Not all data's created equal...

The famous class inequality sketch from Cleese and the Two Ronnies.

Hello there.

I've been away for a little bit, visiting the US, so sorry for no posts during the past few months.

Being in the States got me thinking; whilst I was there, I was struck by just how much of the US journalism adopted 'Metro style' reportage - articles that were basically glorified press releases with some poor branded polls to support some nonsense thought; barbecue sauce gives you cancer or something similar.

And it got me thinking about the importance or unimportance of data. Though I think he's often an insufferable arse, Ben Goldacre published a good article in the Guardian (and a decent rebuttal to criticism about the first piece) about how far people should trust medical data, something which is fairly close to my heart - I don't like the idea of spurious surveys being used to 'prove' some faddy nonsense that does people more harm than good.

His point was that some 62% of data published in national newspapers in the past two weeks would have failed the World Cancer Research's Scale for provable claims; the data would have been 'insufficient'.

I worry a bit that in an age where statistics can be generated/read about as easily as tying your shoelaces, that it has become ever harder to try and sort the wheat from the chaff. Frankly, if I was a client, I simply wouldn't believe half of the 'data points' that my comms agency (be it Advertising, PR or any of the above) came up with.

So why try to regurgitate stuff they already know; or, indeed, fill presentations with evident stuff? Far better to use data in a creative way (and no, I'm not talking about every planner's wet dream, the infographic) to enlighten, and to use to help support lateral thinking. Not telling Sony about the TV market. I'm all for demonstrating that planning/agencies understand the landscape, but oh so many data/'scene setting' new business presentations do little more than add a rudimentary few slides, almost as a embarrassed beginning.

I'd far rather we got on with the business of surprising and delighting our clients, rather than '8 of 10 cats believed'. Show human reactions to things. Proper ones, not some manufactured focus groups. How do people REALLY behave in the juice aisle? (Yes, I'm aware this may involve people being booted out of Sainsburys, but it's undoubtedly worth it).

It is a concern that in a world of MROCs/personalised panels et al that we're far too quick to outsource data gathering to those who are only a piece of the puzzle. After all,' facts only make sense in the light of an idea', as Stephen King put it. Far better to acknowledge what we don't know to a client, to be honest and grown up - and seek to surprise them with genuinely insightful information that isn't easily garnered by their own research department.

This would, I hope, partly stop the endless use of 'post-rationalisation planners' (though it'd never stop it; sometimes a good idea DOES come at the 11th hour). I don't want planning to be relegated to a 'backer up' of creative ideas that aren't founded in thinking about the business. In a dream world, planning would be a conduit, able to surprise creatives and clients, using research in a creative way.

I think it's no coincidence that TNS have appointed a creative director. As a nation filled with dubious 'quick surveys' in our national papers, the likes of TNS, more than anyone, have a need to stand out. I just hope it goes beyond infographics and focuses on why people do what they do. God knows, we've never needed to know that more.

Consultancy with Conscience...?

I wonder if it's Santa. Photo via jurvetson. Usual rules apply.

After what seems to be a (sadly) typical four month pause in blog posts, I've decided to get off my arse and write another. Prompted by Neil's excellent Firestarters evening at Google, I began to think a little bit about agencies, and just what will endure or be left behind in the next ten to twenty years and beyond.

I've talked a little bit about my slight skepticism about the notion of 'agile'. I think it works well from the get go, when it's a founding principle, but when you're dealing with disconnected/disassociated big businesses whose PR and Advertising departments don't even talk to one another, it starts to ring a little hollow.

To be honest, I think that it's a good principle, but won't work all of the time. For an agency like Made by Many, who make their name on iterative development and working in close proximity with clients and as a smaller business, it makes sense.

Now, what I'm really interested in is attitudes and behaviours which foster good work. Organising principles are all well and good, but they can easily gather dust if the mindset's not right inside and outside of the business.

The one thing I want to think about today is conscience. Since the beginning of the agency world, every half-decent shop has realised what's needed it is a strong professional conscience - it doesn't matter what type of employee you are. All considered folks realise that yes, the work's difficult at times, joyous at others - but there's really only one method of ensuring you don't go mad, whether you work all the hours given, or have an enviable ability to get everything done, please the client and have a life outside of the day job.

It's a sense of good conscience. The best places know that they've set parameters with their client ahead of time (often odiously referred to as 'managing expectations' on occasion, which sounds like an excuse for a fuck-up) and if something's thrown this into doubt, have had the wherewithal to raise it with their clients quickly.

In all honesty, they've behaved like a proper consultancy, not just a simple provider of service. In my experience, providers of a service and nothing more get taken advantage of. I must confess, to thinking back to my long running part time job between University; there were similar situations where people had no empathy when you were busy and short staffed, asking for everything now or sooner, if possible.

Those people are just as likely to come with an MBA and live within a Marketing department as they are to sit in a burger queue or be after a pint at your local. So, if we acknowledge that those people exist, why not deal with them honestly, demonstrating a considered professional opinion and setting what can/can't be done ahead of time?

The further splintering of creative disciplines promulgates this 'can't you just?', service only approach - it's too easy to treat each part of the puzzle as that and nothing more. People chase after easy to prove 'vanity metrics' (a wonderful phrase, nicked from Neil's event) which are short-term and satisfy that their 'bit' of the puzzle is working.

If a client has chosen to split their budget across a spectrum of agencies, and there's no clear lead (as would appear to be happening more frequently these days), then it's got to fall to the group to set decent, longer term measures and not just fight for control over their bit or a little more.

To promote your way of working as the best in this scenario just doesn't ring true. It comes across as more agency willy-waving. Be shown to be the agency with the conscience, those who are empathetic to what goes on in the agency circle/with the client, along with explaining why something can or can't be done, and I'm sure rewards will follow.

You'll be respected for your counsel, something which appears to have gone missing in the search for dwell time and youtube hits. When it doesn't work (which happens), you'll be in a better position not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just change the creative/approach. It's got to about learning, not lurching from execution to execution without a guiding principle or pre-set parameters.

Agencies shown to have good consciences will be able to (shock!) answer the client back if they don't agree, behaving more like they used to. After all, you SHOULD be employed for your point of view, not just because you can argue the production company to do it a couple of grand cheaper, or ensure celebrity x turns up to party y.

Mystique will only get so far. And, to be honest, the only way to start fires is to behave like a considered, thoughtful, conscience-riddled grown up, not like some reactionary child.

Of PR, 'The Sell', and Advertising...

Hello gang. I've been curiously quiet on this blog for a little while. I'd like to claim that was because of a lack of time, but in truth, I've been thinking about what to say next.

And, in truth, one topic kept bobbing up. I wanted to write about what i've noticed the differences are between Advertising and PR, as it's almost been four months in the new gig, which is pretty astonishing. Time's moving quickly.

There is no such thing as a perfect form of communication. We flutter and stutter on the phone, we misplace commas when we write, and get coy face to face. My background's that of someone who's spent his whole life in and around the Advertising industry, and to suddenly have that change in the last four months has been a very strange (but very nice) change.

Some thoughts, then:

1) Generalists vs Specialists

Next to Advertising account handlers, PR people do a far, far, FAR greater number of things. There are no creatives here, remember, so they have to be the ones selling in their own ideas to journalists or clients, making sure everything's on time, on budget and to the required level of creativity that the client expects.

And, they have to attend the events which're put on, which may not sound like a hardship, but you just try maintaining a sense of optimism when you not only have to talk to a client all day, but have to socialise with them in the evenings. The range of skills they are expected to pull off is quite remarkable.

There are obvious similarities in some of the roles, and I might venture that the structures are such that there's a need for different labels at times. I mean, in Advertising (rightly or wrongly), I tend to associate Account Directors with not necessarily being uber-creative, but having a strategic and business mind. In PR, there are aspects of all of these within each AD - though one side is always stronger, because, let's face it, as human beings, we're always better at one thing or the other.

Now, there's a need for the debate about the kind of skills a 21st century communications professional has to have. I value specialists, and always will - but the nature of the way PR bills (by the hour and less by the product in the same way an Advertising agency does) means there has to be generalism, by and large. How do you integrate the two, and stop one seeing the other as meaningless fluff that complicates the job? That's something forward thinking agencies of both discipline will have to wrestle with going forward. One thing's for certain - it has to be more than *just* a service in order to ensure strategic and creative relevance.

2) The more things change the more they stay the same

To any ad or communications wannabe who's chanced across this blog, and is wondering whether to go into Advertising or PR, I would honestly say it doesn't matter. The world may be changing at a ferocious pace, but there's no 'right' way into the two businesseses.

You still need to have a sense about how your clients are going to react to a new idea, and how receptive they'll be to some of the tough conversations you're inevitably going to have with them about budgets/timings/approaches/who they talk to.

The one thing which is absolutely paramount for both disciplines (and indeed, the marketplace in general) is a sense of optimism, tempered by a realistic sense of what's possible. If you don't have a sense of 'making things better', you absolutely, positively shouldn't consider either a viable career.

I'm not talking about being blindly optimistic that things will get better (because that's just naivety in another form), but being able to deal with rejection. You have to be empathetic about why a client has said no to your latest 'game-changing' idea, and why they doubt some of your attempted positioning statements.

There's also never been more of a need for an agency to act, not just as a service, but as a partner. Being a partner means you need a set of account handling antenna to know when things are about to be ballsed up, and when to talk honestly about the direction you think things going, and how to fix them. Both disciplines can be very good or very bad at that depending on the client relationship - but it's something which absolutely has to happen regardless of your background.

3) Replicating client models isn't right (whatever the industry)

Next to Saatchi & Saatchi, where I work now has been the biggest agency I've ever worked in. It has many different departments and moving parts. I still don't know half the names of people in the building.

It's been an interesting time for me, moving into a world where planning isn't automatically thought of, as it's such a new thing. It's not been around in PR since the 1960s like account planning, so there's an element of explaining just how and why you can be useful.

Clients haven't met PR planners before, and we need to explain how and why we can fit in. I think it's bloody helpful to be parachuted into different situations; not to mess with the status quo, but to prevent things becoming too comfortable - it's too easy for agency people (of both sides, I hasten to add) to get used to the day to day with client x and not challenge it. And this, after all, is why planning was invented; to offer a different point of view.

Not - in my opinion - to become as naturalised as it's become in certain spheres of advertising/marketing, where the planner is nothing more than a sense checker before the work leaves the building. Planning SHOULD be a bit bolshy and difficult, and being a shiny new resource is a good thing, because we can be a force for change. We're not here to match up with how client x sees the world, and I think that's always helpful.

4) Selling stuff remains a core skill

The wheels tend to come off any agency when they forget themselves, and their overall role; it's to sell ideas and thinking to clients. This may, or may not involve flogging product. Often (and excitingly) in PR, it's about shaping CSR strategy, or advising on just what a client is doing in country x and y and how to manage that.

There's a danger when any agency tries to client please too much, and presents too many ideas. Both sides can be guilty of this - the risk it runs is that even if a client loves them all, it looks like the agency hasn't been able to make its mind up. I understand why Richard harks back to a time when the agency only presented one route, rationalised it, and tried to sell it. The agency was a true partner then, and (though I think presenting one route is sometimes dangerous) had the courage of its convictions.

Both industries NEED salesmen/women to help push the business forward. Those people who can bring to life ideas through the force of their will, and borrow from James Webb Young, show a sense of 'salesmanship'. This doesn't mean death by PowerPoint, it means considering just what would move that client to a different place, and help them think laterally about a problem. Those people hold the keys to the kingdom, same as ever, regardless of discipline.

5) Idea generation has no silver bullet

The biggest change for me has been working in a place where there aren't 'creatives' in the sense there are with Advertising. My favourite part of the job within Advertising was spending time with the creatives and shooting the breeze.

To suddenly come somewhere where a lot of ideas are generated through brainstorming (with, as mentioned before, a lot of account handlers/client leads) is a bit strange. However, I will say that i've seen just as many good ideas generated quickly in PR as Advertising. It is interesting though, that there's a lot less navel gazing about the 'key message' as there is in Advertising - it's more about what the story will look like when it eventually comes out. It's a mindset shift, and a bit of a headfuck for me, as I've never worried or thought about this sort of thing.

BBH used to say 'how can we make this idea famous', and moving to this (arguably more PR centric) conversational approach is, I think, the right thing. Craftsmen will always be important, but thinking about the story and working backwards is a bloody useful approach when it comes to proposing the idea - and one both disciplines should always bear in mind when generating ideas.

So there we are. Five musings on the differences between Advertising and PR. Add your own. I'd love to hear 'em.

What's Too Slow?

Yes. This IS too slow. Picture via Al_HikesAZ.

Hello there. I've been a wee bit quiet over the last month and a bit. Sorry about that. Have had some fairly major things to sort out. Moving into a new flat, and oh, getting a new job.

One which makes the title of this blog (already a bit of a lie) seem like a complete nonsense. I'm just about to begin working in PR as a planner, for these guys. I'm not changing my blog's title though. I'll always be WAM. As much for the 1950's style ad man dress as anything else.

And I wanted to write a little bit about why i'm excited to be starting my new gig, and why I think it's interesting from a planning point of view.

First and foremost, it is going to be interesting, seeing the difference between advertising and PR. When I began my career, I was told the best planners were still in ATL agencies, and (based on who i've met since I was told that, think it's right) that PR shops 'didn't understand brands'. That last part was spurious nonsense. The arrogant assumption that a discipline can have an absolute handle on a brand is just madness. If a brand is something that people associate with their own experiences and the experiences of other people, then I can't see how one place can have a monopoly on the thinking. To think anything else is to be unhealthily obsessed with triangles made in PowerPoint.

What really prompted thinking about PR as a discipline was something simple, really. I was thinking about speed. Even the most successful piece of advertising, that nods to/creates culture (at its best) takes a awfully long time to come to market.

Now, I don't necessarily believe that 'Fast Strategy' is the answer. Quality thinking can happen quickly, but the best solutions can't be rushed. But nor do I believe the 'one true insight' thought - that a clever bit of thinking will remain true forever, or that advertising's ability to capture the zeitgeist (or create it) will be able to be bottled for three/six months whilst the campaign is delivered.

In fact, I think it's damned dangerous to think in campaigns. Look at the recent Eurostar furore. All the branding in the world, no matter how APG award winning, won't stop the brand taking a knock in a lot of people's eyes. And while I think 'social media' is a nonsensical term, and that the need for specialist agencies to do it is bloody lazy, I do think crisis management within the clientside and agency side is very important.

But what's perhaps overlooked is the month or three after this. Could a creative solution play on this? I'm not talking about pile it high and sell it cheap 'community management', which social media agencies claim to do - I'm talking about a genuinely thoughtful piece of lateral thinking which acknowledges the crowd, and what's happened in the news. For example, with RATM getting Christmas number 1 - if their record company was wise, it'd produce something a little bit more meaningful than cheaper prices on all of their albums.

Various agencies where I worked would unfairly deride this as 'tactical' or 'promotional' advertising. But it's not, not really. It arguably builds the brand more than those strategies which are incubated for ages and take a long time to come to market. It's only throw away when it's not built upon, and is a one-off thing. But what's to stop a lot of 'tactical' activity being chained together and built upon? I still get drawn to the model of keeping 10% of the marketing budget back to be spent to capitalise on things like this.

It all obviously has some bearing on where research money gets spent both inside and outside of agencies. I'm really not interested in old quant data which purports to tell the future and doesn't seem to be quota-ed properly collected (TGI, i'm looking at you), and would love to try and dissuade clients from spending money on quant like this - which seem to be numbers for the sake of something to cling on to. Map qual/attitudinal data with sales. Don't use a damned crutch. That'll be a big job in my new role, I can already tell. Heh.

Regardless of how the shake down goes in the upcoming years, i'm looking forward to the new challenge and the new discipline. I'm not going to get drawn into a 'PR vs Advertising' debate. Both have their merits. I'll forever be grateful to the people i've worked for in adland - they've taught me a lot. I hope PR can do the same.

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.

We ALL work in PR.

Looks like a flume, but isn't. Guess. Photo via Whatsername?

It's a little bit of a black hole, isn't it? This being on the internet malarky, creating a digital footprint with every tweet. God knows where it all goes.

I was a touch worried to find out (don't worry, I haven't been googling myself that much...honest) from Priyanka that if you type in my name into google, it begins to auto complete. Fuck me. I'm one of them proper internet people (or tremendous nerds - in fact, almost certainly the latter).

Something, in truth, I never really thought about when I first got into blogging, or writing nonsense on the internet. I wrote to amuse myself. And it got me to thinking. Has this sort of attitude changed?

With the tremendous takeup of twitter by celebrities, do people now primarily use the web as a source of fame, rather than writing to express their opinion? And if so, at what cost? Has 'honesty' been bastardised?

I've always been acutely aware of just what I write online. I don't write anything that I wouldn't say in real life (yes, even taking the piss out of social media, or ranting about how badly put together most organisations seem to be). And I wonder, as people grow up with the technology to say whatever they want, whenever they want to - whether it'll begin to have more negative aspects.

Kids who've never thought about censorship will continue to be positively encouraged to tell brands what they think. With this power, do you honestly think it'll make things better in real life? I don't. I think it'll lead to a lot of people who speak first and ask questions later.

Surely, some of the benefits of being online - being able to enforce change, to speak your mind and improve things - will persist. But I do worry about the other side of things. Is it a job for parents? Part of me shudders at that; no-one had to teach me how to 'be' online. But then, I didn't get online properly until I was about 14 or so, I didn't blog until I was 21.

I'm not suggesting anything so drastic as a code of conduct. That seems like bollocks to me, tremendous overkill.

But, as the title of the post aludes, we are all in PR. All of us have a measure of responsibility of ensuring our online image corresponds to the real thing. I'm not suggesting naming your kids some unique name to ensure you can get the URL (God, that'd be cringey, wouldn't it?), but taking care when you're online is undoubtedly a Very Good Thing.

And this includes those older folk in the communications business. I get hacked off when I get told how to think about twitter by a supposed communications 'guru' who has 34 tweets to his name. Or worse, one with 20,000 followers, who hires people to tweet for him (which he does constantly) - that's not communications, that's the equivalent to pushing 5 yellow pages through the internet's post box daily.

Maybe it comes down to some form of web manners. Which shouldn't mean a stuffy, fastidious code - but more behaviour centred around basic politeness or thoughtfulness.

And to even THINK about this sort of thing boggles my mind. Alongside people needing media training (which is one of the ultimate examples of money for old rope), it's staggering to think people don't interact with media as an everyday thing.

I'm sure the passive massive are out there, but i'm sure their number is dwindling, what with ever increasing opportunities to interact - either to post product reviews or participate in their interests.

And, to me, it's somewhat comforting to know the individuals, not the organisations behind certain things. I like knowing who i'm dealing with, not some faceless agency or business. I can have a relationship with a person. I'm not quite so sure I'd ever value a PR or ad bod's paid opinion in the same way.

In short, it seems honesty's a bit of a two way street online. I'm interested in how it helps (or hurts) people. Especially those who have always had the tools to express it.

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.

Expecting Entrepreneurs?

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Via Edmittance. Usual rules apply.

I've got another confession to make. I got into advertising because I had it in my mind that, while it wasn't going to be like Mad Men, it may well have been a bit more like the 80s. Not in the sense that I expected Ferraris and very long lunches, but more just in the potential out there.

The sort of work places I imagined were those people with big intellects, slightly addictive personalities and with ambition off the scales.

The sort of people who'd want to sell; to sell ideas, to sell new ways of thinking, to want to reach for the skies. Slight hyperbole, but that's what I was after.

And, in truth, I find a lot of people who aren't like this. A lot of people who like to do the job, however long it takes, and leave. Ideas are important, sure, but to be entrepreneurial? Nope.

It got me thinking - why are these people like this? Surely, the whole point about advertising is that really, it's based on confidence. No amount of data will *wholly* prove a point, and it only tells you what's gone before.

If we then have an environment where ideas and confidence are championed, why don't we have more entrepreneurs? And more start ups?

Well, I can't help but wonder if it's got something to do with upbringing and education. I come from Generation Y, for my sins. We're the most highly tested generation ever, a generation that is used to being able to publish whatever we like (as Russell and Lynette have said) and say what we want to say.

In short, we've never been this scrutinised. If we fuck up, we fuck up in public. We're a generation acutely aware of our self image (who doesn't have a friend or two who is militant about which photos of him/her go on Facebook, say?) that's used to being tested and hitting targets.

I'd hypothesise that we've had a great deal of our creative thinking and ballsiness crushed out of us.

Advertising/comms used to be a place where you could rise through the post room. And to a great extent, it is still a meritocracy, assuming you can get in.

So we're stifled, despite these tools in front of us. And it seems that a lot of places talk a lot, especially certain agencies which over rely on 'social media' tools; they're are chock full of a lot of people who, in the words of James Brown, are 'talkin' loud and sayin' nothing'.

Frankly, i'm sodding bored of that. Self referential (yes, i'm as guilty as anyone at this) bullshit which is obsessed with its own navel. Proclamations about 'how we're going to change the world' - you know who you are - are found in those people who don't do anything, just preach.

I want to create places where if someone has an idea which works well with a brand, they aren't afraid to go and pitch it. We're salesmen at the end of the day. We may be salesmen with more of a social conscience than the 1980's, but we're still in the business of making things happen, of bringing ideas to life.

So let's start creating and stop fucking talking about it. Working in media, 'social' or otherwise, is in danger of powering hot air balloons and nothing more. I want more entrepreneurs in our business.

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.

Keep on believing...

Well, it happened. The mighty Potters are going to be playing football in the Prem, the top tier of English football (sadly relegating my father's team, Leicester, which is a little sad).

And, all of a sudden, mainstream media became very interested in the last day drama of it all. And who wouldn't, let's be fair, it was a helluva story - despite the endless long throws and scrappy football that turned out to be the reality.

But it got me to thinking. Dangerous, that. When exactly, does a story, or event, cross over and become 'mainstream'? How exactly is 'mainstream' achieved? Why do we regard something as mainstream? (Barring the recent London elections, or tragedies, obviously).

It's interesting. I still tune into the good old BBC as my first choice of news, followed by whatever my RSS reader (tuned into the New York Times, The Indie, Telegraph & The Guardian) says is worthwhile.

And, let's extend this further to, yes, you've guessed it, the great 'where's the industry going?' debate which seems to uniquely conflict the ad industry at the moment. Either Mindshare are taking over the world, or PR companies are, or maybe even management consultancies (when they inevitably bring creative in house).

For a comparative junior in the business, it's not a simple case of boning up on your APG case studies and doing the odd blog post (though I wish it was). To try and define what'll become 'mainstream' in communications has become like trying to pin the tail on the donkey after about 5 whiskeys, blindfolded and after having eaten a very heavy meal.

So who do you trust, and talk to? Those hipper than hip digital agencies? These, who promise metrics and interactive experiences, the likes of which you've never seen before - which can seemingly create measurable worlds, which of course everyone will want to interact with. Or maybe a media agency, with 13 floors of econometrics, management consultancy and extreme targeting. Or maybe, just maybe, the traditional creative shop, with its base of ideas.

The latter option reminds me an awful lot of a religious theory I read when I was a wee nipper (good old AS Level Philosophy), about the God of the Gaps. Essentially, the theory can be distilled down into this - there were areas which Science cannot account for (time before time can be measured, essentially). For those bits, you fill in with God/your chosen Deity. Could creative agencies become like that?

NB: For what it's worth, I think the next split will be between those who properly outsource creativity and those who outsource analytics. 'Creative' agencies will have PR, Experiential and all the rest of that gubbins. T'others will, I think, become like management consultancies. What does everyone else think?

That's enough musing. Now have some music:

Karl Lagerfeld and Creativity..

The man himself. Picture via Robtanphotos. Usual rules apply.

I've been contemplating the nature of creativity for a little while now, and thought I should share with you a few quotes from Karl Lagerfeld as well as an interview I read with him.

Obviously, as a planner, I'm interested in the process of creativity, and how best I can help stimulate creatives to make brilliant (and effective) work. Now, while fashion is a wholly different world to advertising in some respects (does it really matter if conventional models of effectiveness are adhered to in fashion?), there are some fascinating similarities, and some thought-provoking pieces of thinking dictating how we go about creating new work.

The first gem from Karl is: "I don't like standard beauty – there is no beauty without strangeness."

Let's stop and think about this, in relation to advertising. Take the Cravendale work, right from the 'Cows want it back' through the current W&K 'Miiilk' executions. Distinctive, eh? I think so - and for me, the purpose of the advertising is to emphasise the moreish nature of the product, yet doing it in a wholly new way for the category, in the case of both executions.

Compare this to the endlessly bland ads you see on a daily basis - when was the last time (honestly, without your advertising hat on), you tried to analyse a print ad, or a TV spot? I bet it was a long time ago - because what the industry perceives as beautiful - say a stunning piece of print art direction - has become something people expect, or have gotten used to seeing (that's not to say it can't be spot on, of course).

In my opinion, some of the best outdoor stuff (Ogilvy's cigarette tanker for Cancer Research UK) and print (RKCR's 'Soon' for Virgin Atlantic). Both are very different, what I believe Lagerfeld infers when he talks about things being 'strange'.

On with the quotes.."People who say that yesterday was better than today are ultimately devaluing their own existence."

This one, for me, is interesting - it really speaks to the notion of what, I think, fashion is. And also why it is so widely decried as a waste of time by those people who see it as being fantastical, but ultimately a needless indulgence.

Now, when cameras come into ad agencies, the results seem to be very similar - the general public seen it as a waste of time, rampant creativity at its worst. And yes, I've been in situations where you dearly wish people would remember their history (as they should), but that's not to say we should cling resolutely to Messrs Bernbach, Krone, Saatchi et al when it comes to playing with the notion of a layout, or challenging some of the limitations of conventional advertising.

Essentially, continually striving to make the next piece of creative work the best it can be. Don't be content to have another car ad with it driving along fast, with a rock soundtrack. No, think about what the driving experience is actually like, for example.

Right, enough creative cheerleading, have some more Karl (this is the only quote from The Observer Magazine on 27th of May 2007 - read the article here), on the subject of how he goes about creating ideas:

(After illustrating a model) "Lagerfeld ripped the drawing from the pad, crushed it in his hands, and tossed it into a large wicker hamper, which over the course of the evening filled with similar small masterpieces. 'I throw everything away!' he declared.' The most important piece of furniture in a house is the garbage can! I keep no archives of my own, no sketches, no photos, no clothes - nothing! I am supposed to do, I'm not supposed to remember!' He smoothed a gloved hand over the empty page in front of him and visibly relaxed."

Now, I think that bit in particular is telling about the nature of creativity, and creatives. The idea of chucking everything away and starting again is really interesting - and if the planner has written a half decent brief, that sort of zest should manifest itself in the work.

Of course, it is also potentially problematic - the way Lagerfeld is implies someone who wants to shut themselves away, and not take any guidance from anyone else (which is rubbish - he's met a friend of mine/'borrowed' one of his ideas). And this, if applied to advertising, suggests a sort of creativity which is at odds with the notion of sociability, of creating ideas that get infused into culture (which is when, I think, advertising is at its best).

I think Lagerfeld is a fascinating man (anyone who loses 6 stone in little over a year has to have an iron will), and I'm going to enjoy seeing how creativity, both advertising and beyond, continues to manifest itself in the light of technological advances.

When it comes to advertising, I'm with Laurence Green's article - I think the best work taps into people's innermost beliefs and desires, and makes them want to play and engage with it.

What Ad Agencies can learn from AC/DC..

Angus doing what he does best. Picture via T-Klick. Usual rules..

I've been listening to an awful lot of three chord music recently (no, no Status Quo, happily). And it seems to me that there's a parallel there with the swirling, ever changing advertising world.

Namely, that very simple songs can seem infinitely more complicated than they are, and if people over analyse them, it's usually a bit of a mistake. Indeed, one of planning's cardinal sins is to buy into the overcomplication, to not put its foot down when people are taking part in flights of fancy (does any FMCG need bloody twitter, eh?).

And I know that there have never ever been more terms to describe things than there are now. Hell, just take planning. Am I a creative planner, a strategic planner, a comms planner? God knows.

I sometimes wonder, with this increasing vocabulary, whether we try too hard to see things that aren't there; after all, I'm a firm believer that the simpler the communication message, or the more natural the use of technology, the better the results - look at the Sainsbury's with 'Try Something New Today' and Tesco's Clubcard implementation for proof of this.

And it's one of my tenets, which might not be massively fashionable - I think advertising is essentially simple. People don't really change much; we all lust after the same basic things, we all want to be entertained, and advertising is all about working out how products fit into this mix (that's the more complex bit).

I'll leave you with this from Wikipedia, something Angus Young said when he was asked why AC/DC's music was so simplistic:

"It's just rock and roll. A lot of times we get criticised for it. A lot of music papers come out with: 'When are they going to stop playing these three chords?' If you believe you shouldn't play just three chords it's pretty silly on their part. To us, the simpler a song is, the better, 'cause it's more in line with what the person on the street is."

Sound familar?

Effort and Reward...

Being able to shift tyres = a life skill. Picture via macredeye. Usual rules..

A little while ago, I read Herd, written by Mark. And in my Amazon review of it, I expressed that I was really chuffed about the chapter on belief systems. Well, this post is a little bit about one of my own beliefs, sharpened by something James Cherkoff has written and a piece of work Lee has blogged about.

Speaking personally (is there any other way?), I've got to say that I'm someone who really believes in the application of effort. That is to say, if you are someone who is willing to put the effort in, to give it your all, you deserve a reward. I have a lot less time for people who rock up and expect things to fall into their laps. Perhaps this is rooted in the fact that I was an average student who tried, and, through a bit of effort, became a halfway decent one. I don't know.

Put in the hard yards, and you'll get your just deserts. It's why, I think, I don't tend to champion an awful lot of brand ideas; because there is no sense of any effort being put in - if advertisers aren't willing to entertain/enlighten/inform me properly, why the hell should I reward them with a purchase? This ties in nicely with James's blog post above - being thoughtful, and generous as a brand (a Richardism) would seem to be essential, and a lot of 'ad' people don't get that, and believe they can easily sway people's opinions (which they have formed from their trusted friends, in this new 2.0 landscape) ahead of their conversations with, you know, REAL people.

I may not go quite as far as James suggests (I still believe good advertising, which puts in the effort, can have some influence - if I didn't, I wouldn't work in this business), but, bluntly, I'm not much of a fan of the church of the 'brand' or the 'advertising or death' mantra which still seems to crop up in the odd conversation I have with people.

Annnyway. Ahem. Good brand advertising can work if it tries as bloody hard as this Brylcreem spot. It's a lovely bit of thinking, but an even better, harder working creative idea. And, people ACTUALLY participated, unlike a lot of these sorts of things. Enjoy (and check out the Myspace page - it's absolutely brilliant):

Making Rubbish..

Or Art? Picture via Baz_in_Moroland. Usual rules apply.

This post is a bit of a fusion of all of the thinking which has been floating about the wider ad community for a little while (and perhaps beyond - so it's not too much of an echo chamber post, honest).

It relates to one of my cardinal rules about working in this business. Essentially, ads are no longer seen as a novelty, something to be admired and held in a state of wonderment when they are particularly good. But, often, we're making rubbish.

Deeply thought about rubbish, with all of the faux, cod science levered in, but still rubbish. And of course, with all of the recent discussion about the Cadbury's Gorilla, something occurs to me. Advertising seems to be going through a post Enlightenment phase.

Bit of a poncy way to begin a week, but bear with me. We've had the intellectualising of the discipline (say from the birth of planning to about 2004), and now there seems to be a high/low culture (click the link, it's fascinating) debate going on. Matthew Arnold would be pleased.

What's rubbish ('low' advertising) and great ('high' advertising, with an obvious logical product link, it would seem) is now of great concern. And it's not just the Cadbury's Gorilla who has led to this concern, oh no. That ad is just a trigger, and I believe it belies some of the basic fear around in the industry.

Yes, fear. Fear that we are actually helping kill the planet (a bit overdone, but hell, with all the greenwashing about at the moment, it fits), and fear we're actually wasting our time doing this (and should be doing something great and good, like teaching today's youth, working in the charity sector or defending people's rights).

And things like the ban on outdoor advertising in Sao Paulo only adds fuel to this flame. Well, what's to be done about this dilemma?

I've already written about why I'm not, as a planner, overly worried about the Cadbury's Gorilla ad - indeed, in impromptu qual studies down the pub, it was the only ad which was talked about at great length (the recall was off the charts, by any ad tracking service's quantitative measuring). I don't think many other brands will be able to pull it off, but I don't have a problem with it existing - like I said before, it'll boil down to the sales figures (or the fact that everyone seems to have forgotten any chocolate related scandal) ultimately.

Bluntly, I don't care if the ads I make are rooted in a solid planning foundation, or if they are a lot more sensorial. Oh no. I care that they shift product. Hell, I like the music of both Mozart and Alkaline Trio, after all.

But the initial point about rubbish is very very important. Though great advertising can come close to being 'art' in one sense, I've never really viewed it as that. Some may disagree, of course - the fact that I have a simplistic grasp of the art world probably shines through in that comment. No, it's a sales technique that can entertain at the same time. I'd rather it did the former than the latter, to be honest. But anything which keeps it from being rubbish is very important.

When you make advertising, you are adding to the background noise in people's lives, forcing them to process another message. So, if this post makes any point, it's to say that clients and agencies need to make damn sure that any ad they make is relevant to people's lives. Above all, keep it from being another discarded, disused, non processed piece of crap that seems to adorn billboards, TVs and cityscapes around the world.

Rise of the Ronin....

Thanks to BettyBl. Usual rules apply.

No, not the bad film with Robert De Niro in it (though it does have one good car chase); more the term itself.

Stolen from Wikipedia, it refers to "A masterless samurai during the feudal period (1185–1868) of Japan. A samurai became masterless from the ruin or fall of his master, or after the loss of his master's favor or privilege." These chaps roamed the land, offering up protection to people who could afford it.

Russell has already blogged about this pretty extensively (yes, he even won the 'Battle of Big Thinking' with some thinking on the topic), and is living it with the OIA.

And I've been thinking about it myself a bit recently. Given that I've been through the demise of an agency, with people scattered to the four winds, I've only now been able to get a rough idea of just what everyone's up to (yes, Facebook helps).

What struck me is how many people are freelancing at the moment; whether they are experienced or not, whether they are planners or not...and how many seem to have either founded little businesses or already owned them. Russell's words kept ringing in my ears - but it took living through what I've done in the last few months to truly appreciate it.

People living lives on their own terms - it's very easy to SAY you are going to do it, or pick a brand which seems to suggest you are doing it (but often is complete lies - like choosing a branded coffee or water to claim exclusivity; and yes, I buy 'em too), but DOING it is quite another thing.

Even just into my planning career, I seem to be doing bits and bobs as well. Which is great - it's always nice to be wanted. But why should this be?

Well, people always value outside help. Rob @ Cynic's post about making pitches and client presentations above and beyond expectation seems to chime here. Bring in an informed outsider/expert, and you can simultaneously get a series of valuable insights whilst keeping overheads and margins down.

And with all the current confusion over just how planning is evolving (notably by Mark Earls, Mark Hancock, Gareth Kay and Zeus Jones), and whether it should still be called even be called planning, makes this Ronin debate even more interesting. If these experts have such doubt - and Stephen King himself was amazed planning was still same some 30 years on - then perhaps we need to re-evaluate.

I don't think the core message the communications/marketing disciplines are trying to get across has changed that much, but the vehicles for delivery are massively, massively different. As you'd expect.

I'm willing to bet that I multitask online to a far, far greater degree than my father say, and lightyears ahead of his father. It's not just being bombarded with messages - the rate at which change occurs is driving this fragmented landscape. It shouldn't be surprising that how we process information is accelerating with ever-increasing rapidity. So, the old model for planning does look a little dusty in that regard. But does it need changing?

Personally, (and this does have relevance, honestly) I'm enjoying having a basic, pay as you go phone at the moment - no pressure on me to ring someone (and not everyone knows my number; both a blessing and a curse). It'll change when I get another contract phone through my insurance - the pace of life will up again. Perhaps advertising can be accused of increasing this pace of life.

Certainly, ads can be seen to be urban graffiti nowadays- just legitimised by big companies...and that point of view is interesting, because it changes how and why you advertise. WCRS's new mega spot for Sky illustrates this point. Advertising is not an immediate 'go to' for agencies - nor is it championed by the Ronin - simply because it doesn't have to be; there's no network bottom line to support, or agency to fund.

Coming back to my point about Ronin - nowadays, we must not lose sight of our core skills, or core competancies; I fear that the rush to ever newer 'mobile phones'/shiny objects/planning techniques could lead to the discipline being irrevocably damaged, and very hard to take seriously. 'Advertising for Advertising's Sake' is hopefully dying a quiet death somewhere.

The WCRS spot seems to indicate that advertising is beginning to realise just what's what, and how people value a bit of peace and quiet and above all - to have the choice to tune out or in, right down to their employment decisions.

And yes, being self aware is oh so important, now more than ever. To know what you are good at and what you can do in these roamin' Ronin times. It's why I think the next great internet company may be on the verge of re-evaluating/reappraising how we work, and reformulating our job descriptions.


Some form of more practical content aggregator, something like Huddle, I think. Imagine something like Facebook, only a Facebook that your employer, client and various other freelancers had work on, could view your work, approve it and so forth. You could even customise them to suit the client (making a client portal). It's like having an online creative services assistant, which I think is very clever.

I've just been playing about with it and it's very interesting, especially in light of the recent San Diego Account Planning Conference, my former agency colleagues and my own situation.

Counter to all of this of course is the notion of the 'virtual agency', and how it could become reality. Well, I don't think the agency in its current form will die - I still think the best advertising work happens in bigger teams; with one person taking responsibility for the strategy, one for the client and one for the creative.

BUT....I think the convergence of all of these things is incredibly telling, and I think that whomever can harness this Ronin movement (as Huddle may yet be able to - try it for free here) will do very, very well indeed. We shall see.

Thoughts, readers?

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.

Formed a band, We Formed a Band.. Look at us..

The Stone Roses/Primal Scream bassist Mani.

Well, it's time for what one of my tutors would call an 'inappropriate analogy'. To hell with it, they didn't have any Art Brut lyrics to use when writing titles.

Yes, I'm drinking at the well of pretension today. And it tastes good.

The subject of this piece of overstretched thinking is advertising (and its denizens) as a band. This has already been brought up by the erstwhile Mr Davies, but I thought I'd give it my own thoughts. Especially after going to a few gigs last week.

Planners then. We're quite clearly the bassists of the whole operation. Making sure the work hums along, is in rhythm with what the client and the audience want. Bands/Advertising can work without us (Sony 'Balls' is clearly an extended guitar solo of creativity), and we must never forget that. But with us, we can make the work groove along.

Also, perhaps most importantly - when we do our job, you barely notice that we are there. The work works, it's on the right brief, and products/albums get shifted. We're the creative midwives of the whole operation (thanks to Craig M for that description), who are often in the background. Plus - bass solos rarely work (unless you are Andy Rourke or Mani Mountfield).

Production/Creative Services...let's think about them. I'd say they are the drummers in our advertising band. Driving the work through with their thumping beats. Without these guys, the world falls apart.

And their ability to make even the most outlandish request fly (through their extended drum soloes on the phone to suppliers and others) means they are essential. God, we need these people. Often the most understated/lovely people in the advertising band.

The ad band in force. I'm quite happy to be Rourke. Listen to the Queen is Dead for proof of that.

Now, these next two are up for debate (depending on what side of the fence you sit). But this is how I'd appraise them:

Account Handlers are the vocalists in our band. Without their melodious vocal stylings to the client, even the most flamboyant piece of guitar work/creative execution wouldn't get into the hearts and minds of the record buying public.

I'm not sure if the lyrics would sound the same if not for these guys. It's got to be well projected to convince a weary record buying public, who are used to the NME trumpeting them as the next big thing.

Finally, Creatives. These guys are the lead guitarists and the lyricists of our little outfit. They make the sonic landscapes that everything comes from. Sometimes at odds with the way the vocalist sings their lyrics, they are nonetheless vital to providing the hooks in the band.

Sometimes they can get overly flamboyant, and are pulled back by the rest of the band, but when they collaborate, the music has a good beat, and you can dance to it.

(NB: Yes, I know The Smiths don't quite fit into the ad band as Morrissey wrote the lyrics, but ah well).