The Great Integration Myth...?

How it should be?

You hear a lot of chat about the importance of being integrated. About how, when all the bits are working together, communication seems to be a lot better. Reading the IPA DataBank backs this up too - when there are 3 or 4 channels, client money tends to work an awful lot harder.

So really, using a myriad of channels isn't in question. However, what that doesn't tend to address is the overlap. It's tricky, because most agencies believe they can do just as well as the others at brand building, at social media (because, let's be honest, isn't all media social in some way?) and at generating 'buzz'.

And who should lead? The ad agency? The PR agency? The digital agency? Media? Should it be divvied up by the activity the client wants to perform, or should people work together and decide who gets the lion's share of the budget?

The problem comes when one agency is clearly the generator of the idea and strategy, and yet, executionally, won't get monetised for making it. What value an idea, and so on - it seems to me why a lot of bright brand consultancies don't last that long, because billing for an idea is like nailing jelly to a wall. It just won't stick.

It gets even more complicated when there's one holding company, with each agency having its own bottom line. And it got me thinking - why don't clients make it quite clear about what channel/s they want to use, and pay for an overall 'organising' agency - the agency which is going to provide the strategic glue to hold it together?

Without this payment, you just get a boatload of activities which either don't correspond, or don't work as hard as they should, as agencies are fighting for their own slice of the pie. And it tends to be woefully short termist. If it were me, I'd reserve 20/30% of the budget to adapt the thinking as the campaign goes on, to be spent refining after the work has been responded to by your audience. That part of the budget would be left as money for the strategic partner to assign to a channel as the campaign continues on; after six months, say.

This thought isn't perfect, I admit. But it's clear that the one stop shop is yet to wholly bear fruit (although there are examples out there - VCCP's integration of digital/search/PR and ATL work has worked well for several clients, it'd seem), and this 'come up with an idea' approach by some clients leads to a bunfight a lot of the time.

Thoughts, gang?

Reason to believe?

Tastes like piss, or so i'm told. Picture from PreciousKitty, usual rules apply.

I'm beginning to think that if any organisation gets to a certain size, it has to invent jobs for the boys. That is, those people who don't really have 'proper' jobs, save producing the rather lovely vintage above.

I'm talking about brewing up a healthy bottle or two of jargon. Needless, pointless, bollocks talk. It'd seem that those who work in communications have come down with a particularly large measure of it. Words and phrases which really mean nothing.

Let's look at that old favourite, 'Reason to believe', or RTB for short. RTB? I mean, come on. It's phrase you'd never even contemplate if you thought about it. It implies that there is one universal reason why people buy a particular product/service or brand. If it's a value brand, the RTB MUST be price. That's horseshit. Sometimes it's because people, shockingly, prefer the taste or convenience.

RTB is a terrible word as well, because it assumes oh so much. It's a lazy shorthand for people who can't be fucked to research things properly, or realise that circumstances and attitudes may have changed. It's a monolithic expression, which should be consigned to the 1950s.

Another wonderful term is 'social media'. I've already ranted about this earlier, so i'll leave it alone, if only to say one thing - all media is social. Yes, even press. It's such a wide ranging term as to be utterly useless.

Let's have a look at another term which needs to be consigned to the dustbin. This one's one of Sam and Eaon's least favourite terms. Yep, it's a 'viral'.

For something to be viral, it has to be spread around. To call something a viral and assume it's going to spread is hugely naive. Until it does, what you want, dear agency or client, is a short film that you hope people will watch. Mostly, these aren't pieces of branded film. Nope, they're things like Keyboard Cat (click the first video, it is a JOY).

Let's have one from Cluetrain (much as I agree with lots of it), shall we? Yes, the prosumer. Like any frankenword (an unholy combination between two words which really shouldn't ever be brought together), it deserves to beaten like the red headed stepchild it is.

Dissecting it (as the wikipedia article does), prosumer could have multiple meanings. However, the one most commonly arrived on by comms folk is to suggest that it's a proactive consumer, who can now self publish, and will change the world. Have these people done any groups with people (you know, those people who you sell, yes SELL stuff to) in the last six months? Or ever been in the pub and talked to their mates?

I'd bet most people who don't live in the comms industry bubble aren't fucked when it comes to self publishing, much less behave like prosumers. Your average punter may take matters into his or her own hands now and then, but that doesn't mean they can operate as a separate segment. People are motivated by their own ends, and more often than not, that has the square root of fuck all to do with publishing stuff on the internet.

Judge people by how they have behaved, but to assume people will become or are prosumers because of past behaviour is a fucking nonsense. Research only tells you what's gone before, after all - people are motivated by a variety of things; by their own situation, by the environment around them - and God knows, most are passive. It's why telly ads won't die off, or the printed word.

There's one underlying theme with all of these words. They are damned assumptive. Lazy shorthand for not putting the hours in. Using them means you can easily dismiss certain options, or suggest things because they ARE the RTB for our prosumers, who are engaged by social media, especially virals (!)

Nonsense. If you work in communications, and pride yourself on the ability to be able to speak directly to your audience (I don't have a problem with the term target audience, but that's another post), why the fuck would you use words like that? If you can't communicate internally or to your clients, what hope do you have of communicating to punters?

The next post will be less ranty. Promise. It may even be about Glastonbury, though i'm sure you're all bored of that by now.

Global Shouldn't Mean Good Enough...

It's a cheeky globe. Look at it there.

Hello hello. Not written anything for a little while, but I thought I should.

Working for a very big network agency with quite a lot of worldwide business, I come across all sorts of brands every day, ones i've never heard of, and may never work on ever again, due to some of the obscure markets we work in.

This has some tremendous benefits - you get to work with and observe consumers of nationalities you don't know a great deal about, and deal with markets you really don't know anything about. So it's a great learning experience.

That said, it's also hugely daunting; who am I to say or judge what housewives in Russia will look for in a deodorant or a bleach? And you do begin to realise that no-one really knows much about certain markets and segments - it's amazing really, but there's a damn good reason why they're called emerging markets.

One thing that working here HAS taught me, having worked on the odd global campaign or two...is just how much harder it is to sell really good work globally. Sure, you can sell 'nice' or 'good enough' work. But that's not why I got into the business, and surely not what most people wanted to either; nor work on clients where all you do is adapt, adapt, adapt the work.

And it makes you appreciate things - like just how good an idea has to be to work across each market, and how very good the whole network has to be to get each networked agency (because, God knows, sometimes the biggest problem is making the decision about which agency does what) singing from the same hymn sheet.

No, I wanted to write this post to talk about how, because there is such a fight, and because there are so many more people the work has to be sold to (unlike nice, straightforward domestic work, which basically has a Marketing Director and his or her wishes) - 'good enough' is presented as the right way a lot of the time.

And i'm tired of 'global' being used as an excuse for the work being crap. So that difficult Portugese client won't buy the work? So craft something which'll appeal to him or her. Don't just sit back and let the final hurdle bugger all of the work. Frankly, i'm tired of lowest common denominator work selling.

I'm chuffed that thinking like 'When a baby is born, so is a mother', 'Dirt is good' and 'The world's local bank' survive. But these are too much in the minority. And if advertising's becoming more worldwide, there's never been more of a need to stop thinking of global as another swearword (next to 'client') and as a reason why the work didn't sell. The work didn't sell because the agency didn't do enough.

Attitude Not Audience...

'Tank man' standing up for what he believed in.

I am in the midst of trying to gather information and write an APG paper for work I helped plan in the last year or so. We've got what I think is an interesting angle on the business problem, and how we tried to treat the audience, which is good. It's something which i've tried to do across all of my briefs and any business problem I have looked at in the last year or so.

So, I thought to help better flesh out what I mean, I might as well blog some of the general thinking in my mind before it's submitted. I'm sure a lot of it will seem as obvious to a lot of people, but I wanted to note it down.

After cocking a squint at JWT's Planning Begins at 40, a celebration/look to the future of the discipline (watch the videos, they're good), I was struck by just how many folk called for a fusion between old school data collection - quant, qual and all of the above - and new school, digitally led, adaptable, creatively and intuitively led thinking.

Rather like this word document on what's next for planning, provided by the APG (I think Russell wrote it, but I'm not sure, it's not attributed), it all seemed to call for planning to be more adaptive, to help clients not be so short termist and to not get stuck in the sheet music approach to planning and strategy that many practice - to tick boxes and make things fit at all costs.

And, I'd suggest there's still a problem between the more formulaic approaches of the old (which seem to lead certain clients easily to box ticking) and the new style (which still can't adequately be quantified, or obviously led back to ROI).

I have been told in the past to not get too focused on target audience, for that way leads to generic ads (ads about togetherness for main shopper mums, anyone?). However, what if we went one step further?

In a world where target audience definitions can't really be trusted, regardless of what segmentation data tells you - because things are moving too fast on and offline with the changeable economy, the digitisation of content and the exorable rise and rise of opinion being able to destroy brands and new product launches (witness Stephen Fry and the Blackberry debacle - I'm not sure i've met anyone who owns an iPhone, for example, who wasn't aware of this before they chose it), is it wise to rely on it in any way shape or form?

Yes, your client will tell you (or the media agency's crafted TGI, in my experience) that buyers are ABC1's who live in the South East, are University educated and are 'heavy users' of the internet. But then, next month Hitwise will tell you that your supposed technologically savvy audience are outstripped by a far older demographic than you thought, who upload more and interact more with the brand's channel.

So don't stop at the target audience. Build on it.

I'm suggesting we remove the target audience box, and replace it instead with attitude:

What attitude are we trying to convey?

It's NOT tone of voice, though that is important to the work. Witness APG papers like the Coke Side of Life from 2007 - which worked hard to work to discover an attitude, used research on and offline to establish where that attitude is shared, and targeted those people. It's a long term, targeted approach. Far better to use sniper bullets than tommy gun fire in this instance.

Interestingly, at the planning event, Jon Steel quoted an something that Stephen King said about "the end being a certain state of mind in the potential buyer". I'm suggesting we move straight to the state of mind - we tie ourselves to not just a point of view (which is static), but a attitude, which is fluid, and able to adapt and have a point of view about various news/economic/consumer responses.

I'm hypothesising, but what if, say, Blackberry's attitude was one of convenience - allying itself with those people who wanted the easiest access to email, and didn't want the inconvenience of a battery poor phone, nor the latest bells and whistles? Their PR strategy writes itself from this, and they could have batted off Stephen Fry's assertations - his attitude would never ever have allied with this.

I think it's capable of marrying old and new styles of planning. You have to undertake research to help discover who buys into this attitude, finding out your audience (which may change over time) - but you don't arrive at it, necessarily, from a static process of researching ads. You do hard yards with the consumer, segment, look at historic data and pay a lot more attention to discovering just what attitude the majority of consumers would like your brand to have. It should be the definitive approach to the communication, and work should flow from it. Circumstances may change, but attitudes don't easily.

Crucially, it's not a short termist approach; it doesn't just latch on to what's cool and trendy this week, month or year. I think prevailing brand attitudes are best arrived at through detailed ethanography, from the company itself or a combination of the two - this leads to a fluid, culture centric approach in both cases.

And you could perhaps use the 'attitude' approach when performing NPD - it lends itself to more purposeful thinking than just a straight segmentation, for who knows how they'll react to a new product and a new environment? Importantly, it can bear in mind the cultural mindset, but doesn't kow-tow to it in the same way just using a target audience might.

I'm aware this thinking could come across as a little woolly, but by using something like NPS, by factoring out things like price increases, and using prevailing attitudes that don't tend to change regardless of context, you'd have a way of quantifying just what the work's done. I like to use year on year market share as a first step to answering whether the activity has worked and qualifying its effectiveness.

Anyway, that was my random twaddle for the day. Let me know what you think.

Coffee Morning Anyone?

How I like the stuff.

Just thought I should point out to any readers of mine - I'm hosting a monthly coffee morning because I miss the chat of the last lot which Russell began.

The first is taking place at Lantana on Friday 13th (eek) of February. Their lovely blog is here, Scrambling Eggs. You can find out more details about it on the Facebook event page, or on the general Coffee Morning group.

It'd be good to see you there. It may get a bit plannerly, but hey - that's not always a bad thing.

Semantics, Recession and Merging..

Really is as simple as that. Picture via Torkveen, usual rules apply.

Hello.

That meme thing has prompted me to write something proper. That's right, with real grammar and punctuation. Maybe even with some proper spelling. WARNING: There'll definitely be some ranting.

Like almost every person in an agency environment (whether it be PR, Digital, Advertising or Meeja), I've been asked a lot of questions about recession and the nature of it - and for any useful case studies (all of which is vaguely useless, as every recession will be markedly different from the last one - it's like asking someone to compare each grain of sand on a beach).

Ogilvy have had a stab at it, and I applaud them for their efforts. It saves me a job, at any rate, which is always welcome. However, when your clients may well go bust tomorrow, they don't really worry about that - more about whether the EU will follow America's lead. It puts status meetings and fucking stupid brand onions into context.

Of course, a lot of people view this recession as the door being opened for those who are entrepreneurial and future facing. And in both PR and Advertising, a strange beast has arisen. One that claims to be digital, ad focused and interested in 'talkability' and 'advocacy', those two buzzwords which have been comfortably powering the internet and comms in general since before Altavista stopped being the dominant browser.

I'm talking, of course, about the Social Media Agency. It's a bit of a hydra in the world of communications. While I'm a fully paid up believer in the power of social media, and of an overall communications agency, I have a bit of an issue with the term and the agencies I've seen.

First of all - surely every successful piece of communications should aim at advocacy, and achieve it, either subliminally (low involvement processing, anyone?) or actively through talking and recommending it to people.

Communication is inherently social. Duh. Otherwise it wouldn't be communication. As Mark has repeatedly emphasised, we're social animals.

So with this in mind, let's pick apart what a social media offers other than this. From what I can see (and I've been contacted by one or two through this blog), it amounts to emailing bloggers to ask them whether they'd consider writing about the next big ad/product/event that's going on.

Again - isn't that the job of the shoddy PR agency that hasn't done its homework? What some try to sell as 'Digital PR'? Or some gimp in an Ad agency who doesn't know what he's doing?

Ok, so that doesn't wash. Let's have another think. Oh yes, mastery of the latest social media techniques and software. Err, right. I work for what some outside observers would call a 'traditional' ad agency, yet I know what's going on in new launches....the failure of Pownce, the usefulness of Remember The Milk or how Last.FM's new menu doesn't seem as user friendly as the last one. And as for the software point - WTF? The whole POINT of social media is that it's easy to use, and EVERYONE can use it....

Right. Maybe some love can be found in measurement. Last time I checked, no-one (even you, NPS, much as you're not too bad) had found a golden metric which goes all the way through, nor judges which part of the mix was the most useful. Social media metrics are notoriously ropey as well - so a lot of people signed up online. And? Did sales increase? That last question buggers most.

So really, on the face of it - most of this is either already done by the PR, Advertising, Media or Digital agency...who each have specialisms of their own.

Come on then Social Media Agencies; either call yourself communications agencies or do something which can't be done. I don't see evidence of the latter at the moment. I wonder, with the recession, whether they'll prosper - as clients need to compartmentalise spend, will it make more sense to give them little bits of budget to ring fence as their own, or will they all get truly fucked by the other agencies? Something's got to give.

My true rage is at the term, in all honesty. There are good agencies who call themselves 'Social Media', and do get digital comms and advertising. But to claim yourself as masters of the conversation is the height of arrogance. That's like me blindly assuming my consumer on a well known American car brand is a Texan cowboy and nothing else, who'll buy out of habit. Misguided and foolish, really.

I think JC makes a good point on this topic. The Digital and Analogue argument must definitely die. As he puts it: "the big winners will be those who can mix the proven strengths of the old with the innovation of the new. The ability to deliver that double-whammy will be the only thing worth measuring." Damn straight. And the 'new' Social Media agencies haven't done this. Yet.

Resolution Taggage..

Not mine. Though I like 1 and the last statement. Via Gillian. Usual rules apply.

I've been tagged again in one of those meme things. (Have actually been tagged in 3 odd, but sod it, this'll answer them all, hopefully) by Nick.

So then, shall I answer this personally, or about work? Ah, I'll do both. Starting with worky stuff...

1) Write an APG Paper. If I was entirely honest with myself, i'm not as left brained as i'd like to be. So, being commended by Marketing Week for an effectiveness paper I cowrote for one of my clients was very pleasing. So, I need to get one out for the APG, and I have an idea of what it might be, if the project moves quickly enough...

2) Get back into the habit of writing strategic 'sentences'. One of the things I used to do at United, which I've not really done at Lowe, was to pick a random brand, have a think about what their business or category problem was, write their brand position, their promise, and the brand idea arising for that. NOT a proposition, it could serve as an endline, or just a tone of voice for the brand to think about. It was all Richard's doing, and I really liked it. I had moleskines full of these, and they were always good for getting the juices going.

3) Do one cultural thing a week. Whether it's the Saatchi Gallery across the way, or the Tate, I need to keep expanding my mind. I'm not much of a scrapbook person, but getting as many different experiences as possible is always a good thing. Likewise, I went to the Nutcracker recently and loved it - I should try to see more ballet this year.

4) Continue to think beyond advertising. It's oh so easy to think, working for an ad agency which has such a good reputation in creating big, largely TV led campaigns, that that's what we should be doing. Unquestionably good for a lighthouse effect, it's not always the right idea, no matter what overzealous clients/media agencies/agency teams think. We've bought a stake in a new digital agency, have some interest in PR, and I think the future's bright. No excuse, really. :)

5) Continue to develop AdGrads. We've built a great community, have been chuffed to have the support of BrandRepublic and others, and to have met some really cool folks along the way. We'd relish the opportunity to speak at a few Universities, to link up with some programmes abroad (such as VCU et al) and to continue to be as useful as possible. We're in this because we think advertising (and comms in general) needs to improve its recruitment policy; especially if it wants to remain competitive in the long run.

6) Not become a comms wanker. Sometimes this one is harder than it seems - but damned if i'm going to suggest media ideas which are just London focused, use bullshit bingo terms, pretend the south east is the centre of the world (or the UK ad scene, for that matter) or swallow new trends hook line and sinker. I may sound like a Surrey schoolboy, but not talking (too much) bollocks is part of my Midlander USP. ;)

Now for some 'others':

1) Write more. And by that, I don't mean blogging. I mean begin to write fiction again. I've got a lovely new place, and when I've bought a good writing desk (suggestions, anyone?), I should really write more. Being by the Thames will help, I think. I find water very inspiring (as opposed to the grimy nature of Old St), and I have no excuses now.

2) Get back into the habit of gyming. I play 5-a-side football once a week, but it's not enough. I don't particularly want to look like Daniel Craig, just less like an elastic band.

3) Start playing golf again. It's expensive, it's time consuming, it drives me insane and makes me angry, but I love it. I hear there's a course in Dulwich, and a range in Croydon. Will be sampling both soon enough...

4) Attempt to play an instrument (guitar probably). Not Guitar Hero, but I'd love to learn to play something. And not annoy my flatmates. No idea if I have any talent, but i've always been told I have the fingers of a pianist, so I should learn something, just to see if they help...

5) Save more cash. Setting myself up in my new flat/going to Oz (post forthcoming on that bad boy) hasn't helped, but putting some money away for a house/flat is probably a good idea. That, or winning the lottery...

Phew. I tag Seb, Nina, Lauren, Angus and Sammy I.

Stop what you are doing...

The great man himself. Antonio Damasio. Hero.

Those of you who read my twitter or blip stream (thanks to Iain for pointing the latter out, it's great) will know I've been on my hollybobs for a little while.

But, in addition to brushing up on my Hemingway (Moveable Feast is a great read - should really have a butchers at some more of his work; not quite sure why I haven't yet), I've done a classic plannerly thing.

Yes, that's right, not being content with the typical holiday reading, I thought I might try my hand at some of the more planner-centric texts which are doing the rounds at the moment. The first was me finally reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb's 'Black Swan'. I can understand why so many planners and people within comms are so fascinated by it; for someone (who was a former head of deratives/a very talented mathematician/philosopher - a polymath in the true sense of the word) to come out and criticise how much we think we know, and how, in his terms, 'Platonicity', is a mistake.

Essentially, through a series of case studies, Taleb dismisses the idea that the world is so straightforward, so easily quantifiable as we'd like it to be, and this blinds us from ever considering extreme random acts (the Popper inspired 'Black Swans'). It's very interesting, and I liked the bits about fractals (images which appear solid, but when looked at closely, are actually entirely different) and his belief in Benoit Mandelbrot to show the way - have a look at this:



Pretty amazing, eh? Makes you more aware of what you do, and how post-rationalisation seems to be just as bunk as, privately, people believed it is.

Anyway, I digress. On with the subject of the nice chap in the first photo. Mr Damasio, to be precise. I was alerted to him after reading Paul Feldwick's piece on 'Fifty Years Using The Wrong Model of Advertising', as he had some interesting things to say about Damasio there.

Namely, that he doesn't separate rational thought from emotional responses. The title of his book (Descartes' Error) was a bit of a giveaway, but yes, given his background in neurology, he uses a lot of examples to explain it to the average layman. It's not quite so user friendly as Taleb's book, but when he chooses to focus on some of the case studies (Phineas Gage is particularly fascinating), the book gets really interesting.

It helps to make sense of why certain patients with certain types of brain damage can seem to be just fine mentally, but in fact have their personalities change as they get older and develop. Interestingly, he raises the notion that parts of the brain work in conjunction with each other, so this can happen.

A good summary is below (it's not Damasio speaking - not sure who, but it's interesting):




And as to how this relates to the planning day job (or indeed, how both of them do). Well, bluntly, both argue for more emotional appeals to people, as their emotions (and subsequent randomness) are commonplace. Far more than all the people in all the groups in all the brands you'll ever work on. We should be producing work that stirs people into thinking with their heads and their hearts at the same time (because it's what they do).

So yes, bloody useful (if complicated) fodder for the day job. If you're in the least bit interested in what makes people tick (and can stand the self-righteousness of Taleb), read 'em both. Now...

What do I have to know?

A Hungarian chap looking pensive. Cheers Gaby/Crumplestiltskin.

There's a very real trait in the planning world to gaze, thoughtfully, at one's navel for what seems like a very long time. And I'm just as guilty as most when it comes to this. Sitting around and not doing quite what I should be doing, thinking about the consequences far ahead of the actual event. Which, in itself, can be hugely paralyzing. And not that useful.

Most of this lies in the economic uncertainty that most readers will be familiar with (if you aren't, stop reading this blog immediately and go and have a look at the FT, or the Beeb) - bluntly, wondering what the advertising world is likely to look like when it all hits in the next 6 months to a year. Whether this'll increase the fragmentation of the entire communication industry, and help speed it up (privately, I think it will, and I bet we'll see a rise in the number of 'communications agencies' who used to be PR/Advertising/Integrated shops).

So, this leads me to wonder just what skills will actually be of use in the next five to ten years. God knows, skills like rigorous analysis of data (whether it's qual/quant or otherwise) will still be of interest. And so will creative (though, again, whether we'll have more designers, people who know how to actually make things, and web ninjas.

Part of the nature of most planners, I think, is to want to know more about anything and everything. Turning this off is often quite difficult, especially when you are trying to balance much-needed reductive behaviour with your desire to open 15 tabs, and 5 of them are work related - the other 10 are open because you, like the net equivalent of collecting bits of string, think 'it'll be useful'.

I was having a very interesting conversation the other day with Jon Leach (formerly planning supremo of HHCL, now head of planning at Chime), about the nature of conversations, and how a lot (particularly ad agencies) of comms agencies don't wish to engage with the conversations that're going on around them, and how so many of them are pretty bad at engaging the general public/promoting themselves. And this, in short, can turn out to be death. Track your conversations - don't worry about squeezing out another 30 second spot which either won't engage or will be ignored by the general public. I'm reminded of this quote from his blog:

"If you had the choice of bringing your friends or your books to a desert island, we'd call you a sociopath if you took the books over the breathing humans. Yes, track the content, but if you don’t track the conversation then you’re missing the main story.If you had the choice of bringing your friends or your books to a desert island, we'd call you a sociopath if you took the books over the breathing humans. Yes, track the content, but if you don’t track the conversation then you’re missing the main story."

Contrary to this is the current situation though - those agencies that're doing well at the moment concentrate on their own disciplines, to become true specialists, rather than being creative generalists.

So it leads you back to the central thought - what do I have to know? Should I forsake a rigorous approach to data in favour of keeping an eye on conversations about my brand? Can I do both? Is the concept of 'T Shaped people' the only way to keep a handle on what people should learn - namely, take an avenue you think you know the most about/want to learn about, and explore it fully, without keeping your mind of the notion of other items of importance? Is the job title, as a result of this, effectively redundant?

It's amusing; I've been calling myself a 'plannerger' at work, because I am involved with a few basic account management things, and don't mind ever increasing amounts of client contact. But this, I think, may dilute my abilities as a planner (and I do believe each planner falls into either a creative or business focused role - dependent on how your mind is geared). I suppose the overall question is this: What part of your brain will be neglected (and necessarily so, to keep all of your marbles)?

Again, it ties into the question of whether google is making us smarter, or stupider (read the comments, especially the one about intensifying your personality). I think it leads to a tendancy to be a little bit more lazy, definitely - less interested in the search, and what you'll find out along the way.

And I don't want to be this lazy, technology dominated person. I want to be challenged, and learn 'what I have to know' along the way. It comes back to the notion of using a team of planners on a piece of business, or just coupling two people when trying to solve a problem - preferably with complementary skills, as each person will have an ability to 'fill in the gaps' with the other. Of course, also to keep your eyes open for any potential black swan - allowing the role of serendipity to enter your life.

So tell me, humble reader - what do you, regardless of experience in your role, think you'll need to know in the next 5/10 years? Or is it one of those navel gazing questions after all, and you don't know until you move forward?

No, I'm not going to quote Rumsfeld at you. Not this time.

Restlessness...

.Damned cool picture. Nicked off Flickr, but I can't remember who from.

This is a blog post that is scuttling out of the ether that has been the last few months (I'm pleased to say worky stuff has slightly died down).

I look upon planning at this stage as a little bit of an Everest (or at least, a Ben Nevis). There's always so much more to learn, and I definitely think that the planner of the future needs to be able to process so much information (and not go mental, as I have, by subscribing to far far too many RSS feeds) and synthesise it simply. There's still a danger that we behave a little bit like Jack Nicholson in The Departed, whose character sums up the old model of comms neatly: 'I don't want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me'.

The problem with this is that as advertising is pushed from all sides, from mee-ja agencies who have whole departments devoted to carving up audiences for a product or service, to PR agencies, who claim to understand the science of communication far better than their ad counterparts, to design agencies (who are, as has oft been said, the new management consultants) ad agencies scrabble around to try and pick up pieces of a new puzzle which they don't have the instructions to.

Simply put, we can't work harder with the information we have been given. But we can work smarter, and build upon what we already know - that people's cognitive attention spans are limited, and, as Clay Shirky puts it here, look for "[that] place that a reader or a listener or a viewer or a user has been locked out, has been served up passive or a fixed or a canned experience, and ask ourselves, "If we carve out a little bit of the cognitive surplus and deploy it here, could we make a good thing happen?"

This, in my eyes, is the future of communication. Destroying the 'canned' experience, of the same thing happening every time - messing with people's heads, making them laugh, smile, and want to play with our content.

And, quite simply, asking 'would I want to engage with this?' should be a mandatory on every brief (or at least, asked), rather than assuming that people will want to - and Christ, I've been guilty of just assuming that this is the case (or been complicit in it, at any rate).

All of this musing has led me to realise that sitting in the office isn't going to get things done. I need to be out there, be slightly more of a bedouin, engaging with all and sundry, especially if I'm ever going to understand the range of brands I'm working on at the moment - and by that, I don't mean a cursory trip to the factory, or subscribing to a few loyalists' blogs, nor going along to the odd focus group. I mean actually exploring people's passions, and whether or not they can be applied to the product/service I'm working on.

And one slightly more practical thing that I have definitely realised is that damn, I need to get me a laptop. Having a slightly knackered desktop, both at home and at work, doesn't do me any favours. Being able to bugger off to a cafe to crank out a brief, or concoct a 'fast strategy' should be the order of the day, if there's a need to (I'm not convinced that fast is always right, though).

Something which isn't the order of the day, but still surprising, is that we're still top in my absence. Goarn the Potters..

Brain Food..

Depends what you mean..photo via Bifurcate.

Time for something not directly about my workplace (aka, getting this blog back on rambling nonsense mode).

It occurs to me that quite a lot of my time as a planner is spent filtering out what I have to, and what I don't have to know, in order to know about a certain subject, whether it be a brand of car, dominos, faberge eggs or Stoke City.

Now, the danger is, with this filter in place (and I'm sure it happens at every workplace, or whenever you just want to relax), you lose the ability to challenge yourself, and at worst, intrigue and inspire those around you.

And it's something which can't always be easily done. But sod that; to be stimulating, you need to be stimulated. It's why I get on the tube every morning and read classic literature and not the latest 'man falls in love with cactus' story from the Metro. I need to be pushed, to be challenged by my reading, viewing, or whatever it is I'm listening to on my iPod.

It's just so easy to rely on random fodder for your mind, something which requires no thought, no challenge your preconceptions. Particularly when you are exposed to so much information on a daily basis. Well, I didn't get into adland, or indeed, do anything in my life, without wanting to be interested and interesting on a daily basis. The need to be interesting should overwhelm everything I do.

Bluntly, I can do that by reading Fitzgerald's account of madness, by going to gigs, by going to the V&A once and a while. Not by being chained to my desk, as much as I like my work colleagues.

And no, obviously I recognise the need to crack on, to do work. But in times where work dominates things, this should serves as a little reminder to myself (and hopefully to others) to make sure I keep on being alive to all the many cultural nuances out there. God knows, there are enough of them..

If anyone has any brain foody suggestions going on in London in the next month, hit me with them..

Still Here..

I didn't beat the security guard in, sadly.

Phew.

It's been a few weeks now. So I thought I should write a short missive, before I bugger off to soup/Match of the Day 2.

I have been a busy boy, with quite a few accounts on the go, an inability to remember names/learning how to filter out unnecessary stats (the last bit is taking quite a long time), and just generally worrying that I seem to spend quite a lot of time thinking about things, rather than on the phone, like my account team.

Revisiting the old master.

Still, all's going well. I'm getting to grips with Outlook/meetings and suchlike. I'm also slightly in awe of the account team I sit with, and reminded why I was so rubbish at account handling.

Indeed, I'm learning how to work in a team again, what with all of the different personalities and behaviours. Working as a freelancer really doesn't teach you that, as nice as it is. Of course, those same people can also give you work to do, which is sometimes a bit of a bugger, but ah well...it's a learning process, and I'm trying to get to grips with working on multiple accounts with different priorities.

It's all a bit mind bending, jumping from one strategic problem to the neck. But I'm learning. The next thing will be briefing folk. I'm sure it'll all be good...

All of that said, I wish the Piccadilly line wasn't such a bastard. Bloody tourists. Heh.

Back To Work..

I hope I don't have to sit at a desk like this.

Since the demise of my former agency, I have been a rambling man, hitching my spurs to various freelance assignments.

Well, I'm pleased to report that yes, I have a new job. It's here. I start on Monday.

Needless to say, it's been a very interesting last 6 months. Interesting in the character building sense, but I think I wouldn't be as appreciative of my new position if I hadn't had to work for it. I'm grateful to be able to put my head down, and learn some more proper planning. I still have a fear of groups which needs to be overcome (having never done any - though I have viewed them before).

I'd also like to say thanks very much to everyone who has had to put up with my whinging, networking and ruminating on the topic of advertising recruitment. Special thanks must go to Rob, Charles, Sam, Andrew, Lauren, MJ, and my Dad. Thank you all.

And one really good thing came out of all of this malarky - Ad Grads, which we hope will provide a useful resource for any grads, or people wanting to switch careers. We aim to keep up the momentum of the blog, and encourage more and more people to write copy for us, to keep things interesting and ticking along. If you fancy it, shoot us an email..

Never mind the brand bollocks, here's experiential marketing...

Not sure what he'd have made of this. Not a lot, probably.

Now, I'm not a very big Sex Pistols fan (sorry Marcus), to be honest. A bit before my time - and I think they're one of those bands you have to have either been alive during their ascendency, or have some tie to their music, and I have neither (that said, I love the Clash).

But I thought it'd be useful to discuss what made them such a good band in light of what the ad community finds itself in at the moment - what would appear to be the battle between conventional branding and experience.

The Sex Pistols, as I've said above, to me, are all about the raw, visceral experience, something which is magnified by actually being there. Now, there are other forms of music (yes, some of the Clash's stuff), which don't really require the 'being there' experience.

And I think the same is true of advertising.

Let's have a look at the current ad du jour, that of Cadbury's Dairy Milk:



And there have been a few comments already from respective ad bloggers.

First of all, let's consider this in light of what we know already. Cadbury's DM is the first choice in consumers' minds. Market leading, yada yada. So, just how much conventional planning does there need to be for something like this? People get their entertainment experience, and it makes people laugh.

Look at one of the youtube comments: "I think it's just a fun advert, nice and simple - Just like dairy milk! :P"

And let's consider it in light of when the media was sold - during Big Brother, ultimately the best example of throw away entertainment today. So it fits its target audience, who just want to be entertained; no sort of intellectual posturing will work here.

What is potentially troubling to those who don't like the ad, it would seem, is that there's no obvious connnection between the product and the ad. The worry is that it won't do anything for Cadbury's sales, but get people talking about the gorilla drumming. I'd love to see the recall stats for this ad. But does any of this matter for Cadbury, who are number one anyway?

Let me tie this post together. Bluntly, I think there's a bit of a dichotomy between conventional brand planning and the more fast and loose experiential work at the moment. Additionally, I think both are beginning to inform on each other - the Cadbury's ad is an experience, pure and simple, and more and more experiential work is adopting more brand cues - look at some of the work Iris have done for Sony Ericsson (most notably 'Gig in the Sky' and 'Night Tennis').

Unlike a lot of the people in the threads posted earlier, I'm not worried about planning's role in all of this - surely, its role was to advise how best to reach the target audience for Cadbury's DM (I'm guessing 15-30 year olds, but I could be wrong) and what would maximise salesamongst this age group. Now, I'd love to see what the sales figures are like afterwards, just to see if planning/advertising is changing beyond just meeting business expectations, as Marcus proposes here.

Brands, it would seem, have the greatest success when they latch onto a zeitgeist, or create one themselves. Both experential marketing and 'normal' branding can do this - but it may lead to the conventional lines of what planning is changing. And it perhaps asks a bigger question - does this matter?

Are we getting into 'Ads for Ads sake' territory here?

I don't think so, but one thing's for sure - the devices we are using to inform our audiences are blurring the techniques that underly it all.

Helicopters and how you see the world..

Look, a Chinook. Via SierraHiker. Usual rules apply.

One of the great mysteries of this business is how management speak infiltrated the ad world. Mostly bollocks, of course (drilling down, to me, still sounds like some peculiar sexual deviation), but there's one term I actually quite like, and thought I'd write about.

Namely, taking a helicopter view of something.

For those who can't be bothered to click on the link, it relates to a 'general outline or an overview' of something - say a brand, a positioning, and so forth.

For those of you choking on your bourbon (or ginger nut, if you go in for that sort of thing - and I do, mmm), bear with me.

I love nuanced brand thinking. I loved, absolutely adored the Rayban 'Never Hide' virals (one found here), which was shown to me by Messrs Frith and Law, via the wonders of t'internet. And yes, it was phenomenally successful for Rayban. But that's not to say it'll be enjoyed, much less adopted, by the vast majority of the population. Nope.

What I want to contest is that for all the nuanced, brilliantly crafted thinking in the world , there's a place for the more generalised, 'helicopter view' work, and just thinking in general.

I mean, look at the way I see big, global, worldwide brand ideas. I may not see them precisely in the same way as Fredrik does (though I love the last three diagrams), but instead more like this analogy.

Good big, global brand ideas are a lot like painting by numbers. The framework is there, but they don't make sense until they are reinterpreted by whichever agency is trying to do the work in the local market (and why would they? The best work is almost always local - I can't remember the last bit of global work which made my jaw drop).

I think the point Rob makes in the comments of Fredrik's blog is telling..agencies shouldn't try to reinterpret the 'outline' of the idea - that is, mess about with what should be set in stone.

No, they should take the (aha, it links!) helicopter view of the problem. Realise that there are certain lines of protocol (read - brand guidelines) which shouldn't be broken. Honestly, at times, I can't say I blame clients for getting pissy when agencies want to tweak their global brand positioning - by all means slap local interpretation on top of it, but don't mess with a globally aligned bit of thinking which is essential to the whole worldwide campaign making sense.

And the 'helicopter view' is true of job descriptions and employers, it would seem. I hate the terms strategist (how can you be a strategist when, as Rory notes, your grand strategy is binned after 18 months?), comms planner (isn't EVERYTHING comms?) , channel planner (ah, so I don't plan in channels?) and integrated planner (if a planner wasn't integrated, I'd worry about his/her job).

I'd steadfastly refuse to be put into a box when it comes to that sort of thing - speaking personally, I am a planner. I plan. It doesn't matter which channel - headhunters and employers note; if I've done work on digital campaigns, or ATL, it doesn't mean I'm going to be that for the rest of my career.

It may be a bit of a broad brushstroke, but Christ - the helicopter view, in my opinion, is right when it comes to my job description. I will specialise in something (and we all know I don't like the abuse of the term creative generalism much), but I'm sure I can be trusted to plan in other disciplines - in much the same way as 'traditional' creatives can work on a digital campaign.

Phew. Got a bit ranty there for a second...

Money, Money Moooney...Moooooney..

I'd quite like one of these when I grow up. Courtesy of Mat Skull. Usual rules apply.

Or, otherwise titled 'When cashflow goes bad'.

Ahem. Anyway...when I was in University, one of my flatmates decided that he wanted to be an Actuary. Given that he's probably the brightest mathematician I know (and this includes a chap at Merrill Lynch), it seemed to make sense. His overall life goal was to - I kid you not - to own and swim in a Scrooge McDuck esque Money Bin.

A pretty fair ambition, if a little bit fantastic. You're probably wondering what this has to do with the post. Well, yesterday, I had a couple of financial realisations, and how they impact on my behaviour.

1) I'm pretty poor at the moment. Sadly, freelancing doesn't quite cover all of my living expenses (yes, I really needed that goldplated bookmark). And as you may or may not know, you need money to live - especially to truly experience a great city like London. So this lack of funds is a bit of a pest, to be honest - especially when I'm poorer than I was as a student.

And yes, it does impact on what I do at the moment. Which I detest. Still, I'm reminded of the Fight Club quote "It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything". I may not have lost everything, but this period of my life has certainly helped give me perspective.

I hate being beholden to anyone, hate being in debt, and hate feeling like I'm one shopping trip away from living in someone's pockets. It could be argued that I'm living the plot of Keep The Aspidistra Flying, which would be hugely ironic, as it's my favourite book ever. It has helped strengthen my resolve - I'm not going to get sucked into any truly bad financial situations, and hear me now, I'll make a success of things. Just you wait and see.

2) Being 'close to the money' is damned scary. Marcus's post about this really resonated with me. You see, I have another confession to make. From a comparatively young age, I've had an idea of the financial rumblings at my father's agency. And after having a conversation with him yesterday, to say it put my own worries into perspective would be pretty fair.

This really strikes a chord with me, and this kind of financial osmosis is why I'm so happy to be a part of Ad Grads (apparently we got into Campaign today - woo hoo!). If I can impart on graduates the importance of having an idea of just what financial pressures are at play in an ad agency, well, then the blog will have partly have done its job.

Advertising is not just London (much as I love the London ad scene). And in some ways, being aware that London is a little bubble, with clients willing to spend big on the latest ad/social networking trend, and that, if you get in, you're damned privileged...well, that should be said to everyone. Realising that cash is the deciding factor behind everything is a lesson everyone should learn. Bluntly, we are all here to shift product.

Essentially, money breeds cold hard reality. But it also breeds unreal expectations, and the sooner those are kept in check, the better.

It's a bit special (and I don't like Pullman much)..

Thanks to Ascetic Monk. Usual rules apply.

Well, I'm no massive Philip Pullman fan (despite his obvious love of Paradise Lost, a book which I wrote my dissertation on).

But the film of the first book, Northern Lights, looks like it might be halfway decent (even if it shouldn't be called the Golden Compass).

What's even more impressive than the trailer is the work that's gone into the microsite. It's damned brilliant.

Something that makes it even better is that you can answer questions to find out which creature (or Daemone) you are. Here's mine:

The clever bit is that you can amend mine (and I can amend yours, if you put it on your blog or MySpace/Facebook).

As a result, I can find out what animal my friends think I am, and what personality traits you think I have (or don't have, as the case may be).

This is a great example - along with the Simpsons avatar generator - of an infectious, relevant, interesting bit of digital work. Does anyone know which agency did the work? I couldn't find out.

Whomever it was, congratulations - it's the first 'branded entertainment' site in a while that I've stopped and played with.

I'm going to this. You should too..

Thanks to FutureShape. Usual rules apply.

Thought I should put this out to any plannersphere folk who haven't seen this yet.

It promises to be good fun. Hope to see you all on Thursday.

There's no smoke without fire.....

Thanks to Mark_Skinner 1. Usual rules apply.

If you believe some of the figures, there's never been a tougher time to work in an advertising agency. Take a look at this article. And with the likes of the cheeky Zeroinfluencer and his new project (detailed here by Bowbrick), branded entertainment is coming to the fore, allowing people to choose what they'd like to see in the next episode.

Scary?

Well, I've met the erstwhile Mr Bausola. He's not a frightening man (unless he's just missed Happy Hour). And I applaud him for what he's doing. I think it's the future. And a hearty well done to Ford as well - kudos for rising to the challenge;I doubt it's a coincidence that the last few Ford TV spots have been a lot more thoughtful and provocative. In fact, have a look yourself:



But I want to move away from the (frankly boring) debate about advertising's effectiveness. I'm firmly (and you'd expect as much, considering the title of this blog) in the camp that well produced, planned and above all, interesting work will stimulate a positive response.

But the nature of the work is changing. Indeed, the title of this post is deliberately misleading - I think a lot of advertising agencies and clients will have to wake up to the new worlds that Imagination and co talk about. But at the same time, for some products and services, it may not be the right approach. It's just another way to positively provoke your audience, and one which (I think), is dead right for Ford - who needs another car shot and overarching promises? Far better to entertain first and tie it into a bigger brand thought, a la Honda.

Thanks to the nice people at Modern Mechanix for this. Usual rules apply.

The fact of the matter is, though margins may be tighter, and the likes of TV spend are at a 5 year low, I don't think there's ever been a more exciting time to be working in the business (NB: This is said by every idealistic 23 year old planner, I'm sure). It's like the advent of technicolour; I can now view the world in a new way, and I don't think that's an overstatement.

Out goes the plannery wank that many would use to sell a strategy; I believe Roland Barthes has a lot to answer for when it comes to the advertising community - I don't think I can tolerate sitting through a creative review where signs, symbols and bastardly signification comes up (yes, I had to endure a year of that in first year English - bet you think you dodged a bullet there, eh?).

No, it's slowly being condensed into stories. Stories which will entertain, sell and be relevant (though don't get me wrong - the latter will be bloody difficult to pull off - and that's where a good agency/client relationship comes in).

Instead of being constrained by a 30 second spot, new world agencies can create the narrative. Stimulating, relevant stories which both drive up commerce and allow agencies to flex that creative muscle. And, speaking as a planner, it means that my brand ideas can truly be a strategy, rather than some stop gap solution which is discarded at the same time as the agency is dispensed with.

No, there isn't any smoke without fire. The old model is under threat. But I sincerely hope that the new one will retain the most important elements of the old - creating big brand ideas - with a much more dynamic and stimulating approach. And that we lose this 'seeing ads as advertising people' belief - you are a person. So is your audience. So treat them like that; if you don't, it looks like you'll be out of a job.

Smile Like You Mean It (Thoughts on Passion)

Above: England's finest celebrating a goal. Picture via hout7.

This has been sparked by a few conversations I've been having; it's a response of sorts, so bear with me.

As I'm sure I've mentioned on this blog before, I talk a lot. Sometimes, this can be misinterpreted as being a wee bit arrogant, or not listening properly. I wish I could stop talking so much, but it's bloody difficult (and I hope I'm neither arrogant nor a bad listener).

Anyway, I was thinking about this a bit more - why do I talk so much? Why do some people clam up in conversations?

When it comes to the latter, I don't think it's down to a lack of passion, that's for certain - I think it's a comfort issue; how willing you are to open yourself up to people you don't know very well/are intimidated by, for example. Pretty obvious stuff.

But why should I talk so much? Surely a core planning trait is the ability to be stoic and quiet, only interjecting when it's absolutely necessary? Well....I've certainly met planners like that, and that's no bad thing - I wish I possessed as much clarity and brevity as they do, but I think (hope) it'll come in time.

What gives me hope about my chatty nature are bloggers (I'm thinking of a few) that I know like to express an opinion or two. Not the archetypal planning person (certainly not what the IPA would have you believe), if you look below:



Yes, it makes me scratch my head as well. I have a social life, honestly...and I'm not sure I have a 'planet sized brain' either.

The stereotype is frankly bollocks; misappropriating the myth of the planner, which is no more right than propagating the slicker than owl shit suit or the grumpy genius creative. Just wrongheaded.

Anyway, back to the point I was making. Such character assessments are wrong. But what should be important (something I look for in people I meet) is being passionate about what you like, whether it's being an ad bod like myself, or a toy maker or whatever. I enjoy working in advertising, so I write about it. If you are quiet but are desperately passionate about kite-flying or taxidermy, that's also great.

Enjoying your job and being passionate about it, whether being quiet or talkative, is crucial for me. It's why I didn't pursue Law as a career.

Whether or not I talk too much, or fit into a planner stereotype just doesn't matter. Now, whether I care about the work I undertake and what I'm doing does.

A friend of mine once said that 'you can't just be passionate anymore' when speaking about how to get into advertising, and he's right. But it still remains the most important trait. Passion for the business and for effective work should be at the forefront of everyone in the agency. Not just because you want associated fame from getting an ad on the telly (though that is nice).

It's funny, doing a little bit of research into what I like, and what drives me reveals it even more startlingly. My favourite music artists are all ballsy, passionate people who want to create though provoking tunes, whether they be big beats or acoustic, sensitive ballads.

The same is true for writers; I admire John Milton and George Orwell above all because they care, and are deeply, deeply passionate about what they write, and it really resonates with me.

It must be stressed that being passionate without reason is definitely barking up the wrong tree (akin to talking too much without a real point). But the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive in the first place - if you are passionate about something, you'll probably know a lot about it, or want to learn, which is the most important thing.

And yes - passion can overspill into what appears to be arrogance or anger. But I don't think it's either - it's wanting to do a good job, wanting to make the work the best it can be and above all, caring about things.

NB: Though I'm no Man United fan (God no), I love watching Wayne Rooney play football. Someone who cares so much and wants to win, coupled with that amount of skill, is a joy to watch. I only wish Mamady Sidibe was like that.

I'm also planning to do another Cucumber Sandwiches Podcast, this time featuring some of my favourite passionate tunes.