livingbrands

Odds and Sods: an exhibition

On Thursday 16th we are hosting the first ever exhibition of work by Citizen Skwith here at Quiet Storm. All are invited (but let us know if you're coming for booze management).

 

The work being shown includes 'Signs Of Life', a series of unofficial official signs out there in the real world...

 

 

There's also a never before seen selection of Cross Sections (find out what's inside a politician or tramp's boot), a sneak peak at plaster pigeons that will be appearing soon on the streets of London, and original canvases and limited edition prints on sale exclusively at this exhibition...

 
(One Lemon Thinks It's An Orange)

To find out more, or to tell us you're coming, email becky-at-quietstorm.co.uk or give her a call on 0207 907 1140.

There's nothing wrong with being obvious

Mitchell & Webb offer up an obvious gag telegraphed from a million miles out. But you still can't help but laugh when you see it coming.

Which tho clever in its own way, did make me think that sometimes we in the comms world try too hard to be 'clever' in what we do, 'crediting our audience with intelligence' when all that really means is overburdening them with complexity that forces them to work too hard at something they aren't that fussed about in the first place.

Sometimes just keeping it simple, even obvious, is the right answer.

10 things we didn't know before the 27th week of 2009

1. Heavy metal in Morocco is regarded as devil-worship.
2. Monkeys notice bad grammar.
3. Trousers used to be called unmentionables.
4. Neil Armstrong took Dvorak's New World Symphony and theremin music to the moon.
5.  The best place to put a wind turbine is in Orkney Islands.
6. Dinosaurs were couch potatoes.
7. Ice fallen from the sky is due to leaking plane ventilation systems.
8. Clothes could take photos.
9. Ringo Starr's mum wanted him to work in a bank.
10. Sir Jimmy Savile once saved the day by directing traffic.

(Borrowed from the BBC)

Give this man a home

“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.

Cheap vs free: so close yet so far?

 
(bobthelomond)

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.

The (new) Economist: open to all

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?

10 things we didn't know before the 26th week of 2009

1. Fred Perry was also table tennis world champion.
2. Mrs Slocombe's first name was Betty.
3. The UK is developing a quarter of the world's wave technologies.
4. Press-ups come in many guises, such as the "seal", "frog" and "donkey-kick".
5. The keffiyeh, a chequered scarf worn mostly by Arab men, and made famous by Yasser Arafat, is now mostly made in China.
6. Vegetarians are generally less likely than meat eaters to develop cancer.
7. The Duke of Kent requested that players no longer bow to the royal box at Wimbledon, in 2003.
8. Richard and Judy did not pick the books that featured in their book club.
9. Michael Jackson patented one item - the special shoes he used in the stage version of Smooth Criminal.
10. Saddam Hussein once hired the James Bond director, Terence Young, to make a promotional Iraqi film.

(Borrowed from the BBC)

Children of Earth

I have a love hate relationship with Torchwood: some great episodes, some bad...and often cringe making acting. But next weeks 5 parter looks good. Creepy children gets you every time...

Youtube embedding problems - help please (UPDATED)

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!)

Quant pre-testing FAIL

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.