livingbrands

What's so wrong with a catchphrase?

Something I've been meaning to blog about for a while now was the Media Guardian article of a few weeks ago, entitled Death of the Catchphrase (probably worth reading first). Mainly because I found the whole thing a bit lazy and ultimately disappointing.

It was clearly playing to the gallery of comms 2.0, and presenting a pitch for the brave new world world of advertising within this. But ultimately it just rang a bit false for me. And not because I think advertising has had its day. Anything but.

Without (I hope) being a dinosaur,I do remain a champion of advertising. Albeit as just one of the many tools now at our disposal: horses for courses an all that. Because, whilst the digital zealots and experience fundamentalists may argue that theirs is now the one true way (as us ad types once did, onviously!), the fact remains that there are some things advertising, particularly of the moving picture variety, does very well (and here I would draw a distinction between tv-as-media and film-as-content: the former may well be on a big wane, but if your TV commercial appears on Youtube isn't that as 'digital' as anything else, and money well spent?).

My problem was actually that the article (for me) ended up seeming like a bit of an own goal. In trying to sing the praises of 'new advertising', I felt it came across as a bit of an exercise in fancy window dressing and Emperors New Clothes; all the ad-land wank that people hate, with the pat answer as always being that we just have to be more 'creative' (in that slightly profligate, not necessarily appropriate way was my sense). Personally, I think us practitioners would do much better celebrating what advertising is good at (and ask why we don't do it more often), rather than moan about the state of the world, and try and dress advertising up as something it's not in response.

A few choice cuts then, that I found myself taking issue with...

ART HOUSE SENSIBILITIES

The article described new-wave (i.e. its definition of 'good') advertising as "displaying an almost arthouse sensibility". And there was lots of talk of having to compete with movies etc. Whilst not untrue, hasn't it always been thus? And not always in a good sense. I remember an account director at Lowes (of all places) in the late 80s bemoaning the fact that some creatives behaved like we were a "subsidised branch of the arts council". Now there is clearly a time and a place for 'arthouse'. But my experience is still that it usually results in a 'what the f@*k' response amongst most people beyond the media industries. The danger is we just end up producing obtuse, pretentious advertising for people who work for the agency down the road.

BORED WITH ADVERTISING

Steve Henry says "people have been bored stiff with advertising for ages", but I wonder if that's simply because we have forgotten how to do advertising people actually like and respond positively to. Call me old fashioned, but I think there's something to be said for clear, simple, engaging stuff which has an obvious purpose...and maybe even does some 'selling' along the way (it's what we're still usually being paid for after all). And before anyone yells boring, simplistic and uncreative, I would say anything but. For me, a Sony Bravia or Guinness Surfer ticks all the right boxes.

DEGREES IN MEDIA STUDIES

Robert Senior claims the problem is that "consumers effectively have a degree in film studies". And such a deconstructionist mentality may be true to a point. For some people. In focus groups. But are most really that bothered? Haven't they got more important things to worry about (and isn't that the point?). I believe the real issue people have is one of truth and honesty: we don't mind being sold to as long as those selling are open about it, don't treat us as idiots, are engaging in style and deliver on their promises.

COMPLICATED ADVERTISING

Ex-ad man and ASDA marketing honcho Rick Bendel feels "advertising has to become more complicated" given the world we live in. If he really means that, you've got to disagree. I think everyone now accepts that complexity can be a good thing. But who wants complicated? Because the two are very different (the old mayonnaise vs. Jumbo Jet analogy). And even if I'm splitting semantic hairs, and he means complex, I'm not convinced when it comes to comms.

Brands can (and arguably should) be complex and multi-dimension. But comms? The well rehearsed argument is that the modern, multi-media, time pressured consumer needs to be engaged and involved. Again though, I would say that's about the brand: we may all have our World of Warcraft moments, where we want a completely immersive brand experience. But with a specific piece of advertising (of whatever kind), is that really what we want? I think most of us are even less likely to give a brand our precious time of day if it makes things too difficult for us.

VICTORIA WOOD BAKING BREAD

And keeping with the Fallon/ASDA theme, their recently unveiled work featuring Victoria Wood is positioned as a prime example of this brave new world. Really? Or just the Emperor getting something else out of the wardrobe? I think there's lots of reasons why you can argue this is a good campaign for ASDA, and better than where they were. But a radical departure, pushing the boundaries of modern comms? I don't think so. Good as it may be (or not, depending on your POV), isn't it all rather conventional really? And aside from the fact that the executional vehicle reflects that we now like reality TV shows more than sitcoms, is what's being said really so very different to what Tesco were doing 10 years ago with the Dotty campaign? If ASDA wanted to be truly mould breaking, they would ditch the ads altogether and invite all their customers round for bread making classes (for instance).

DEATH OF THE CATCHPHRASE

And what about the titular 'evil enemy' of this piece? Cards on the table: I think there's nothing wrong with a good slogan (can't see why you wouldn't want one really). And it's illogical to conclude that, just because a style of hard sell advertising now generally considered inappropriate tended to feature them, they should be ditched across the board. On that basis, you would also no longer feature people either, given an equally strong correlation with ramming things down your throat. It's just bad statistics.

And there's plenty of neurological evidence to suggest that, if there's one thing a brand needs in our information and choice saturated world (beyond the obvious of a good individual personal experience), it's mnemonics: commonly recognised and understood elements that can stick in the brain, acting as shorthand for and shortcuts to brand meaning, helping tie together the different aspects of the complex brands that surround us. These might be music, colours, sounds, whatever. And any of these can be as much a 'slogan' as the classic bunch of words (Intel anyone).

Take the first Sony Bravia commercial. That's right: the one we always talk about in terms of the balls (a visual 'slogan') and that music (an aural 'slogan'). Or what about the Honda Diesel ad? The article holds this up as a poster child for the new way. But it's crammed with 'slogans': the music, the animation style, the animals, the engine. And what is 'hate something, change something, make something better' (or, indeed, 'The Power of Dreams') if not a good old fashioned catchphrase?

There's also much talk in the article of Kit Kat ditching "Have  Break". And the tone is very much "good riddance to bad stuff". But is that really the case? Could you tell me what's replaced it, if anything (I honestly don't know). Could anyone? Stop 100 people on the street and ask about the brand, and I know what they'll say. Update and make more relevant definitely: if brands don't evolve they die. But why ditch something so inextricable linked in people's minds to the brand. It must be easier to go for reinvention in some way, and I'm sure it won't be long before a new marketing director or agency starts thinking the same thing.

WHERE HAS ALL THE TALENT GONE

To close the article gives a role call of the great and the good who have done service in advertising's ranks over the years: Fay Weldon, Salman Rushdie, John Betjeman, Alan Parker, Ridley Scott, all helped create a lot of the ideas now deemed past it. Tim Delaney "laughs" as he hears the list. And adds: "perhaps if more poets and film makers produced taglines and visual signatures, there'd be a bit of life in them yet". Which to me is a rather sad reflection of the talent in our industry for a major creative force to be making (or at least his expectations of it), rather than an excuse for getting out the smoke and mirrors.

Ah well.

No easy answers, I'm afraid. And do I really think all of the above? Probably, yes.

Or maybe I just fancied a bit of a rant ;-)

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

Marketing popularity

I wrote a while ago about the power of coincidences, and the danger of the conclusions we draw from them. Just a bit of fun really. But I was reminded of it when reading this article that Jason turned up, which has far more significant things to say about the way we do things.

It looks at the idea of cumulative advantage: the idea that small and often quite random initial occurrences can, over time, be multiplied and turbo-charged by our tendency to like things that other people like, propelling one product, brand, song or whatever to dominance (all a bit like chaos theory really). And that under only slightly different initial conditions something else might end up in pole position.

It features a a rather neat piece of research to demonstrate this effect, based around music downloads. All of which does start to explain some of the more unexpected, and maybe unwarranted (to our minds) success stories we see around us. And, as the article suggests, to undermine the idea that, if we only mirrored what 'they' did, we could enjoy similar success.

Does make you think about the role of marketing. Maybe it should maybe be less about communicating benefits (given how marginal differences can be) and more about communicating/implying popularity...in good Mark Earls fashion.

Religion is the new atheism

A bit of a hobbyhorse post, so feel free to walk on by (although I did manage to shoe-horn in a brand bit at the end for those who like that stuff).

There was a good, if short, article in Saturday's Guardian, on the nature of belief, orthodoxy and dogma. Written unashamedly from a Christian perspective, without trying to be an apologetic for the evils done in religion's name (there can be no excuse, as I have said before), it did pose questions for the prevailing mindset of our secular age.

And judging from the comments received on the Guardian site, the piece does seem to have hit a raw nerve with those for whom use of the R word to describe their cast iron certainties is anathema.

You decide...

"Post-Enlightenment critiques of religion have sought to reduce it to a tool of social oppression (Marxism), bad science (Darwinism) or neurosis (Freudianism). It is not so much my purpose here to refute these charges, nor to argue that religion is necessarily a "good thing", but to make sure that we're clear about what we're talking about when we talk about it in the first place.

A "religion" is a story we inhabit that makes sense of what would otherwise be nonsense. You don't have to be explicitly "religious" in order to do this (Marxists, Darwinists and Freudians are all in the same game). Whether religion is explained away as an evolutionary adaptation or is in fact a response to a transcendent divine reality makes no difference to this argument for its necessity. We are essentially religious animals. This is not to make the simplistic point that atheism is a religious belief (although it can function like one), but highlights the fact that dogmatic - taken-for-granted and unprovable - assumptions underlie non-religious world-views as well. Consequently, I am puzzled when people dismiss religion, yet blithely disavow the implicit faith commitments and foundational axioms of their own position.

Indeed, so-called liberals who aggressively promote secularism in the name of an objective truth or rationality routinely fail to realise that they have simply substituted one set of mythic narratives for another. Our widespread contemporary belief in "progress", for example, bears more than a passing resemblance to more ostensibly religious forms of eschatology. Yet why do we assume that a better future will necessarily follow from an increase in scientific knowledge, or that the spread of global capitalism will bring about universal salvation? Is it really true that competition - whether in evolution or economics - is more basic to human nature than, say, cooperation? What does it mean to talk about the "survival instinct" anyway? Are we saying that the essence of life is an irreducible "will to be"? This sounds more like theology than science. The truth is that the ideology of neoliberalism has become so all-pervasive that we are blind to its dogmatic grammar: hence the fundamental principles of the current consensus, such as "democracy" or "the market", are assumed to be natural and inevitable, even though when analysed they are revealed to be socially constructed.

"So what?" you may be thinking. Well, one outcome of this post-Enlightenment disenchantment is that the world, indeed life itself, has become a commodity subject to economic forces that we have as little control over as the weather. With God as capital, every aspect of life gets translated into the language of economic transactions: passengers become customers, patients become clients. Where once we were souls, we are now consumers. And the problem with this is that when everything has a price, nothing has any value; especially vague notions such as human rights and dignity. In the market state, greed is good and the maximisation of profit is the only viable ethic.

In the days of the Roman empire Christians were called atheists because they did not worship the gods of the state. We have come full circle: Christians are once again atheists and heretics because they do not worship the "gods" of today's orthodoxy. Now that atheism is the new "religion", religion is the new "atheism". To be a Christian in such circumstances is to be unconventional and nonconformist: it is to be something of a freethinker, espousing a radical vision of human flourishing that shows us how we can be more than what we are, rather than reducing us to less than what we should be."

And (the shoe-horning I mentioned earlier) on a slightly more mundane level, there are even parallels with, and lessons for the day job.

I'm thinking specifically of those things which it become self evidently 'right' to have (you don't have an iPod?!). And where not having them bestows on you some kind of social stigma or inadequacy.

But great as it is to be self evidently right (and I'm not suggesting otherwise! Who would?), could it be a law of nature that the more right something becomes, the more there will be others who see (sometimes quite vociferously) a different truth.

Maybe then, rather than trying to enforce a brand/religious dogma and orthodoxy whose sole purpose is to maintain an existing dominant position...which begs people to overturn it, all great truth claims need some rough edges, grey areas, uncertainty and humility, if they are not to piss off and alienate people who think differently. I don't know.

Setting the right tone

Watched Pan's Labyrinth recently. Extremely good; very thought provoking. And did make me think that I should really get round to doing something with my interest in story, myth, archetypes etc.

But something else comms-related also struck me whilst watching: the importance of tone.

At one point I found myself reaching for the remote to turn the sound up, as I couldn't hear what people were saying. This wasn't something I consciously thought about doing. It just happened instinctively.

Well, nothing strange there you might say. And I'm sure it happens all the time.

Other than the fact that the film is in Spanish (which I don't speak) and has sub-titles. So in theory, I could have watched the whole thing on mute and still understood what was happening. Why the need to turn the volume up then?

Because though all the words were there on the screen for me to see, at some unconscious level the meaning was missing. The facts were not enough: I also needed to hear the tone and emotion of the people speaking, and the music being played, to properly understand what was going on. An important lesson for developing effective comms.

A bit of what actually turns out to be a random aside to finish...

Writing this post reminded me of this one. Having a re-read, it turned out to be about something different. But still probably worth a look...he say cross-selling desperately ;-)

Is having a cup of tea killing planning?

So the dust has finally settled on the heavy weight slug-fest that saw Johns Grant and Lowery debating the merits of blogging and any homicidal intentions said activity might have towards the fine art of planning.

JL seems to have claimed a moral victory afterwards, based on pre-post preference shift. But the absolute numbers cannot lie: JG won, and blogging was found not guilty.

However, I can't help but wonder whether, despite all the valid issues raised/defended, if blogging's place in this whole debate was a bit of a red herring in the first place. Or rather, if it was a proxy for bigger issues, some as old as the hills. For instance, the old chestnut of 'what kind of planner are you'...and 'which style of planning is best'. Are you data first or ideas first...with both having their merits, and time and place (says he, sitting on the fence).

I worked with John Lowery more than 10 years ago, before we had that new fangled internet thing at work. His point of view was the same then as it is now. And if I had worked with John Grant back in the day, I'm sure I would have found the same thing. Which does suggest that a lot of the arguments raised have little to do with whether you blog or not. Nor is it about how rigorous and data rich you are in strategic development/testing. John Lowery blogs, after all. And all evidence suggests John Grant has his rigorous side. Which kind of proves the point, I guess.

So where does blogging sit in all this then? It can't be denied that you'll read many blog posts which seem rash, ill-conceived or poorly thought through. And yes, 'data' from Millward Brown to Nielsen does get slagged off every now and then. But is this really any different to what you might hear, albeit a little less publicly, in the hallowed halls of Grey and other big agencies on a daily basis.

For me, this is what it all boils down to. And also why big agency staffers having a pop at blogging, surrounded as they are by hoards of other planners, seems a little churlish. Because if you're an only planner in an agency (as I am), or a wannabe planner, or self employed, or working in a different but related role, you don't have that community of people around you to talk with and bounce ideas off?

Which is where the rise in blogging over recent years comes. It's fulfilling a need that had previously gone unmet...and was probably unmeet-able: it's corridor conversation for those without the benefit of a planning department. It's just that there is no corridor. And there are loads of people sticking their oars in, from all over the world...and from many different backgrounds. This, for me at least, is what blogging is all about, and why I've found it so valuable. And also probably why it is, in the main, non-big agency types who do the blogging thing.

The plannersphere is a place for us to bounce ideas around, put a toe in the water of new thinking, say stuff you haven't thought through properly, and, well, whatever really. All in an open and accepting environment, where you can (in the main) trust people to be constructive and helpful rather than slag you off. And this alone is a departure from the competitive, I'm-cleverer-than-you atmosphere I've experienced in some big agency environments.

So, at the end of the day, to suggest that blogging is killing planning is, for me, like suggesting corridor conversations, or a cup of tea with colleagues, or department meetings are killing planning. Which is clearly nonsense.

There remains a need for good basic training in the industry, particularly at a junior level. I completely agree with that. And 'corridor conversation' blogs obviously aren't the best place to get this. Nor, do I think, that anyone writing them would suggest that is their role. But why have a pop at people like Russell Davies for trying to do their bit for training in the digital space? Isn't it more a reflection on the failure of the industry in general, and big agencies in particular, to offer something similar for a new generation of (aspirant) planners. Because the demand is obviously there.

I would like to suggest then, that those at big agencies who don't blog (which has absolutely no bearing on their planning ability or strategic quality) let those of us who do get on with the conversations in peace. And rather than snipe at the shortcomings, do something that makes a difference. This could be under the auspices of the IPA or APG. Or why not at a company level: if he has problems with Russell's approach, let's have a John Lowery school of planning on-line and open to all, in good web 2.0 style. I'm sure the payback in terms of recruitment would be significant!

What's the difference between brains and computers? (UPDATED)

Like duh!, I hear you all exclaim. That's easy.

One looks like this, and is all fleshy and squelchy...

And the other looks like this, all hard and plastic...

It's obvious.

But joking aside, the 'brain as computer' metaphor is one that holds a lot of sway over us. It is also one which has influenced many models of consumer behaviour, advertising/comms and research.

However, as neuroscience extends our 'brain' understanding, it's becoming increasingly clear that this metaphor isn't just breaking down...it's plain wrong in many ways, raising huge questions (as we all know) for a lot of  behaviour/ advertising/research accepted wisdom.

Anyway, there's a good article over at Developing Intelligence which outlines these differences. I've put the headlines below, but would thoroughly recommend a read...

• Difference # 1: Brains are analogue; computers are digital
• Difference # 2: The brain uses content-addressable memory (think this one is particularly important for the whole 'how advertising works' question, and the kind of research we do as a consequence - it's NOT about accessing logical facts 'stored' in a particular place)
• Difference # 3: The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial (ditto for this - I think sometimes we believe comms - and ads in particular - are noted and stored as a single unit, and are recalled in the same way. It just ain't so)
• Difference # 4: Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock
• Difference # 5: Short-term memory is not like RAM
• Difference # 6: No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind
• Difference # 7: Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates
• Difference # 8: Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain (which means that whenever we retrieve a memory we instantly alter that memory - interesting when you think about the questions we ask in research, quant or qual)
• Difference # 9: The brain is a self-organising system
• Difference # 10: Brains have bodies (think this is also interesting - rather than the model of people as purely rational beings, this recognises that a lot of what we do is instinctive and visceral, rather than about cognitive consideration)
• Bonus Difference: The brain is much, much bigger than any [current] computer

Ooops. Forgot to say where I first saw this - so thanks to Johnnie

The deception of appearance

I posted the other week on this film by an autistic woman, and what it says about our preconceptions and prejudices when it comes to language and communication.

Here's another one, which challenges us just as much about our attitudes to physical (dis)ability...

As someone who broke his arm last year trying to go over a curb on a skateboard, I am in awe!

An alternative (Power)Point

At all my previous agencies, "doing some charts" was one of those jobs planner 'did'. And though we may all like to think we're PowerPoint whizzes, and very clear, clever and entertaining when holding forth, in our dark (and honest) moments we would probably admit that all the white noise of words and numbers is just a bit boring (it's probably the slowly nodding off audience that give it away).

Coming to Quiet Storm, where they'd never had formal planning before, meant none of that accepted wisdom was in place. Which is why we trying some different ways of doing things (not that they all work!).

I very quickly got to the point of 'big pictures and minimal words' (is it only account people who want planners to do the graphs and numbers thing, whether they have a role or not?). But pretty as that may be, it's still one bloke pontificating, which isn't really the QS way.

So at a recent pitch we decided to go really off piste. Rather than do strategy in the traditional format of 'lecture-from-the-front-that-ends-in-the-right-answer', we decided to walk the client through our thinking. Quite literally. We stuck everything on the wall, had people on their feet, and told the story of how we got to where got to in a more interactive style.

Sadly, we didn't win! But for reasons of 'creative differences' we now clearly understand. The client loved the thinking tho, and and really liked how we did it. Which is nice.

Anyway, a very long winded way of getting round to...

1. asking what others have done to ditch the PowerPoint. I'd be very interested in putting a little ideas list together. Maybe something to put out in the Plannersphere;
2. showing this from Hugh at Gaping Void, which made me laugh. Cos that's what a lot planning presentations are sometimes. A standing at the front and intellectually slapping it on the table, in an 'aren't I clever' fashion. But is that really what people want from us?

Time for change

Can't remember which of my regular blogs featured this (so apologies), but Reversal of Fortune is an article that is well worth a read (it's not necessarily saying anything new about the state of the world, but it says it well).

Looking at the development of and break down in one of the central tenets of capitalistic economics (that growth is good and more always = better), it puts the case that it is time for us to adopt a new model, which doesn't have rampant growth at its heart.

The author, Bill McKibben, gives 3 reasons for this: our own mental well being, the well being of the planet, and (if that's all a bit too ephemeral for you), because the fossil fuels that have fuelled economic growth since the industrial revolution are running out....and the alternatives currently on the table won't allow such growth to continue.

A case in point is biofuel (or ethanol), the current 'white knight' of the fuel industry. But even if you park the many environmental shortcomings of biofuel that are now emerging (not least the impact on biodiversity), the numbers for growth just don't add up.

The energy output-to-input ratio when drilling for oil is somewhere between 30 and 200 to 1 (i.e. for every 1 unit of energy you use in production you get 30+ back). For ethanol it's 1.34 to 1. Or in other words, you're barely getting back what you put it. On that basis (and I accept some new super fuel may be just around the corner), are current growth rates sustainable?

I'll just finish up with the last 2 paragraphs of the article, which say it all really. But do read the rest...

"In the 20th century, two completely different models of how to run an economy battled for supremacy. Ours won, and not only because it produced more goods than socialised state economies. It also produced far more freedom, far less horror. But now that victory is starting to look Pyrrhic; in our overheated and under-happy state, we need some new ideas.

We've gone too far down the road we're travelling. The time has come to search the map, to strike off in new directions. Inertia is a powerful force; marriages and corporations and nations continue in motion until something big diverts them. But in our new world we have much to fear, and also much to desire, and together they can set us on a new, more promising course."

Leave it to the experts?

We know that Youtube is the cure to all the world's ills, and that the general public are the advertising agency of the year.

Or, alternatively, that was just a bit of cheap PR on the part of Ad Age because, as Asi (along with many others) pointed out at the time, 99% of consumer generated content is rubbish.

There's no denying the importance and potency of social media for those involved (I'm all for it). But bar the 1 in a million gems, the quality of what is produced is car crash viewing at best. And for that reason doesn't necessarily do anything to convince those on the outside of the community that the brand is worth considering. In fact, it might even put them off.

Whilst the rules have definitely changed (and I'm not suggesting we turn the clocks back), I think this does show that old fashioned 'big media' does still have a role to play: it provides the public dialogue, and common context and understanding, that is still important for many brands, particularly when it comes to getting on the radar of new users, and getting them to the point where they want to be involved in a brand's 'social media' community.

Anyway, as a little example, and following on from our new Cheestrings commercial, I give you this offering from one Joseph Shrubb...

Fun as it is, and much as I'm sure it reinforces Joseph's love of the brand, which is most likely to get mum sticking some Cheestrings packs in her shopping trolley?

I was going to do one of those one-line questionnaire things, but I feared the ironic voting patterns ;-)