Why Don't They Trust Us?

In a survey released last week of 'most trusted professions', Advertising People finished in 29th place. Out of 30. The only people trusted less than us were Car Salesmen.

Clearly this ranking is unfair.

Let's look at who finished above us:

In 25th place - MP's. Despite their inability to tell the truth, or keep their peckers in their trousers.

In 24th place, Journalists. Hello? Ever heard of phone hacking?

In 23rd place, Stockbrokers. Because, like, everyone in finance is so honest. They'd never be involved in insider trading, or sell mortgage-backed securities that they know to be worthless.

In 15th place, Lawyers. Twisting the facts is part of their job description, FFS! 

In 12th place, Ministers of Religion. There is no God. Half of them know that, but they carry on anyway. Maybe they just like having easy access to children...

In 11th place, Accountants. Primary role: helping people avoid tax.

In 8th place, Police. Okay, so most of them are honest, but thousands of policemen around the world are kicked out of their profession every year for corruption. Have you seen Bad Lieutenant?

The top places - filled by Nurses, Pharmacists, Doctors and School Teachers - are fairly unimpeachable.

But still, I can't help but feel we've been placed unfairly low.The rules around what an ad can say are very strict. And the vast majority of people I've met in my profession have extremely high ethical standards.

So for a while, I felt miffed. Then, the universe provided an answer. Or at least, Twitter did:

I've never worked in the beauty category. Or on cleaning products (one swipe of a cloth, and the dirt is gone.)

I've worked on cars, booze, mobile phones, newspapers, video games... and yes, we exaggerate - but openly, humorously - and we put across the product in the best possible light... but we never lie.

Is it possible that certain categories are giving the whole of advertising a bad name? Or is there really something wrong with our industry?

Made Any Good Mistakes Recently?

Love this new campaign for Snickers, from AMV.BBDO in London.

Using Adwords and an alogorithm, it shows 'You're not you when you're hungry' ads to people who type mis-spelled search terms into Google. View the case study here.

And it reminds me that we have a slight obsession with mistakes in adland.

I think 'fail harder' is actually a motto of Wieden & Kennedy. They certainly had the phrase up in their reception, as a rather beautiful artwork made entirely from push-pins.

 
People in adland love to trot out proverbs like: "If you never make any mistakes, you're not trying hard enough." Or they talk about the need for "rapid iteration", meaning that it's actually helpful to make mistakes because you learn stuff that you can put to good use later.

However, in my experience I've found this kind of talk to be just that - talk.

The reality is that if an agency makes an ad campaign that is a failure, they normally get fired.

If an individual within an agency makes a mistake, they normally get fired. 

The people behind last week's Hyundai 'garage suicide' ad will quite possibly get fired.

And everyone in the pubs and in the ad blog comments will say that they're totally in favour of people pushing the boundaries, but just not in this particular case - in this case the creators made a serious error of judgement, and the ad should never have been made. But when other cases come around, guess what, they too will be exceptions to the rule that it's okay to fail. I've never seen anyone in advertising point approvingly to a failure.

Well, I'm calling bullshit on this whole "it's okay to fail" thing. Clearly it isn't.

The Hyundai suicide ad should never have been made, because it's not acceptable to use that subject matter to sell a product. By way of contrast, 'Dumb Ways To Die' featured multiple people killing themselves with unbelievable gruesomeness, albeit accidentally, but it felt fully justified because the subject was transport safety, and the treatment was cartoony. 

The Hyundai ad has suffered worldwide criticism. Dumb Ways To Die has earned worldwide praise.

The reality is that there is very little margin for error in this business. That is why most clients and agencies make work that is safe.

And yet making work that pushes the boundaries - successfully - remains the only game in town.

Should The CD Also Write Ads?

This question was asked by a commenter last week.

And the answer is 'no'.

Because the danger is that whatever the CD writes, they will think is brilliant. This is normal - we all think our own stuff is brilliant. But normally, there's a CD there to tell you it's actually piss-poor... unless you are the CD, in which case everyone will tell you it's great, because you're their boss.

The agency will have lost one of the most important advantages of the CD system: objectivity. And it will most likely have gained a bad ad.

The boss actually thought his own ad was pretty darn good

Furthermore, if the CD writes something, and it gets bought, who's going to make it? The CD won't have time, so it will probably get shoved onto some young team. Which will be awful for them. No one gets into advertising to make someone else's ideas, everyone gets into advertising to make their own ideas. And they won't do as good a job as if it were their own idea - we all do a better job when we feel ownership. 

I understand why CD's sometimes write ads. Sometimes, they just want to. (Ego.) Other times, they're frustrated because they feel their teams aren't producing the goods (which in reality is their own fault). And sometimes, they want to 'set an example' to the teams. (Ego again).

But probably the biggest reason is they want credit. A lot of the work a CD does - working with the strategists to refine a brief, working with the teams to refine an idea - is 'invisible'. So CD's are often tempted to write stuff themselves, to 'prove their worth'.

Now comes the tricky part. I've been careful to say up to now that I don't think CD's should 'write ads', by which I mean they shouldn't do the whole thing. But that doesn't mean CD's shouldn't have ideas. They should. Hundreds of them. 

Firstly, they should be working collaboratively with the strategists to come up with ideas around what the brief should be. (You may be surprised to hear that many CD's put virtually zero effort into the brief, feeling that it's 'not their job'. Bullshit. Working with the strategists to get to a great brief should be a huge part of their job).

And secondly, they should be working collaboratively with the creative teams (in fact, the whole agency) to get to great ideas. That could mean throwing out an interesting 'half-idea' that the creatives can build on, or it could mean finding a way to turn a half-thought of someone else's into something great.

So in summary, a good CD never 'writes ads', but instead comes up with hundreds of half-ideas. And takes zero credit for them. Sounds tough, but that's the job as I see it.
 

Presenting

'Presenting' is a technical term that refers to how baboons display themselves

for copulation purposes. It is not what this post is about.

I've always thought it strange that creatives do the presenting.

An agency hires creatives to come up with new and lateral ideas. Hence, creatives think differently to most people. They might be a bit weird. Maybe introverted.

Meanwhile, the agency hires account handlers to manage the client relationship. They normally have great people-skills, and will typically be confident and charming.

So who does the agency ask to stand up and present to clients? That's right. Not the confident and charming ones, but the weird shy ones.

I once wrote a post about why creatives shouldn't present.

But... I think I've changed my mind now.

I still think account handlers would do a better job of the actual presenting. But the current set-up makes for a more harmonious atmosphere within the agency. Back in the old days, when account handlers still presented the work, the creatives would be furious with them if it didn't get sold. Even if the client had bought the work, but been so bold as to request any changes... the creatives would react as if they were proposing to graffiti a Picasso. Now, not so much. We're all in the same room. We're all on the same side. We're all motivated to solve the client's problem. And that can only be a good thing.

Our Real Job Is Smuggling

It's often said that ads need to be entertaining because the entertainment allows us to 'smuggle in' a product benefit - the bit that is the commercially effective part of the ad.

I agree with the smuggling theory, but I actually think it works the other way round.

In other words, I reckon the function of the product benefit is to justify the entertainment. And it's actually the entertainment that is the commercially effective part of the ad.

Take this new ad in the Got Milk? campaign.

The product benefit is "if you drink some milk before bed, you sleep better." But this is just a pretext. The overwhelming volume in milk comes from kids drinking it, and adults putting it in their cereal and coffee. The reality is that very, very few people drink a glass of milk at bedtime and even if this ad were to double that number, its impact would have been negligible. No, the sleep enhancement may be a true product benefit, but it's not the business-enhancing part of the ad.

The ad will be effective because it's cool and funny. (Okay it's not the coolest or funniest ad ever, but my point still stands). So people will continue to feel good about buying it. The worst thing for any product is to become lame. Products that are seen as dated or naff don't sell. Period. This ad will do a good job of keeping milk seeming fresh, if you'll pardon the pun. So the effectiveness of the ad IS the entertainment.

Of course, that doesn't mean the product benefit is irrelevant. Far from it. As I said above, the product benefit is essential, because it allows the agency to smuggle in the entertainment. A comedy sketch (like this ad) has to be about something, and furthermore we find it satisfying when an ad is well-constructed around a product benefit, because it makes the sketch seem cleverer, and the comedy more justified.

I wonder if it would ever be acceptable to say to a client "the strategy we propose is that you do ads that are cool and funny." Probably not.

What's The Best Way To Give Feedback?

 

My theory is that successful feedback comes down to 'saying no in an inspirational way.'

No one needs lessons in how to say yes. Saying yes is easy, and fun.

But most of the time - since 99% of ideas, ads, headlines etc are not bought - we are saying no. 

The first requirement is clarity.

Years ago, I remember working for a really nice CD. Everything we presented, he liked. And the result was terrible. We came out of meetings not knowing if he'd bought anything. Sometimes, we needlessly carried on working (wasting time we could have spent working on other briefs) when he was already happy. Other times, we put our pens down, only to find out a few days later that he wasn't happy with anything, and we now had just 24 hours before the client meeting to crack a new idea.

So if it's a no - which most of the time it will be - make sure your 'no' is crystal clear.

Give the reason, e.g. work not on brief, wrong tone for the brand, or 'right' but just not that good.

The last of those is the hardest to deliver. 

Humour can help. One of my old bosses, Jeremy Craigen at DDB London, was a noted rejectionist. "That's a good ad," he used to say. "For Ogilvy Bratislava, maybe." I guess what he was communicating was: "We have high standards here, and this work doesn't meet them. You need to start again completely. However, I still like you."

But as well as being clear, your 'no' should also be at least mildly inspirational. 

You don't want a team walking away depressed, or not sure what to do next. Either of those is a disaster.

You want the team walking away feeling inspired.

So what inspires?

Mainly, a feeling that this brief could lead to great work. Often, a brief seems unpromising and the team can't see their way through to a good idea. So telling them about a good idea that was done on a similarly unpromising brief, perhaps in the same category, or to a similar proposition, can work well.

Another of my old bosses, Adam Kean at Saatchi & Saatchi, did it beautifully once. We showed him some rubbish ads, and he said nothing for a bit. Then he asked us: "Have you seen this?" and he played Tony Kaye's latest TV ad, which we hadn't yet seen. Nothing further needed to be added. His message was: "Advertising at its best can be great. We all want to reach that standard, don't we? Please try again."

But of course, as well as setting the bar, you should be giving the team a steer on how to jump over it. Whether you're a CD, a planner, an account handler or a client, you can't consider that your job is to keep saying no to bad ideas until you're shown a good one. Advertising is a difficult, iterative process that requires constant constructive feedback. That means you must always have suggestions to add. If you don't, how can you justify drawing a salary?

Just make sure (obviously) that the suggestions are good ones! Good means clear, and presented as a challenge for the team to answer in their own way, not an 'answer' for them to execute the way you've told them to.

Anyway, I'm giving a talk next week on 'how to give feedback', and as you can see, what I've got so far is pretty flimsy, so do please help me out and let me know in the comments section any examples of feedback you've experienced done well or done badly.

John Hegarty: "To those brands that say 'I understand you' I say 'Fuck off'"

I am being followed around the internet by a pair of yellow adidas trainers.

It all started when I checked them out on the adidas website; they are now convinced that I am interested in them, and are basically stalking me.

This theme has upset John Hegarty.

He participated in a "Wired Global Conversation" panel last week, and revealed a contrarian view on big data, nicely written up here.

"I'm not sure I want people to know who I am," said John. "I find that slightly Orwellian and I object to it... I think there'll be a huge backlash."

I don't really agree with him on this. I mean, if there has to be an ad on the webpage I am reading, it might as well be for something I'm interested in.

But John then broadens his theme. He sees targeted web ads as being just part of a bigger problem - marketers' obsession with 'understanding' the consumer. And that's when he drops the F-bomb:

"To those brands that say 'I understand you' I say 'Fuck off, you don't understand me. Mind your own business, I don't want to be understood by you. I don't understand myself sometimes… and it can be fun.'" 

I guess his point is similar to the old Henry Ford one - "If I'd asked the customer what he wanted, he would have said 'a faster horse.'"

But John is being cheeky really. He knows full well the importance of understanding the consumer - is in fact a master of it - and you can see that in his work, which is always based on sound logic.

John's just trying to remind us that while we always start with logic, the job of advertising is to turn it into magic.

By the way, what do you think of the shoes? They're starting to grow on me.

 

The 'O' Word

Last week, Domino's walked into a social media shit-storm, when a week-long teaser campaign for a “game changing” announcement proved to be nothing more than a new range of square pizzas with premium toppings.

To be honest I think it's a bit of a non-story. What's the news - the public finding an ad campaign to be patronising rubbish? Big deal. They've been thinking this kind of campaign is patronising rubbish for years. The only thing that's changed is that people now have a way of telling the company so, on their facebook page:

But what I do find interesting, and a clue as to what caused the debacle, is an earlier set of comments... these appeared on Campaign Brief when Domino's announced they had hired a new ad agency:

And it should be noted that before hiring this particular agency, Domino's did their advertising in-house for a period.

I'm not a fan of clients pushing their agencies around so much, they're effectively using them as a production studio.

The same kind of problems arise when people hire a real estate agent, or a lawyer, and then ignore their advice. It surely stems from a desire for control.

But if you over-control your advisers, you lose something very important... something that may be the most important benefit to be gained from hiring any external professional.

Objectivity.

Posters Have Gone Crazy. In A Good Way.

My favourite advertising medium is the Poster.

Once nicely described as "a visual shout", the glory of the poster lies in its being the purest, simplest expression of an advertising idea.

Or... it used to be.

Increasingly, it actually isn't.

The subject's been on my mind because we're doing a couple of posters for one of our clients at the moment. So, just to get my head in the zone, I went to look at some recent award-winning outdoor ads. 

And although I've obviously been aware of the phenomenon for some time, I was really struck by how many award-winning posters nowadays are 'more than just posters'.

In fact, of the 22 pieces that won either a Grand Prix or a Gold in the Outdoor category at Cannes last year, no fewer than 9 consisted of 'more than just ink on paper'.

Yes, partly that's because the Outdoor category also includes experiential ideas, which last year included the Carlsberg 'Cinema of Bikers'. But still. Nine out of 22 winners - that's 41%.

I jumped back a few years, to 2008, and guess what - only 20% of the Grand Prix or Gold winners were 'more than just a poster.'

Not a rigorous scientific survey, but nevertheless a number that confirmed my suspicions - if you want to win an award in the Outdoor category nowadays, you'd be wise to think beyond mere ink on paper.  

In a way, it's probably unfair to compare a traditional poster (powerful and graphically-reductive image, small logo in corner) with a 'modern' poster (vending machine that dispenses product if you tweet it, or blow it a kiss).

But that's exactly what juries are doing.

And you know what? I don't blame them.

Stuff that's never been done before is simply more exciting.

I mean, the billboard that was put up last month in Peru, which condenses air into drinkable water for the local people (above), is an absolutely frickin' unbelievable idea.

If you compare that to the type of poster that was winning awards in the 1970s - legend has it that a supermarket won a gold at D&AD for their instant pasta range, headline "Pasta fasta" - there is just no comparison.

The new style is usually more impactful, more involving, and far more likely to get PR... and for all those reasons, far more likely to be effective as well as award-winning.

Yes, sometimes the client is not going to have the money (and maybe the time) to buy a special-build or interactive poster, and you're going to end up with ink-on-paper.

But it's not the place to start.

Top Ten Tips

In one week's time, I'm giving the opening lecture at Award School, where Australia's aspiring copywriters and art directors go for training.

I'll probably be doing the same presentation I've given for the last two years - 'How To Have Ideas', which isn't original at all, but based on a theory I adapted from Scottish philospher David Hume.

There are actually lots of things I'd want to say to young creatives, but it's better if a lecture sticks to one theme. A 'Top Ten Tips' of wildly disparate content doesn't work as a talk.

But it can work as a blog post!

I've been writing tips for a few years, on various ad-related topics - here's the full collection.

But I've never done an overall Top Ten.

So, wildly disparate though it may turn out, here goes - my Top Ten Tips for young creatives.

1.  To be a successful creative you need more than just talent, Converse trainers, and the hide of a bullet-proofed rhinoceros. You also need knowledge. Not a lot. But some. And the most important knowledge you need is a comprehensive knowledge of what has already been done. Why? So you know what not to do.

2.  Our work is often autobiographical, so we take rejection of our work as rejection of ourselves. But this is silly. The team/client have no clue of your autobiographical inspiration, they're purely rejecting the pieces of paper they see in front of them. You're a valid person! It's just the work they have a problem with.

  

A Certain Ratio were a band from Manchester,

and are tangentially related to this blog post

 
3. Advertising is subjective - there's no certainty that your idea is good. So when you are presenting it, people will be looking at you, and judging how much you seem to rate it. Therefore, the more confidently (and energetically) you present, the more people are likely to think it's good.

4.  Very often, when you're writing an idea, you come up with something great, that you love... but you know in your heart of hearts there's one tiny thing wrong with it. Someone once said that "the problem with a hidden flaw is it never remains hidden." They were right.

5.  Don't write TV ads that depict a normal or everyday situation, with a twist at the end. It has to be a helluva twist to compensate the viewer for the previous 25 seconds of boredom. You are much better off creating a commercial that is funny all the way through.

6.  Make your work extreme. If it's dialogue-based, double the amount of dialogue and cut out everything else. If it's visual, make it very visual. If it's logical, make it very logical. If it's emotional, make it very emotional. In short, be very. 

7.  To do good work, tell the truth about the product. Yes, obviously, you'll be exaggerating it, or dramatising it, but base what you do on a truth about the product, not on anything extraneous or made-up.

8.  If you're a young creative, the most important factor in deciding where to work is a certain ratio - 'Awards Per Head.'

9.  When working with collaborators - like directors, illustrators, web designers etc - never be afraid to tell them how you want your idea executed, even if they're a world-famous photographer, and you're a 22 year-old. Remember, it's your idea.

10. If you've done some good work in the last year, don't sit there stewing because your boss hasn't given you a pay rise. They never will. You have to ask.


P.S. If you think these tips are rubbish, let me know. If you have better ones, let me know.

Do You Like Short Films? I Don't.

For as long as I can remember, commercials directors have also made short films, and their producers have asked me to watch them.

Now I don't know if I'm a lone voice in the wilderness here, but I find these films dreadful.

Yes, partly my attention span is shot to pieces, to the extent that I rarely even watch all the way to the end of a 60-second ad on an ad blog any more. (Why do a 60? The 40-second cutdown is always heaps better).

But it's also because the films are normally slow, meandering, pointless, uneventful, dull, unoriginal, corny, over-emotionalised, over-acted, and under-edited.

It's also partly just economics. If someone is asking me to watch a 3-minute short film, then it should be six times as rewarding as a 30-second ad, right?

Here's this year's winner of Tropfest, probably the world's most prestigious short film festival, which was held last week.

It's well-shot, well-cast, well-acted, a good story... yada yada yada.... great achievement on what was probably very little money. So the last thing I want to do is slag off the individuals involved. But come on. The film's not bad, but it's not fantastic.

And at 6 minutes and 47 seconds long, is it really more than 13 times better than this?

No. It isn't. The goat is better, especially the part where he screams, that part is just priceless.

So in summary, I'm not suggesting that directors don't make short films. Heck, maybe other creatives like them. And maybe they can lead to the director getting feature work, or being taken on by a production company.

But just don't ask me to watch them.

P.S. I will admit there is one short film I've ever seen, that I enjoyed. Here it is.

How Much Time Do You Spend Fucking Around?

I ask because my own fucking-around time has reached virtually zero.

That's right. Most days, I don't even have time to look at Facebook. I don't open the links that get sent around, I don't read humorous blogs, and I don't get sucked into a vortex of 90s rave videos on YouTube.

Partly this is because I'm now an ECD, but in fact it was on the decline for a while. And I'm not meaning this post to be a personal whinge, because I suspect it's true for everyone.

Agencies are having to do more with less, which means we all have to work harder. And the irony is that the rise of this glorious fucking-around medium that is the internet (in the old days, if you wanted to find a pleasant way to kill some time, you actually had to go and talk to someone!) has been accompanied by a decline in the fucking-around time we have available.

At least, that's what I suspect. But I'm wary of generalising from my own experience. Which is why I'm running a poll.



Please indicate how much time per day, on average, you spend fucking-around rather than working.

Definition of fucking-around: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, talking to your friends, online shopping, playing games, looking at porn. Not included: personal admin such as paying bills.

To maintain some semblance of rigour, I want only creatives to vote, though people from other disciplines are welcome to comment.

What I really wonder, is whether less fucking-around time for creatives might be translating into worse work. Because we all know that today's random YouTube video becomes tomorrow's idea for a cool TV ad.

The only niggle in my mind is that when I spoke to ad guru Siimon Reynolds once, he told me that he reckoned most creatives weren't productive enough, that they spent too much time fucking around, and not enough time working. He said our work should be fun, so why would you need to fuck around? I kind of agree with this, though I do also believe that if you never replenish the well, there will one day be no water there when you need it...

Who Needs Knowledge?

One time I was working on the Budweiser account, and we spent a day getting a tour of the brewery. I learned that Budweiser is made with 30% rice. I learned that the brewmasters crushed up the glass that the pipes in the brewery were made from, turned that into a tea, and drank it, to check it was taste-neutral.

So it was quite an interesting day. But, useless from an advertising point of view. Because I've never seen a beer ad that was based on specialist knowledge as to how a beer is made.

(Has there even been one, N.B. that relied on real specialist knowledge? I have heard about a campaign for Schlitz beer that claimed the bottles were "washed with live steam" - but that was in the early 1900's.)

We would have been better off spending that day thinking of ideas, rather than traipsing round a brewery in west London.

The agency where I've recently become the creative director has a car account, and they were pleased to have me on board because I've done a lot of car advertising over the years. But you know what? I actually have no idea how an internal combustion engine works.

And although I kind of hope my car client doesn't read this, I contend that it doesn't matter.

What matters is understanding what matters to people, and how to communicate that.

Here's my favourite ad from this year's Super Bowl. It's for a Hyundai that has a turbo engine. And I don't know if the creative team that made the ad have any understanding at all that a turbo engine works by a type of forced induction system, which compresses the air flowing into the engine. (Nor did I! I just googled it!)

But what they've understood brilliantly is the benefit to the ordinary driver of having a turbo engine - you won't get stuck behind the car in front - and how to communicate that in an engaging way (see ad below).

That's what matters.

Live from the Superdome: Racism vs Sexism

This year's Super Bowl is shaping up to be just a tad controversial for advertisers. But which will prove stronger, their Offense, or their Defense?

Volkswagen 'Get In. Get Happy.'

The Offense given by VW is that it's not cool for a group with greater power (white American) to imitate the accent of a group with lesser power (Jamaican). Or to stereotype them as happy-go-lucky buffoons.

The Defense? That it's not racist if you're portraying someone in a happy light. Pretty shaky, really, given the history of 'blackface'.

Result: Searching "volkswagen racist commercial" yields 2.9 million hits on google.

Coke 'Chase'

Offense: Shows an Arab walking through the desert with a camel.

Defense: The Arab character is a nod to old movies, like Lawrence of Arabia.

Result: For me, the Defense comes out on top. After all, many of the other characters in the ad are nods to old movies also, e.g. Mad Max.

Mercedes 'Kate Upton'

Offense: Category 1 objectification.

Defense: But it's the football players washing the car for Kate Upton, not the other way around!

Result: A real 'ad of two halves'. The first half undoubtedly sexist. The second half, just lame.

GoDaddy 'Bar Rafaeli's Big Kiss'
 
Offense: Objectification, humiliation… let's face it, this advertiser has previous.

Defense: Umm...

Result: I truly hate this ad.

Does Australian Ad-Savvy Travel?

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?
 
Could Australia?
 
I ask because Sydney-based agency Host has just opened an office in Singapore and has plans for San Francisco and Shanghai.
 
Could it be on the verge of becoming Australia's most prominent advertising export since Lara Bingle announced 'where the bloody hell are you?'
 
Or will Foster's remain Australia's only global brand? Along with Qantas. And Hugh Jackman.

In Praise Of The Bleedin' Obvious

Strategy-lite ad for erectile dysfunction

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.

10 Reasons Why 'Canalside View' Is The Best Advertising Blog On The Internet

 
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.

Crystal Bollocks

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.

But have a good one!

Happy New Year!

    With thanks to RC

Happy Festival Of Capitalism!