When is it right to experiment?

Would you let this man do it? Picture via jbcurio, usual rules apply.

As the last post on anti-social brands alluded to, my position on what brands should and shouldn't do is very much rooted in their history.

Ignoring history is, I think, a problem of the communications industry; it gives what's gone before a short shrift, always trying the newest and most exciting thing, which it claims is going to be the new and revolutionary approach to branding/thinking/marketing/life. This is perhaps unsurprising; agencies are founded and built on their thoughts and approaches - to always be seen to take the lead, so they can 'add value'.

Though it's a bit GCSE Business Studies, what's the damage of doing this? What benefits do you lose when you discard previous thinking? Recently, there's been a raft of new campaigns that fly in the face of the past 10/20 years of advertising. If all you're trying to do with your brand is ensure it's able to be 'remixed', I think you ignore an important point, that brands are founded on points of view - either superior product, or a thought about the world/marketplace they operate in.

That's not to say i'd try to stop brands from innovating, or from agencies from pitching the latest in content, but I would try to stop the relentless need for change that seems to have blighted the marketplace in the last ten years or so. Maybe it's got something to do with the speed of technological change, or the length of time Marketing Directors have in their job, or that agencies have become increasingly like magpies - only interested in the next shiny thing.

In fact, it's a funny thing. In a time where planners are obsessed with the psychology of loss aversion (the fear of losing something, a feeling that's so strong, people go out of their way to avoid having things taken away) it's surprising that we don't apply this thinking to marketing or advertising. Why aren't we more worried about brands trying to do away with our expertise? Agencies like being seen as cutting edge when they suggest it. But why don't they do away with this need? Why don't they man up, and point out the economic danger of playing with the brand, both for the client and the agency.

I think this is also wrapped up in the 'wisdom of crowds' (which, i'd suggest, is used improperly a lot of the time). Often, the masses have a confused opinion when aggregrated - as Jeremy Bullmore highlights. With that in mind, what hope have they of creating a coherent campaign? I'd rather one or two informed people's strong opinion shining through the work, and that opinion disseminated to their respective agency/client sides, so there's a sense that the brand's position doesn't get confused.

Wanting to be the rainmaker in your agency or industry is all well and good, but it's not always the right thing to do. Knowing when experimentation should happen, or how conversation can enable experiments - that's the mark of a top quality comms person.

I'm thinking of brands like Walkers, who took a commonly held truism (that their consumers all would like a specialised version of their products), asked the masses, and then aggregated it themselves. They didn't just blindly turn the brand's point of view and communications over to consumers. That would have flown in the face of their years of building a brand and product that is too good to share.

And, most importantly, I don't think most people can be bothered with it. I'm in complete agreement with Tom Ewing here. Walkers worked because people wanted to get involved, and there was a commonly held thought that people could come up with good flavours.

Participating in conversations about your brand, whether they are about politics, economics or culture is surely a good thing. I worry that the magpie within a lot of comms folk leads to people to getting involved in situations which aren't right for their brand/s.

Funny old thing, nostalgia...

What a cheeky chappy. Not as good a frontman as Liam, but still.

Like a lot of people, last weekend, I was at Glastonbury. Yes, I'm sure you're sick to the back teeth of hearing about it. Hell, I am, and I was there.

There's a point to this post, rather than shamelessly sticking it to those who weren't there. Chiefly, this; it was the first time in my life that a band (that I can actually remember, and know most of their music) that formed a major part of a musical movement, were reformed. I remember both incarnations.

It's not like the Smashing Pumpkins reforming. In truth, I was too young to properly remember the early Pumpkins - i'd have been about 6 when they first started making music.

No, Blur reforming and headlining on the Sunday was an odd experience for me. I was always more of an Oasis fan (they have two cracking albums, whereas, in my eyes, Blur have none, though they are a great singles band), and in all honesty, was keen to see Blur, but just as excited to have seen the Dead Weather earlier in the weekend, as well as Neil Young (who was the unquestioned highlight of the weekend for me).

And, looking back as the week went on, I failed to understand just what it was that led to such a mass outpouring of nostalgia for Blur. I mean, they've only not been recording for 6 years. Add to that Damon Albarn's faux emotion at Glastonbury; I thought it smacked of a cash in.

I could fully understand the Neil Young fans cheering wildly when he played stuff from Harvest. I mean, imagine finally seeing your hero at Glasto (he'd never played there in his 40+ year career) playing songs from his most successful album. Absolutely brilliant.

But then, I thought about it some more. Do I think that because I wasn't around then? Do my incredibly rose-tinted notions about the 60's and 70's entirely colour my beliefs about Neil Young?

I reckon they do. I lived through Britpop, and to me, Blur were a good band. But then, so were the Bluetones and Supergrass, and they weren't still headlining (though not having split up probably has a large part to do with it) Glastonbury. They also weren't seen to have begun the movement, as Blur were.

But my memories remain - Britpop, for me, doesn't really feature Blur. It's all about Oasis, about Definitely Maybe, about playing and watching football, about What's The Story and knowing all the words to do, about discovering the Stone Roses after, about knowing the day it died (somewhere between Urban Hymns and the Spice Girls, in truth). I dislike what's been seem to be a reframing of a musical movement that I was a part of. Hell, I base getting old on whether people I talk to can remember What's The Story. If they were born late 80s or early 90s, they probably don't, and fuck me, does that make me feel like i'm getting old.

Interestingly though (especially given the ranty nature of the previous post), when you look at the etymology of the word nostalgia, it comes from the combination of two Greek words (nostos a return home and algios pain). It's not necessarily a particularly positive thing.

Listening to Blur DID bring on feelings of nostalgia for me - for what i've just outlined. And (God, I KNEW a smattering of Godin-like tendencies would creep in...sorry) it also made me think about the heavy reliance a lot of brands have on nostalgia.

Why would you willingly induce nostalgia if it can provoke such sadness? I know sadness can sell, but God, it's not a long term position. Memories get fuzzy, worn and replaced (I'm sure in ten or twenty years time, I'll believe Blur were one of the better Britpop bands). So then can the point of certain brands, unless they keep providing me with new experiences to show how they fit into my life now.

Blur stopped being relevant to me after 1997. And so did a lot of brands.

Conflict & Brands..

Get your brand to do this.

It's been a while since I decided to share a few cheeky pearls of wisdom (!) with my wider audience.

And hell, I've decided to share it on the topic of fighting. Yes, having a bloody good scrap. Too much planning is passive, quiet and muted, keen to step quietly into the night.

Great planning (and great brand ideas) are all about conflict. How it's resolved - and how the monster can be slain. Hat tip to Adam Morgan for the thought about Monsters, picked up after going to Wednesday's IPA Fast Strategy conference.

So have a butchers. You might have to view full screen to see some of the smaller type...Let me know what you think:

Conflict & Brands

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own.

Not a load of old cobblers..

Nice boots. But could they be jazzed up a bit?

I've long been a fan of brands which have a real historical factor, and are constantly seeking to innovate. Penguin, Kodak and Guinness, to name but a few.

And I believe Dr Martens fall into this category. As they put it on their site, "No other ‘brand’ has been mutated, customised, fucked up and freaked out like DM’s. Without asking or being able to stop it."

Now, a lot of brands over a certain age try to assert their historical, 'we were first' credentials. And a statement like the one above looks like puffery if you aren't careful. So, it is nice to see them actually walking the walk (not an intentional pun, I promise), and actually giving the masses something to play with.

A contemporary classic is what, I'd imagine, the likes of Converse and Vans are constantly trying to achieve. Where those brands differ from Dr Martens, for me (as an innocent shoe bystander with no real loyalty to any of them, to be honest), is that they aren't regarded as having the ability to last. Dr Martens, as a brand, and as a shoe, can actually make assertions like the one above because I would imagine (in the event of any post apocalyptic landscape) that Doc Martens will still be about. Not quite so convinced by t'others.

Annnyway, all of that waffle leads me to a site which some friends of mine have designed for DM.

Yes, you can make a design for a boot, which will be available in DM shops worldwide, and you'll receive a thousand pounds for your trouble. I like these kind of campaigns. Especially when I'm guaranteed to win the money:

I'm not sure if ANYONE can beat that bad boy, but if you think you could do better, go here..

Nina, Lauren, Tom LR, Ben, Smithy - I expect submissions. With pictures, just like mine..go on. If you are interested, join the Facebook group here.

Surprise me..

Picture is Walsh_Kelley's. Usual rules apply to this one.

I miss being a little child sometimes.

Christmas was always more fun when you didn't really ask for what you wanted, when Santa was coming down the chimney, and when (or so it seems for me), your imagination was seemingly unlimited.

And I think that it's these things which we are in danger of losing as people. We bemoan kids growing up quickly, but do we really do anything about it? Not really. Quite happy for 18 rated movies to be slightly edited and stuck on at 8pm.

And it makes me sad. Life's no fun if everything is grim reality.

But surprises aren't always fun for some people. Like the recent Innocent and McDonalds posting, which riled an awful lot of people - and let's be fair, some of the comments were bloody stupid.

But the surprise that Innocent is (shock!) an actual business, that exists to make profits has surprised people somehow - and partnering with the 'great Satan' has bemused quite a few people.

To me, the trial makes sense - why not see if kids will get their fruit via McDonalds? It'd improve their diets and so forth. At least McDonalds has shown some desire to change, and I think Innocent have realised this - and good for them.

If it stops people trying to make their own (though my flat mate's weren't bad in fairness), it's probably a good thing:



Anyway, like I say, not all surprises are a good thing - you lose some of your child like behaviour, and grow up a little. But I don't think Innocent have lost their voice, betrayed their principles or any other such nonsense. I think they genuinely want to help improve the world in their own way, and I see trialing their smoothies at McDonalds as a natural step. But, it would seem, not everyone does.

Hopefully they haven't lost enough of their sense of humour to find this funny (click on the pic to see it full size):



And before this post gets too long and too rambly (too late), I've got to say that it would do more brands good to do what Innocent have just done. Dip your toe in new areas, surprise us all. God knows that branded entertainment, digital, ATL and all the channels allow you more opportunity to do this than ever before. So use them.

Here endeth my soapbox posting.

Have a good weekend all - I'm going back to sunny Worcestershire, and may walk along this beaut:

Thanks to HoughtonAbout (usual policy applies)

I just can't get you out of my head..

La la la..la lala.. lalala la la la...

Ever have one of those days where you simply can't get a tune out of your head? I've had one today with this tune.

I tell you, it makes the days at my temp job fly by. Tomorrow, it'll be 'Do you know the way to San Jose', despite the fact I only know one line.

But why do these tunes stick in my head, and others don't? Yes, you've guessed it, it's because of simplicity.

I remember the very simple tunes (with the exception of Bohemian Rhapsody) and the oddly catchy melodies. There is something in this. People remember complex stuff when they are determined to listen to this.

I've probably watched one Banana Splits episode in my life, yet I know the theme music because it's simple and catchy. Similarly, I've knowingly bought the Economist maybe twice in my life, but I sure know about the advertising and respect the brand because of its comms and brand presence.