I have no idea what you are talking about.....

I've been after an excuse to post that for ages.

Being an ex-English student, I know a little about words. How they can illuminate, beguile, inform and (perhaps most importantly) thoroughly thoroughly confuse people. (Anyone who has ever sat through a Postmodernism or Structuralism lecture knows what I'm talking about).

And it's this last point I wanted to blog about today. Yes, it's time for me to take my spelling Nazi hat off and put the language Nazi hat on.

More specifically, in house language - that is to say, how ad agencies/marketeers talk internally (sparked by reading this article co-written by Gareth Kay).

These days, it seems that both parties have borrowed a turn of phrase from the masters of bullshit. Yes, the management consultant. I've heard the following at various places:

'How can we best incentivise the consumer to purchase the variant?'

'We really need to drill down into this problem'

'So how can we own the sector?'

'All I want.....is to break down the underlying paradigm'

Nonsense, isn't it?

How in God's name can we hope to understand real people if we talk in such a bloody stupid manner?

The brilliant Dilbert. Usual rules apply.

Don't worry, this disease isn't that wide spread...yet. That said, I don't want to have to break out the bullshit bingo cards (which we actually did in a former, non advertising job of mine) if I can help it.

And while I'm not wholly convinced by the notion of not calling consumers consumers (in fact, any term you give them won't cover all the bases if you are referring to people who buy your product or service) or not referring to 'brand' because it's been exhausted, there's definitely room in the industry for being as straightforward when talking internally.

Planners, I think (and yes, I include myself in this camp) are incredibly culpable, if they let their heads get away from them. As Rob notes, spending time with just planners isn't healthy - not saying that they aren't lovely, but you lose touch with people who a) don't live in London and b) don't obsess/care about brands and branding. It's a defence mechanism, but one which should be shed - I would hate to be carted out as a planning stereotype, the 'clever one' who is brought in to sprinkle a little intellectual fairy dust on things. And it's not going to happen, if I can help it. I'm going to be straight forward.

Indeed, language is why I like these sites. Both make you acutely aware of the fallacies of misusing words and generally being out of touch with reality.

And yes, there are times that a complex, multi-faceted word has to be used. But if it doesn't, pay attention to Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. Speak to me in a language which is used by normal people, and cut out the unneccessary verbosity.

I think the best advertisers and marketeers instinctively get this, and realise that language doesn't have to err on the over-simplistic side; if used correctly, it can create worlds in people's minds. And surely that's what we all want?

NB: The bunny comes from a random story. Check it out. It's bloody interesting.

The more you know, the funnier it is/The Birth of Easter Egg Advertising...

I've got a confession to make. I'm shallow.

x

I love quick, pithy statements. I prefer reading Stephen King to Jane Austen or Dickens. I prefer playing football than sitting down to play chess. My dissertation appeared to be a fusion of two wordy texts (Hobbes's Leviathan & Milton's Paradise Lost), but it was really inspired by two Nick Cave songs ('Red Right Hand' & 'Song of Joy').

But my redeeming feature is that I LOVE complex things which appear to be simple. Whether it's a book, a song or a person, I find them far more compelling.

Now, this 'knowing a little bit about a lot' is happily quite useful in some circumstances; I'm damn good at pub quizzes and hopefully this will be useful in my future employment.

Yes... getting to a vague point now. The picture is of the first book in the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett. I love the series, if only because they are like episodes of the Simpsons. The more you know about literature/life in general, the more you get them. Take Wyrd Sisters. If you've not read Macbeth, a lot of it will be lost on you.

To be able to relay a deeper message in your apparently simple approach is a great talent, even if it's not immediately realised. Thinking about it, I suppose this is why so many people love Damien Hirst/Tracy Emin, because the viewer believes they HAVE to fill in the gaps with their thinking.

Anyway, to do a Godin on this post, the relevance the likes of Pratchett, the Arctic Monkeys or modern art have to do with comms is that any message relayed has to increasingly work on a more deep seated level, to get you to think about it afterwards. Yes, even the latest Burger King TV work - which got banned, so evidently someone took something away from it.

I think this resonates with Henry Jenkins/Faris Yakob's ideas about transmedia planning. Give me a dialogue that rewards me for spending time with it, yet doesn't confuse me at first point of contact, and I'll keep interacting. Actual brand channels would appear to be forms of this, but I do wonder if it'll ever be completely accepted and not sneered at. However, I have a theory.

Where I differ with some thinking that is common to at least one major agency is that a brand will ever be able to do the true 360 degree immersion. Russell's post about the size of brands seems to illustrate far more neatly than anything else I've seen. People just don't care about brands enough to engage with every touch point.

(N.B: Photo belongs to Pgilliver - let me know if you want me to take it down)

But...that's not to say, in the computer game parlance, if you give them easter eggs - hidden little nuggets of information or rewards (and the clues to find them) they won't try to find them. Whilst in reality brands pale into significance when compared to real emotional things (unlike what some agencies will have you believe), people enjoy feeling clever - so give them it. Or entertain. Whichever.

If brands can do either, then true comms effectiveness will be found. However, I think the former, that of playing on the consumer's need to find out and discover will be more successful. Especially for major ATL communication campaigns with massive spends.

Seeing as ad blogs seem to bring theories to light, I'll dub this my 'Easter Egg Advertising' theory. People like surprises, and (especially in the case of Generation Y) are used to finding out new, hidden depths to things.

I think hiding things away for discovery will become more prevalent as technology continues to march on and overlap. It ties in nicely with Ogilvy's own quote - 'The consumer is not a moron. She is your wife'.