacts elsewhere. And if that is multi-cultural in nature, the implications will ripple out. Not that the influence of BME groups on urban populations is a purely London-centric phenomenon. Within the next 15 years, forecasts suggest both Birmingham and Leicester will have majority ethnic populations, with many other major urban centres not far behind.

When thinking about both youth and urban populations, we are making no comment on class or affluence: many white communities are very poor, whilst those from ethnic backgrounds can have high disposable incomes. That said, the group we have called Dis…Communities™ has the greatest BME bias of our 3 key groups. Dis…Communities™ are those who are disadvantaged, disenfranchised, disinterested, distrustful and who feel disrespected by others. These are the people many charities, NGOs and Government departments need to engage (people who, not surprisingly also tend to be young and urban-based). But here still there is a tendency to focus ‘mass market’, before developing secondary BME activity. But the fact is, on many social issues the mass market is ethnic. To be effective therefore, an idea has to start with this audience, not add it on afterwards. Compound this with the Dis… attitudes of BME groups, and you can see why any social issue communication that isn’t directly targeted at them will be rejected as irrelevant or patronising.

To conclude then, ethnic minorities are not so much a minority as many think. Numbers are increasing. In future, successful businesses will be those which reflect this emerging reality. But in certain areas (youth, urban centres, Dis…Communities™), those of ethnic background are already as, if not more, important than the (supposed) white majority. And will only become more so over time. For organisations and brands working in these areas, to not start with a clear ethnic perspective won’t just represent lost opportunity, but will be a considerable barrier to success.

The truth about Twitter

Current TV nails the ridiculousness of Twitter. You've got to laugh. Even as you Tweet about it....