France was the birthplace of Publicis, Havas, and TBWA.
The US has spawned 9 global ad agencies: McCann, DDB, BBDO, Leo Burnett, Ogilvy, Y&R, JWT, Grey, and Arnold. (criteria: 15+ offices)
The UK has produced three (Lowe, Saatchi & Saatchi, M&C Saatchi)
While Japan has given the world Dentsu and Hakuhodo.
And all the other countries in the world?
None. Zip. Zilch.
Which is weird, when you consider there are many countries which have produced global companies in other fields, such as cars, banks, airlines, insurance companies, etc.
So why can only four countries produce global advertising players? And is that a fixed rule, or could another country do it?
Is it okay for an ad to be strategically uninteresting? A phrase from Martin Weigel's Canalside View blog has stuck in my head - "Advertising claims," he writes, "probably simply work as an interesting statement of
category membership."
What he means is that what most ads say about the product is bleedin' obvious, and it's just the way we say it that makes the difference. The example he gives is the Sony 'Balls' ad. Sony spent millions of dollars asserting an unbelievably basic claim - that their colour TV offers great colour. But the way they said it, made you want it. Anyway, I decided to test Martin's viewpoint. Being a creative rather than a scientist, I've conducted the experiment in a way that lacks any semblance of rigour. I simply went to the section on Ads Of The World that showcases the 2012 Cannes Lion winners, and looked at the first 20 ads that came up, categorising them as either 'Strategically Obvious' or 'Strategically Interesting'. Strategically Obvious
Sindebax Erectline Dysfunction Pill - 'Stops you going down' (pictured above) JVC cameras - 'You can use the delete function to pick the best image later' Doritos Dips - 'You can dip them in salsa' Liquid Paper' - 'Use it to blank out text you don't want to see' Virgin Australia - 'We fly from Australia to the USA' Mini - 'Mini cars can drive on any road'
Strategically Interesting
FedEx 'You'll be so impressed, you'll try to poach our staff' DirecTV 'Cable is so poor it can set off a huge chain of negative consequences' Hahn Super Dry beer 'Tastes awesome because it's brewed with awesomeness' McDonald's children's parties 'Let us take care of the monsters' Amnesty International 'We should never see violence during delivery, so let's get this YouTube video down to zero views' Mercedes Night View Assist 'Spots the danger before you do' Kit Kat 'Take a break from your meeting' Coke 'Give someone a coke' Down's Syndrome Day 'People with Down's syndrome can be integrated into society, just as they have been integrated into these well-known ads' Lou Gehrig's Disease Foundation 'Testimonials from beyond the grave' eMart 'QR codes created by shadows, to boost sales at lunchtime' American Express 'Small business gets an official day' Austria Solar 'The first annual report that's only legible when sunlight falls on its pages' Breeze Washing Liquid 'You need Breeze because stains have evolved'
Now, I know that some of these ads are scams, which may or may not invalidate them. And I know sometimes it's the technology that's interesting, not the strategy (like the Mini piece, which uses Google Streetview to let you drive a Mini down any road in the world). And you may disagree with one or two of my classifications.
But nevertheless, I think there's an interesting conclusion to draw.
While by no means all the work conformed to Martin's mere 'assertion of category membership' dictum, 30% of the executions (6 out of 20) did. Therefore I reckon that - as creatives - it is worth spending at least some of our time on each brief making no attempt to be strategically intelligent. Don't think too much about what you're doing, just see if you can hit the ball out of the park.
The other day I started reading an advertising blog that was so good, it actually made me think I should stop writing mine, since it's so inadequate in comparison.
But then I thought 'Nah, I'll just take the best bits from his blog, and use them for a post on Scamp.'
Hopefully Martin won't mind…
Martin Weigel is the Head of Planning at W+K in Amsterdam. His blog has been going for about 2 1/2 years, so I'm late on it - apologies - but in my opinion it is easily the best writing about advertising that can be found today, anywhere.
Here are 10 reasons why.
1 He's angry. "If you cite Apple, Zappos, or Nike+ one more time I may just punch myself in the face," says Martin.
2 He doesn't pander to clients. "Approve or improve," is his advice.
3 He demolishes buzzwords."'Always be in beta', 'constant iteration'... not all content easily
lends itself to fast creation. Take the blockbuster film element from
Nike’s Write The Future campaign. How would one have constantly iterated
this?"
And
"I’d like to suggest that we all try not to use the word ‘engagement’
ever again. It might just help us focus on what really matters. And free
us from having to endure yet more vacuous bullshit."
4 Although a strategist, he reveres execution. "People didn't get excited by the intellectual idea that footballers have the chance to make history at the World Cup. They got excited by an epic piece of film that brought that idea to life with flamboyance, scale, wit, star players and pop culture references a plenty. Execution is what stirs the emotions, excites, intrigues, and ignites desire." 5 He has a very clear view on what Planning is 'for'. "Planning is not precious about the brief. It IS precious about the precise nature of the task and objectives it defines. “Does this work achieve these objectives?” is the one question we must be able to answer each and every time." 6 Likewise on how brands should behave. "Great brands talk about and act upon what they love. What they’re passionate about. Even what they’re against. But not themselves. The dull dinner companion can only talk about him or herself. If your brand isn’t interested in, connecting to, advocating, inspiring, or enabling something Out There in the real world that it truly loves, then the chances of connecting to a human being are pretty slim."
7 He hates Brand Onions “Is it ‘Friendly” or ‘Approachable’?” “How about ‘Accessible’?” “I prefer “Confident.’” We’ve all been there. In that place that feels like some surreal parallel universe otherwise known as Defining the Brand. Spending days, weeks and even months horse-trading over adjectives. Filling in geometric shapes of various kinds. Keys, onions, pyramids, temples and so on. If I found myself one day being asked to complete a dodecahedron I don’t think I would be surprised. And while we tell our clients that it isn’t a tagline or indeed anything consumer-facing, we’re still trying to work out what precisely that ‘brand essence’ thing at the center of the onion or top of the pyramid is anyway. And when it’s all over, and everything has been dutifully filled in and everyone is ‘aligned’, what happens to that precious document? Absolutely nothing. 8 He has a great take on the age-old originality debate. "Whether they are scientific or artistic, tangible or intangible, successful ideas – true acts of creativity – are perfect crimes in action. Theft, done well – intelligently, imaginatively – is nothing to be ashamed of. Cliché however, is a very different matter. It is mere laziness and thuggery." 9 He makes a 100% rational case for why work ought to be provocative. "The bland, the safe, the unadventurous, the stuff that is afraid to divide people, that doesn’t take a position and offers no point of view has no hope of encouraging people to come in and play. If we want people to respond, and to respond actively, then we’re going to need some appropriately powerful stimulus for action and behaviour. Provocation then, is absolutely crucial."
10 And finally, he's a huge believer in the power of creativity. "Treating creativity merely as a means of tricking or bribing the viewer into paying attention to the message within it profoundly undervalues and undermines the both the nature and the value of creativity. Creativity isn’t some kind of distraction tactic, bait or bribe. It isn’t a wrapper or envelope for a message. It IS the content."
Or "I acknowledge that the intangible dimensions that we invent and surround objects with may well be but the froth on the cappuccino of life – 99% inconsequential, useless air. But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, without the froth, it just isn’t a cappuccino. I thank you.”
By the way, Martin's blog, which I urge you to subscribe to using the WordPress 'follow' feature, is called Canalside View.
And that picture at the top - one Martin posted a while back - is that view.
So the Christmas tree has died and the plastic pressies from China are now safely in landfill. You've made on average 2.8 New Year's Resolutions, and broken 1.4 of then.
And all those 'Review of the Year' pieces... are giving way to 'Predictions for 2013'.
Like JWT's '10 Trends for 2013', a report you can buy here for just $250!
Alternatively, don't waste your time.
This fun article shows just how far off the mark predictions usually are.
I foresee that 'Twitter' will be the key advertising medium for 2013. Hang on, I'm getting another message. Instagram! That should have been Instagram. Or maybe Pinterest? Nevertheless, I'm not anti predictions per se. In many media jobs, they're essential. A magazine company needs to predict whether 2013's sales really are going to fall off a cliff, before deciding whether to upgrade their printing presses or not. A TV company needs to estimate how much of their 2013 revenue is going to migrate to the internet, before deciding how much money to invest in programming.
But as creatives, we live uniquely in the present.
Yes, magazines may die. TV may die. And Facebook may be revealed as the wholly useless brand-building medium many suspect it to be.
But none of this affects the brief you have in front of you right now. That brief has a time horizon of about 3 months (for a TV ad, or an event), 2 months (poster, or iPhone app), or 1 month or less (print ad, online banner or display ad, or radio ad).
It just doesn't matter 'what's going to happen in 2013'. What matters is you coming up with a great idea for the brief you have in front of you right now.
Yes, I know people say that if you don't shape the future, you'll be shaped BY it. But coming up with great ideas IS the best way for creatives to shape their futures.
And while a fashion designer needs to take a punt on what people will want to wear in nine months time, and an architect wants to build a building that will still look good in 100 years time, as creatives we don't need to think much further than next week, do we? Because clients want work that will work now, not work that will work if it is run in five years' time. Consumers want to see stuff that's interesting to them today, not something that might become relevant down the track.
I've heard far too many ECD's pontificating about 'the future of our industry' when first of all, they don't know, and second of all, they would be far better off worrying about what clients, consumers (and yes, awards juries) are looking for TODAY.
So that's why I'm not making any predictions for 2013.
Here are my Top Ten Christmas Party Tips, some of which may help you survive yours.
If you already had your Christmas party, and died... then I'm sorry.
1. Planning on wearing fancy dress? Then this is the guy to beat. R/GA Christmas party, 2012, NYC.
2. Don't follow the Christmas bash tips of Melbourne agency BGM, listed here, unless you want your party to be utterly lame. They include: "PC rules still apply – Politics, sex, toilet humour, religion, women, races are off limits." (Women are off limits?) And "Dress appropriately and make an impression for the right reasons. Jedi outfit to remain at home." Why does the Jedi outfit have to remain at home, BGM? Perhaps because the highlight of their 2009 bash was "a guy with a mullet wig."
3. What happens when you give every agency in the world, the same brief? This. If you should happen to get the brief, my tip is to be extremely rude. Like this.
4. Do you work at 2Day FM, the pranking radio station? You are off the hook. Your Christmas party this year has been cancelled.
5. Fun card, though I don't like the sexist way that it's the men exchanging the women. I guess they're satirising the fact that ad execs were all men in those days.
6. Prepare to be asked “What are you doing for Christmas?” by anybody you
happen to stand near for long enough. Resist the temptation to tell them
you’ll be trying to avoid meaningless conversations.
7. If you cop off with someone, everyone will know about it the next day. That's right. Everyone.
8. If you start ranting about a co-worker, be aware that this person will be standing directly behind you.
9. It's normally better to throw up in a bin than a toilet.
10. Don't corner your boss and tell him: "What this company needs to start doing differently is..." He will have come wearing a chest protector. And maybe earplugs.
Obviously I don't mean last week's call by 2DayFM DJ's Mel Greig and Michael Christian, which ended in tragedy.
For me, the genre works best (and occupies a higher moral ground) when the victim is an authority figure, or at least makes some claim to authority, as in the example below of a prank call to a TV psychic.
That caller - Robin Cooper - is the alter ego of British comedian Robert Popper, who as well as his involvement in hit shows such as Peep Show and The Inbetweeners, is a seriously talented wind-up merchant. More Robin Cooper prank calls here.
Given their high humour potential, it's perhaps surprising that prank calls aren't used more often for advertising purposes. Probably something to do with the difficulty of getting clients to sign-off an unscripted script.
But here's one fine example, for McDonald's, from 2009. Thiscampaign, for Apple Tango, dates from 1995, and it takes the biscuit. If you haven't heard it, you're in for a treat. After last week's events, I doubt we'll be seeing too many prank call-based ad campaigns in the near future. Which is a shame really, because when they come off, it's a very disarming technique.
Candid Camera was an American TV show that began in 1948.
Its creator, Allen Funt, had worked as a research assistant to influential social psychologist Kurt Lewin, and many of the show's sketches reflected Funt's interest in psychology.
For example, the famous 'Elevator Conformity' scene demonstrates the psychological principle of 'social proof'.
Funt's idea has since been copied many times, but usually without the same psychological depth, and played purely for comedy; notable examples include Trigger Happy TV and The Jamie Kennedy Experiment.
Sometimes, it's unsettling. 'Ghost in the Elevator', from a Brazilian TV show, was doing the rounds of the internet just last week.
Occasionally, the format has been put to serious purpose. In this Egyptian candid camera show, actors playing talk show hosts pretended to be Jewish, and got attacked by their guests.
And very often, especially in recent years, Funt's idea has been used as the basis for ads.
LOTS of ads.
One agency alone - Duval Guillaume in Antwerp, Belgium - seems to be responsible for many of the most famous examples, such as 'Unlock the 007 in you' for Coke Zero (9 million YouTube views), 'Amazing Mind Reader' for safeinternetbanking.be (6 million views), and 'Push To Add Drama' for TNT (39 million views).
Last week, saw the release of the newest installment in the genre - 'Music in the Corner Shop' for Red Stripe, made by KK Outlet, the London branch of Dutch agency KesselsKramer.
The release of this latest exemplar has prompted the usual two questions:
1) Aren't we sick of this kind of ad now?
and
2) Is it fake?
Personally, I don't like the Red Stripe ad, because I think it's cheesy. And yet, much as I love original stuff and don't like tired stuff, I wouldn't say I'm sick of the genre as a whole yet. Since it's a form that's inherently based on surprise, it's quite easy for each new execution to still be surprising, even if the form as a whole is not.
The question of whether it's fake is a debate which is simmering (if not actually raging) at places like Ben's blog.
My own view is that the reactions are real. If the piece feels fake to some, it's because the reactions we see are so conveniently what the film-makers were looking for. The reason for this is that they have simply edited out the reactions that displeased them.
But Allen Funt himself was apparently a ferocious editor. Only a small portion of the public reactions to his stunts - those that reflected the perfect combination of dismay, confusion and surprise – were broadcast. Funt left the openly-suspicious, and those who spoiled the joke by guessing it too early, on the cutting room floor.
He heightened the humour, with a little judicious editing. And I think we can forgive that, can't we?
Exclude that one piece of artifice, and what we are left with, whether in an ad or a TV show, is a creative examination of the disruption or violation of rules, people’s real and spontaneous reactions, and - sometimes - surprising insights into human behaviour. All worthwhile stuff, I reckon.
In my new job, it looks like I am going to be flying quite a bit. From Sydney to Melbourne. This is good because I really like Melbourne, although I'm less keen on airport coffee, putting my laptop in a grey plastic tray, and having to take my belt off in a public place.
But Australia is a
flying country. There are two main advertising centres - Sydney and Melbourne - and so people fly regularly between the two. America is also a flying country.
If you work in advertising over there, you will fly nearly all the time. Sometimes excessively. I know someone who works at Crispin Porter in Boulder. They fly regularly to meetings with a client in Seattle. Recently they shot a TV ad for this client, which involved flying to New York. But then the job was edited in LA. And for the sound, obviously, they flew to San Francisco. Before flying back to Boulder.
France, however, is a non-flying country. Every single ad agency is in Paris. If you go to a client meeting, it's a 20-minute taxi ride. Shoots? The studios and sound studios are in Paris too.
The UK is another non-flying country. Like France, nearly all the ad agencies are in the capital. And so are many of the clients. Exception - for 9 months of the year, location-based shoots have to be shot abroad, since the weather's unreliable, and the world-as-depicted-in-TV-ads requires smiley happy weather.
What's it like in Brazil? Germany I know has several centres, but for some reason I imagine people might take the train between them. And what's your experience of work-flying?
I actually suspect flying is probably conducive to creativity, in that you're out of the office for a while, out of your normal environment, and can't use the internet. Does it help you? Or do you hate it... and have you got any tips for your ol' buddy Scamp?
Young creatives are always worrying about how they can 'get in front of' an ECD.
If only they had 'a contact' at Droga5, or 'knew someone' at Saatchi & Saatchi, they could get in there, and get a job. They view the agency world as some kind of closed society, which if only they could become a member of, they would be set. This thinking is wrong, and could lead to a dangerous lack of focus on what's really important - doing great work. I say this even though part of what helped me get an interview for my new job (one week in - and loving it) was a recommendation from a well-known figure in the agency world. But the reason he recommended me was that he liked the work I had done when I spent some time in his agency.
The first job I ever got was via a headhunter calling in books on behalf of a young art director looking for a writer at Saatchi's in London. I didn't know anyone there. My second job, at a small 'youth-focused' agency, was actually advertised in Campaign. The ad read: 'Wanted: Creative Team. No Wankers.' Admittedly, that should have been a warning sign. But nevertheless, the job didn't come through contacts. Next job, at Ogilvy, was again via headhunters collecting books for a CD. Next job, at DDB London, came after my partner and I won something called the Cannes Young Creatives competition, where we represented the UK (failing miserably) at Cannes. One of the judges was the ECD of DDB, and he liked our work. Thereafter, we started winning a few awards and so any job offers came via people knowing our work.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, everything came via doing work that people liked, and not by contacts. There's an analogous situation in Hollywood. There, young writers are always trying to get an agent, believing that if only they could get in front of one, their career would take off. But agents themselves have an amusing piece of advice for young writers. The advice is: First, write a great screenplay. Then, dig a hole in your garden, bury the screenplay in the hole, and go to bed. When you wake up in the morning, there will be thirty agents waiting outside your house.
Thieves are 'nabbed', football managers are 'installed', and I (according to the mighty Campaign Brief) have been snared, to be the new Head of Ideas at Naked.
And the culture is very forward-thinking, very collaborative.
Heck, saying I'm excited is an understatement. The best way I can put it is that I feel like I did when I first got into advertising. That there's huge potential to do exciting creative stuff. And that it's going to be fun.
Churches have always made use of their signage to broadcast simple pro-superstition messages.
But I've noticed a worrying new trend - they're now actually trying to write proper ads. Here are some recent examples I've seen around town:
It kind of offends me that they're using modern advertising imagery and language - albeit poorly - to push this two-thousand-year-old nonsense.
So I'm planning to strike back.
My idea is to use their own media against them. I'm going to print up a few posters, and stick them up over church signs in my area.
N.B. these aren't the final layouts, they're just rough scamps, but I do think they should be all-type like this, since that style is probably still better known than the newer stuff.
So what do you think? Which execution(s) should I go with?
(If you don't rate any of them, suggest your own).
Have you ever seen one of those altered maps known as a 'cartogram'?
Here's one:
Map of the world with each country sized according to
its GDP, rather than actual land area.
Long-time readers of this blog will know that I have a fondness for maps, charts, and statistics. If that makes me a geek, well... um... it's cool to be a geek nowadays, no?
Anyway, I was mucking about with a freeware image editing program called Gimp last night, and decided to use it to create an advertising cartogram.
If you are an advertising creative, this is what the world really looks like, folks:
Map of the world with each country sized according to
its 2012 Cannes Lions per head of population.
I think the result is pretty interesting.
Reading the map from left to right, or west to east as I should probably say, we see that North America has atrophied. The USA came 1st in the Cannes Lions league table, but it has 315 million people, which on a Lions per capita basis puts it roughly on a par with Mexico and Canada (12th and 15th in the table). South America has shrivelled too. Argentina is recognisable, with 32 Lions and 40 million people, but Brazil and Colombia don't fare so well. Moving on to Europe, we see that the centre of the 'old continent' is dominated by the mighty Belgium. With 32 Lions for only 10.8 million people, this fine effort from the new home of Candid Camera-style viral videos has reduced its neighbours France and Spain to mere appendages to the southwest. The UK does quite well, having finished 2nd in the Cannes league table, with 89 lions for 62 million people. Moving northeast of Blighty we find Holland, Germany, Denmark, and the nordic powerhouse - Sweden, with 45 Lions (6th place) achieved by only 10 million people. Too cold to do anything else except stay inside and design websites, I suppose.
In the Middle East I have put Israel and the UAE nestled together, I hope they don't mind. But the middle of the map is more notable for its absentees. India and China both won a few Lions (14 and 12) but once you divide that score by their enormous populations, they disappear. Time to stop sewing footballs and start writing ads! But the real story, for me, revealed by this cartogram, is that Asia/Oceania is by far the most creative corner of the planet, on a per capita basis. New Zealand nearly leads the world - at something other than rugby - coming second only to Sweden in Lions per capita. Above NZ, Australia is punching considerably above its population, though it doesn't match Singapore (just above Aus.) whose 5 million people won 15 Lions. Above Singapore is Hong Kong, another strong performer, with 8 Lions won by 7 million people.
Conclusion: why is everyone moving to New York? It's shit anyway. We should all be moving to New Zealand, or Singapore.
I can't see tongues getting involved. And I've no idea what they'd find to talk about. Heck, they probably don't even have each other's phone numbers.
But some music biz marketing person has decided to put them together, and their record will go to No.1 for sure.
Each is broadening their fan base. And each is becoming more interesting by being associated with the other.
I'm old enough to remember Mick Jagger and David Bowie getting together to do Dancing In The Street, which at the time was thrilling, even though the video was a bit pants.
In more recent times, we've seen very cool collaborations between the likes of Nick Cave and P.J. Harvey, Bjork and Thom Yorke, The Black Keys and Mos Def.
In film too, there's always a frisson when you hear that Kylie is appearing in some crazy indie movie, or Bill Murray is making another film with Wes Anderson.
So why don't we see more collaborations between brands?
Advertising is predicated on novelty. Every car brand ever advertised is "The NEW xxxx." That is, unless it's "The all-new xxxx."
In a world of basically parity products, we're always looking for something new and interesting to say.
Even new packaging is sometimes enough to hang an ad off.
Usually there's nothing.
And yet the obvious idea, of dimensionalising a brand by associating it with a brand from a different field, rarely happens.
When it does, it's usually awesome. I mean, when Ice Cream Snickers came out, my head practically exploded. Before my teeth fell out, that is.
But in a way... that's quite an obvious one, because they're both foods. And the ice cream wasn't even a brand. Apple and Nike did, er, quite well with Nike+
So why don't we see more of that? Why not this?
Okay, that probably wouldn't happen.
But shouldn't a camera company hook up with a tourist board? Or a men's fashion brand support Barnardo's?
Apparently there is a website out there calledBrand Dating.
They are already doing stuff like charity partnerships, co-branded products, joint advertising, etc.
But I reckon it's something we could all think more about, for our own brands.
It's getting harder and harder for us Creatives to feel special, when there are so many damn people nowadays doing more or less exactly what we do, on the internet, for free.
I was researching memes recently for an ad, and what struck me was how similar they are to print ads.
First World Problems
College Freshman
Overly Attached Girlfriend
And of course, there are hundreds of thousands of people out there making YouTube films, many of which are like TV ads, except the budget is zero, and the makers do it for free (excepting the very few superstars of YouTube, who make just a few thousand dollars a year).
It used to be that advertising occupied a unique space. There was Art, which was 'up there'. Then there were TV shows and movies, which were somewhere 'over there'. The two closest things to advertising were comedy sketch shows, which we pillaged ruthlessly to make ads out of, and conceptual pop videos, which we, um, also pillaged ruthlessly to make ads out of.
I guess my point is that what we do is beginning to have less and less scarcity value.
Are we sitting on our asses as complacently as first-world call centre workers in 2006?
Answer: his name is Luke Taylor, and he just sold a digital agency network called LBi to Publicis.
All right, admittedly he didn't get the whole $540 million himself, but I imagine he got a fair chunk (the agency was owned partly by its management team of which Luke Taylor is the CEO, and partly by private equity investors).
Now, I'm not against people getting rich. In fact I'm all in favour of rewards for success.
For example, the BBH crew, who also recently sold to Publicis, deserve every penny of their payout in my opinion - they have created great work, actually some of our industry's best-ever work, and done that consistently, for thirty years. And they've done it profitably, too.
Stef Calcraft, one of the co-founders of Mother, also sold his stake, last week, and received a tidy sum - again, deserving every penny, in my opinion, having co-created the shop that won Campaign's Agency of the Decade in 2009. And Mother is not just a creative hot shop. It's also growing strongly (a presence on three continents) and is also highly profitable.
But LBi? Let me ask the simple, age-old question - what have they ever done? Well, Campaign asked Luke Taylor"What recent work for clients are you most proud of?" and his answer began like this: "We are currently in the process of leading Johnson & Johnson on a
global journey of digital transformation. We service a total of 15
J&J brands across four continents, making it one of our broadest
client engagements."
Ah, the Johnson & Johnson work. Of course.
Nope, I haven't seen it either.
But maybe that's an aberration. Let's take a look at the rest of their showreel.
I didn't recognise one thing on there.
They say a sample of one person is unfair... but that does surely depend on the person.
I'm more or less an advertising obsessive. I write an ad blog so I read all the ad blogs, and click on a link for anything that looks interesting. And I spend a horrendously unhealthy amount of time online anyway, where presumably I could (nay, should) have been exposed to LBi's work.
Please note - I'm not saying I think their work is crap. I'm saying I don't even know what it is. Then again, if the first job of advertising is to get noticed, maybe I am saying it's crap. Am I wrong? Do you work at LBi, and it's actually the shizzle? If so, set me straight. Otherwise, join me in wondering how Luke Taylor just made $540 million.
One of the fun things about going on holiday is you meet people you would never normally meet.
Last week, on holiday, I met a guy who runs one of the country's Top 100 companies. His kids and my kids were hanging out, so he and I were kind of thrown together.
Naturally, I asked him what he thinks of his company's advertising (they are a heavy advertiser).
He said he thought it was quite good, but could be better. He then went on to talk about how, when he'd taken the job, he'd invited the entire marketing department for a barbecue at his house. And then grilled them.
"I asked each of them in turn," he told me, "what was the No.1 rational reason why a consumer should choose our company. Most of them couldn't answer. And some of them told me it wasn't important!"
He threw up his hands in exasperation.
"We have three fantastic competitive advantages," he went on, "and we're not building our advertising around them!"
He then outlined for me these competitive advantages. As I have worked in this sector quite a bit myself, I know that consumers don't care much about those particular advantages. Maybe they should, but they don't. As always, they don't base their purchase decision on the rational factors.
I also know a little about the challenges his particular brand faces - for various reasons, it just isn't very popular, and is also seen as a bit old-fashioned. And I'm guessing that everyone in the marketing department are aware of this, because they are producing advertising that is modern and likeable.
But the big boss didn't get it. When I tried to explain, he shut me down.
It was all very depressing.
He was obsessed with communicating the rational stuff... and scoffed when I brought up the question of likeability, implying that I was some kind of hopelessly uncommercial hippy. I should explain that he himself, like probably most CEO's, was extremely left-brained - he was a former lawyer.
But my main take-away from this conversation, apart from a mild depression, was a new-found respect for this guy's marketing director, whoever that is. In the teeth of this demanding (and deluded) character, the marketing director is running the right advertising.
We all occasionally find clients challenging. We wish they'd take more risks, approve work that's more creative.
I guess we should remember who they have to get our work approved by.
This ad that came out the other day, for Cathedral City cheese, is not a good ad, but that's not my point. My point is that at 18 seconds in, a Cathedral City delivery truck randomly drives past. Twice.
Why? For 'branding'.
The purpose of branding - which I wholeheartedly agree with - is to prevent misattribution. If people don't know who an ad is for, it's a waste of money. Or worse - it may benefit the competition.
But where I disagree with most clients, in fact where I become borderline irate, is over the question of what constitutes a well branded ad.
Too many clients believe in branding in the sense of 'branding like a cow', i.e. making sure their name is stamped on the ad. They feel that good branding equates to lots of branding, obvious branding, early branding, or all of the above. They will tell you that 'research proves' that ads should be clearly branded, and that the brand should preferably be referenced up front.
Actually, this is false.
Who says it's false? The high priests themselves, Millward Brown.
In 2006, Millward Brown studied a gazillion ads, to work out where was the best place to put the branding - beginning, middle, or end. And what did the study find? It found there was no difference. In other words, there was no correlation at all - zero - between when the branding came in, and how 'well branded' an ad was (using here the proper definition of the term - correct attribution by the consumer). So there is absolutely no need to drive a Cathedral City cheese truck through the beginning of the ad.
In fact there are good scientific reasons why you shouldn't drive the cheese truck. If it gives away a later plot twist, it may significantly reduce engagement and enjoyment. That is, if the enjoyment levels of this ad could actually be driven any lower.
Nor, interestingly, did the number of times that the branding was repeated make any difference.
So what did make a difference to the branding scores? What made a difference was when the branding was introduced memorably, and (I kid you not, this is Millward Brown talking) "with the intelligent application of creativity".Read the report here (it's quite short, and very interesting).
Below is an ad that I consider to be well-branded, although the branding doesn't come until the very end. The reason it's well branded is that the ad sets up an intriguing idea, which only makes sense with the reveal of the brand name at the end.
In fact, this ad adheres to an even higher standard of branding, that goes far beyond the question of 'at what point in the ad should the brand make an appearance'. The higher standard is that the entire ad should be imbued with the values of the brand. The entire ad should revolve around the proposition of the brand. The entire ad should be in the tone of voice of the brand. When you do that - when the entire ad, as in the case of the PlayStation commercial above, is built from the DNA of the brand - then attribution scores will be far higher than can be achieved by simply putting a picture of the brand on screen for a few seconds in an otherwise unrelated story. Yes, even if that picture covers the entire side of a truck.
Note. Reading this again, I may have been a bit harsh on clients. If an agency delivers them a comedy sketch with the brand plonked gratuitously on the end - which, let's face it, we are guilty of far too often - then small wonder that the client feels compelled to reach for the branding iron, in a vain attempt to put their own stamp onto what would otherwise be an entirely generic piece of communication. Then again, they could always reject the concept I suppose.
It's more than 70 years since Rosser Reeves coined the term USP or Unique Selling Proposition.
For at least the last 18 years (as long as I've been in the industry), the proposition box on a brief has been labelled 'Single-Minded Proposition'.
And just compiling (off the top of my head) a list of recent successful ad campaigns, they're all based on a single prop:
Sony - colour Canal+ "wardrobe" - storytelling Cadburys - joy Toyota "border security" - tough Chrysler - from Detroit So you'd think people would know by now.
But they don't.
I still regularly see double-headed propositions
Even triple-headers. (A triple that I remember fondly from my time at Saatchi's was a prop for scratchcards: "The fun way to win lots of money in an instant." Three concepts - fun, wealth, speed. Oh dear.) An especially tricky customer is the disguised double-header. For example, "Value." It's a single word, so on the face of it, shouldn't that be a single-minded proposition? Actually, no. "Value" doesn't mean "Cheap". It means "Product that is better quality than you can usually find at this price." So "Value" is really a double-headed prop, because you need to say something about both price and quality to fulfill it.
The cause of these doubles is clients who don't quite know what they want to say, and agency planners and account teams who fail to convince them to choose a direction. Of course, picking a position is stressful - you're giving up something that you could say. But the effect of not doing so is usually to end up with an ad that is perfect as breakfast for a dog.
Unless... the creatives can successfully decapitate one of the heads on that double-headed prop.
There are two ways to do it. Option One is to decide which of the two props is best, and work to that. Be honest - tell everyone that's what you've done, and why. Often they're relieved that someone is prepared to make a decision. If the authorities kick up a fuss that part of the prop isn't included, put a passing reference to it in the endline, the voiceover, or a line of dialogue. Then say "Look - there it is!" Option Two is to find a single concept that can link the two propositions. That's what Andrew Fraser did - brilliantly - in this Volkswagen campaign out of DDB London known as 'Surprisingly ordinary prices.'
The concept of
"Surprise" is a single thought, which links the two props of "High
quality" and "Low price" embedded within the Value brief.
One of the biggest challenges in developing work is hitting the right Tone Of Voice.
We all know that our ideas have to be On Brief; we understand and accept that however great an idea is, it will rarely get presented to client - let alone bought - unless it's On Brief. But our understanding of On Tone (and Off Tone) is at a lower level.
Ideas routinely get as far as being presented to client, only to be rejected because they're "not right for the brand." Partly this is excusable because the client will invariably have a better understanding of their own brand than the agency does, since they are the brand owners. But some of it is the agency's fault. Planners and Account Handlers can be vague about the required tone (how over-used is the word 'Witty' on a brief?) But mostly, it's Creatives that just get it wrong. This is a failing that's well worth eradicating, since any idea you spend time on but which doesn't end up getting bought, is a waste of your time. And anything that helps you get more of your ideas bought and made, makes you more successful. I think the fault arises because there is a tone of voice that the typical creative (male, aged 22 to 35) is drawn to. You know the tone I mean. Clever, funny, and maybe slightly daring and modern. Like this.
If the client wants this sort of ad, great. It's just the kind of ad creatives love to write. But what if the brand is something else? What if it's serious, traditional, feminine or businessy? Then Creatives often lose their way, and keep on presenting ideas that are clever, funny, modern and daring. Ideas that don't get bought. Tone of Voice is the last box on the brief, and often the last thing Creatives think about.
I'd suggest it's worth thinking about it a bit more. Making sure you've got a thorough understanding of the tonal territory before you begin concepting.
And the easiest way to find that territory, is with a map.
Making the map is very easy, and takes just a minute or two. All you need to do is pick three adjectives that, together, define the brand. That's all it takes - three adjectives. Because the fantastic thing about cartography is that you can define any point in the universe with only three coordinates.
Once you have your three adjectives (work with the Planner on this), the point at which they intersect is the right tone. Sometimes, because I'm pretty much a geek, I literally do a drawing - either a Venn diagram with three circles, or a triangle with three sides. The bit in the middle is your tonal territory.
If you're thinking that this approach could be creatively limiting...
It is.
But it hopefully limits you to ideas that have a good chance of getting bought.
I never had anything against the ethos behind scam.
There's nothing wrong with an ambition to do great work, especially if that ambition is unfulfilled because you're in a not-very-creative agency, or you're relatively junior and not being given the good briefs. And there's nothing wrong with an ambition to win awards, and further your career.
It's just the lying I didn't like.
Entering scam work into awards meant pretending it had run when it hadn't, or not properly, at any rate. Sometimes it meant pretending a client had signed it off when in fact they'd never even seen it. And sometimes it meant pretending to yourself... that you were doing something worthwhile, when the reality is there's nothing worthwhile about a WWF print ad that's only ever seen by Cannes jurymembers. But recently, I've noticed a few pieces of evidence which suggest that creatives' excess creative energy is starting to be put to better use. Last year, there
was the 'Keep Aaron Cutting' project, which saw 3 BBH interns taking to
social media and raising 35,000 pounds to rebuild 89 year old Aaron
Biber's barbershop, which had been destroyed by rioters. Read The Case Study here.
Last week, another team (coincidentally also from BBH) Viv Yapp and AK Parker, created a web app called Amateur Art Restorer which mocked the efforts of Cecilia Gimenez, the cack-handed 85 year-old art restorer of Zaragoza, and allowed you to try your own.
Also last week, Melbourne-based digital art director Julian Frost created an iPhone app called Toybox, whose simple premise is it allows you to play two games at once.
Thanks to the wonders of the internet, creatives are now starting to make side-projects that are not only more creative than a fake DPS for Save The Donkeys, but which get seen by more people, and which might actually make something happen - like raise money, either for a charity, or themselves. Most importantly of all... if you were an ECD, what would you be more impressed to see in a team's book: a print ad for a charity that never ran, or something super-fun like the Amateur Art Restorer app? If the trend continues, it will mean fewer ads for the nation's Dog Obedience Schools and Pedestrian Councils.
Hi, I'm Simon Veksner, founder of social media agency Hungry Beast. Formerly a Creative Director at BBH London and DDB Sydney. See house rules for posting comments.
