Never get out of the boat

Thursday, July 12, 2012

notes on insight

Those of you who know me will also know that it takes very little persuasion to get me to stand up on a stage ond pontificate about this, that and the other in our world of communications conundrums.

I'm not a pro by any stretch but give it a good go.
The more I do it the better I get, one day soon I'll have it down so stand by for that.

On the occasions when I've been on a roll, I'll often chat with delegates and audience members afterwards and (though not as often as I'd like) sometimes they will leave me with a handshake and 'thanks for the insights'.

Of course, I'm happy to accept these thanks but I feel like I should say 'thanks but there were, in fact, no insights in what you just heard'.

There will have been stories, some facts, many observations and even more opinions but not necessarily any insights.

I say this because we should be mindful of not undermining the term 'insight' in our work.
Real insight is a rare and precious thing, and should be valued accordingly.

Here's one of the the best descriptions of insight that I've encountered.
A good benchmark by which to evaluate whether something is, in fact, insight or simply observation.

[That's not to say observation isn't valuable but it's a step in the process to uncovering insight]

'Insight is the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or seeing intuitively'

(I'm not sure where that definition comes from. Point me if you know)

For us communicators we should understand the goal of insight.
Insight informs how we identify highest level emotional need in any given situation.

How to uncover insight?
These five steps are a good place to start.

1. Ask difficult questions. Most of these start with 'why?'
2. Look below the surface.
3. Reframe stuff (TV is the second screen, for example).
4. Trust your 'gut', your instinctive self. Under-think it.
5. Observe acutely and understand your own and others behaviours.

Of course there is also product insight, category insight, business insight and many others. But key to uncovering these is starting with 'why' not 'how'.

Friday, July 06, 2012

disbelieving is hard work

So, last week I gave a short talk for AIMIA to the assembled agency digerati, at KPMG's auditorium up in Melbourne CBD. The theme of the morning was 'Digital Agencies of The Future'. Here's a synopsis of the key points I hoped to communicate.

2012 was a record year for Australian Agencies at Cannes.
59 Lions were awarded in total, that's up from circa 40 or so last year and about 45 the year before (also the previous record).

Interestingly, Australian agencies recieved precisely Zero Lions in either the Cyber (what a ridiculous name for a category btw) or Mobile categories.

There's two ways to look at these statistics.
Either we as a nation are useless at digital advertising.
Or
Single channel executions are a thing of a bygone age, and it's only integrated campaigns and activities that actually matter, anyway.

I'm on the side of the latter.

But...

Among the many Australian integrated efforts that did well, GPY&R's Mobile Medic which picked up Lions in 3 different categories, Naked's fantastic 'Steal Banksy' effort which took out a Gold in PR and even CumminsRoss's Agassi films pulled a Bronze in brand ed content, NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE CREATED BY DIGITAL AGENCIES.

Next I showed a lovely picture of a chicken and avocado sandwich.

'Digital agencies, this is your lunch'.

The bad news is that the advertising agencies are coming to eat it.

In their delusion the BDAs think they can do what you do, digital agencies.
They can't.

BUT they are better at convincing the clients that they can, than you can.
And that's your problem.

Listen.

As far as the big ad agencies, the media agencies and - most worryingly for the digital community - clients are concerned...

Digital = production.
Digital equals = making what you are told to by the big boys.

Brothers and sisters, you are in the ghetto.
This ghetto is a creation of your own minds, and if you don't get out of it soon I fear for the future of your agencies.

'Once you have accepted a theory and used it as a tool in your thinking, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws. If you come upon an observation that does not seem to fit the model, you assume that there must be a perfectly good explanation that you are somehow missing. You give the theory the benefit of the doubt, trusting the community of experts who have accepted it.'

'In mixed gambles, where both a gain and a loss are possible, loss aversion causes extremely risk-averse choices.'

(Both quotes via Daniel Kahneman)

Of course, it appears a mixed gamble.

But according to McKinsey, this year...
- 67% of digital agencies think they have strong strategic capability
- 16% of their clients agree

That should be frightening.
What are you going to do about it?

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

the man in the chair

Apparently, the below is one of the best known, and most oft quoted examples of advertising advertising.

Not so for me, I only came across it last week as I plough through The Intention Economy, the latest book from Doc Searls, of Cluetrain and Project VRM fame.

Created for The McGraw-Hill Business Publications Company in 1958, 'The Man in the Chair' ad is revered as one of the most effective and influential works in the genre. In a 2012 context, there is still much to be gleaned from its message.

I don’t know who you are.
I don’t know your company.
I don’t know your company’s products.
I don’t know what your company stands for.
I don’t know your company’s record.
I don’t know your company’s reputation.
Now, what was it you wanted to sell me?

Doc says:
'The true lodestar of advertising has always been the customers.
This is why the [McGraw-Hill] ad was so important. It was a signal sent by McGraw-Hill to advertisers on behalf of its readers. It spoke of the company’s relationship with those readers and said to advertisers that it stood on the readers’ side.
It demanded substance, relevance, and earned reputation from its advertisers. It said relationships were possible, but only when customers sat with companies at the same table, at the same level.'

What this ad is about resonates with me when placed in the context of the great digital divide - ie, on the one hand, the school of advertising - online in particular - that favours the hyper-targeted, 'personal' and data-driven tactics that are manifest in the near subterfuge of cookies, surveillance/tracking and all manner of 'behavioural' targeting.

And on the other the approach that favours strategies that contain content, usefulness, values-based communication, involvement, storytelling etc to name but a few. Where salience (ie visibility, sharability) and social proof are the drivers.

In many ways being objective about the value and values of good advertising one could surmise that - for the most part - our industry is still often short of the mark and has perhaps lost its way compared to one humble, yet somehow futuristic, b2b print execution from 1958.

Friday, June 08, 2012

The technology always comes first: part 2

I'll be interested to watch Xbox Smart Glass develop.

Unveiled at E3 2012, it's, indeed, a pretty smart next iteration on multi screen interaction for gaming but i can also easily envisage some equally smart people picking up on this technology as a platform and doing something with it for any form of entertainment, and advertising of course...

Don't get hung up on the Microsoft guy's slightly hammy presentation.

Remember kids...The technology always comes first.

Then the creative people come along and make something with it.

Artists never invented oil paint, or the movie camera but they saw the opportunity the technology gave for creativity and messed with it.

HT TMac

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

empire state chicken burger

Andy Warhol’s influence on culture and of course advertising continues to be apparent.

There’s plenty written on this subject so I’m not going too far down that rabbit hole, but there’s two examples from the advertising world that I’ve noticed this week, one fairly explicit and other less so.

Firstly ‘Which Warhol’s Warhol’s’ is a challenge for guests staying at Melbourne’s Art Series hotels. The winner get’s to go home with a genuine $20,000 Andy Warhol print providing that they can pick the ‘real’ Warhol from one of the 10 ‘Warhols’ displayed in the hotels between May and August.

The other 9 are forgeries created by art forger Tony Tetro.

I love this idea.

Perhaps more than any other artist Warhol’s pieces are social objects – conversational in nature both from a subject point of view (what is or isn’t appropriate content for ‘art’ – death, disaster etc) And from an objective view point. His industrial methods of production and low-touch involvement in the production process itself.

‘Which Warhol’s Warhol’s’ plays to both of these conversational elements, and is inherently high in involvement and experience. It’s almost impossible to encounter the ‘campaign’ and not have something to say about it.

Art Series Hotel Group CEO Will Deague is also reported as saying that the other purpose of the intervention is to stimulate discussion and debate around the production of replica art and it’s impact on working artists.

This is a great example of creating a bit of culture first then advertising the idea.

As opposed to an advertising idea.

Which segues neatly into the next example.
The current advertising for ‘Hungry Jacks’, the Aussie Burger King.

But firstly some notes on one of Warhol’s most noteable journeys into the film medium.

Officially, the only way to see the Andy Warhol’s 1964 film Empire, an epic eight and a half hour stationary shot of the Empire State Building in New York is to borrow a copy from the MoMA.

It has never had any distribution on video or dvd, nor is it available online. Any screenings that happen are usually in museums or galleries.

The film itself has no script, and other than the Empire State Building itself, no characters (if one discounts the momentary flashes of Warhol and cinematographer Jonas Mekas as reflection in the window of the Time-Life building from which the film was shot) and, of course, no traditional narrative.

In effect the movie is more an academic exercise in the medium of film rather than anything that is meant to be ‘watched’ in the traditional sense.

The only narrative events are more like non-events - a twinkling light at the top of a nearby building marks the passing of time. According to Warhol, the point of this film is simply to ‘see time go by.’

Despite being a movie that few people have ever seen it’s one of Warhol’s most iconic works.

The Hungry Jack’s ‘Nothing naughty about it’ ad for its ‘chicken’ burger range has also certain Warholian characteristics. But is closer in nature to the Empire movie in it’s unintentional celebration of the banal.

The spot is based around it’s own non-event, a rock chick eats a chicken burger, turns into a ‘nice’ girl to the horror of here rock band mates.

The observation here is that, like the Warhol ‘forgeries’ this ad is an advertising forgery.

It’s a facsimile of advertising.
For all intents and purposes it has all of the appearance and stylistic attributes of advertising.
It looks and behaves like an ad.
It has a message of sorts.
A look and feel.
Some logos.
A notional ‘audience’.
A ‘gag’ of sorts (like a gag except not funny)

But it’s somehow empty.
A replica.
It’s not even trying to be an idea.
Devoid of any inspiration or insight - it's pure construct. It’s a pure excercise in the stylistic conventions of advertising without actually being advertising.

Warhols famously, and somewhat archly said ‘If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, there I am. There's nothing behind it'.

To that point the only thing more banal than the Hungry Jacks campaign is the commentary around it that arose yesterday on the industry blogs.

This is not a rant against TV advertising, by the way.
Film is still the greatest storytelling medium. Provided you have a story.
Compare Hungry Jacks to the Proctor and Gamble film 'Best Job' for the 2012 Olympics.
Then let's have a conversation about values, inspiration and insight.

Monday, May 28, 2012

[review] can't/can: talkin' loud, sayin' nothing.

Following its seven day 'teaser' run up, the 'Can't' campaign revealed itself on the weekend and, as just about everyone who was paying any attention predicted, was indeed the relaunch/rebadging of the Commonwealth Bank.

CommBank binned their longstanding agency partner, San Francisco based Goodby Silverstein & Partners, back in February and 'Can't/Can' is the first major effort from M&C Saatchi Sydney who won the account back for Australia as it were.

Whilst every man and his dog in the advertising biz has a view on the executional merits of the relaunch I thought it might be interesting to have a look through a brand innovation lens and chuck in a couple of other thoughts on the overall position of the thing.

Still pretty much the defacto word on brand innovation is John Grant's tome from 2006. The principle hypothesis behind the need for brand innovation being that the nature of communications has fundamentally shifted in the connected age in one simple way.

- From: targeting messages at passive audiences

- To ideas being adopted by (or co-created with) groups for whom they are relevant.

Despite the hoo-ha the 'Can't/Can' campaign is firmly embedded in the former, as we shall see.

The build up of 'Can't' existed initially through the use of prominent billboards with the message 'CAN'T' and the url whatiscant.com.

Should a viewer be tickled by this the idea was further extended at the website with further oblique 'Can't' messages.

As the week progressed other 'Can't' stunts emerged such as lollipop ladies with 'Can't' on the end of their sticks and a truck with huge letters spelling 'Can't' driving round iconic landmarks in Sydney etc.

If this is starting to sound familiar then yes, you are on the right track.
It's an almost tactic-for-tactic replication of the NAB 'Break Up' intervention from 2011.

More on that in a minute.

On the web the @whoiscant twitter bot seemed to be present in various twitter streams including conversations around The Voice tv show and the rugby, again inserting #cant into the streams with various degrees of relevance, mostly thin.

On Sunday the message then switched to 'Can' with a fairly contrived twitter 'reveal' and a 60sec video fronted by actress Toni Collette reciting a poem 'An ode to Can' reputedly penned by M&C Saatchi around the word 'Can'.

The similarity to 'Break Up' from a tactical viewpoint is very apparent. What 'Can't/Can' principally lacks, however, is an IDEA.

Whilst 'Break Up' took a stand alongside banking customers against the industry, an idea that people could get involved with, 'Can't' seems to be CommBank navel gazing and deep in Mott The Hoople Syndrome territory (ie talking about themselves, to themselves). There's plenty of 'image' but precious little 'innovation'.

The whole campaign hangs off a single consistent 'message' but there's little involvement.

For an idea to spread the intended spreaders need to want it to spread.
If no-one knows what it is, then it's chances are significantly hampered.

Indeed the principle spreaders of 'Can't' were firstly Heritage Bank, then Greenpeace and also ANZ Bank who all newsjacked 'Can't' for their own purposes.

Consequently 'Can't' was therefore a fairly static notion, other than one directional messaging dressed as stunts there were no dynamics or currency to speak of. The lack of agility by either the bank or the agency left it wide open for more nimble competitors or agitators to ambush.

'Experience' was also limited, bearing in mind again that no one really knew what the idea was about.
There was nothing to DO. We were somehow supposed to THINK first, which is a serious strategic miscalculation in this day and age.

How 'authentic' is the idea? It's hard to call on that one, we shall see as the the rebrand manifests itself over time. The actual policies and practices of the bank will dictate that one.

In terms of 'culture' versus advertising then one has to say that it's been 100% an advertising construct, and not a particularly smart one. It's not difficult to imagine the entire campaign being built from the award video submission outwards. Maybe that's just the cynic in me.

Though in fairness one could summise that 'Can' is the germ of some positive value-driven story, whether it will inspire people to take action or bears any resemblance to a truth that CommBank will live and breath remains to be seen.

Overall it seems to be a case of talkin' loud, sayin' nothing, however.

Friday, May 25, 2012

winning the story wars

Here's a inspirational clip, it's a promo for the book 'Winning the Story Wars' by Jonah Sachs.

The message is that 'Brands that tell value-driven stories can change the world'.

We've been believers in the Purpose Idea round here for some considerable time, so this is more fuel to the fire.

Sachs's mantra is Be Interesting, Tell the Truth and Live the Truth.

Contrary to popular opinion the proliferation of social media tools and digital platforms does not make marketing in the connected age more complicated.

No matter how many logo splattered charts and info graphics may suggest so.

It's actually very simple.

Inspire people to take action with positive value-driven stories.

App of the month: PEEK *exclusive sneak peek

PEEK is an iPhone app that allows it's user to share photos that self‐destruct in 30seconds, and are protected from full screen capture and copying.

The encrypted pictures are viewed in what Peek calls 'torchmode'.

This means the entire picture is never fully visible, the recipient literally only gets a peek through the 'mask'.

To play, simply capture or select a photo from your phone's albums, send the encrypted pic via MMS or email, and Peek will unlock the photo for the recipient for 30seconds so they can have a look.

The great thing about PEEK as an idea is that it obviously exists in response to an existing behaviour. Whatever one may think about the sensibleness of that behaviour, it is clearly a something that is going on. It is difficult if not impossible to enforce any legal measures that prevent private communications from being misused and making it onto dubious Tumblrs and so on, the next best thing is to make it safer.

Because images are never uploaded to PEEK's server they stay between the sender and recipient.

PEEK makes it somewhat safer to play, for those who arre of the inclination, and keeps things private.

Have a peek at PEEK.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

value propositions

I've been in a number of discussions on the nature of value propositions lately. In the agency this debate has been principally fuelled by our current obsession with all things lean and subsequently the ideas of lean godfather Steve Blank.

In a recent article Blank has pointed to the idea that there are in fact only two fundamental value propositions (ie the 'why') available to any brand, company, product or service.

These are:

1. It solves a problem. It is functional.
Things like electricity, toothbrushes, washing powder or paracetamol tablets would often fall into this bucket.

or

2. It fulfils a human social need.
Human social needs being things like entertainment, connection, friendship and so forth.

Blank argues, and we agree, that the functional value proposition is clearly the lesser of the two in terms of creative potential.

Having a purely problem solving value proposition is also risky, for instance, though not exclusively, for the fact that if Brand Y comes along and can fix the same problem cheaper or faster then Brand X is vulnerable.

Then competing on price is a race to the bottom, particularly if Brand X is also competing on scale.

Whereas there is a huge market for companies that can fulfil social human needs. Facebook, Zynga, Google, Nike, Virgin, Vogue or Manchester United etc etc are testament to this.

As a lens this is useful for quickly evaluating the nature of advertising campaigns.

Which brings me to this current campaign for erstwhile iconic Aussie workwear brand Hard Yakka.

I've noticed this poster over the road on my drive to work over the past couple of weeks and it's irked me but I've not been able to pin down exactly why, but here goes...

The line 'Jeans you won't wear out' seems to me to be so mundane and functional in it's 'value proposition' that I've been scratching my head to see if there's some irony or something that I am just simply not 'getting'.

The double whammy is the kinda subtext which is that - not only but also - you will not wear these denims 'out', in non building site situations such as social occasions, either.

So not only is the value proposition purely functional and commodity but it also goes one step further and negates any potential social fulfillment, or even simply further utility, by imlpicity stating 'problems' that the product will not solve.

I'm all about pragmatism but this strikes me as dull in the extreme.

Of course, the alternative extreme is 'liquid linkage to big fat fertile spaces' but for a 'genuine' brand like Hard Yakka one has to mark this card as disappointing, unimaginative and generally must work harder.

Hard Yakka is a former client at my previous agency, so think of this as tough love.

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

the commercial benefits outweigh integrity?

Slightly saddened by the total crushing mediocrity of the miserable quote below from Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston regarding the Glasgow Rangers situation.

As a recap Rangers have come a cropper and been under administration since February following the can of financial mismanagement worms being opened and revelations appeared detailing how the club used non-payment and evasion of tax to obtain an unfair financial and sporting advantage over every other club for at least the last 10-12 years.

Rangers future is still in limbo following the collapse of a take-over bid from American trucking 'tycoon' Bill Miller. Miller had planned a transfer of the club's assets to an 'incubator' company ( a 'newco') while 'issues relating to the existing business are resolved, with the intention of combining the two concerns at a later date' (ie: never)

By rights any newco would be stripped of SPL status and would need to apply for a vacancy in the SFL (the lower divisions body) and then play their way up from the Third Division.

However the integrity of the sport does not seem to be top of the agenda in the boardrooms of SPL member chairpersons.

Someone should point them to the principles of Lean Startup, in particular the chapters about finding a sustainable business model. About learning quickly what works, and discard what doesn't.

The SPL staus quo may on the surface seem to be a product with great features (of which Rangers FC may be asuumed to be one) - but you have to figure out if there is a market for it. Declining attendances and lack of perceived competition due to the domination (by fair means or foul) of Celtic and Rangers, may indeed point to a model that was clearly broken and not actually sustainable.

Kilmarnock chairman Johnston is quoted on the BBC Sport website thus:

"[SPL] Members see the commercial benefits of having Rangers, even as a newco, the clubs are mindful of a sporting integrity aspect but the commercial benefits may outweigh that."

Mindful of sporting integrity? My arse.

Mr Johnson and the other SPL member clubs would de well to heed the old adage 'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything'.

If Johnson's view is shared by the other member clubs then the race to the bottom for Scottish football has just kicked in another gear.

Monday, May 07, 2012

eu estou sempre soprando bolhas

I remember reading recently, and being somewhat surprised to say the least, about the popularity of long lost east-end bootboy combo - and West Ham United crew - The Cockney Rejects, in Brazil, of all places.

Apparently Stinky Turner and the boys are the toast of Torcidas organizadas, and West Ham tops are de rigeur in the punk rock clubs from Rio De Janeiro to Sau Paulo.

This phenomenon may or may not be connected to a web application called Demand It! from Eventful.

Demand It! users can 'demand' events, (eg concerts by now obscure east-end Oi-sters) and if they enough support can be galvanised, then they can bring these events to their town.

It's a simple VRM-esqe notion, meaning the fans get what they want by pulling together, reducing the risk for concert promoters (who may, or may not even be involved) and meaning that bands outside of the mainstream (whatever that is in 2012) can find their audience, wherever it may be.

Eventful founder, Brian Dear explained to Fred Wilson aka AVC:

'I remember US bands shocked to discover they had throngs of fans in distant places like Finland and Uruguay and Japan, and so they'd go tour there because it turned out their Demand it! numbers in those places were big enough to get gigs that would be profitable.'

Wilson himself remarks at the end of the article:

'With the Facebook IPO on everyone's mind, the topic du jour seems to be valuations, revenues, and profits. But the most impactful thing about social media is not the dollar value of these platforms, it is the people power of them.'

Venha sobre vós ferros.

which agency knows the 'brand' best?

One of the conundrums when making the switch from big agency land to small agency land is realising that the business development boot has landed squarely on the other foot.

In my big agency days I quite happily trotted out the following statement to clients who's account was with said big agency [me], but whose heads were occasionally being turned by the advances of smaller boutique or specialist agencies who had a sniff of one or more parts of the client's marketing budget [them].

'We [big agency] understand the brand. Why would [client] risk handing over any part of the marketing to [small agency]? They don't get the brand.'

The reality of this statement, looking at it now from the challenger viewpoint rather than the incumbent viewpoint, is that it is utter tosh.

If the brand manager and the big agency are the only parties who 'get' the brand, who 'understand ' the brand, then clearly they have not been doing their jobs properly.

If they had been doing it properly then everyone should understand the brand.

Everyone should be clear on the values, meaning, purpose, image and voice of the brand.

If they - brand manager and incumbent agency - have been doing their jobs properly then there can be no doubt about what the brand idea is, so the door would therefore open for any agency to have a valid point of view on how those values, meaning, purpose, image and communications should best be expressed.

In this scenario then, it's clear that best relationships, people and then best strategies and ideas should win.

For [big agency] to claim that the criteria for keeping the account is that they are the only agency to really understand the brand, is the best case I've heard for them to be fired, immediately.

Friday, April 20, 2012

KIT social program guide

It was just over a year ago that we launched Twelevision here in Australia, while I was at BBDO.

It was our minimum viable product experiment in matching social data to the TV guide, and worked pretty well.

Suffice to say the game has changed in 12 months and the new KIT Social Program Guide or SPG, is in all likelyhood shortly to become the daddy of social tv applications.

Built on the same insight that led Twelevision - that people rely most on social data and influence when they are figuring out what to watch - the Kit SPG takes it up a few levels.

The SPG has also cracked the conundrum that would have been integral to Twelevision 2.0, the ability for advertisers to seamlessly sync their TV ads with an experience on the handheld device.

A nice little feature is the ability to also sync your friends comments into a timeline that matches the content so that the experience is not ruined by spoilers when watching in a time-shifted mode.

The clip is narrated by our good friend, and Global Lead Analyst at Kit, Mr Alan Wolk.

Obviously I'm double pleased to report on the Kit SPG as it has been made by Kit Digital, and Sputnik - where I work- are a division of the Kit Network and so it's in the family.

a cheap holiday in other people's misery

Unbelievably there are over 2 million (possibly even up to 4 million) men, women and children trafficked across borders - and within their own countries - every year.

These people are bought, sold and transported into slavery for sexual exploitation, sweat shops, child brides, circuses, sacrificial worship, forced begging, sale of human organs, farm labour, domestic servitude.

That last quote comes from STOP THE TRAFFIK - originally set up as a 2 year project in 2000 but now grown into a full blown international movement dedicated to bringing about the end of human trafficking.

This clip is from Amsterdam's red light district, where every year thousands of young women who think they are going to the 'Dam or elswhere to work as dancers end up doing something rather different.

This is a splendid and effective piece of détournement - a variation on a previous media , in which the newly created one has a meaning that is antagonistic or antithetical to the original. The original media work that is détourned must be somewhat familiar to the audience, so that it can appreciate the opposition of the new message.

The silence at the end of the clip as the spectators, even in their own passivity, have been forced into realising they are not in fact spectators but participants is eerie.

A stunt that that incriminates its audience - they are participants even though they imagine they are not.

It's moments like these that show the potential power of advertising as a force for good.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

i am not a consumer [revisited #241]

Perhaps the continual use of the word 'consumers' in circumstances when simply saying 'people' is by far more natural and appropriate - not to mention human - is not just the lazy habit of the unimaginative. Maybe these messages from all quarters that prompt us to think like and be 'consumers' are something more deliberate. More akin to 'priming'?

I came across the following study which appears to shine a light on a very subtle manipulation that successfully influenced behaviour in a group.

'….In their study, researchers from Northwestern University asked participants to imagine that they were one of four people sharing a common water source. In the scenario, there has been a drought, and now there is a water shortage.

Participants were put into two groups. In one group, the four people in the scenario were referred to as “consumers,” while in the other group the four people are referred to as “individuals.”

After being given the facts about each person’s prior water usage, participants were then asked to rate how responsible their own character in the scenario was for the water shortage, whether they saw others in the scenario are partners or competitors in solving the water shortage problem, and how obligated they felt to be part of the solution to them problem (ie, by cutting their own water usage).

Researchers found that participants in the “consumers” condition rated themselves as less responsible, the others as competitors more than cooperators, and were less willing to be part of the solution than did participants in the “individuals” condition.

In other words, simply referring to people as “consumers” rather than “individuals” caused participants to be less generous, accept less responsibility, and to view the others as competitors rather than allies.'

If we agree that there are basically two ways to influence behaviour - to manipulate behaviour or to inspire it - then this experiment clearly falls into the former category. What's very interesting is the simplicity of the manipulation.

Thoughts > Words > actions > Habits > Values > Destiny...

Full article at beyondthepurchase.org

introducing gapjumpers

Over the last 18 months or so I met a number of students from the various Melbourne Universities who are studying or about to graduate from the various courses relating to the advertising/communications business.

The main things they want are intro's to Creative Directors, and a critical eye cast accross their portfolio (or 'book' as is the adland parlance, which as an aside is peculiar in itself inasmuch as it's a fairly elderly concept in this day and age).

In almost 100% of cases one of my main bits of 'advice' - this is a straight lift out of the Russell Davies school - is to do something else, something unique and interesting, on top of their resume and portfolio.

Writing a blog about something you are passionate about, make some films, do some sculpture or whatever.

The point being that every year hundreds of grads pass out of uni with broadly the same background, resume and percieved talent. What is the thing about 'you' - your unique bit of interestingness that means you'll get noticed.

This, of course, is not rocket science.

Interesting-ness has pretty much been subject to the same commodification as 'engagement', and 'social media' and all the rest of it.

What is hard to commoditise though, is commitment, passion and purpose.

Using one's skills for good, going beyond the call of duty, beyond the mundane (because the mundane bar has been significantly lifted in recet times).

There are some new opportunities to up your Elvis.

Enter Gapjumpers.

'What we do for students.

You demonstrate your talents and abilities by answering challenges from brands looking for non-cookie-cutter solutions. If your solution to a challenge is deemed worthy enough, it will earn an endorsement from the brand. This will serve as a significant indication of your skills and a demonstration of your work ethic and aptitude on your resume.

Unlike crowdsourcing and internships, you are in total control, you choose to accept or decline the challenge. All decisions are yours.

What’s not to like about that?'

Addressing directly the graduates dilemma - 'How can you I show that I have what it takes when I’ve never been in a professional situation as an employee to demonstrate my skills and aptitude? Gapjumpers is a new company started by good friends of Never Get Out Of The Boat, Kedar Iyer and Petar Vujosevic. They work out of Santiago in Chile, though their tentacles reach throughout the globe, and are supported by both The Chilean Government and Start-Up Chile - a program to attract world-class early stage entrepreneurs to start their businesses in Chile.

So, students. Gapjumpers are waiting to hear from you, now. Go and do something.

that's entertainment!

The jury here is still out on the new aesthetic, I've not heard a decent enough argument that there is anything of any real cultural significance emerging beyond a kind of stylistic arch-ness and wilful contrary-ness.

The whole tension between humans and machines schtick was pretty much done to the n-th degree by Kraftwerk in the 70's.

Having said that it's been a while since any kind of art 'movement' has been driven by such a intense anti-nostalgia kick so I'm still open to see what develops.

NOTE: What do I know? I'm still trying to get my head around the relational aesthetics thing that DB introduced me to some 4 or 5 years ago.

'Relational aesthetics takes as its subject the entirety of life as it is lived, or the dynamic social environment, rather than attempting mimetic representation of object removed from daily life...'

And I'm pretty sure that Weavrs is mixed up this this too.

Anyway, I'm not sure which bucket this falls into but the Scotland Yard 'wanted' app called Facewatch ID, which invites people to view and share CCTV images of petty crime suspects in their area by inputting their postcode on their smartphone or iPad struck me a being something.

It's a peculiar 'gameification' of neighbourhood watch. Spot a suspect, press the face and type in a name. Only those wanted for minor crimes such as shoplifting or anti-social behaviour are featured, it's amateur hour, or like the local, mobile and (anti) social multi-screen version of Britain's Got ASBO Talent.

'The police are seeking to identify the following individuals in respect of ongoing investigations. The individuals pictured are being sought as both persons of interest and witnesses to crimes. No inference should be drawn that any person pictured is wanted by the police for criminal activity. Facewatch Limited has been provided with the images by the police forces identified with the images and is undertaking this service on behalf of such forces.'

Of course there's always been the magnetic attraction between art and the criminal underworld. This is perhaps just our karaoke culture version.

Friday, April 13, 2012

bleacher report lifts the lid on the glasgow r*ngers debacle

There's a common notion that Americans don't 'get' football. They even call it soccer.

This is not a fair assessment, the game is a huge participation sport over there, particularly with women.

Similarly here in Australia - it's the biggest participation sport, but the pro game has never quite taken off as a spectator sport.

But back to America.

One thing the American's do 'get', very well, is the BUSINESS of sport.

I'm going to quote large this chunk from an article by Daniel O'Connell in Bleacher Report, the US's 4th largest sports media site with 25+ million monthly readers, concerning the debacle around the Glasgow R*ngers FC situation.

Yes, as an Aberdeen supporter I'm biased. There is no love lost between the supporters of the respective clubs.

But it's interesting to see that amidst the kerfuffle it takes a US sports journo to step back at the situation, take a wide view and then call it absolutely correct.

Here it goes...

'Consider then the curious case of Rangers Football Club. The most successful club in Scotland, they have won the Scottish title 54 times and claim over 100 first-class honors in their history. They attract the second-highest attendances in the SPL and their fan base probably provide the majority of the viewing public for SPL matches televised on Sky Sports and ESPN.

Despite this, Rangers is in trouble. Since the club was taken over by Craig Whyte in May 2011, they have not remitted any of the taxes due to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in Pay as You Earn (PAYE) tax and National Insurance Contributions (NIC).

Under previous owner Sir David Murray, the club operated an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) scheme from 2000 to 2010. This is a scheme whereby employees are paid (and taxed on) a very small percentage of their wages. The remainder is paid into a trust, which then gives “loans,” to the employee, which are non-taxable and never repaid.

This is perfectly legal, but the key word is “trust.” The employee must “trust” the employer to ensure they are paid, “loans,” from the trust. Contractual payments absolutely cannot be made through the EBT. Evidence has emerged in the public domain which suggests that Rangers players were assured in writing that they would be paid from an EBT, and that they would never have to repay the money.

HMRC maintain that the payments made to Rangers players in this period were contractual in nature, and therefore taxable. They have presented Rangers with a bill for £24m in unpaid taxes, and £12m in interest. Should the First Tier Tax tribunal find in their favour, a further penalty will be imposed, which could see the final bill reach as much as £75m.

Since at least 1999, when a similar tax dodge was operated (Rangers admit this and have committed to paying £2.8m to HMRC), Rangers has therefore used non-payment and evasion of tax to give the club a financial and sporting advantage over every other club.

That’s not all. As Rangers has made payments to players which were not included in their contracts, the players involved were not correctly registered with the national association, and so ineligible. The accepted sanction for fielding of ineligible players in soccer is for the match to be recorded as a 0-3 defeat.

Since 1999, Rangers has won the Scottish Premier League seven times, whilst fielding ineligible players whom they could not have afforded to pay if they were not avoiding making tax payments on their wages.

To the outsider, it seems simple. Rangers must be stripped of all honours won during their financial “doping” years.

It goes beyond even this. The President of the Scottish Football Association is Campbell Ogilvie. He has held influential positions with the SFA and SPL over a period of many years, going back to the 1990’s. At which time, Campbell Ogilvie was the Secretary of Rangers FC.

Indeed, Campbell Ogilvie was himself paid via an EBT during his time at Rangers. Both the SFA and SPL have launched investigations into Rangers’ conduct in the years since 1998, but there is no confidence within the Scottish soccer community that they will take any serious steps to deal with Rangers’ wrongdoing.

One thing Rangers cannot escape though, is financial reality. It finally caught up with them on 14th February when the club was placed into administration.

This is a UK legal term which basically means that a court-appointed team take over the running of the company. It prevents creditors from taking legal action against it, and the administrator must take steps to make the company profitable to ensure creditors are paid.

The administrators may seek to arrange a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) with the creditors. This requires the agreement of 76 percent of the creditors by value. It means that all creditors would accept a pennies-to-the-pound deal. Once they are paid, for example, 30p for every pound owed, the company can exit administration and emerge debt-free.

If the creditors do not agree a CVA and the company cannot pay them in full, it is then liquidated. All assets are sold off and the proceeds distributed evenly amongst the creditors. As the majority of Rangers’ debt is owed to HMRC, the chances of a CVA are unlikely. It is the policy of HMRC to reject CVA’s.

The most likely outcome for Rangers FC is that they will soon be liquidated. The club will cease to exist. Here’s where it gets interesting. The SPL yesterday published a set of proposed changes to their Financial Fair Play policy.

Amongst them, is a proposal to allow a club, on liquidation, being allowed to transfer their, “share,” or membership of the SPL, to a new company. This would mean that should Rangers be liquidated, their directors, or anyone else who wants to buy their stadium, training ground and players, can do so and be given Rangers’ place in the SPL.

Effectively, this would mean a debt-free company, called Rangers FC, playing in blue shirts at Ibrox Stadium next season, while HMRC and other creditors (Rangers are in debt to possibly as much as £134m) are left with nothing.

One of those creditors is Heart of Midlothian FC, from whom Rangers signed full-back Lee Wallace. They still owe £800,000, which is unlikely ever to be paid. Another is Rapid Vienna, from whom Rangers purchased Nikica Jelavic, whose goals were instrumental in their winning of the SPL last season. Rapid are still owed £1m, and despite Rangers selling him to Everton FC for £5m in January, Rapid are unlikely to ever see their money.

Effectively, the SPL propose to issue a cheats’ charter, and coincidentally I am sure, just as it looks like Rangers are to be liquidated. Nothing like this happened just four years ago when Gretna FC were liquidated.

Rangers FC is in serious danger of being liquidated because they have lived beyond their means for far too long, in the process distorting the market in Scotland.

It has abused the tax system to give itself an unfair sporting advantage over the rest of the clubs in the SPL.

It has bought players from other clubs it could not afford to pay for and had no intention of ever paying for.

And the Scottish sporting establishment, governing bodies and media, want everything possible to be done to facilitate Rangers, who have destroyed the sporting integrity of the Scottish game, escaping the consequences of their self-inflicted troubles.

We can’t allow the money-tap to be turned off, after all. Can we?'

Thursday, April 12, 2012

AR as the 8th of the mass media?

Presumably everyone noticed last week Google announcing it's initial experiments with augmented reality glasses under the codename 'Project Glass'.

I've posted below the video that demonstrates the anticipated capability of the 'device' that shows voice commands being used to send messages, take photos, share to G+, see the locations of friends, view maps, get product information and so on and so forth.

It's been accepted for some time now that the next evolution of computing is likely to be 'wearable'. We've all seen the speculation around wristband iphone, bendy tablets and all the rest.

If, like me, you have a particular interest in the development of mobile technology and how that relates to the promised personalisation of media and the internet I would suggest that you follow the thoughts and writings of Tomi Ahonen, the former Nokia exec, now independent consultant and recognised as the foremost thinker on the present and future of mobile technology and communication.

Ahonen's 2008 book 'Mobile as the 7th of the Mass Media' is a good place to start, and triggered several lightbulb moments in my own head when I first read it in 2010 (albeit 2 years late to the party) Yesterday Ahonen published a post on his blog giving his endorsement to the notion of Augmented Reality being the next, and therefore 8th, mass medium.

The development of Google Glass is significant as it represents a potential curve jump for a technology - AR - that has been held back or bubbling under for the simple reason (or one of the reasons) that the hardware to support the software has been too clunky or inconvenient.

*Yes, it's hard to believe that we are already looking at smartphones as being clunky...thts exponential for you.

I spent several years at the end of the 90's and early 2000's working with interactive tv, similarly the hardware was not there to support the creativity and innovation, and it is only now that the smart tv platforms are emerging that really lends utility to bring the value to life.

Likewise with AR, perhaps now the hardware platform is starting to emerge that allows the software platform to transcend itself from a gimmicky addition to mobile/portable devices to being a real augmentation to reality/daily life.

Tomi says:

'Yes, AR is cool on smartphones. But that is 'part time' use of AR. What if AR was the first unavoidable mass media channel? The first pervasively consumed mass media? Mobile phones as we know from the 7th Mass Media theory, have unique abilites such as being always connected and being permanently carried. So too will be AR (on glasses) but we don't consume media on our phones in uninterrupted way. The media consumption is in our pocket but we also put it into our pocket, away. These AR glasses by Google will change all that. We are seeing the birth of the first pervasive mass media (that might not be the best term, I have to think about it). So yes, am ready to call it. Augmented Reality is the 8th Mass Medium.'

A valuable technological enhancement or a further step into authentic social life being replaced with a representation?
This remains to be seen.

If Google are on to it then it's safe to assume that the Apple's of this world are also on the case so it's a watch-this-space situation, for sure. For those of us in agency land then it's possibly time to dust off those ditched AR experiments from back in the day.

Here's a recap on the table of mass media with the new addition to the family.

1st mass media PRINT - from 1400s
2nd mass media RECORDINGS - from 1890s
3rd mass media CINEMA - from 1900s
4th mass media RADIO - from 1920s
5th mass media TELEVISION - from 1940s
6th mass media INTERNET - from 1992
7th mass media MOBLE - from 1998
8th mass media AUGMENTED REALITY - from 2010

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

the new radicals

View more presentations from Gareth Kay

Here's a splendid deck from Gareth Kay of GSP which got my vote on Neil Perkin's post of the month feature.

The theme is not new, but it's worth continual repetition.

The world has fundamentally changed in recent years yet the advertising world is still remarkably slow to respond, and what are we going to do about it?

Gareth references John Grant's tome, The Brand Innovation Manifesto, which I have been revisiting lately and also touches on several lean principles which are also currently top of the agenda round these parts.

Good work, chap.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

don't you ever stop long enough to start?

Keen eyed readers will have noticed a break in transmission from Boat Towers.

I took the opportunity to have the guts of a month off from writing anything as some changes in the work situation afforded me a bit of a break between jobs.

Sometimes a change in one aspect of life is a good opportunity to evaluate some other things, and so I decided to give myself a rest from the sound of my own voice, do a bit of reading and as I had some 'gardening' leave, do a bit of tending to my own philosophical garden and see if my reasons for maintaining this blog still held true.

The good news (or bad news depending on your outlook) is that I intend to stick with my schtick and have determined continue to weave the thread joining punk rock, buddhism-science and un-advertising in these here pages.

Since you asked, on the work front, I've now left Clemenger BBDO and joined Melbourne and Sydney based agency Sputnik, as Director of Innovation.

Although well established in Australia as a 'digital' agency there's a new management team and new direction that has been established over the last 6 months which means we are, in effect, a ten year old start-up - with the appropriate leanings towards the lean and agile there's some exciting disruptive times ahead and I'll look forward to reporting as we go.

In the meantime... Don't stop - give it all you got.

Cheeseboiger!

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

that dangerous age

It's right. When I wake up in the morning it takes time to adjust.

I must be at that dangerous age.

In the absence of anything of any significance to impart on this fine Tuesday, I'm simply posting this superb new direction from Mr Paul Weller. Still rocking and as relevant as ever in 2012.

Thursday, March 01, 2012

the route to everything

I learned a little Japanese phrase some time ago. It was described to me as a simple process by which to achieve anything in life or business or whatever.

Kyo-chi-gyo-i. The route to everything.

Kyo is Goal. Chi is Wisdom. Gyo is Action. I is the resulting status.

In business terms Objectives>Insight>Strategy>Results

Starting with the 'why' rather than the 'what' or 'how'.

Not in the fluffy Simon Sinek sense, but knowing what needs to be achieved from the get go.

This, of course, highlights the most common mistake in 'strategy'. Confusing one's 'Kyo' with one's 'I'.

Confusing the objectives with the outcomes.

Confusing the 'being' and 'doing'.

A roundabout way of coming to todays topic of the relationship between culture and strategy, and a fantastic article by Shaun Carr of innovation consultants Bulldog Drummond in Fast Company.

Excerpt: 'Step inside of any company, no matter the size, stage of development, or level of success, and the culture is either driving the strategy or undermining it. To exist in the first place, a company must have a clear purpose, a deliberate intent, and a directive or set of ideas that it uses to pursue a clear goal, but it's the people who have to execute it. There is abundant evidence in every industry that the best-laid plans (or strategies) are derailed, suffocated, or eaten by cultures that either don't understand or straight-out reject the intent. And this, in turn, slows, sucks the life out of, or sabotages the implementation or execution of the company's strategy.'

The full article can be found at fastcompany.com, but for those of a dot point persuasion Carr has also summarised his ten key points in handy list form.

1. Strategy drives focus and direction while culture is the emotional, organic habitat in which a company's strategy lives or dies.
2. Strategy is just the headline on the company's story--culture needs a clearly understood common language to embrace and tell the story that includes mission, vision, values, and clear expectations.
3. Strategy is about intent and ingenuity and culture determines and measures desire, engagement, and execution.
4. Strategy lays down the rules for playing the game, and culture fuels the spirit for how the game will be played.
5. Strategy is imperative for differentiation but a vibrant culture delivers the strategic advantage.
6. Culture is built or eroded every day. How you climb the hill and whether it's painful, fun, positive, or negative defines the journey.
7. When culture embraces strategy, execution is scalable, repeatable, and sustainable.
8. Culture is a clear competitive advantage.
9. Culture must be monitored to understand the health and engagement of your organization.
10. Strategy and culture both require the clarity and power of brand to bring them seamlessly together.

Culture is either driving the strategy or undermining it, but either way the culture is integral. I'm not sure it eats strategy for breakfast but it's there in the canteen queue.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

cash from chaos

Coming briefly back to the trad vs digital agency debate, of which I shared some views on last week.

There was some negative response from the digital community around my musing that 'brand agencies are best placed to win' in the winner-takes-all game for the digital communications future.

To recap, I said that brand agencies are best placed, should they choose to be.

At the moment, on the whole, they appear to be choosing not to.

So the game is wide open.

The agencies that win will be the ones who adhere to the following criteria, as described by Tom Peters in 1988 and still as valid today as they were back then.

Does your agency (of whatever flavour) provide...

• The best in quality and service
• Enhanced responsiveness and flexibility in its operations
• Continuous and rapid new product development and innovation,
• Diversification and new market exploration.

Tom adds "Excellent firms don't believe in excellence - only in constant improvement and constant change. That is, excellent firms of tomorrow will cherish impermanence - and thrive on chaos."

Surprisingly aligned with Malcolm McLaren's worldview...

'I always feel more comfortable in chaotic surroundings. I don't know why that is. I think order is dull. There is something about this kind of desire for order...that drive out this ability for the [agencies: EP] to become a really exotic, amorphous, chaotic, organic place where ideas can, basically, develop.'

marketing lesson from Psycho Paul /please RT

In series 3 of Ideal, Psycho Paul wants to get the use of Moz's flat for a kidnapping.

'Are you in, or are you out?', he repeats incessantly over 3 episodes until Moz finally has to aquiesce.

Eventually Moz is in, of course.

It also reminded me of the classic scene in Glengarry Glen Ross, in which Alec Baldwin's character, Blake, strides into the local sales office and gives a short sharp ales lesson to the under-performing real estate agents.

ABC. Always be closing.

The lessons, however, are clear. If you don’t ask, you won’t get.

If you don't ask the local weed dealer if you can use their flat for a kidnapping, he won't suggest it to you.

If you don’t ask to be the keynote, it won't just be given to you.

If you don’t ask for the lead article, it won’t just be offered to you.

If you don’t ask for the $XXX,000 salary, it is not just going to be there on the table.

If you want your readers to retweet something or post to Facebook or Pinterest, then ask them to do it for you.

Find out who's in and who's out.

Then you know where you stand.

Also, once someone has committed to doing what you've asked they will want to live up to their promise for the sake of their own reputation and integrity.

In Dan Zarella's Heirarchy of Contagiousness he points to his database of tweets, compiled in order to crunch the most retweetable words or phrases.

Surprisingly, numbers 3 and 4 on the most retweeted list are 'please' and 'retweet'.

So, if you don’t ask, you won’t get.

Now please retweet...

Friday, February 24, 2012

it aint where you're from, it's where you're at

Yesterday I did a talk for AIMIA, the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association, in Sydney.

The theme of the seminar was to look at 'digital' agencies of the near future, what new skills are needed, new technologies, new philosophies etc.

On the panel session at the end one delegate seemed less than satisfied with my answer to one of his questions.

He asked for our predictions as to what the digital communications/commerce land scape would look like in 5 years time.
I answered by stating that the 'future' will take care of itself based on how we respond to the opportunities right here and now.

Remember, we have several of this countries biggest bricks and mortar retailers who cannot yet even offer a simple online commerce solution, never mind anything else.

The notion of the 'future' is often a cop-out. An excuse to not act now, but to put off acting til later. Later often never comes, because tomorrows future then looks different to today's.

There are only two mistakes one can make in any endeavour; not going all the way, and not starting.

It's a mindset, it's where you're at.

There's no excuse to not start. And Seth agrees.

'If you're in Kibera, are you too far from Silicon Valley to write an app?
If you live in New Zealand, are you too far outside the mainstream music world to perform a hit song?
What about an author who lives 3,000 miles from New York?
The magic of our new form of communication is that it's no longer one-way.
If you consume an app, you can write one.
If you can read a blog, you can publish one.
If you can grab an ebook, you can produce one.
The center has nothing to do with geography any longer.
The center is a state of mind.'

Friday, February 17, 2012

i second that emotion

I was reasonably happy to add my signature to brainjuicer and herdmeister's cheeky valentine's card to Millward Brown, following their apparent turnaround in recognising, officially, that emotion plays a more important role in long term branding, 'memory' and recall.

In short, how one 'feels' in response to a brand orchestrates what one 'thinks'.

MB point to the findings of a report by Peter Field entitled 'The Link Between Creativity and Effectiveness' (IPA, 2011)- a study of IPA Effectiveness, Effie and Cannes Lions Awards winners which reveals that ads don't need to persuade to be effective but they do need to trigger emotionally.

You can read about it here.

BUT...

I've seen Peter Field's presentation and while it's fairly entertaining and he's crunched the numbers I'm still slightly nonplussed due to the single-channel nature (ie film) of the examples quoted and researched.

As brands increasingly become things that we 'use', and the myriad of new ways by which a brand can be 'experienced' increases to place so much faith in a brand 'film' - a fairly blunt instrument.

Brand experience being the sum total of all interactions, there are many more emotional micro-touchpoints that can influence on how and what we feel.

So fair play to MB, but let's open up the debate to brand activities beyond one channel.

Thinking in straight lines will keep us going round in circles.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

ghetto blaster

About 12 different individuals either emailed, tweeted or otherwise prodded me towards an article on Mumbrella yesterday, so I figured it must be of interest.

The article entitled 'Traditional agencies are driving away their digital superstars with their old ways' is an argument from digital agency strategist Daniel Monheit around how Australia’s 'creative' (ie big advertising shops) agencies will never be able to keep digital talent.

Here's his nub.

'...[digital talent] don’t last six months in traditional agencies. They suffocate, or are crushed under the weight of endless banner campaigns and microsite rollouts based on print ads. Their brilliance, ingenuity and ambition goes unnoticed in the opulent shrines dedicated to 30 second spots, catchy jingles and 10% commissions.'

Despite notionally agreeing with much of his schtick I'm compelled to say that I still feel that the 'brand' agencies are best placed to be doing the great digitally driven work, should they choose to take the opportunity.

At the moment they still have the budgets, the weight in terms of resource and the brand nous.

The issue is that many 'digital' agencies have is a 'tactical' focus rather than a 'strategic'.
The brand agencies have the instinct to think at a higher level.

It's all there for the taking for the big agencies but yes, I agree that there is the problem of mindset.
It's no use cramming digital talent in at the bottom of the pile, the change has to happen at the very top.

As an example, the recent restructure at JWT North America (the oldest ad agency in the world, remember) that saw Jeff Benjamin, the ex-Crispin Porter + Bogusky interactive creative director join as Chief Creative Officer, and Mike Geiger, formerly chief digital officer at Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, has been named as President, Chief Integration officer, JWT North America.

So it is happening.

For the rest of us, yes there is the temptation to feel undervalued or undermined, but we have a mindset issue too.

Here's an excerpt from a piece I wrote in July last year, In The Ghetto, which seems strangely relevant to this conversation.

My irk is that 'the digital' is invariably 'other'.
By labelling it digital it's somehow SEPARATE from 'proper' planning or 'proper' creative.
It becomes secondary by it's otherness.
It's down the totem pole.
It's the little brother or sister.
The add-on after the real stuff.
The nice-to-have.
'...Lets get the basics right first then do some social...'
This is not a pop at the traditionalists per se.
It's the digitalists that are as much the problem, by revelling in their otherness.
My fellow digerati, honestly, until we figure this out we'll always be in the ghetto.

Thursday, February 09, 2012

not making tea [cc @servantofchaos @robertc1970 ]

A stellar looking line up for Day One of Digital Advertising World, in Melbourne in April.
The right-dishonourable Robert Campbell esquire, the Servant of Chaos, Gavin Heaton, and my humble self on the same bill.

Despite the notes on the brochure can I just add that I shall not be providing morning tea, nor making any sort of exhibition of myself.

Friday, February 03, 2012

appointment to tweet part 346

According to Fast Company, Twitter exec Adam Bain predicts that at least half of Super Bowl XLVI ads will contain a Twitter hashtag.

They say ‘If last year was the year that ads started incorporating Facebook addresses into their creatives, this year--at least this Super Bowl--might be the year that hashtags reign supreme.’

Tags to watch out for will include Coca-Cola's #GameDayPolarBears and H&M's #beckhamforhm.

The hashtag drive is part of a Twitter sponsored activity called Ad Scrimmage.

'...ads can compete to see which gets the most buzz in the week following the game. The system builds on previous voting programs Twitter has developed for shows like X Factor. Fans vote by tweeting and directing their followers to the custom ad gallery on the Super Bowl website. Ads that get the most votes move to the top of the list, and the winner gets a free Promoted Trend on Twitter.'

Good to see USA catching up with us at ClemengerBBDO in Melbourne.

We've been tagging Carlton Draught spots with #carltondraught since back in October 2010, of course... ;)

The same time that we coined the phrase 'appointment to tweet'.

HT Andrew Pascoe

Friday, January 20, 2012

a war we have to win

On the off chance that even just one person who may read this is not up to speed with the implications of SOPA and PIPA, and has not been exposed to the clip above; if you are that person then please spend 15mins at some point to watch this video shot during the week at the TED offices.

Clay Shirky explains the real effects and the threat of the proposed legislation.

Of course, the details of the shutting down - and arrest of key staff - of file sharing service Megaupload, by US agents earlier today gives a clear indication of why this is an international issue, not simply US legislation.

'None of the defendants are American citizens, and the site was mainly operated from Hong Kong. But the U.S. government was able to go after them — without SOPA or PIPA in place — because Megaupload used Internet hosting service providers located in Virginia, processed payments using U.S.-based Paypal, and worked with an online advertiser based in California.'

There's also an opinion piece written by Shirky in The Guardian to read from which the below is an excerpt.

'...the law would apply not just to actual copyright violations (the nominal goal of the law) but to any site that was "facilitating the activities" of copyright infringement, a term nowhere defined but vague enough to include mentioning the existence of such sites, which is enough to make them findable. Like a fast-spreading virus, the proposed censorship moves outwards from the domain name system, to include any source of public web content in the US.

If the phrase "any source of public web content" seems like a dry detail, substitute the name of your favourite web publisher: you. The US is, for the moment at least, the world's premier host of sites that support user-generated material – Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Wikipedia, Reddit, on and on. And under the proposed law, every one of those sites would have to take steps to prevent publishers, which is to say people, which is to say you, from helping anyone find out about the existence of sites the US media firms don't like. And since the law doesn't require a private company to provide any advance notice before the blacklisting, these sites will be forced to spy on their users, in advance and all the time, to make sure you are not talking about sites media firms in the US do not want you to talk about, even if you are not a US citizen.

Sopa and Pipa are, quite simply, an attempt to create a privatised form of international censorship, and because the censorship would have to be nearly total to be effective, they would have a profound and chilling effect on any form of public conversation among ordinary citizens. It would render the internet a place where the only content to be seen or heard or read is produced by professionals, with the rest of use relegated to the role of pure consumption.'

can you count, suckers?

Anything that kicks off it's pitch with Cyrus from the Gramercy Riffs, gets my vote.

Part of the Make It Count campaign — Life is a sport. Make it count - the NikeFuelband is a Nike+ extension, a rubber bracelet worn on the wrist during exercise and sports activities to measure 'steps, calories, time & Fuel metric'.

It syncs with your iphone and also integrates with social flavour of the month Path, to journal your daily activity.

HT The Kaiser

Thursday, January 19, 2012

unique talking point

While I'm not a data geek by any stretch a couple of things were interesting about some of the top line data that emerged around the Golden Globes TV coverage in the US and it’s impact on brand mentions within social networks.

Firstly, in spectacle terms, the NFL match between Giants and Packers pipped the Globes as number one socialtv (sic) show on Sunday with over 1.5m social mentions by circa 950,000 unique authors.

The Globes came number 2 with 1.1m mentions from a smaller but more active group of 492,000 unique chatterers.

Twitter activity is said to have peaked at 6,162 tweets-per-second.

In terms of ‘traditional’ ratings again the 'football' was way ahead the Globes, which only picked up at 8pm once the match was over.

7pm.
Fox: NFC Playoffs - Giants vs Packers (40.1 million viewers, 14.3 rating among adults 18-49)
NBC: Golden Globes red carpet (7.4 million, 1.9)
8pm.
NBC: The 69th Annual Golden Globe Awards (16.8 million, 5.0)
Fox: Football overrun/The Simpsons (15.7 million, 6.8)

And AdAge reports that check-ins on GetGlue tripled vs last year, though the Globes ended up 4th, behind Nikita, Big Bang Theory and Fringe for the week.

Globes check-ins would most likely be real-time rather than shifted, it should be noted.

So in the Globes chatter...

Top 5 brands in social mentions – with the top contextual mentions within:

1. Prada – 42% ( predominatly Zooey Deschanel’s dress)
2. Dior – 22% (Charlize Theron 34%, Milla Kunis29%)
3. Gucci – 15% (Jessica Alba 23%]and Salma Hayek 36%)
4. Vera Wang – 4% (Sofia Vergara 55% Naya Rivera 36%)
5. Marchesa – 3% (Lea Michele 62%)

Versace will probably be be disappointed that they didn’t chart despite dressing Angelina Jolie.

Interestingly among the top ‘linear’ sponsors Loreal and Swarovski (and others ) also did not get so much as a peep in terms of buzz/wom despite the famous ‘goodie’ bags and buying 30second spots that started at $400,000 a pop, and upwards from there.

Perhaps a case of 'because you're (not) worth it'.

One could infer that from the unique talking point perspective, being on the red carpet and integral to the content was the smarter media spend?

Check the AdAge article and follow the links around.

Also a fuller analysis from Lost Remote.

needle: fan sourcing sales

In theory, Needle would be about taking customer advocacy to the next level, by partly 'fan-sourcing' both the sales and customer service platforms for online businesses.

Needle claims to be able to tap into an existing fan base, train it up to be able to sell your product or service, and then allows them to do it online from wherever they are.

They say:

'Customers want to know how your product applies to them. They want their questions answered live by an expert who speaks their language, and whose suggestions they can trust. Trained experts on the Needle platform engage customers by asking qualifying, relevant questions, such as "How will you be using this product?" and "What kind of other accessories do you already wear?" A Needle chat offers the equivalent of having a personal shopper giving real-time reviews and recommendations to your customers based on rich, interactive dialogues.'

I'm inclined to file this in the same drawer as alternative customer service channel Insidr, which we featured in December, and indicative of a genuine trend developing.

Another one to keep an eye on.

via Springwise.

Friday, January 13, 2012

flogging a dead horse

This is so much post of the week, and even an early contender for post of the year, that I am simply going to quote it in it's entirity.

From the always wise, and now slimline, Jonathan MacDonald who's recent weight-loss success has also apparent side effect of further sharpening his, already incisive wit and insight...

Tribal wisdom of Dakota Indians: when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, your best strategy is to dismount.

However, in business and in Government, more advanced strategies are often employed such as:

Buying a stronger (and more expensive) whip.

Changing riders.

Appointing a committee to study the horse.

Arranging trips to other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.

Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.

Reclassifying the horse as living-impaired.

Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

Harnessing several dead horses together to increase efficiency.

Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horses performance.

Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horses performance.

Declaring that the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than some live horses.

Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

…and of course:

Promoting dead horse to a supervisory position.

construire une architecture de l'impossible #vaccinesvideo

I missed this at the end of last year, but it's such a nice simple idea that it's worth a mention, even if I'm late to the party.

Fans of the Vaccines were asked to tag their Instagram photos taken at the summer music festivals with #vaccinesvideo, the pics were then sucked into the vaccinesvideo.com site and then edited together with some band footage to produce the video for their song 'Wetsuit'.

And a top tune it is too, by the way.

Apart from the fact that it's a terrific execution of viral 101 - the fans will share the video with their friends because THEY ARE IN IT, it also tickled my current obsession with situationist ideas, and drew me back to this nugget on ceativity from artist/author/provocateur Jamie Reid.

'...the challenge to the modern artist is not just to create, but to use what has already been created. This would seem to be a reduction or a narrowing of the scope of modern art, but it isn't. To find a way of using what has already been created - and there is a lot of all kinds of things that have been and continue to be created by this wasteful society - to say something that is really new, you have to widen your field of awareness to the point that you can see what is NOT being done, and what COULD BE done, with these creations'

Top marks to Anomaly London for another construire une architecture de l'impossible...

It's up for a One Show Award too, so best of luck.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

a 'viral' masterclass from the bbc #bowie

Contrary to misinformation peddled by many self annointed social media experts there is no 'formula' for viral video success, however there are some recipes that will give a piece of compelling content the very best chance of being spread.

The previously long-lost clip below of Bowie and the Spiders doing 'Jean Genie' on Top of The Pops from 1973 being case in point.

In simple terms the clip contains the main elements the originator needed to ensure at least some spreadability.

1 - It's a piece of content that groups of people with a shared interest want to see, but have not previously had the opportunity to do so.

2 - The provider of the piece of content was, initially, the single source of the content.

3 - The back story to the piece of content was interesting enough to be part of the idea.

So it goes that retired 69 year old ex-BBC cameraman John Henshall had retained a copy of the footage he shot using his own designed Telefex Fisheye lens, while the BBC had wiped the original tapes from 1973 (as was their unfortunate habit back in the day - many hundreds of hours of BBC archive stuff is gone forever).

Henshall found the tapes in a proverbial shoebox in the attic and presented the lost gem to the BBC at the tail end of last year. It was broadcast on Wednesday December 22nd on BBC2, this being the first time it was available to view since the original Top Of The Pops show in 73.

The lessons are clear.

1. Identify the groups of people who are most likely to want to hear/see/spread the idea.

2. Figure out if this is the kind of information these groups are gagging for.

3. Find out what the groups already have and whether the new information plugs a gap that needs filling.

4. If you can answer all of the above get it out there and watch the groups do the heavy lifting.

Notice the use of 'groups' plural. A point to note is that there is not one-single instance of the clip on YouTube, there are several.

The clip was ripped and posted online by many different Bowie fans, each initially serving a small group of other connected fans in the first instance. The clip was then shared from small group to small group via various blogs and Facebook updates and tweets.

Understanding the structure, connectedness and actual needs of the networks in which you want to plant ideas is much more important than looking for individual so-called influencers to repeat a story.

Anway here's Bowie, Mick and the Spiders walking on snow white, in full fisheye glory.