Tuesday, May 14, 2013

the spectacular moments of commodity society



The Hungarian Postmodernist-Marxist philosopher György Lukács is credited as the author of the idea of reification.

For Lukács reification literally translates as the 'objectification' - of social life or social relationships and their subsequently re-expression as relationships between objects rather than people - as characterised by many aspects of what we would describe as 'consumer' culture.

'Objectification' has become a bit of a skunk word, the gobbledygook end of postmodernism have ran with it.

But, in simple terms, Lukács is describing a process by which the previously 'authentic' experience is transformed and then rendered 'inauthentic' by its incorporation into the totality (the all-pervasive supremacy of the whole over the parts) resulting in alienation.

One of the most quoted descriptions of contemporary consumer-culture alienation is in this passage from Don Delillo’s 1985 novel White Noise.

White Noise* is widely regarded as a case-in-point post-modern work, however we shall not hold that against it.

*In a detournement footnote, apparently DeLillo originally wanted to title the book Panasonic, but the Panasonic Corporation injuncted. Fact fans.

The characters, Jack and Babette Gladney return home from a trip to the supermarket:

'It seemed to me that Babette and I, in the mass and variety of our purchases, in the sheer plenitude those crowded bags suggested, the weight and size and number, the familiar designs and vivid lettering, the giant sizes, the family bargain packs with Day-Glo sale stickers, in the sense of replenishment we felt, the sense of well-being, the security and contentment these products brought to some snug home in our souls – it seemed we had achieved a fullness of being that is not known to people who need less, expect less, who plan their lives around lonely walks in the evening.'

The most striking contemporary example of this kind of reification is, of course, Facebook.
And in particular the the notion of Facebook 'friends'.

In which the idea of 'friendship' - an aspect of authentic social life and social relationships - that has, in effect, been 'objectified' and indeed commodified by Facebook.

Indeed, within Facebook we even refer of ourselves in the third person. Eaon shared person x's photo and so on.

The 'friend' product is, of course, core to Facebook's business model and monetisation strategy.

We will all be familiar by now with the point that, in the Facebook environment it is the user (or 'friend') that is the product for sale.

Facebook sells the product (and its data by-products) to advertisers, and then re-packages it up and then sells it back to us as the social experience.

The cycle is complete - and gets completely spectacular - when we understand that this idea of the Facebook friend is not only reduced to reified commodity but is also now increasingly becoming the way we understand the nature of authentic friendship, to a degree.

Where that fact might have been spectacular enough in 2011, today we can see other 'possibilities' around further objectification afforded by the next wave of mass media technologies.

In particular the likes of virtual and augmented reality technologies.

I've semi-referenced Debord's Society of The Spectacle in this note.

Among the many descriptions of the Spectacle the following is perhaps the most key to this discussion.

'The spectacle appears at once as society itself, as a part of society and as a means of unification.
As a part of society, it is that sector where all attention, all consciousness, converges.
Being isolated and precisely for that reason this sector is the locus of illusion and false consciousness; the unity it imposes is merely the official language of generalized separation'


The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.'


Obviously my novelty pseudo-academic intellectualism finds the synonym connecting The Spec-tacle and then Google Glass, the almost uber-mediator of social relationship by images, ironic and funny.

Let's read that again.

'The spectacle appears at once as society itself, as a part of society and as a means of unification'.'

That Facebook/Spectacle analogy is developed further by journalist John Harris who also notes:

'[Debord] is talking about alienation, the commodification of almost every aspect of life and the profound social sea-change whereby any notion of the authentic becomes almost impossible'.

To end this note, perhaps the inevitability of Virtual and Augmented reality technologies as a mass media proposition (ie spectacle) - is one in which it usurps (or indeed incorporates) Facebook as 'the invasive force of the 'spectacle'.

There is the possibility that Google Glass actually takes the idea of the Spectacle as 'social relation between people mediated by images' to new levels of alienation in the guise of authentic social life.

Both Lukács and Debord would possibly note that these new social technologies that are presented and accepted as a social innovations that allow the users to better participate in the world, are just as easily described as reification mechanisms designed to reinforce the spectacle of pseudo-communication producing not connection but only further alienation.


Wednesday, May 08, 2013

you are are a unique individual. just like everybody else

Look into my eyes for 5 seconds then review the analysis below the picture.



You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself.

While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.

You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage.

Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worried and insecure on the inside.

At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.

You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.

You also pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof.

But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others.

At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.

Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

Does that sound about right?

Actually the above quotation comes an experiment conducted by psychologist Bertram R. Forer in 1948.

He gave some students a personality test based on tabloid horoscope material, gave each of them the same report and explained it was their personal assessment.

On average, the subjects marked their personal analysis as about 85 percent correct.

This tendency to believe general vaguaries as specific is called the Forer effect, and part of a larger cognitive bias known as subjective validation - our tendency to be more persuaded by statements that seem to be about 'us'.

After all you are are a unique individual. Just like everybody else.

So when we advertising types are looking for insight and developing propositions we should be advised that a fruitful avenue of pursuit is not the road that seeks to find those things that make people different but finding those things that make us the same.

ht and thanks NotSoSmartBlog. Buy his book.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

the power of people



David Hepworth talking about the power of Twitter.

What he's really talking about is the power of people.

Remember kids, it's not just about the tools but about the behaviours.

People adopt the tools when the tools solve a problem.

Twitter is still around while others have failed because it still solves a problem.

Thx Brand DNA

the truth about ROI....

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase from which the logical fallacy that states 'Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one' is drawn.

The post hoc fallacy can be most simply expressed as follows:

A happened, then B happened.
Therefore, A caused B.

This fallacy occurs most frequently in the area of socialis media vendo (social media marketing).

Socialis media Vendo being an outpost of la la land in which 1200% ROI on electronics goods can be solely attributed to Facebook advertising.

Now that I mention it, nothing seems to have gone right for me since I started writing this blog.

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

'like' if you love cheese

There's been some speculation and debate among the chattering classes about the implications of the new Facebook feed set up for brands on the platform and brand pages in particular.

There's plenty of material out there from the social media experts on the how-and-what so no need for me to add a lay view here.

What I will say is that the - let's face it - impending death of edgerank is no bad thing.

I received a report the other day from the community managers who run and monitor the Facebook presence of several fmcg type brands.

Included in the report - and I kid you not - was a statement to this effect.

Our best performing post this week with x-hundred 'likes' was...

'Like if you love cheese'

Aside from how the norm is to calculate best performing content in this manner when in reality 'likes' are a pure vanity metric - feels good but offers no value in terms of anything actionable as a consequence - one can't help but ponder the following fact.

Here we have (and have had for some time) mass social media platforms - perhaps the most potentially powerful set of tools ever available to the human race in its history, with the potential to connect billions people world wide, and inspire them to do just about anything - yet for marketers we are stuck in this mediocre space - 'like if you love cheese'.

Because over time brands on Facebook gradually figured out how to ‘game’ edgerank – you may have seen the sharp rise in inane like-baiting drivel from brands clogging up your feed. Tactics such us ‘like if you prefer pies, share if you prefer sausage rolls’ are deliberately designed to game Edgerank. They get the likes, for sure.

So i applaud Facebook for now effectively killing edge rank (that's not what they say but it's my interpretation) in a play to make it harder for this kind of branded cack to appear into the users feeds in an organic way.

Facebook want brands to pay for their reach. And they are entitled to want this.

The good news, however, is that in all likelyhood the fact that brands will now have to pay for reach means that the quality of brand content will have to improve.

Because it is no longer 'free' then Facebook content will have to come under the same strategic and creative consideration as any other paid-for advertising, therefore reaching beyond brand fans to touch as many potential buyers as possible is the imperative.

The perceived 'value' will now be greater, simply because there is a cost connected to distribution. On the downside it’s a straight-up ad platform now. More like tv or any other web based publishing platform like Yahoo or msn.

Brand content is the now in effect pre-roll to your friends updates.

And it is a boat that appears to be leaving the harbour as the next generation of potential Facebook users appear to be - perhaps not splitting from the program - but certainly spending more time with less 'public' verticals like Whatsapp, SnapChat and Instagram (albeit a Facebook owned property)for their instant gratification and dipping in and out of Facebook for their broadcast fix.

It's a bitter-sweet situation. Better brand content (advertising), designed to get shared and grow reach, for sure, but I sense that we may now look back say that Facebook was the great missed and misunderstood opportunity for advertising as an industry.



but then a strange fear gripped me and I just couldn't ask.

'What happens with fear is that probability doesn't matter very much. That is, once I have raised the possibility that something terrible can happen....even though the possibility is remote, you may find it very difficult to think of anything else. Emotion becomes dominant.'

The above quote is Daniel Kahneman explaning how human emotional reactions routinely over-ride the rational in conditions of uncertainty.

Under most conditions to be fair.

DK also famously notes that all heuristics are equal, but 'availability' is more equal than others.

This is the simple explanation of why reach and frequency are still so important to advertisers messages.

So, reach + frequency + fear therefore is about as powerful a combination motivator as one can get.

A typical strategy to exploit this would be thus.

- Invoke a sense of fear.

- Then present a solution – invariably a path back into a known comfort zone (status quo bais) – and usually one that promotes using a particular product or service to maintain said status quo.

The famous product example is around halitosis.

Halitosis was a 'medical' condition invented by the manufacturers of Listerine mouthwash in order to create a problem for which they had already premade solution.

This is also interesting through the lens of non-behaviour change strategies, where a status quo is required.

Or a non-action.

The fear factor is naturally multiplied by at least a factor of two due to a natural human bias for loss aversion.

We feel losses (or potential losses) about twice as badly as we would feel equivalent gains.

For example.
On the way to work/school/uni this morning you find that you have lost $100 somewhere on the journey.

Imagine how bad that feels. Pretty annoying and likely to be on your mind all day.

However if you had found $100 in the street then you would feel happy for a short while but far less happy than the equivalent unhappiness you would have felt about the loss of the money.

When discussing behaviour change strategies with clients this is a key point we raise.
The new behaviour needs to be presented as significantly better, more fun and easy to adopt.

At least twice as 'good' as the status quo behaviour to even have a chance. Apples for apples doesn't cut it.

In this sense fear can be a powerful motivator for inaction because it can also paralyse.
Again, in any given situation or market there is the option to do nothing.
And most often that's the easy one to adopt.

This has been a long-winded intro to presenting this article - brought to our attention by Charles - from the blog of Craig Murray the author, broadcaster and human rights activist and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

In his piece Murray points out the repeated use of the words 'warning” and “Scottish independence” in the same sentence by the BBC in repoting associated with the forthcoming referendum vote on Scottish Independence.

Below are a few of the links, there are many more.

“Scottish independence: Pension shortfall warning”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22314646

“UK Treasury warning that an SNP plan for a currency union after independence”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22246176

“Scottish independence: Warning over ‘weakened military’”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21776602

“Scottish independence: ‘Havoc’ warning from pensions firm”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20562203

My own view on Scottish independence or otherwise aside theres a few of points worth noting.

The first being around the availability heuristic.
Availability is our natural human bias towards believing things that come most easily to mind.

To that end the 'Better Together' (anti) side of the independence debate have clearly grasped that key to their ends is ensuring that the fear motivator is the frame - and the resultant in-action or status quo bias is the desired outcome.

To the power of two, the key to the success of their campaign is not simply persuading those who are against independence to take action, but also to ensure that those who have no clear preference do nothing and stick with what they know.

What is somewhat disturbing is that the BBC appear to be giving disproportionate and significant airtime to this framing of the debate.
Albeit in a somewhat covert way.

The second point is understanding another point about human behaviour.
Again in situations of uncertainty or risk we will tend to look around and see what other people feel before deciding how we feel.
So for the side of the debate that can mmanipulate the 'mass' media to the best extent. ie using these supposed independent sources to perpetuate the idea that this is indeed the popular idea this is a winning frame.

Reach and frequency (social diffusion + availability heuristic) + fear frame (loss aversion + status quo bias) looks like the equation for a no vote.

And as final psychology gag (and something of a killing joke) one has to doubt the resolve of the yes lobby when one understands that the Nationalists card up it's sleeve is a radical middle way - and their own unfortunate slip towards the do nothing option.

Apparently an independent Scotland would keep the monarchy, the currency (pounds), join NATO and the European union. In other words Scotland becomes independent but everything stays exactly the same. A pitch towards a subset of the inert and the system justification bias vote.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

lean period

'All those words that I have wasted in haste
Have left such a bitter aftertaste

The reason being I'm going through a lean period
A decidedly mean period'


Wednesday, April 17, 2013

this is the best bad idea we have

Whether or not you subscribe to the notion that movies such as Argo are a propaganda trojan horse - the irony of the line at the start of this clip will not be lost if you are among those who do (You're telling me there is a movie company in Hollywood right now that is funded by the CIA?) there are a couple of splendid bits of dialogue.

This particular scene came to mind while in an agency discussion about how to evaluate creative work.

Tony Mendez: "And we think everyone knows Hollywood people. And everybody knows they'd shoot in Stalingrad with Pol Pot directing if it would sell tickets. There are only bad options. It's about finding the best one."

Official: "You don't have a better bad idea than this?"

Jack O'Donnell: "This is the best bad idea we have, sir, by far."

Official: "The United States Government has just sanctioned your science-fiction movie."

Tony Mendez: "Thank you, sir"



Puzzling over why a particular piece of work was deeply unsatisfying, yet unable to pinpoint exactly what it was at the root, it became clear that the piece actually contained no 'idea' as such.

There was merely a fact disguised as a 'line'.

Our conclusion was that a bad idea is at least an idea and can therefore recieve criticism.

No idea is far harder to evaluate, as time is wasted trying to work out if it's an idea or not.

Let's also be mindful that no idea is very adept at appearing to be an idea.

Good idea is best. But a bad idea is still an idea and so is at all times preferrable to no idea.

To paraphrase the Dhammapada...

The bad idea that knows it's a bad idea, in this much at least is an idea.
But the no idea that thinks it's an idea - that's the real bad idea.

Argo f*ck yourself.

science plus creativity

I'm probably the last person in the world to catch on to the latest Dove activity, Real Beauty Sketches.

Real Beauty Sketches from John X. Carey on Vimeo.


Aside from being splendidly executed content as advertising and another iteration of the long running real beauty purpose idea, the difference between projects of this nature that succeed (ie signal) versus those which fail (noise) is where the idea is based on a solid human insight.

In this case, of course this is a highly creative demonstration of the worse-than-average effect.

The human cognitive bias in which we routinely underestimate one's achievements and capabilities and attractiveness in relation to others.

And may I be as bold as to suggest that this piece is a blow to those hold the belief science and creativity are opponents.

When, in fact, the application of science and creativity together will always produce the the most compelling work.

Atychiphobia

Some Wednesday inspiration from Malcolm Tucker.



"People hate me? Good!

You know what people say about you? FUCK ALL!"


Or you can have the highbrow version

“And I — my head oppressed by horror — said: "Master, what is it that I hear? Who are those people so defeated by their pain?"
And he to me: "This miserable way is taken by the sorry souls of those who lived without disgrace and without praise.
They now commingle with the coward angels, the company of those who were not rebels nor faithful to their God, but stood apart.
The heavens, that their beauty not be lessened, have cast them out, nor will deep Hell receive them — even the wicked cannot glory in them.”


Dante Alighieri Inferno

Friday, April 12, 2013

knife fighting for the ego-friendly

Dan Ariely has famously commented on why people don't care about climate change, and how harnessing the power of the ego could be one way to move our behaviours to be more environmentally responsible.

Ego-friendly as opposed to eco-friendly.

Dan argues that if we were to invent something no-one would care about it would be climate change.

Because its real impact will be at some point far in the future, it's effects will be felt mostly by other people other than us and even if I did do something it would be a drop in the ocean such is the scale of the issue.

All of these are recipes for not caring.

Plus we only start acting when we feel something emotionally about the problem, logic isn't in it.

So Dan points to observing Prius drivers as a possible answer.

Driving a Prius promotes one's self image as a good person who is doing their bit, and is a signal to others that they are someone who cares about the environment.

The joke goes that you can spot a Prius driver by their permanent smug expression.

Anyway, the clip is from ABC's The Elegant Gentleman's Guide to Knife Fightingand is a splendid bit of insight, a smart as anything from any ad planning department and an extremis riff on Ariely's hypothesis.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

rated for constipated peak viewing time

While the news filtering in that 'Ding Dong the Witch is Dead' is set to top the various music charts by the end of this week is fairly amusing, I can't help getting somewhat misty eyed for the old days of the Radio 1 Top 40 and Top of the Pops.

Although being principally Facebook driven, an event such as this just felt a tad more salient in a mass media context.

At the time of writing 'Ding Dong' is sitting at number one on amazon and number two on the UK itunes chart.

As a cultural 'event' however the top 40 has long ago lost any significance with the broader public, what was formerly a social object of sorts is now a minor data point.

The problem is the lack of availability of those charts to the casual viewer and therefore the sense that 'something is happening'.

It requires a proper dig around to find them.

I guess the proof of the pudding will be on Sunday when the 'official' UK top forty is announced on BBC radio.

We wait with interest to see if the BBC will decide to give Ding Dong it's due chart placing.

If your old enough to have experienced the Thatcher years then you are equally likely to remember the conspiracy between the BBC and the mainstream high street retailers who participated in the chart-return process to provide the nations top 40 back in the day.

Between themselves they acted to keep the Sex Pistols 'God Save The Queen' off the number one spot in Jubilee year 1977. The BBC engineered things to ensure insipid-period Rod Stewart topped the charts despite being out-sold 2-1 by the Pistols.

WH Smith found it too much to even acknowledge the existence of the record, leaving the number two slot blank in their chart.



A nice one-two-three would be Ding Dong at number one followed by Elvis Costello's 'Tramp the Dirt Down' (which has also seen a spike in sales this week and is apparently bothering the top 40) followed by the mighty Pete's 'The Day That Margaret Thatcher Dies' or maybe the less poetic but direct 'How Does It Feel to Be The Mother of a Thousand Dead' by those naughty public school anarchists (in effect Thatcher's badly behaved disruptive children) Crass.

Friday, April 05, 2013

blessed are the cheesemakers

Not meant to be taken literally. It, of course, refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.

Except perhaps not all cheesemakers are equal.

I've read and re-read this recent article from the New York Times regarding the artisan cheese boutiques of New York.

The writer observes that 'some of the most amusing and captivating writing in the city is being produced in the service of cheese.'

For instance see the labels below scribed by Martin Johnson, manager of Gastronomie 491, a market and cafe on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.



His rock'n'roll description of Calcagno, an Italian sheep cheese is particularly fetching.

“Big and floral in the very best way possible, this firm Sardinian sheep has the cool unaffected strut of Mick in his prime, Lou in middle age or Polly Jean today.”

From the marketers point of view we should note that in a commoditised market with many similar choices then a simple way to differentiate is to simply have a better story.

Particularly if the story allows the buyer to tell themselves they have made a better choice, and gives them a reason to tell other people how smart/cool/in-the-know they are.

So the cheese buying journey is certainly another one whereby standard economic theory of the c*nsumer, armed with full information, doing cost-benefit analysis and making rational decisions in their own self-interest goes right out the window.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, a professor of social theory and social action at Swarthmore College and author of (essential reading) 'The Paradox of Choice', calls this outsourcing connoisseurship.

“Many people want the patina of connoisseurship on the cheap, so they contract out the decision-making process. [this way] you get the benefits of discernment without paying the psychological price of having to make difficult choices and distinctions. You’re happy because you’ve been told what to get and don’t know any better.”

Indeed Steve Jenkins, the cheese 'expert' at Fairway Market remarks...

'The customer has no idea what he or she wants, the customer is dying to be told what they want.”.

Perhaps that's a slightly skewed view - as with social media 'experts', cheese experts display symptoms of a somewhat subjective validation - but there can no doubt that in this instance the cheese buying process is a highly social one, and one which falls into both the copying of 'experts' bucket and also the peer-copying category.

Those who are prone to outsourcing their connoisseurship of cheese will without doubt outsource their connoisseurship in many other categories.

Schwartz also notes that '...people become paragons of taste simply by taking someone else’s advice'.

Indeed, in my record shop days we routinely employed a similar tactic, and wrote detailed descriptions of the latest US or Italian imports on stickers attached to the sleeves.

('116bpm funk guitar led balearic chunky chugger peppered with JB horns, Chas'n'Dave keys and Doobie Brothers riffs - massive Pelican Club tune! - there will be a prize for the reader who can identify that one)

As the title of the post is from Life of Brian it's seems apt to finish with another much quoted excerpt.

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!

Crowd: [in unison] Yes! We're all individuals!

Brian: You're all different!

Crowd: [in unison] Yes, we are all different!

Man in crowd: I'm not...

Crowd: Shhh!

Thursday, March 28, 2013

rat trap

This week Bob Geldof appeared in Sydney to help promote One Young World, a nfp organisation founded by David Jones (Havas/Euro RSCG CEO).

OYW basically seeks to connect and support tomorrow's business leaders with a view to helping them hone their chops through various pro-social business initiatives which they can lead.

In theory the outcome will be a generation of more socially responsible CEOs that operate on the basis of 'doing well by doing good'.

(If Jones is seeking to offset for the fact that he led the campaign that helped deliver Cameron and Clegg into Downing Street is another matter, a significant pro-social effort might allow for regression to the mean in karma terms.)

And Geldof is always good for a soundbite or two.

'Disruptive technologies...shut down my business, the record industry, the book industry and increasingly the newspaper industries which are increasingly redundant.

If it destroyed outdated businesses it also destroyed outmoded logics.

We have to find a different way for this century.'


To be fair they are making all the right noises so yep, it's all good.

The point of this piece is to draw the distinction between social (or 'open') business and pro-social business, and perhaps point to the places at the intersection.

The OYW initiative has gone into the market under the banner of social business but i fear this label muddies the water.

While these initiatives can be described as pro-social, they are not social business by its understood definition.

Pro-social
Pro-social business activities, ie sustainable business practices that benefit other people or society as a whole as well as delivering profit for the business and providing meaning at work are to be applauded and are absolutely necessary.

In effect ideas of this nature are another example of a back to the future effect, and testament to the blip nature of industrial age. The key component being 'meaning'.

If OYW is looking for a manifesto it could look to Schumacher's 'Buddhist Economics' from 1973 which is still the blueprint of pro-social purpose-driven business.

'To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve‐racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul‐destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence.
Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure'
.

Social business
Social/Open business is a notion that has been around for some time and is still perhaps looking for the definitive description however the forthcoming book by David Cushman and Jamie Burke - 'The 10 Principles of Open Business' - may be bringing that day closer.

They describe an Open business as “… one which uses its available resources to discover people who care about the same Purpose it does, brings those people together and joins with them to achieve that Purpose.”

The ten principles are self explanatory
Purpose
The ‘Why’ of the organisation.

Open Capital
The degree to which the business is crowd-funded vs 'big capital' funded.

Networked Organisation
The degree to which the company ecosystem is employees and also outside partners.

Sharability
The degree to which IP/knowledge and thought leadership is openly shared

Connectedness
The degree to which employess/partners are using social media technologies to create opportunities etc.

Open Innovation
Developing product and service innovations in public

Open Data
Data generated the organisation is made publicly available where there is a possibility that this data can create additional public good

Transparency
Decision making is done openly, the organisation can be held to account.

Member-Led
Key decisions are made by and with those charged with implementing them.

Trust
Walking the talk, skin in the game.

David and Jamie argue that for a business to be inherently Open/Social it must address all ten principles to at least some degree. For a summary of the ten points I'll refer you to David's blog where he is serialising a preview.

How many of those principle are being adopted by the OYW program is not clear. There appears to be an emphasis on purpose and transparency, which is a fair start.

We should also be mindful that neither of these concepts are anything to do with CSR.

And particularly mindful in the case of evaluating 'pro-social' initiatives.

CSR in many organisations is viewed as a 'cost' to placate 'tree-huggers' or suchlike.

Pro-social is driven by the organisational purpose. The 'Why' of the business. see 'never trust an organisation that puts customers first'.

So my point is; pro-social business is not social business.
They are different concepts which have certain intersection points.
If it seems nit-picky it's because it is.

Plus it was an opportunity to mention David and Jamies's book, which I should have done before this point.

And also the chance to remember Bob Geldof's finest moment, as the assembled Rats tear up pictures of John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John on Top Of The Pops on the week they displaced the hideous duo's insipid 'Grease' offering at number one in the UK charts with 'Rat Trap'.



Monday, March 25, 2013

you don't know how to assess your competition because you haven't competed



In the movie Limitless, a struggling writer Eddie Morra is introduced to NZT, a cognitive overdrive pill that gives him super powered system two control and ability to turbo charge his memory and other mental processes in a manner akin to a superhuman AI.

After turning round his novel in a matter of days, Eddie's attentions shift to matters of global finance and, such is his meteoric success in that field, he quickly draws attention from business mogul Carl Van Loon (played by Robert DeNiro), who ropes him in as a key advisor etc.

Very soon Morra starts to believe his own hype, au naturellement, but the hard-nosed Van Loon cuts him down.

'Your deductive powers are a gift from God or chance or a straight shot of sperm or whatever or whoever wrote your life-script.

A gift, not earned.

You do not know what I know because you have not earned those powers.

You're careless with those powers, you flaunt them and you throw them around like a brat with his trust-fund.

You haven't had to climb up all the greasy little rungs. You haven't been bored blind at the fundraisers.

You haven't done the time and that first marriage to the girl with the right father.

You think you can leap over all in a single bound.

You haven't had to bribe or charm or threat your way to a seat at that table.

You don't know how to assess your competition because you haven't competed.'


Talent, experience and paying your dues? What a concept.

It's a cop out for the Gen Y audience. Morra outsmarts Van Loon at the end and ultimately runs for President.

There you go kids, it's true. You DON'T have to pay your dues.

There's always a shortcut.

Except when there's not.

You don't know how to assess your competition if you haven't competed.

At least in part, the Zuckerberg's of this world have risen to the top without having to compete.
But paying your dues from the top is a better vantage point.

One day, when the shit hits the fan and they come out the other side, Zuck et al will have learned about competing - just like Van Hoon - then they will have earned their powers. Then the real game starts.


Friday, March 22, 2013

i love the internet



It's always interesting what you find when you have a good rummage around the internet.

I came across this in an unrelated YouTube search.

The above is a tune I recorded with Barry Simpson which we released back in the early 90's as the Turnbull AC's.

The Turnbulls were the skinhead gang in the movie 'The Warriors', fact fans.

We nicked the name over ten years before the American grunge band of the same moniker.

It was the fourth release on our fledgeling Hook imprint.

Only about 500 copies were pressed. Even less sold.

The first 50 were the pre-release white label, the uploader of this to YouTube is one of the lucky owners.

I can tell it's original because it's my own handwriting on the label.

The deep bass was Barry's and the horn stabs that pepper throughout were sampled off a George Clinton thing.

File under post-balearic ambient disco.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

man bites dog


I've never been comfortable with any brief that includes any notion of 'we need to educate c*nsumers about [product x] so they learn about the benefits as part of an [x] lifestyle' kinda thing.

The idea that anyone is sitting around waiting to be educated by any brand is borderline delusional.

If we want education we can go back to college, read a book, go to a conference or watch a documentary.

We almost certainly don't go to a supermarket.

Often the most effective brand communications are about confirmation not information.

Psychologists talk about the principle of commitment and consistency.

By requesting an initial commitment that confirms an existing worldview people are often more willing to agree to subsequent requests that appear consistent with their original commitment.

'Are you one of those people who want's to live a healthier lifestyle but life seems to get in the way?'

For further confirmation consider this, from Lord Vetinari - the benevolent dictator of the Terry Pratchett novels.

'Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things… well, new things aren’t what they expect.
They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that.
In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds… Not news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know is true.'


Monday, March 18, 2013

bark at the moon

The other day someone mentioned to me 'have you seen the Old Spice Wolf thing?'

I hadn't so I went out and found it.

'Sometimes you gotta eat people. America - that’s how business works.’

Genius.

I recall walking out of Euston Square tube station (I think it was there) sometime in the late 90's and seeing the huge French Connection billboard.

It seemed like the biggest billboard in London, plain black with two words on it.

fcuk advertising.

That poignant message seemed to somehow be a final statement on big advertising of that nature.

In 1998 or whatever, the internet was fast taking over and it really felt like the last days of the old advertising paradigm.

At the time that self-aware French Connection campaign felt almost like a last hurrah. And it was a pretty good last hurrah.

(That legacy is somewhat lessened by the fact that it's a last, tired hurrah that's still running today... ho hum.)

But somehow this Old Spice Wolf campaign has a similar end-of-times feeling.

Perhaps it's the last final triumphant hurrah of this period of multi-channel/transmedia, social media-fuelled advertising.

The old adage goes that a candle burns most brightly just before its flame goes out.

Social commentary, arch irony and a general ridicule for the industry of which this is a part means it's hard to visualise where we go from here, such is the completeness and scale of this work.

Of course - as with the final word on anything - it's never the final word.

Doom mongering aside - and lest we forget - in a world where we have a plethora of tools, channels and networks that help us avoid advertising and marketing, where we can easily filter out the noise that's trying to interrupt us from what we are doing and move our attention to something else; those very same tools and processes make it super easy for us to find advertising and marketing that we'd like to watch or get involved with.

If it looks interesting enough.

Grand Prix.

Friday, March 15, 2013

antifragility is a new york state of mind

'Guy's got chops' says Billy Joel at the end of this clip that's been doing the rounds this week.

Billy Joel accepts the request of a young student Michael Pollack to jump on stage and accompany Bill on the piano during his college Q&A tour in Nashville.

Micheal proceeds to give a deft turn of hand to 'New York State Of Mind' while Billy dons the shades and is enjoying it so much even does a little Sinatra improv.



The key moment in the clip though is not the performance itself - though it's a belter.

It's the moment that Michael pitches Billy.

There's just a pause of a few seconds while Billy takes in what's happening.

Then he responds. 'Ok'.

In AntiFragile Taleb describes '..anything that has more upside than downside from random events is antifragile'.

In that pause something of this nature ran through Billy's mind.

For the kid to have the balls to raise his hand this random event could only result in upside.

'When you are fragile, you depend on things following the exact planned course, with as little deviation as possible—for deviations are more harmful than helpful. This is why the fragile needs to be very predictive in its approach, and, conversely, predictive systems cause fragility'.

'When you want deviations, and you don’t care about the possible dispersion of outcomes that the future can bring, since most will be helpful, you are antifragile...If every trial provides you with information about what does not work, you start zooming in on a solution—so every attempt becomes more valuable, more like an expense than an error. And of course you make discoveries along the way.'

This is what artists do. Spot the moments when random events have more upside than down and go with it.

Michaels got chops so even Billy had to up his game.

Once the shades go on this is stadium territory not just a college lecture hall.

And with close to a million views at the time of writing, it's all upside for Bill.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

more texas sharpshooter fallacy

A report from Ebay this week appears to confirm what we have suspected for some time.

That for well-known brands most of the buying up of search terms is largely a waste of time and money and has little effect on sales because the clickers would have found the brand anyway and purchased anyway.

The report, a hefty 25 pager (pdf available here) summises that "Advertising may appear like it is successfully attracting these consumers, when in reality they would have found other channels to the firm's website,".

In several experiments eBay tested removing paid-search keywords using its brand name from Yahoo and Microsoft search engines while maintaining them on Google.

[NB: There is, of course, the possibility that Ebay may take some arch enjoyment from having a pop at Google]

The authors of the report; Thomas Blake, Chris Nosko and Steven Tadelis offer three key take-outs.

'First, “brand” keyword advertising (where firms purchase advertisements on searches for their own brand name), a practice used by many companies, is ineffective because, absent paid search links,consumers simply substitute to (unpaid) organic search links. This implies that brand keyword advertising expenses have neither persuasive nor informative value to well known corporations, and arguably, for other companies as well.

Second, the effectiveness of SEM for non-branded keywords is small for a large and well-known brand like eBay and the channel has been ineffective on average.

Finally, we show that there is a small yet detectable positive impact of SEM on new user acquisition and on informing infrequent users about the value of using eBay.

This last finding supports the informative view of advertising and implies that targeting uninformed users is a critical factor for successful advertising.'


Upon understanding this last point then the shlock-headline baiting of articles such as this one from Business Insider from late last year (yet somehow on a second lease of life) is further testament to the grip that the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy has on marketers and the ROI question.

ComScore 'research' apparently determined that fans of Target on Facebook were 97 percent more likely to spend at Target, and friends of fans were 51 percent more likely than the average population to spend at the retailer (the brand has over 18 million “likes”).

Thus 'proving' 'A Perfect Example Of Why Retailers Should Be Investing In Social Media.'

Whom the 'average population' that are not on Facebook is unclear. As is how on earth those numbers can be quantified.

In short, they would have bought there anyway.

Similarly this week in AdNews comes the revelation from 'Facebook-centric' [natch] marketer Mike Watkins of Mudo Media who calims that every dollar spent on Facebook marketing by his client - teen fashion brand Supre - had delivered $192 in return, again 'proving' that 'Facebook will outperform TV advertising campaigns every time'.

Tellingly Watkins reveals that he is 'sick of Facebook being a marketing bolt-on and wants to be first to the table when it comes to budgets and campaigns.'

Of course he is ;)

There is no doubt that, correctly applied, paid search and Facebook will contribute to the overall effect.

But again the social media experts and prone to inferring the general from the particular and blind to the fact that marketing to existing customers and ergo measuring sales from who would have bought in any case doth not make any case for the replacemenet of this-with-that.

ROI is indirect and fuzzy. In all likelyhood we're no closer to figuring out which 50% of advertising is wasted than we've ever been, and the chances of ever fully figuring it out won't happen any time soon.

And I'm cool with that.

HT Sam

*UPDATE Friday March 15.

From the Wordstream blog, an alternative view.

Dear eBay, Your Ads Don't Work Because They Suck

Thursday, March 07, 2013

take that

This Dilbert came from a post in the Growth Hacking Linked-in group.

It could just as easy be about the agency pitch process (aka the free IP giveaway)

.

inferring the general from the particular

This Amanda Palmer TED talk has been going gangbusters on t'internet.

Obviously, Palmer is a 'performer' and making use those chops in her talk has been a factor in its spread.

If you can't bear to watch; the gist is Palmer arguing that the best way to get people pay for music is to give it to them first then ask them to pay (in cash or in kind) later.

No big revelation here, it's standard 'reciprocation' from the psychology of persuasion.

Just like when you buy someone a coffee there's an unspoken obligation for the recipient to return the favour at some point in the future.

The other key points are about the nature of trust (between artist and fan) and skin in the game - the former flowing directly from the latter.

Palmer's band often couch-surfed on tours etc and used the vulnerability as an up-close tactic with fans.

Then crowd-funded their latest album using Kickstarter.

It's a good talk, as they go.

But I get a shudder at the prospect of this being wheeled out as some sort of kickstarter/social media case study.

Which is a already happening.

Because it's still not about the tools or platforms.

Social media experts love to infer the general from the particular.

This story is just about as particular and un-general as they get.

And what happened for AP is extremely unlikely to happen for your brand/not-for-profit or whatever.

Can you be inspired by Palmers story? Yes.

Because this is a case study in finding a unique voice, connecting with the few who give a shit and perseverance.

Qualities available to all.

Through that lens it's more useful - inferring particular from the general.

Apart from that it doesn't help you much.

And kids, if you are going to be inspired please can you come up with something better than 3rd rate Hazel O'Connor-lite angsty goth dreck.

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

how do you change people's behaviours?

I'm compelled to share this article from the Sustainable Business section in the Guardian yesterday by behaviour change chap Les Robinson.

Les is talking around the topic of sustainability initiatives but the take-aways for any form of communication are clear.

Behaviour change, of course, is one of those terms that currently suffers from being bandied about by every Tom, Dick and douche-bag (in the same manner as the skunk-ification of innovation, big data, and social et al) however these are kind of succinct and simple pieces that will hopefully keep us on the right side of what matters vs the waffle.

Below is a nugget-isation of the key points, paraphrased for an advertising context.

I'd urge a thorough examination of the full article.

And also a note for Sydney and Melbourne based readers - Les is conduction a couple of 2 day workshops in both cities during April.

I shall be doing my best to attend the Melb one.

How do you change people's behaviours?
WHAM! 'It's a delusion we can change peoples' behaviours. Instead, people change their own behaviours. Our role is to create an enabling environment and provide opportunities for people to become inspired by what their peers have achieved'

How to you move beyond "the converted"?
'..instead of asking "How can I make the public share my [brand message/app/content]' we need to ask "how can I be of service to [what matters to them]"

Which behaviour change theory is best?
'The best theory is the one you make yourself by intimately knowing your audience and understanding their needs.'

What if people just aren't interested?
'Don't blame them...immerse yourself in their lives until you figure out how to create solutions that answer their real needs. Good behavioural products sell themselves, but no amount of persuasion or wiz-bang marketing can sell a behaviour that provides no advantages for the adopter.'

(an inconvenient truth)
'The failure of [most advertising] results in a common marketing syndrome, the Just Shout Louder Effect. If people aren't responding to the threat, then Just Shout Louder!'

Do incentives work?
"...incentives tell receivers a story about themselves. Sometimes it's a story that dignifies the receiver, sometimes it humiliates them. So, the question we could ask is: what story does our particular incentive tell the receiver? Does it say, "We recognize your extraordinary motivation." Or, does it say, "We doubt you really care, that's why we're paying you."

How do you create great messages?
"Marketers typically overestimate the power of messages, a syndrome that could be called "message fetish." People are rarely convinced by messages. Usually they are convinced by the inspiring real life examples of their peers".

Can marketers persuade people to do absolutely anything?
We humans resent unwanted advice, especially when it threatens our comfort zones. Denial and resistance are driven by fear and the worst fears are social fears. What will our friends and family think? What if we fail? How will we look to others? It may seem silly but one of the big barriers to women cycling to work is their fear about how their hair will look. We trivialise these fears to our peril. Behaviour change is therefore rarely achieved by persuasion or marketing [alone] but almost always requires modelling how to carry out unfamiliar behaviours with ease, aplomb and dignity."

In conclusion
"We are learning that the business of change requires us to work with humans in their social context, respond to their hopes and fears, recognise the role of power, and understand that behaviour sits in a matrix of technologies, infrastructures, institutions, norms and social structures, all of which need to be the open to strategising and potential modification".

Friday, March 01, 2013

the peak-end rule



This segment from Rocky Balboa is often used as an example for coaching 'motivational' speaking but is also is a great demonstration of the peak–end rule.

With this in your toolbox becomes a lot easier to predict likely responses your advertising ideas, and many creative directors instinctively understand this while perhaps not knowing the actual science around it.

If you wan't to skip ahead, the main piece kicks in at about 1:20

The rule describes how we (the punters) judge experiences (eg advertising) almost entirely on just two factors.

How we feel at the most intense point and then how the experience ends.

Surprisingly, duration is not significantly important, so if it's just 15 seconds or even 2mins the key thing is make sure the ad has an high emotional peak and some sort of a resolution - it can be a cliff-hanger, a call to action but it needs to end properly.

The psychology says that using this rule means we are addressing what Daniel Kahneman calls the two 'selves'.

The 'experiencing self' - this is the part of us that feels things in real-time as it's happening.

And the 'remembering self' - this is the part of us that stores the 'peak' and the 'end' in memory.
The bigger the peak and the better the end then the easier it is for us to recall how we felt.

So in the clip Rocky starts to tell a story, he starts to describe the good times with Rocky Junior, firstly as a baby and then growing up.

Then one day something happened...

'Let me tell you something you already know' - (at this point Rocky jolts us with a bit of an insight)

Blam!, here it comes.

Wait for it....

'It isn’t about how hard you hit, it’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much can you take and keep moving forward? That’s how winning is done.'

Here's where it really happens - because you feel like it's peaked, you've had a tingle but we're not there yet...

'Now if you know what you’re worth, go out and get what your worth, But you gotta be willing to take the hits. And not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him or her or anybody.

COWARDS DO THAT AND THAT AIN’T YOU!
YOU'RE BETTER THAN THAT
.'


That's the peak, then it ends with something to DO.

'Until you start believing in yourself you ain't gonna have a life...Don't forget to visit your mother'

There you go. The peak-end rule.

Because if people don't FEEL anything they don't DO anything.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

screwdriver

Ok, I'm late to the party on this one.

But how good is the new Prince thing?

The lesson here is, keep on keepin' on.

Prince has been a bit duff for a while but... (like we said about Elvis)...

'Quality, is a probabilistic function of quantity.'

He's back.

If the talent is there then the goods will come.

Re: 'Dumb Ways To Die and social media bullshit'

An article on Mumbrella on the topic of the 'Dumb Ways To Die' Metro Trains campaign continues to attract opinion and commentary.

The author, Karalee Evans - a digital strategy type and former state government employee with regard to infrastructure and public transport in particular - has ruffled some feathers with her view.

'Metro Trains’ seemingly unchallenged claim that a viral video...led to a 20 percent reduction in risky behavior” is social media bullshit.'

'If Metro...really are claiming that Dumb Ways to Die led to a 20 percent reduction in risky behaviour; e.g. a significant behavioural change in a period of two months, then we really need to see the empirical evidence.'


Some of the criticism has been both harsh, and lacking in insight.

However I'm compelled to say that she's right and wrong at the same time.

Akin to assigning single channel ROI, the notion that a public responding to viewing of single video was directly, measurably responsible for the 20% figure is nonsense.

But calling for empirical evidence is equally foolhardy as the effect is impossible to measure in data points.

However, if the 20% reduction in reported dangerous incidents is a plausible number then the fact that the video exists; and the reduction occurred during the time of it's existence, then there is a likely-hood that there was indeed some effect.

The 'Dumb Ways To Die' video's effectiveness, is manifest in the way it acts as a kind of 'social object'.

Simple social object theory decrees said objects '...as the centerpiece in a dialogue between two or more people. People don’t just talk — they tend to talk “around” objects.'

So Karalee's hypothesis that the video has had little or no effect on behaviour change locally (ie in it's target geo area) because '[in the viral effect] most of these stories, and the links and subsequent viewers, were from outside of Australia let alone the target, Melbourne' is immaterial.

As a 'social object' the real communication effect has happened in the spaces in-between people. For the communication to work there is no necessity for all individuals or groups to have actually viewed the video itself, however the idea (of which the video is the container)is the 'viral' element.

(As is the case with all so-called 'viral' content, by the way.
The media is simply the container of the idea.)

But here's the thing.

The 20% reduction in incidents claim is as much part of the idea as any other element.

How empirically accurate the number is, is not the point.

Everything communicates.

The 20% number acts as 'social proof' that the behaviour has begun to change.

Because in any conditions of uncertainty (ie all the bloody time) we take cues on how to behave from what we see or percieve to be the norm (what others are doing) then the mere description of a shift in behaviour acts as a spur to the continuation of that behaviour.

'Dumb Ways To Die' is as much a piece of brand advertising as it is social media.

The nature of brand advertising is not about the personal, it works as an signal to a mass audience (we) that an idea exists.

The components of the idea were attractive and easy enough to absorb and spread that it caught on.

In the same way that not everything that counts can be counted - and not everything that can be counted counts, looking for the empirical evidence will prove fruitless, it doesn't exist.

(We've talked about the 'Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy'in these pages before - the common foible of social media gurus/experts)

But looking at the bigger picture - incidents before and incidents after - gives more of a clue, and then cummunicating the success (social proof) helps to build the momentum.

Word of the day. Osmosis.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

12XU

In working out what to do it's often helpful to start by articulation of what one will not do.

Then see what you are left with.

See Wire's rules of negative self-definition below.



thx dangerousminds

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

balearic antifragility



I've finally started on Taleb's 'AntiFragile'.

One of the key ideas is that theories are more fragile than practice, meaning theoretical knowledge is of limited use and therefore theory alone often lead to less than satisfactory outcomes.

Through practice we can find what works; without necessarily the need to know why.

Indeed, what often works in practice doesn't work in theory.

A practical example would be the above tune by The Cure; a balearic club classic from back in the day.

Goth-lite whimsy from a bunch of funny looking pixies with big hair, long overcoats and black nail polish doesn't immediately feel like a recipe for get-on-one-matey nights in open roof clubs in Ibiza.

It works in practice but doesn't work in theory.

Celebration of risk and randomness though is the stock in trade of the balearic-ly inclined.

Friday, February 15, 2013

four ways charity:water gets it



We've enthused about charity:water in these pages before.

They just seem to 'get' communications much more than most.

And as we've noted before they are without doubt the poster child of the not-for-profit world, but the lessons for any brand in any category are there for sure.

This video landed in my inbox this morning.

A 'thank you - we love you' message to supporters for Valentines Day.

It probably cost buttons to produce.

And there's a few reasons why this is so great.

1. Fun.

They fundamentally understand that in order to attract supporters (and move behaviour) it needs to look like a good idea. One of my oft repeated quotes on behaviour change comes from Ed Gillespie of sustainability agency Futerra.

Ed says: 'If you want to subvert the dominant paradigm, you have to have more fun than they are, and let them know while you’re doing it'.

2. Likability.

Amongst all the advertising bollocks we talk a vastly under-rated factor in the success of any communications is basic likeability. The affect heuristic if you prefer. When posed a difficult question - Shall I donate or support charity:water? - We [our system one] responds with an easier answer to a different question - Do I like these people?.

Looking at this clip that features the people who work for the organisation, we just like them.

And, of course, look at the message. THEY LIKE US, TOO.

3.Social proof.

In any conditions of uncertainty - will I? won't I? - we'll take our cues from what we see others around us doing. It doesn't have to be anyone we know or a recommendation from a friend or expert (though this works too) just the general sense of something happening. It's popular. So the charity:water workers calling out the individuals and groups who have helped demonstrates that this is a popular thing.

It's catching on. Momentum.

4. Shareability.

Of course, if I'm one of the supporters being thanked then I'm going to show this to other people. It sends a signal as to the kind of person I am.

Here's another revenue idea for charity:water.

Start an advertising agency and plough the profits into the projects.

They would clean up.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

insurgent country

I do get sad seeing a former client make a hash of things.

NAB have copped some flack for their radio ad which takes the mickey out of a country music stereotype.

So they've publicly pulled the ad and apologised.

The fact that they crumbled at the first sign of unrest from a few outspoken voices from rural Australia is not the saddest part.

The sadder fact remains that they somehow believed, and still believe, that country music isn't cool.

When, of course, it's just about the coolest shit there is.



But country fans are outlaws and outsiders.
A tribe.
They're different from the mainstream.
You could almost say they have decided to 'break-up' from the dominant popular culture.

If only there was a brand that stood for those kind of values?

Rather than taking a smug cheap shot at a easy target cliche, NAB would have been better advised to compared bank fees to X-Factor wannabees or Big Brother nonentities.
Because 'certainly' no-one likes that garbage.

And 'certainly' there would be no customer revolt from hardcore X Factor fans demanding retribution.

Because there is no-one who gives enough of a shit.

But of course NAB have already sponsored those quality additions to the culture.

File this one under Dunning-Kruger Effect.

to be perfectly frankl.



Legendary psychiatrist Viktor Frankl talks about the human search for meaning in this rare clip from 1972.

Perhaps more poignant is his observation about strategy.

When pilots are navigating they need to aim the plane well above their target in order to land in the right place.

This is because of headwinds or something. When they aim directly for the target they miss and end up somewhere wrong.

(If it's easier then imagine Roberto Carlos scoring his famous banana for Brazil against France in the 1998 World Cup)

So to get (at least) good, we had better aim for great.

Because aiming for average means that that you will almost always get shit.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

I'm a poet and I know it. Hope I don't blow it.



“We don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion.

Poetry, beauty, love, romance. These are what we stay alive for.

The powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?”


From Dead Poets Society, obviously.

After struggling with the writing of a creative brief this week I abandoned the format and summed up the key point of view as a small poem instead.

It wasn't a great poem but it was a much better brief.

school's out

Various Australian news outlets reported this week, that parents in Victoria who let their children miss school without a 'valid' reason may face a $70 fine per absence under a 'planned crackdown next year' by the State government.

How this will be enforced is unclear, but I was reminded of the story in Freakonomics, in which the authors reported on a study examining the day-care centre who charged parents a fine for turning up late to pick up their children.

The study looked at the habits of parents over a ten week period before the introduction of the fine and then for an identical period again after the punishment was introduced.

Surprisingly the results showed that the number of late pickups actually increased after the fine was introduced. So not only did the fines not improve the behaviour, the fine actually made the behaviour worse.

The replacement of a social norm (be on time to pick up the kids) with an economic norm (the fine becomes - in effect - a baby-sitting fee) turned the situation into a market.

Therefore, by market rules a $70 surcharge on, say, a long-weekend - a simple transaction that buys a Friday off school for a kid might be viewed as reasonably good value when weighed up against avoiding weekend traffic to the country/beach or whatever, or offset that against the hikes in hotel prices and flights that coincide with official school holidays and $70 a day is still something of a bargain.

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

a better mousetrap?

'The righter we do the wrong thing, the wronger we become.

When we make a mistake doing the wrong thing and correct it, we become wronger.

When we make a mistake doing the right thing and correct it, we become righter.

Therefore, it is better to do the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right.

This is very significant because almost every problem confronting our [industry] is a result of the fact that our [marketers/agencies etc] are doing the wrong things and are trying to do them righter.'


Adapted from Russell Ackoff.

HT Thinkpurpose

no room to rhumba in a sports car




It can legitimately be said that Elvis Presley probably made more terrible records than any other artist in history.

The appalling ‘There's No Room to Rhumba in a Sports Car’ - from the soundtrack of 1963’s ‘Fun In Acapulco’ - is certainly one.

But also true is that he also made more truly great records than just about anyone else.

The vast majority of the horrible Elvis records were made during his bad movie period of 1960 – 67, immediately following his stint in the army.

But the pivotal moment for Elvis was what has become known as the ‘68 Comeback Special’.

The show, simply titled ‘Elvis’, went out on December 3, 1968 on the NBC television network.

The back-to-basics and black leather clad Elvis hooked up with some old bandmates from the 56-58 vintage years period in a stripped down rock’n’roll jam session, interspersed with a nod to the ‘future’ grown-up Elvis oeuvre via bigger soulful numbers like ‘In The Ghetto’ and the epic ‘If I Can Dream’.

But here’s the question.

Was it, in fact, a necessary process for Elvis to go through that period of creative failure during 60-67 in order to come out the other side bigger bolder and stronger?

In The Origins of Genius the psychologist Dean Simonton argues that creativity can best be understood as a Darwinian process of variation and selection.

The successful artist generates a ton of ideas, and then subjects these ideas to some sort of judging criteria, then lets loose only those that appear to have the best chance to survive and reproduce.

Then some do and some don’t.

The true test of genius is the ability to bequeath an impressive and influential body of work to future generations.

Simonten argues that ‘Quality, is a probabilistic function of quantity.”

Taking up this argument then, it may indeed follow that the simple difference between Elvis and the thousands of one-hit-wonders or wannabe rock’n’rollers that amounted to nothing much in the fifties and sixties isn’t necessarily that he had a better ratio of hits to misses.

The difference is that the mediocre might have a few half-decent ideas, whereas Elvis was exponentially more prolific in his output.

Because Elvis put out such a vast number of ‘experiments’ it was almost inevitable that some would end up being great.

Simonton’s point is that there is nothing neat and efficient about creativity.

‘The more successes there are, the more failures there are as well’.

The creative person who can pump out more ideas than the rest of us will have far more bad ideas than the rest of us, too. But, critically, they will probably also have more good ideas.

Fluctuation in fortune is ‘regression to the mean’.
In the case of Elvis, the 60-67 mediocrity blip, was indeed a blip.

A strange outcome is usually followed by something much more ordinary.

Unpredictable events (ie Army service) disrupted the average quality of output, then in ’68 normal service resumed.

It’s popular to talk about ‘vulnerability’ in advertising – this notion that campaigns could go either way and total disaster is but a whisker away from outrageous success.

This is somewhat true, INDIVIDUAL successes are hard - perhaps impossibly hard - to predict.
It’s only after-the-fact that it seems TO BE CLEAR why something took off.

To look at a more recent pop example when South Korean rapper/producer Psy and his mates were in the studio cranking out 'Gangnam Style' in 2012, NO WAY were they strategizing for a global phenomenon.

They were hoping for another hit in South Korea, where he was already huge.

If it had flopped globally then it wouldn’t have been the end of the world.

Similarly, PSY knows that his chances repeating the unprecedented phenomenon of ‘Gangnam Style’ is extremely unlikely because of regression to the mean.

It’s important that we understand this in advertising, embracing unpredictability, not getting carried away with huge successes and not worry too much about the odd flop.

But for an advertiser or agency who have the working practices in place that allow them to continually produce quality, they should expect to be able continue to produce quality, if they stay on their game.

In one creative department I worked in – perhaps the most successful in Australia in recent years – operated on this principle (perhaps intuitively, or perhaps there were unspoken Darwinian philosophies at play).

At the end of each day creative teams would file in to present their work to the creative leadership.

They might well have been presenting the greatest idea in the history of advertising but would almost inevitably be sent away to improve it or come back with further ideas the next day. Nothing got by on first (or even second) pass.

If there was time then the work could always be made better.

If there wasn’t time, the suits would make it their business to buy time.

In this spirit, the '68 Special highpoint, ‘If I Can Dream’ was actually written overnight (at the request of Elvis himself) the night before the recording of the show, by Walter Earl Brown.

The number was a last-minute replacement for a schmaltzy Christmas number that Elvis’s manager, Colonel Parker, had originally wanted.

But the King put his foot down, and ‘…Dream’ became effectively Elvis' post-rock'n'roll career defining moment.

Mediocrity produces fewer ideas, every now and again one may get lucky, but regression to the mean would indicate that the hits will be few and the majority will be like ‘Rhumba in a Sports Car’.

A Darwinian creative approach means producing more ideas, more often knowing the best of them will survive and reproduce.

There must be lights burning brighter somewhere.
Got to be birds flying higher in a sky more blue.


Quality, is a probabilistic function of quantity.

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

why economists get things wrong



This video from Irish economist, broadcaster and author David McWilliams opens with this observation - is it not ridiculous that we should be listening to the economic 'forecasts' from those very same experts who, of course, completely failed to forecast the current crisis coming in the first place?

The core issue being neglected by the 'experts' that as soon as humans are involved (ie always) then standard economic theory goes out the window, and all kinds of foibles and biases come into play.

McWilliams' own flavour of behavioural economics influenced analysis is labelled Punk Economics and this clip is part of a series of films under the same banner. All of which are ably illustrated by Mark Flood and can be viewed via their YouTube channel.

David says 'Economics and economic analysis has become similarly overblown and self-indulgent. Worse still, many (not all) economists have failed to make it simple, easy and comprehensible for the vast majority of people, something economics must be, if it’s to be of any use to us.'

Thursday, January 31, 2013

say what? say what?

I'm filing this note under 'context is king' and possible 'the medium is the message'.

Scientists at universities in the UK and Spain have conducted experiments that appear to prove that the context in which certain foods are presented has a significant effect on how they 'taste'.

In the reported example tests showed that hot chocolate served in an orange coloured cup is percieved to 'taste' better.

This reminded me of the other example from a couple of years back when Coca-Cola drinkers complained that regular Coke presented in seasonal 'silver snowflake' cans for Christmas tasted worse, despite the actual content being no different to the normal red cans.

While this should not be surprising or news to anyone - for example we'll routinely (and happily) pay more for a nice ambience in restaurants, it undoubtably makes the entire dining experience more pleasurable as it occurs, making the food 'taste' better.

And perhaps the tasting experience of coca-cola is connected to a memory component, the colour of can is remembered to be consistently red. So when that 'memory' is disrupted and replaced with a new more recent one the situation has changed and is therefore perceived differently.

I'm guessing the 'neuro' explanation is around sensory perception being multi-sensory. A mutual possession, if you like, but with one dominant agent.

For a laugh and another context on 'context' allow me to recount this tale from my dj days.

This is back in the early 90's, at a club I ran we booked top dj's and producers Rocky and Diesel to do a turn.

Unfortunately the airline had managed to mis-place their record boxes on the flight up from London to Aberdeen and so the guys arrived at the club for their spot sans music.

Fortunately the record boxes of myself and my dj partner were balearic-ly eclectic and cock-full of similar tunes that Rocky and Diesel would have been likely to spin anyway, and If we kept schtum about the lost boxes all would be fine.

Like true pro's the two Darrens played a typically blinding set. Even without their own tunes.

In fact we noted to our delight (and self-validation) that they employed many sequences of tunage that were the same as we did.

I even received envious comments concerning some Johnny Vicious bootleg or other in the box that was highly sought after and hitherto unavailable even to the capital's top spinners.

The surprising thing though was the commentary post-gig from the assembled trainspotters and club boffins.

These experts declared the gig to be the best that the town had witnessed for some considerable time, and noted that the resident dj's (us) should do well to take note from our guests and endeavour to find and play more of that rare deep underground tech-house blah blah tunage, the likes of which had never been heard in provincial Aberdeen before. Ever.

Heh.

An early lesson that content is important but the context in which the content is delivered is everything for perception.

Say what?



Thursday, January 24, 2013

plastic bags and customer journey models

Many years ago I was involved in an indie record shop.

For the benefit of younger readers we were purveyors of 12inch diameter round pieces of plastic on which a groove was etched. When activated these grooves produced music.

If you've seen or read High Fidelity then this will give you something of a flavour.

It was a bit of a shambolic operation at the best of times but I only got an actual bollocking once from the owner.

Post-bollocking I never made the same mistake again.

It wasn't for ordering too much stock of some obscure Italian jazz-house oddity.

It wasn't for not opening up until mid-day because of some hangover or other.

Nor was it for keeping the best promo's for myself (I was also a club dj of some repute).

The only thing I ever got it in the neck for was allowing us to run out of the 12" plastic bags wuith the shop logo emblazoned on them.

Because one Saturday morning when the cool kids were coming in to snap up the latest imports, white labels and other hard-to-find underground tunes and bootlegs I had to put them in 'blank' bags instead.

And as they wandered round town or went to the pub in the afternoon to show their mates what they had procured it was vital to us that they pulled their purchases out of one of our branded bags.

We never advertised, and this was pre-internet days people. We had no website. Our only drivers of custom were our knowledge, service, our ability to get the shit the kids wanted first.

And the subsequent word of mouth/general coolness factor.

Social proof, if you prefer.

So when I see an article like this one in Adage - 'Follow Customers as They Actually Behave' - I get interested.

While this is a nice try - and at least a significant improvement on any traditional funnel metaphor - there is one tiny flaw which renders it only half useful.

'Most customers tell us that when they're open to discovering new products and services, they rely on mass-reach channels such as TV ads, search engines and word of mouth. When they want to explore products in more detail, they use depth channels like marketers' websites and retail stores. (They turn to these same channels when completing purchases.) When they want to engage with their favorite brands, they use relationship channels -- signing up for email lists or loyalty programs, or liking a brand on Facebook.'

The author illustrates with a neat diagram outlining many customer 'touchpoints' categorised as those pertaining to 'Reach' 'Depth' and 'Relationship'.

The basic flaw of the theory is simple.

Despite it's thoroughness the map is still based on the notion of the (singular) 'consumer' on an independent journey making independent choices as to when and where to 'engage' (sic) with the 'brand'.

So it's still marketing as something 'we' do TO customers.

But the author said 'Follow Customers as the Actually Behave'?

The truth is that in just about any given market people who are in any way unsure what the appropriate behavior for the situation is, they will look around at other people for cues.

These cues are in the spaces between the touchpoints on a channel plan. But they are in there none the less.

I'm not trashing the RDaR model, it's a useful component but not a whole picture by any stretch.

Ignore what happens in the spaces in between at your peril.

For the most part our job in the 21st century is not about building the 'better mousetrap' and IS much more about helping people (customers) to do stuff to and with each other.

That's what my plastic bags were for, likewise the first time you noticed white earbuds. Or even the first time you saw people doing a silly dance like riding a horse...

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

big data miracle drug

We've pondered the implications of 'big data' in these pages on several occasions and come to at least one simple conclusion, namely that more (ie big) data does not necessarily mean 'better' and that the more data one has will often actually make it harder to find the required information to distill into insight.

With that in mind, find of the week is this article by Scott Brinkner entitled 'The Big Data Bubble'.

Scott says 'Now, I love data as much as the next techy-geeky-marketing-wonk-with-a-blog. But what strikes me about all this explosive data chatter — in no small part, driven by the peaking hype cycle of big data as a miracle drug — is how little recognition is being given to the operational implications of actually using data.'

And from an agency person perspective I almost feel that Scott has observed some of the big agency CEO 'predictions' for 2013 that have been appearing.

Whereas two years ago the key buzzwords* would have included 'social', then 'possibly 'mobile' the new phrase to drop in assessment of challenges or opportunities is clearly 'big data'.

Quite why this is an opportunity though is sadly absent from this commentary.

Scott has neatly encapsulated the chunking of this percieved 'opportunity' thus...

1. Analyze data — preferably big data.
2. ???
3. Profit.
Huzzah!

The pesky bit in the middle is the bit that, for the most part, few have yet to approach a grasping distance.

Fortunately Brinkler outlines a potential 1-2-3 approach neatly.

1. Big Data. Collect and organize data to extract information and insight. This is the part that big data has to offer. But some of the most valuable output from such data analytics will be mere hypotheses — interesting correlations of factors and behaviors

2. Big Testing. Take those hypotheses and be able to quickly and effectively test them to prove cause-and-effect: that those factors can indeed be leveraged to influence customer behavior.

3. Big Experience. Apply your targeted data and proven tests towards delivering better customer experiences, to many different customer segments.


Read the full article here.

*note: the hapless CEO's are clearly subject to intuitizzle heuristics at this stage and as we all know, all heuristics are equal, but 'availablity' is more equal than others.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

intuitizzle heuristics

Now here's yesterday's Daniel Kahneman quote again - the one about pulling insights from one's own behaviour rather than looking for said insight in facts about things in general.

This time, however, I've copied the text from my original post after it had been through the gizoogle filter.

Somehow i prefer the new interpretation.

"Muthafuckas whoz ass is taught surprisin statistical facts bout human behavior may be impressed ta tha point of spittin some lyrics ta they playaz bout what tha fuck they have heard yo, but dis do not mean dat they understandin of tha ghetto has straight-up chizzled...

Da test...is whether yo' understandin of situations you encounter has chizzled, not whether you have hustled a freshly smoked up fact...

There be a thugged-out deep gap between our thankin bout statistics n' our thankin bout individual cases. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. Statistical thangs up in dis biatch wit a cold-ass lil causal interpretation gots a stronger effect on our thankin than noncausal deetz...

But even compellin causal statistics aint gonna chizzle long-held beliefs and beliefs rooted up in underground experience...

Yo ass is mo' likely ta learn somethang by findin surprises up in yo' own behavior than by hearin surprisin facts bout gangstas up in general".

Your turn. http://gizoogle.net