Emotions, Weird Shit, And Babies.

Effective because it makes us feel fear.

As we all know, emotional advertising is far more effective than rational advertising.

Many clients have read about this, and are now specifically requesting emotional advertising.

Cool.

Except, there's a problem.

Of the six basic human emotions... five are negative. Namely anger, fear, disgust, contempt, and sadness. (The only positive one is 'joy').

That's right. It's a pretty dark place, down there in your unconscious.

(Side note. Why are nearly all the basic human emotions so negative? There's an article on FastCompany here that explains it a bit. "It’s not that nature inclines us to hate. We’re profoundly social creatures designed to protect: our kin, our tribe, and ourselves." In other words, negatives resonate because we're wired to watch out for threats).

Hat tip to the writer, Douglas Van Praet, who is also the author of Unconscious Branding: How Neuroscience Can Empower (and Inspire) Marketing. 

So what are we to do with this information? Make all our ads as bleak as that scene in Terminator where the mechanised forces of Skynet crush human skulls beneath their wheels?

Um, yeah. Basically yes. I've written before about the power of the negative. At least start negative, before you end on a positive. Or in marketing terms, create a tension, and resolve it. That's how you generate some charge.

But we should also be aware that it's not just emotions, that our unconscious mind pays attention to.

According to Van Praet, our threat-obsession has also imbued us with a powerful (and pre-rational) 'startle response'. That's why surprising advertising works. Hence the power of 'prankvertising.'

And finally, we're obviously attuned to anything related to our survival and reproduction. Hence our love of food porn, and any ads with babies in.

In short, our unconscious minds are not turned on by facts and figures, but by primal stuff - emotions, things that are new and different (and therefore worthy of our attention), and anything to do with passing on our genes. 

In really short, if you want to do good work, fill your ads with emotions, weird shit, and babies.

Is It Okay If An Ad Means Different Things To Different People?

We studied a poem once in English class at school.

Can't recall which one it was now. Anyway, we all had to write down what we thought it meant, and it turned out that different kids saw the meaning very differently. I remember asking the teacher what the 'right answer' was, and him saying there was "no right or wrong," and it was an achievement that the poet had created something that was "open to multiple interpretations."

I was pretty sure at the time this was bollocks... but now I'm not so certain. 

Take last week's new IKEA ad, from the UK. One of the Creatives behind it, quoted in Creative Review, explains that it depicts "all the beds you sleep in at different times in your life."

Meanwhile, the website of the Agency - Mother - states that it's something to do with holidays: "The TV spot is based on the truth that there’s no bed like home; we spend all year thinking about a summer holiday but actually we’ll probably have no better sleep than in our beds at home — it’s the bed in which we spend the other 51 weeks of the year that really matters."

And personally, I thought it was about dreams. (Have also discussed this with Dan & Kev from work, they thought 'dreams' too).

We have it comprehensively beaten into us that an ad has to be clear, on-brief, and express a single-minded proposition.

But does it? I think the IKEA ad is pretty cool. Even though I didn't fully understand it, and even its creators can't agree on what it means.

Just goes to show how poetic the spot is, I guess.

Beware Of Nice People

DDB has a philosophy of hiring people who are "talented and nice."

And I agree with it.

I've worked at agencies in the past where some people weren't nice, and it's a ball-ache.

The theory at these places goes something like: "All we care about is the work, and if a few people have to swim through mud and broken glass to make the work good, then that's cool."

It's not cool.

In fact, creating a stressful work environment may one day be a criminal offence, just as mining companies today face lawsuits if their staff get poisoned or blown up.

And actually, striving for great work at the expense of niceness often makes the work worse, since it makes people angry/bitter/afraid, and good work rarely co-exists with those emotions.

On the other hand, excessive niceness is a major problem.

Nice people who fail to kill ideas because they don't want to hurt the Creatives' feelings are a semi-regular hazard in our industry.

If you are someone who has the power to kill an idea - a list that includes (but is not limited to) CD's, Planning Directors, Agency CEO's, and Clients - please be aware that the No.1 thing Creatives most want to know after presenting work is, quite simply, whether their idea is alive or if it's dead.

And if it is dead, we would rather know straight away, since this gives us time to come up with another one. There's nothing worse than someone trying to be nice, telling you that they'll like it if you make 'just a few tweaks', when in reality they'll never like it, and you waste a week making meaningless changes.

So if I believe that niceness carries a risk of not being able to deliver a clear 'no', how come I still believe in "talented and nice?"

Simple. The really talented people do know how to say no - and they know how to do it in a nice way.

And the exceptionally talented ones, in an inspirational way.

Dear Google: Thanks For The Ad, I Was Gonna Buy It Anyway

When you get the results of your Google search, do you click on the sponsored link (the top one) or the regular link (just below it)?

I asked this at a lunch the other day, and some people said they deliberately click the non-sponsored link.

Personally, I always click the sponsored link, because I like Google, and I'm happy for them to get the money.

But the question remains - do they deserve that money?

Let's say I owned an online cat store called TopCats. I buy search advertising for my store, on Google. The next day, someone searches for TopCats, sees the sponsored link, clicks on it, then buys a cat from my store. Google can then tell me "See, search advertising works brilliantly!"

But here's the thing - that person was going to buy a cat from me anyway.

Yes, I understand if someone searches for "buy high-quality cats online" it would be worth me showing them an ad for TopCats. But when someone searches for my store by name... aren't Google simply doing the equivalent of slapping an ad on my front door? Sure, people see it, and then afterwards buy, so it might look effective. But the only people who see the ad are the ones who were going in anyway.

This phenomenon is apparently a real thing, called 'endogeneity'. If you want to read more about it, there's more in an article by The Atlantic here.

Just to be clear, I like Google a lot. I use their product multiple times a day, and I think it's awesome. It's fairly certain I couldn't live without it. Since I'm a sucker for gadgets, I'll probably even give Google Glass a go. And since I'm shit at driving, I'm really looking forward to driverless cars.

So I'm not wanting to criticise Google, in any way. They should get lots of money for what they do. Lots.

But $60 billion* a year - is that fair?

*Google's revenue was $15.4 billion in the most recently-announced quarter. More than 90% of this revenue comes from advertising. The company doesn't break out search from display and other forms of advertising, but it's safe to say that search is big.

Instead Of Cutting Costs, How About We Try To Make More Money?

My Dad is a talented guy.

He speaks several languages, is great at sports, and had a successful career in media sales.

But like many a curmudgeonly older Jewish gentleman, he is rather obsessed with the topic of how to save money. I like to tell him that if he put half as much thought into how to make money as he does into how to save it, he'd net-net be much better off.

But I now realise I've fallen into exactly the same trap myself.

In previous posts about how our industry can survive in the face of intense competition and margin pressures, I've suggested losing Creative Directors, or fusing Art Directors & Copywriters, or Suits & Planners. Basically, all ways to save money.

I've failed to consider how we might instead make more money.

This article, called 'The Demise And Rise Of Our Industry', does just that.

It's written by a guy called John Zeigler, who is the CEO of DDB Asia Pac. Yes, I know he's my boss's boss's boss so you might think I'm sucking up. Well, I can't control what you think. Just read the article. It's excellent.

But if you haven't got time to read it, the essence is this:

Clients are asking us to cut our fees by about 10% a year. We consider ourselves lucky if we settle at -8%. To stay profitable, we have to keep cutting staff. If the same trend carries on, we'll be dead within about five years.

The role of marketing has been degraded. Where once Marketers controlled the four P's, they now control only one P - Promotion. (One of the P's is Product. In a marketing-led company, the Marketers tell the company what products to make. In not many companies do Marketers have that power, nowadays).

Therefore the position of Marketers has been degraded. A study by Adobe, for example, found that 80% of CEOs do not trust marketers, 70% of CEOs believe marketers are disconnected from business results, and 69% of CEOs believe marketers like to stay too much in ‘their creative and social-media bubbles’.

John's conclusion? We need to change our role, dramatically. We need to go much further upstream, and help our clients develop new products and services, and influence how they engage with their staff, and how they take their products to market.

In short, we need to help Marketers show CEO's that we can use our creativity to solve their business problems - not just to create ads.

If we can do that, we'll be adding extra services - useful services that we can charge more money for - and we just might survive.

Good stuff from Mr Z. 

Dad - take note.

What Happens In Cannes, No Longer Stays In Cannes

Cannes used to be shrouded in mystique. But today, you can read dozens of blogs every day, about everything that goes on.

It used to be that you could only see all this incredible work from all around the world, if you actually went there. Now, you can see it on the website.

It used to be that you'd have to 'imagine' what these boat parties and villa parties looked like, unless you actually went. Now you see them all over Facebook and Instagram.

It used to be that you could only hear the speakers if you went. Now, they're all online too.

And it used to be that you couldn't even go to Cannes unless you were a Creative, or a production company person, whereas it's now full of Suits, Clients... even Kanye West gets to go. 

So today's Cannes is actually a lot more democratic and public than it used to be.

The inspirational elements - the great work, the thought-leadership talks - are more widely shared than ever before.

And so is the fun.
 
The effect of this more public Cannes? To create more irritation and jealousy, for sure. But also, I reckon, to make us more highly motivated - more determined to have either the great work, or the influence, that will get us there next year. And that, mes amis, is surely a good thing.

Do We Actually Need Creative Directors?

Volvo's epic split film is hotly tipped to win a Grand Prix or two at Cannes this year.

Interestingly, it was made without the involvement of a Creative Director.

The agency behind it, Sweden's Forsman & Bodenfors, doesn't have them.

I've written previously about how - in a world of crumbling margins - agencies need to become leaner. By far our biggest cost is staff, so my suggestions included fusing Art Directors & Copywriters, or Suits & Planners.

Perhaps self-interestedly, I didn't think about abolishing Creative Directors.

But could we? They're a huge cost, after all.

At first sight, it seems like we'd be losing a hell of a lot. After all, someone has to make the decision about what work to present. And in the absence of a CD, I guess it would be the senior Suit & Planner on an account who would decide. Most of the time this would probably work okay. But I've known plenty of CD's who had an almost supernatural ability to spot potential in an idea when no one else did.

Also, the senior Suit & Planner would probably be the people shaping the work. Again, most of the time this would probably be fine. But as before, I've known plenty of CD's who have the ability to push work to a level beyond what anyone else thought was possible.

So how do F&B manage without CD's, given my predictions of the effect that removing CD's would have on a typical agency process? Answer: they don't have a typical agency process. At all.

There's an interesting article about how they work here. If you don't have time to read the whole thing, here's the key bit: 

"The process by which people view and critique work is called 'the floor' — a holdover from the days when Forsman & Bodenfors was mainly making print ads, which could easily be spread out on the floor for people to see. You bring in at least five employees not attached to the project to go over the work and ask questions. It is the duty of these people to have an opinion of the work and openly express it, without holding anything back. They must ask questions about the work, questions they could envision the client or the general public asking about the direction. On the other side, the creators of the work must be open-minded, and although the ultimate decision of what to present to the client falls on their shoulders, they generally accept the critiques of their peers and go back to improve the work before presenting it to the clients."

So what do you think? CD's out?

Those Ads You Have A Strong Opinion About... Have You Actually Seen Them?

It's very common for people to pretend to have read books, when in fact they haven't.

Apparently this is particularly true of the classics, such as Moby-Dick, Catch-22, and 1984.

Part of this is shame - people just don't want to admit they haven't read them. But I reckon part of it is that they just don't feel they need to. Even people who haven't read Moby-Dick know that it's about Captain Ahab's obsession with catching a white whale -  a story of compulsion on the high seas. People probably feel they've 'got the idea' so they don't need to invest the time in actually reading it.

And looking at the Leo Burnett Cannes predictions, which came out this week, made me wonder... are a lot of us doing the same with ads now?

You see, I found myself having quite strong opinions about which ideas deserved to win... even ones I suddenly realised that I hadn't actually watched.

The ad industry is well-served with trade magazines and websites. So what happens nowadays is that we read about a new TV ad, or activation, or social media idea, in a neat package: headline, a few lines of description about the project, and an accompanying screenshot. My question is - once you've digested these, do you then actually click through and watch the film? Or do you feel you don't need to, because you've 'got the idea'?

Take this quick test.

Here are five examples of an ad, activation, or social media idea - all of them (in my opinion) great ideas, and all hotly tipped to win at Cannes. I guarantee that you 'know the idea' for all of them. And probably have strong opinions about them.

But please tell me - just for research - how many of the 5 have you actually watched?

And if you haven't, does it matter?


1 Cancer Council Australia "I Touch Myself - Breast Cancer Anthem" From JWT / Sydney 

  

2 Virgin Mobile "Game of Phones" From Havas Worldwide & One Green Bean

 

 

3  Australia Post "Video Stamp" From Clemenger BBDO

4  7-Eleven - Slurpee "The Xpandinator" From Leo Burnett / Melbourne

5  RAC Insurance "Attention Powered Car" From JWT / Sydney

Are Apps The New Screenplays?

A lot of Creatives nowadays seem to be developing apps on the side.

(The picture is of an old BBH colleague of mine, Dan Hubert, who created the successful 'AppyParking' app, which tells you where you can park in London.)

This is new.

A few years ago, Creatives were writing screenplays. The talk was all about Creatives who had got movies made (example: Andrew Niccol, former BBDO Creative who wrote The Truman Show and Gattaca).

Before that, Creatives were writing novels. (Examples: George Orwell, Joseph Heller, Fay Weldon, Salman Rushdie).

Why has it changed?

Well, obviously apps weren't around when Joseph Heller wrote Catch-22. That's a given.

I think it's more interesting to think about what has not changed.

What has not changed is that Creatives like to be on the cutting edge of culture. In 1968, that was the novel. Today, it's the app.

Also, Creatives will always be attracted by the ability to do something that is purely our own thing. Whether that's an app, a screenplay, or a novel... what they all have in common is that they're unmediated by any client.

And finally - and perhaps a little controversially - they're all forms of lottery ticket. Being a Creative is a steady job (albeit considerably less steady than the civil service) but you're unlikely to strike it rich.

But with a novel, a screenplay, or an app there is just that chance that you might...

Has Facebook Become An Infomercial Channel?

I am a huge fan of Facebook.

I check the site every day (not at work, obvs!) and genuinely enjoy it. 

But what's up with the ads?

Obviously it would be better if it were ad-free, though I understand they're a business, and want to turn a buck. However, the ratio of ads to editorial seems to have jumped all of a sudden, and most of them are promoting "1 weird trick to reduce belly fat" or a skincare product used by a Mom who "is 56 but looks 26."

In short, it's starting to feel like an infomercial channel.

A billion people use the site, so shouldn't it be full of ads for big brands like Budweiser, Ford, or Citibank?

Many of the brands just feel so small and crap.

Here's one from my feed today.

 
Who are 'fabnob'? Why are they closing down? This ad makes Facebook feel like a dilapidated high street.

The other great promise of Facebook is supposedly the ability to personalise ads, using all the data they have about us. But judging by some of the other ads in my feed today, I'm not sure it's working:





Thanks Oscar Wylee, but I don't wear glasses.

Sounds like an interesting proposition, ezidebit, but I don't own a gym.




Qantas, those shoes look fab, but being male they don't really appeal to me. 

Admittedly there are one or two big brands on there, like this ad for Nike:

But it's terrible. First of all, the headline is so poorly written, I can't really understand what it's saying. And second of all, I don't get the point of the image. Who are these people? And why is one performing a cuddle on the other?

Since few people will click through, wouldn't they be better off just placing a display ad? You know, with a cool visual, and a snappy headline?

Can someone please explain what the deal is with Facebook advertising? 

Is It Okay To Be Stupid?

We all know you have to be creative to be a Creative. But do you also have to be smart, or is it okay to be stupid?

Funnily enough, I reckon it's actually an advantage to be stupid.

Please note I'm not talking here about the famous Wieden + Kennedy dictum of "Walk In Stupid." I love this idea, but it's not really about intelligence. It's really an exhortation to assume nothing, be open-minded, and learn as much as you can every day.

I'm talking about genuine lack of intelligence.

So why do I think that's an advantage? Well, first of all, it's no handicap.
 
There has been over 60 years of scientific research into the question of whether intelligence and creativity are correlated. Turns out they aren't. (The one wrinkle here is that there is apparently a 'threshold point' at an IQ level of 85, above which you are more likely to be creative. But since the average IQ is 100 - that's how the scale works - it seems that you can be of well-below average intelligence, and still be creative.)

My belief is that being stupid (or at least appearing to be stupid) is an advantage because it forces Clients, Planners etc to phrase things for you in a simple way.

Every answer ends up being simple (Sony Bravia = great colour, Cadbury = joy, Chipotle = natural) but sometimes that answer is buried in a 72-page Powerpoint deck and triple-headed proposition. If you can get the brief phrased to you in a simple way from the start - get them to say what's really important - you have an advantage.

They do that automatically for stupid creatives. ("Guys, we're briefing Kevin, and he's a little dense, so let's make this nice and simple for him.") But they assume that the smart creatives can 'work it out'. Which might cost you days. And you might go in a direction that isn't what the Client really wants.

So what to do if you have the disadvantage of being (or sounding) intelligent?

A famous ECD once gave me a great tip. He told me that when he is presented with an overly complicated brief, he says this: "Look guys, there's a lot of great stuff here, and it all sounds very exciting, but the way my mind works - being a creative - is that I tend to respond to things instinctively. Now, I'm not saying I'm stupid, but could you do me the favour of imagining that I'm stupid, and just phrase this for me in the simplest possible way that you can?"

Gold.

Getting Paid

Eric B. and Rakim were insistent on being 'paid in full'

  

Advertising is a weird business.

It is extraordinarily difficult to value what ad agencies do.

One campaign may help create a $40 billion brand. Another may disappear without a trace.

Worst of all, successful work may continue to be successful, long after the ad agency has stopped being paid. For example, I still buy a certain chocolate bar based on an ad I saw for it over 20 years ago. The campaign has long since changed (I don't like the new work) so the original ad agency is still succeeding, but not getting any benefit for it.

So, what to do?

Most ad agencies simply charge fees for their time, with perhaps a small bonus or at-risk element that nods to 'payment by results'. 

We all know this model is unsatisfactory, yet very few alternatives have been proposed.

One PR agency offered to charge clients only if it achieved coverage for them. (Note, I can't find any trace of that company's website, so I'm not too sure how it worked out for them...)

An agency in Holland offered clients a pay what you want model.

And last week, Coca Cola announced a scheme to pay agencies a bigger bonus for non-traditional campaigns than for regular work, which is at least innovative.

At the heart of the problem is the age-old conundrum about what advertising agencies actually are. Are we providers of professional services - like lawyers and accountants - in which case a fee structure would be appropriate. Or are we producers of creative works - like songwriters or novelists - in which case a royalty makes more sense.

The truth is we're neither, and a bit of both.

Like I said, weird business.
 

The Confidence Thing

If you want to be good at pinball, it's not enough to be skillful with the flippers. You have to shove the machine a little bit. Not too much, or it'll 'tilt'. But a little bit.

Similarly, to be successful in a field as competitive as advertising it's not enough to be good at writing ads. There are all kinds of little things you need to do, to give yourself an advantage.

And perhaps the most important of them is to display confidence.

N.B. not too much, because over-confidence translates into arrogance, and that's a negative.

But a healthy dose of confidence... makes a difference.

What a lot of creatives don't realise is how thin the line is between a creative director saying "yes" and saying "go again." Even the most experienced creative director is not always 100% sure whether an idea is good or not, and a team that throws in a little comment at just the right time, like "we think this could be really funny" or "no one's ever really done anything like this before" can help get your work over that line.

And the same goes double for clients. Most clients have an excellent understanding of the kind of work that will be right for their brand. But they're not judging creative work every single day, like creative directors are. So when they look at work, they're not just looking at whether it's right, they're looking at whether the person who is presenting it, believes in it.

Everyone is human, and everyone is influenced by the attitudes of others.

Clients hire agencies because we're experts at making ads. And like anyone hiring an expert, they want to feel that the expert is confident they know what they're doing.

Always have a recommendation. Always say why you think it's right. And always present with belief.

Because if you don't believe in your work, who else will?

The Whole Notion Of 'Target Market' Is Basically Just A Sham

Bob Hoffman, AKA The Ad Contrarian, is aghast that agencies never target older people. He points out that Americans over the age of 50 buy 62% of all new cars and 55% of consumer package goods. And yet, they are the target for only 5% of US advertising.

On the other hand, you could argue we should actually be targeting younger than we do. A recent report (can't find link) showed that boys already know which brand of car they will go on to buy... at age twelve.

John Hegarty's view on the same debate is that we shouldn't give a stuff about who we target. In his book Hegarty On Advertising he argues (and I'm paraphrasing a little) that people buy brands that are famous, therefore we should target as widely as possible.

I don't know who is right, but I do know that the current orthodoxy is dreadful. If a brand is targeting housewives, you 'have' to show housewives in the ad. If a brand is targeting businessmen, you show businessmen.

The new HBO campaign (above) proves this is bollocks. HBO Go is for anyone who wants to watch HBO on a laptop, tablet, or mobile. Which is basically anyone. And yet the campaign superficially looks like it's solely targeting teenagers. Why? Because teenagers who don't want to watch Game Of Thrones with their parents is a strong demonstration of the product benefit.

And this surely has to be the answer. The goal here is to sell the product, and if the best way to do that doesn't involve showing the target market in the ad, then that's the way to go. 

Smart clients know this. I presented an FMCG script a couple of years ago which featured two housewives, and the client suggested that this particular concept would work better with two men rather than two women. They were right.

So if anyone ever tells you that you 'have' to feature the target market in your ad, remind them that the target market for John West is not bears or fishermen, the target market for 3 is not ponies or singing cats, and the target market for PG Tips was not chimps.  

Is PR The New Scam?

Answer: no, it's not.

Consider two new campaigns that were released last week.
 
On the left, a print/outdoor piece for highlighter pens(!) With apologies to those involved... this feels terribly old-fashioned to me.

But the MJ Bale work, on the right, which put a paywave chip in the arm of a suit, is a totally different beast.

Yes, it was probably agency-initiated, and the principal motivation was probably to win awards, but the crucial difference is that it will also do a great job for the client. In fact it already has - that suit got shedloads of PR coverage.

Like World's Most Powerful Arm, Mobile Medic, Fundawear, FlavorPrint, and Honey Maid, it's a perfect example of the modern, low-budget, tech-based PR piece. 

For whatever reason, the news outlets have gone crazy for tech stories - they feature a tech story every single day. Therefore, if you come up with a cool tech idea, it will be featured in the news media, reach millions of people, and get genuine results for the client... as well as winning awards.

Result - we don't need to do scam any more, people.

An interesting side-aspect of this development is it means that we're all in PR now, to some extent. I don't mind, because I think PR is very fun. And fortunately, ad agencies seem to be better at PR than the PR agencies are...

UPDATE - A couple of friends who work in PR have pointed out to me that many of the case studies I listed – including the MJ Bale campaign - were not created solely by ad agencies, but by ad agencies working in collaboration with PR agencies. Which kinda invalidates my point about ad agencies being better at PR than PR agencies. We're better together! Let's do this.

3 Things TV Can Learn From Social Media

 
Bob Hoffman's talk at Advertising Week Europe has generated a super-fun controversy.

A commenter on Campaign Brief opines: "So glad this is out there. Sick of the so called 'social specialists' in the agency talking shit the entire time."

Whereas my old colleague Carl Moggridge describes Bob (via Twitter) as "The world's most jaded and deluded adman," and points out that Bob's speech, which largely praises TV and derides online, was sponsored by the UK's largest free-to-air TV broadcaster.

The comments I've seen on the various ad blogs seem mostly to be on Bob's side, in a ratio of about 5 to 1.

And yet a lot of those commenters are angry.

Yes, there's a lot of bullshit spoken about social. And I applaud Bob for calling it out. But my question is - rather than being angry about the rampant rise of the online world, would it not be more interesting to consider what the old world can learn from the new?

So here goes, with 3 things TV can learn from social media. 

1) Social media campaigns are short

When a cancer charity asks people to post a 'no make-up selfie', it asks them to do it once. Not six times. And the whole campaign is around for about a week, not six weeks. And yet media buyers insist that people need to see a TV ad multiple times. And that a TV campaign must last for weeks. Is that really necessary? If it's impactful enough, do people need to see it multiple times? Would it not be better to invest in different executions, rather than hitting people over the head with the same one, again and again?

2) Social media campaigns get people to do something

It's well-known that getting people to do something makes them more likely to buy. That's why vacuum cleaner salespeople are so keen for you to have a go yourself. And yet 95% of TV ads are nothing but one-way messages. Please note I'm not saying that every ad needs to urge people to enter a competition, or go to a website. It just doesn't need to be a closed loop. It could ask questions, or make people think. Rather than just broadcasting at them.

3) Social media campaigns are light-hearted

Marketers have quickly worked out that to get engagement online, you have to do something funny, interesting, or quirky. Because that's what people respond to. And yet when it comes to TV, that learning seems to go out of the window. There's a belief that it's okay to broadcast ads which are wall-to-wall product benefit, testimonials, or rational sales messages. It's not. Just because you're paying to send someone a message, doesn't mean they'll respond well to it.

Despite Bob's assault on it, the internet is not going away. But nor is TV. So wouldn't it be great if the two sides could play nicely, and see what they can learn from each other?

Has The Next Step In The Evolution Of Our Industry Begun?

 
The accepted wisdom is that you need to observe at least three examples of a phenomenon to start calling it a trend.

But what the hell, I'm calling it on two.

First, a quick refresher on what's wrong with our industry:

Clients now have separate agencies for social, search, analytics, CRM, media, digital, and above-the-line creative. The Agencies are frustrated because, with only a small piece of the pie each, we're not making enough money. And the Clients are frustrated because they're not getting joined-up thinking.

The change I see happening - and feel free to call me Captain Obvious - is that things need to come together. And you know what? I think it's started.

The first example, and it's a hugely significant one, is that British Airways have just awarded their entire account - ATL, digital, social, CRM - to BBH.

I predict this will be a massive success for both parties.

BA will reap the benefits of fully-integrated thinking. (They will no doubt achieve a cost saving too, having dispensed with multiple agencies).

And BBH benefits from economies of scale. What could potentially have been several separate businesses are now one business... all sharing the same HR, finance team, reception, security guards, CEO, catering, the people that come in to water the plants, parties, and office rent.

Example two: Cummins & Partners in Melbourne.
 
This shop does everything, including - crucially - media.

To quote from their website: "We want all parts of the communications process working as one. Collaborating. No silos, no divisions, no off-shoots, no multiple business cards, no holding companies holding disparate entities together. We’re a media company that’s creative. A creative agency that produces content."

 

And their work's pretty good. Simple, entertaining ideas like this one for Woodstock Bourbon, and of course, I Bought A Jeep. If you don't like that campaign, just remember that civilians have uploaded multiple parodies of it onto YouTube. It has cut through. This is an agency that knows what it's doing, and is doing it well. And if you don't agree with that verdict... ask yourself why they were named AdNews agency of the year.

So in short, the future is going to look a lot like the past. Like some kind of malignant amoeba, advertising divided itself into multiple cells, but they're now all coming back together. Which has to be a good thing, right?

Would We Like Briefs More If They Were Upside Down?

Briefs are primarily written by Planners - aided and abetted by the Client and Account Handlers.

By definition, they only hand over the brief when they're happy with it.

And yet the receivers of the brief - the Creatives - rarely seem happy with it. In fact they're notoriously silent and tense in the briefing. Could that be because the briefing document, in the eyes of the Creatives, is actually upside down?

This was the conclusion my friend Dustin reached, when he went to a talk about innovation funding. (Incidentally you should be reading Dustin's blog, it's really very good.) 

One of the speakers put up a slide, illustrating the different approach of how academics usually digest information, compared to how investors absorb it.

And Dustin's observation was that there's a strong parallel between how Creatives absorb information, and the other departments.

When Creatives hear about a brief, the first thing we want to know is the proposition. And when we hear about an ad, the first thing we want to know is the idea.

Yet most (but not all) Planners, Account Handlers, and Clients are the other way around. They first want to hear the background to a brief - the pieces of evidence that lead up to a proposition. And when it comes to ideas, they want to be 'taken on the journey' - start with the thinking that went into it, and end with the idea.

A clue to this conundrum may lie in an aspect of Myers-Briggs.

For anyone who doesn't know, Myers-Briggs is a method of defining personality, by assigning each individual a four-letter 'character type', e.g. ISFP, or ENTJ. Each letter reflects where the person  sits along one of four different axes, for example either 'E' for Extrovert or 'I' for Introverted.

The distinction that's relevant here is between 'S' - Sensing, and 'N' - Intuitive. (I think they picked 'N' for intuitive because 'I' was already taken for Introverted).

'Sensing' people gather evidence before reaching a conclusion. Whereas Intuitive people come up with an answer first, and then look for evidence to back it up.

When I did the Myers-Briggs, as part of some Creative Director training course a few years ago, the results were quite interesting. Some of the CD's were Extrovert, some Introvert. Some were 'T' (Thinking) and some were 'F' (Feeling). But every single one of us was 'N' (Intuitive).

The tester wasn't surprised at all. She mentioned that she had now run the Myers-Briggs on 500 Creatives, and 499 of them were Intuitive rather than Sensing.

The conclusion for Creatives is that we are probably best served by presenting our ideas in what feels (to us) like the wrong way round. 

And here's a thought for people writing briefs:  Your brief is a document intended for an end user. To the end user, it looks like it's upside down.

Any chance of flipping it over?

Does It Make Any Sense To Feel Loyalty Towards A Corporation?

It's obvious why companies want to have loyal employees.

Loyal employees are less likely to leave, more likely to behave the way the company wants them to, and may possibly work for lower pay.

But does it make sense for a person to feel loyalty towards a corporation?

Is a corporation not an entity that exists purely to facilitate its own survival, while generating profits for shareholders? To a corporation, isn't a person nothing more than an income-producing asset, to be discarded once it has outlived its usefulness?

Doesn't loyalty mean something irrational, something that goes beyond mere 'fair exchange'... which implies that the loyal employee is giving more to the company than they are getting back?
 
Are corporations even perhaps laughing behind their backs at our loyalty, or simply bemused by it?

Author Jon Ronson profiled the notorious American businessman Al Dunlap.

At a plant in Mobile, Alabama, Mr Dunlap asked a man how long he'd worked there.

"Thirty years!" the man proudly replied.

"Why would you want to stay with a company for thirty years?" Dunlap said, looking genuinely perplexed.

He then fired the man. (Dunlap recounts the story himself, with glee, which is probably why he ended up in a book called 'The Psychopath Test'.)

But if Dunlap is suspicious of people who stay too long, it has to be said that we are also suspicious of those who move too much. 

Do they have itchy feet, or is it that they keep getting found out?

Obviously there are times when it makes sense to move. There might be family reasons, or you might be at an agency that has gone downhill, or you've gone stale.

But let's not forget that moving carries risk.

You see, there's a strange phenomenon in our industry.

A talented team will do great work, take the opportunity to move to another agency for more money or better opportunities... and then not get anything out for a year.

Happens loads.

There seems to be something helpful about 'knowing the ropes' at a place. It takes about a year to figure out which briefs are 'fools' gold' (look fantastic but are in fact worthless), which people you need to get on the right side of, and the often-mysterious process by which work actually emerges.

So that's an argument for staying put.

Also, commitment brings psychological benefits. 

I remember talking to a Creative at Goodby, who was telling me that he had moved around a lot in the past, but had now decided to "really put down some roots - and commit to a place."

I like that. If you're not thinking of a place in terms of what you can get out of it, but instead in terms of what you can give... you're actually likely to get more out of it too.

So although there are arguments on both sides, I'm going to come down in favour of commitment.

Yes, it could be seen as slightly irrational to feel loyalty towards a corporate entity. And yet... if that company embodies a set of values you believe in, and contains a group of people you like and respect, then loyalty does make sense, does it not?

Upworthy's Founder Talked At SXSW... And You'll Never Guess What He Said

Upworthy is one of the fastest-growing news websites in the world.

CEO Eli Pariser spoke at South by Southwest, and although his subject was news media, he had a very interesting lesson for us advertising folks.

In short, what he and his clickbait-loving journalists have realised is that the title you give something has a huge effect on whether people engage with it.

He cited a fantastic example. The video below, which features a young man talking about his two gay mothers - arguing passionately that they should not be discriminated against - was originally titled 'Zach Wahls Speaks About Family', and had been watched around 200,000 times. But once its title was changed to 'Two Lesbians Raised A Baby And This Is What They Got', the video took off, and has since been watched more than 18 million times.

In advertising, I believe we don't think carefully enough about the titles we give things.

If you're creating a piece of communication which is intended to be socially shared, you've simply GOT to come up with a title that is powerful and intriguing.

Even for something that isn't intended to be seen by consumers, titles are important. For example, the first thing anyone reads in a TV script is the title. And I've lost count of the number of scripts which have crossed my desk that go by the unbelievably bland name of 'Launch Ad'.

A CD or Client is going to see your script, and you want them to be excited about it. So give it an exciting name.

The same goes for project names. Often in advertising nowadays, we're not just creating a single piece of communication, but an entire suite of activity.

Give it a name. Always. Once something has a name, it becomes real. And if you give it an exciting name - like Durex Fundawear, or The Honesty Experiments - it's more likely to get made.