'Sciency' Communications & Partnerships...

How a lot of ads are made...

The title of this post might confuse anyone who's not read Douglas Holt's latest book, 'Cultural Strategy'. If you haven't (and you're reading this whilst in possession of a job on communications), you owe it to yourself to have a look. It's really very good.

Anyway, in the book, Holt uses the term 'Sciency' to refer to the vast majority of measures that marketers use to measure communications. Pretty much any brand tracking or ad evaluation, in Holt's eyes, falls under this lens.

It's something that I'm sure a large number of planners and researchers would violently agree with (and especially Rupert Howell - read a fragment of his 2000 MRS speech). Using rubbish measures to assess the efficacy of work has led to a short termist (or at best, medium-term) culture, one where the number of long lasting brand strategies can be counted on the finger of one hand.

Don't get me wrong, I don't simply think it's as saying 'research is the devil' or 'research needs to be more representative of real life - then it'll work'. Life is far too chaotic for that. Sometimes concept testing does give you the right answer, or a series of clues to test further.

My problem comes when business judgements are made solely as a result of soft metrics. When bonuses are attached to scores on a brand tracker, everybody loses. Marketing becomes needlessly short termist.

It becomes more troubling when the markets aren't immune from this kind of behaviour. Thomas Cook, if reports are to be believed, lost 75% of its market value on the basis of a report about cash flow. One thing led to another, confidence was low amongst business forecasters, and the business suffered. This is the same principle as an ad being judged harshly in research, researcher confirming it, clients passing it on and the organisation rejecting it. A good idea (or business) could take years to re-emerge.

Yet, look what's said by Thomas Cook, amongst those that control the business. Patently, the business wasn't failing, but needed more money in the short term for working capital. However, because this corporate story was read as a potential threat to consumers (it wasn't), the market panned it. If the ad in my example could be proven to benefit the business (focusing on what's happened to the business historically, rather than the mostly short-termist, false idol of brand), then it should be the measure given most weight.

If 'information' or 'Sciency' findings lead to a short term reaction without considering the broader picture (or indeed, what's actually important - that the business's sales come from markets across Europe, or that the ad will be seen in context beyond a darkened focus group room, and - hopefully, as part of a wider strategy), then 'Sciency' conclusions are indeed to blame for a lot of bad comms. They lead to short-termist thinking, and short termist thinking risks undermining the business, in much the same way as Thomas Cook and The City appear to have operated.

And, in truth, it's never been easier (or indeed, more seductive) for the metrics obsessed marketer to fall into this trap. What IS my Klout score? Likes on Facebook? Number of RTs for my tweet?

Or, indeed, the notion of 'awareness or brand loyalty as a 'key metric'. It's deceptively simple to gain awareness; parading your agency down the street starkers with your brand name emblazoned across their chest would do the trick. And the notion of loyalty, as Ehrenberg has demonstrated, is largely false.

No, what needs to happen is a return to business basics. Over a significant period of time, what has happened to sales? Why? How can we isolate this activity? What happened in the test market versus the control market? What does the overall competitive landscape look like in terms of sales? Are we representative? Yes? No? Why, or why not? Who buys what brand/s, and do they make up the majority of the share?

If we can answer some of those with authority, we might just be getting somewhere. If we can't, no amount of social media monitoring will make a ha'penny jizz to your business performance. It might put a sticking plaster over some of the 'Sciency' metrics, but not a lot more.

Thinking about this further, there is a very real need for partnerships as a means of growing business and brand appeal. Marketers; your brand is not the white, shiny snowflake you'd like it to be. To punters, it's just another toothpaste they sometimes buy.

But, if your communications wants to move the needle from A to B, to tap into a behaviour that is relevant and interesting for your brand (that you've tested to see - and not just ad testing; ethnographic findings/google search analysis/SKU purchasing over a significant period of time) and business - why not consider some form of partnership?

It would seem to me that nothing is created solely on its own, if indeed it ever was. People buy into brands for a myriad of reasons, but there's usually a contextual reason why. It may be you buy a Philips electric shaver because your father did, and you're assured of the brand's quality.

If I wanted to move the needle for you to consider my Braun shaver, I'd have to tap into something potent, with obvious cultural resonance, that meant something to you. No amount of boards in a darkened room (or indeed, fully finished ads on the telly) would do that.

But my friends might. And, if I knew that my friends were buying or doing something which related to shaving in some faint way (such as using a Braun as a result of a cultural tie up with Movember or something similar), then I might switch.

Heck, if I was the Braun Marketing Director, I might just try this out. And I might see if it moved the needle. Not in a month. Not in 3 months. But over years. Medium term measures could be moved away from if I had access to a robust database of the kind of people I wanted to target from another, receptive and culturally relevant brand I'd tied up with - this would go some way to avoiding a 'the ad's shit' response from my colleagues. I'd have proper data at my disposal, and some way of tapping into the hard responses - checking brand buying behaviour from those who liked Braun AND were doing Movember.

Then, and only then, would I consider my Marketing a success. Not when celebrity X retweeted my campaign, or the number of hits on Youtube. I've watched all sorts of things on Youtube; if it led to purchase in any way, I'd be in the possession of about 5 cats that could play the keyboard.

I guess what I'm really driving at is getting businesses to base their decisions on what's happening to sales of a product/service over time, or by consulting a robust database (either their own or a brand's that they've partnered with) and then getting into more spur of the moment research.

That'd stop the small-minded, short-termist pissing money away, and, I'm sorry to say, it's only likely to happen with a long-term relationship with an agency that was allowed access to historical data from which to make decisions, and these are all too rare. A business that understood historical business data, and was quick enough on its feet to help navigate where the brand could play culturally...that's the dream, I think, whether you're a client or an agency. Wouldn't that be nice? We might actually be *gulp* business partners.

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.

Grit makes the Pearl...

It looks like a variation on a G. Could be wrong, though.

Hello. Happy Easter, first of all. I'm enjoying the chance to potter at home, to play a little golf and reflect on the past four months or so since Easter.

Anyway, I thought you might like to know that since Christmas, I've begun to try to learn the guitar. Now, this is a bit of a new thing for me; I've never, ever learned to play any musical instrument. It's kind of odd, especially when you consider that I love music - I've spent thousands of pounds on it since my teenage years.

And, well, let's just say that it's not as easy as it might seem, this guitaring. I've spent hours and hours practicing my chord changing, learning basic pentonic scales and beginning to learn bits and bobs of songs I like. Perhaps most notably - I can now play the beginning to 'The Funeral' slightly slower than Band of Horses can. Heh.

It's been fun, so far, partly helped by the fact I have no expectations (save to be able to play songs/be able to noodle). I don't have any desire to pack it all in and become a musician, but I do find myself getting cross when I can make a chord change quickly enough.

That in itself's been interesting; my guitar teacher's got me using a metronome to get quicker, and that led to an admission from my flatmate (a former teacher of guitar himself) that he'd never used one. No, he'd just used his ear, and never been taught the 'proper' way, and wished he had, as he admitted his tempo wasn't up to snuff, and that would've helped. He, like me, played to amuse himself.

Now, I want to learn the 'proper way', even if I at a later date I short-hand it. I know what my musical desires are (though my teacher tells me that as soon as I play with other musicians, I'll want to kick it up a notch), and am happy enough. I'm sure there'll come a time when I know more to challenge some of the things I've been taught, though.

What interests me about all of this is that I think proper practice does require proper grit; to learn things the 'right' way and ask pertinent questions as you go along. I've always wanted to learn the way it's been done, historically - to challenge what's been accepted as the norm, and find out when it's useful/when it can be disregarded.

Running AdGrads, I have met a lot of graduates. Many incredibly talented, many incredibly conscientious...with the odd one that's so talented that they'll re-write the way the business is thought of.

What I find most interesting (bearing in mind AG's been in existence for about 4 years now) is to track the progress of those who have been successful the first time round versus those who've had to work at it and those who've given up and done something different.

Without question, there are some brilliant, brilliant people in communications. Like my flatmate's guitar playing, they've demonstrated a natural ability. But, occasionally, they get to about two years in, and stall. They've made it. To the average person (and client, in a lot of cases) they know what they're talking about. Yet they're disillusioned; they've put so much into the goal of getting in that there's no real incentive to push on. They're able to play their songs, tap out their beats and, ultimately, be a cog in a business. I think this happens most often to the planners I've seen - there's no real job title change, short of getting in and on.

It's the triers that do best in both businesses; those who can internally motivate themselves, be gritty and ask the right sort of questions. These callous-finger-tipped sorts don't just 'settle' for things. So you can't move from F to C quickly enough? Keep working. Find another way of doing it. Hum along to the song you're trying to master to learn a better way to play it than the oft-wrong tab pages suggest to do so. When it comes to comms, don't just accept that because you're two years in and working in London that planner x's word is law, or that what a client says is the way it always will be.

Get out there, meet different sorts of people, and apply some real life to situations (as Rob's excellent post points out). Don't just listen to Twitter or Campaign Magazine. Those promote a very 'media' way of thinking about the problem at hand.

It's perhaps no wonder that the public no longer thinks that the ads are better than the programmes - so many communications initiatives are created as much to please the 'in' crowd as anything else. I don't give a fuck what famous planner Y thinks of my campaign. If it met/exceeded its objectives (which, in truth, only you and the client will know), then it's worked. It's like this tweet; I have no doubt whatsoever that the people they wanted to talk to weren't 20-30 something comms professionals in London. No doubt at all. So many people judge 'the work' not as punters, and that's a big problem.

I think lazy judgements on the work is another symptom of a lack of grit; a lack of willingness to think about just how real people (remember them?) will behave when work like that is placed in front of them.

To take this back to the guitar again - my guitar teacher, Ryan Carr, is trying to make a go of a career as a full-time guitarist (rather than as a 50/50 teacher/guitar player split). He has a refreshing attitude to the notion of grit. On my second lesson (after buying some more kit - a capo/metronome from a nearby shop), I asked him why most people in Denmark St music shops were such dickheads. Most of them sneered like bastards when I asked some pretty simple questions about just what brand of capo I should buy. He said to me that most of them were washed up, the sort of guys who had/have some natural talent, but were unwilling to ever chance their arm and try for full time careers as musicians. He knows that he's in a risky position, and that he's got some difficult creative decisions to make - to the T-Mobile example earlier, just how populist does he make his music? Regardless of which way he goes, I respect him for giving it a go, and being true to what he actually thinks, and not a sneery musical sycophant.

It's the worrysome nature of creative careers that it's often easier to sit in the sidelines, being in with the in-crowd, going along with the popular consensus because you're too frightened to make something happen or venture how you really feel.

And, frankly, I think that's a bit sad. I think, for the likes of comms folk, that we shouldn't be frightened of arguing fully for the work, about just why it will/won't work, and be less frightened of just blithely nodding along with what famous planner/creative x says. If we don't do that, we run the risk of sitting, working in the ad equivalent of the music shop from High Fidelity, where people wank on for hours about gamification - something, which whilst wonderful as a theory, just might not sell more bars of soap.

I like working with people who have strong beliefs. People who don't work in a culture of fear, who say what they think and argue about the direction of accounts. People who I can raise my voice towards and go to the pub with afterwards. People who have their comms callouses, who love what they do and have tried to get better. Not people who've glided in, grown disillusioned and are too scared/lazy to do something about it. That's where the best work comes from, whether it's a song, an event or an ad.

Anyway. Back to trying to learn the Crane Wife 3.

Johnson, Writing, Briefing and Orwell..

It's been a little while since I updated here. A combination of laziness, work bits and bobs and just not really having much to say has meant I've left WAM well enough alone.

Anyway, after going to see a lecture at the LSE by Steven Johnson (which was excellent - he's very good value) on the topic of his new book, all about where good ideas come from, sparked a thought.

Recently, I've been getting a tad fed up with the use of buzzwords in the communication industry. 'Glocal', 'Agile', 'Transmedia', 'Platform' - all of these make me wince whenever they're used.

Yes, most are shorthand for a bigger thought, but I don't find them particularly helpful.

And there was one thing that Steven Johnson referred to - the need to make your ideas as easily understandable as possible, to increase the size of your network. Basically, ensure that what you're saying can be understood by many, to increase the likelihood that it'll be picked up, adopted and shared.

Jen, my colleague at work, pointed to a T.S. Elliot essay, 'Tradition and the Individual Talent', which asserts the need of creative work/ideas to have some nod to the tradition in which it is born into, in order to be understood and be accepted.

And, after reading that, I began to think about the odd good idea I have when I write briefs. Without exception, the best thinking happens (or, indeed, the best selling to client) when complicated things can be translated into simple language, which can easily be shown to be spreadable - people read it, and it leads to a debate or a thought from it.

Not something which is self evident (I'm looking at you, Transmedia) and has a word attached to it which confuses the 95% of the world that don't work in comms - and some of those who do. When words like that get accepted, I think they lead to exclusivity, and not great ideas.

Now, I don't mind words which coin something brand new - but they should be able to be understood from the get-go. Otherwise, I don't think Planners are doing their job, which is (partly) to synthesise complex topics, encourage lateral thinking, new, useful ideas and, ultimately, behaviour change.

So, I decided to have another look at my writing Bible, George Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language'. If you haven't read it, stop reading this and take ten minutes to sit down, have a cup of tea and pore over it.

Like Richard, I'm a very big fan of George Orwell, and thought it was worth splicing in some of his thinking with Johnson's lecture, and what we know about Eliot. This next quote is a great introduction to how to write decent briefs (especially propositions, for my money):

"A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?"

And, next, Orwell continues to explain (much, much better than I can) about why using lazy, shorthand phrases is wrong:

"But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself."

The last point is crucial. Certain industry buzz words don't help foster innovation or lateral thought - they have the effect of confusing most people, and acting as lazy shorthand, not helping people express what they mean. For my money, if you have to explain it to your creatives, account team or client and it's not clear, take it out. Simpler and shorter is almost always right, not academic and perplexing. You aren't doing your job if it requires a BA in Cultural Studies to 'get it'.

In his essay, Orwell also does a neat job of explaining just how you can express what you think is a good idea. Interestingly, it's not always found within language, and this next passage is fascinating:

"When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally."

In short - think about what will best sell your idea. What combination of pictures and sensations will most easily lead to your idea being sold? Don't simply risk using the comms word of the day.

To bring this back to the Steven Johnson lecture, he talked a lot about the 'Architecture of Serendipity', environments that take advantage of the slow burning nature of ideas, that make the connections between people. Comms agencies need to not quash these thoughts, not impose artificial environments (I'm looking at you, lazy briefings and brainstorms) which don't help.

You can see in your mind's eye, can't you? A planner with no time, cobbling together some of the latest shorthand buzzwords, confusing the creative/account team, and pissing in the well of inspiration.

Those three writers are why I have a natural tendancy to dislike whatever the comms word of the month is. I like analogies, because they tend to do the sensation and image part much better than an 'Agile' or a 'Platform', which already lead you to the wrong places.


I'm aware of the need to coin a term, but most, I don't think, are that helpful. The lazy definition of a planner as 'the smart one' encourages this, in truth. Heck, just look at the Big Society - it reads like it was written by a bunch of planners with not enough time.

Obliquity: Why You Shouldn't Behave Economically..

Hello there. It's been a little while since I've posted. Sorry about that. Been busy at work, doing a variety of new business bits and bobs, along with trying to hire a Junior Planner for the burgeoning department.

One of the more fun things which has happened has been getting a book budget (a bit sad, but very exciting if, like me, there's a lot you want to read). And, one of the first books on the list was Obliquity by John Kay, which has been oft-trumpeted by the IPA.

Now, if you click on book's link, you'll find it's had a bit of a panning by certain people, who claim the book only contains one idea. Well, they aren't wrong. And, it is short. That said, I wasn't expecting more than an idea in 180 pages.

Anyway, on with the review. Kay merges some of Taleb's Black Swan thinking with Kahnemann et al (which makes sense, as an former think-tank employee and a senior financier) to come up with the central hypothesis about life and problem solving. Essentially, all what he calls 'high level objectives' (life objectives like being successful/happy et al) are best achieved indirectly. Life, for Kay, is too complex to try and map a direct solution onto it.

Most people, in his view, after they have achieved something, back their opinions up with post-rationalisation (sound familiar, planner folk?) as they can't adequately explain all of the factors which governed what they did. He calls this Franklin's Gambit, in homage to Ben Franklin, who wrote about how he made moral decisions:

“Divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro, and over the other Con. Then, during three or four days’ consideration, I put down under the different heads short hints of the different motives, that at different times occur to me for or against the measure.

“When I have got them all together in one view, I endeavour to estimate the respective weights… I have found great advantage for this kind of equation, in what may be called moral or prudential algebra.”

This was known as Franklin's Rule, but it is rarely so black and white as that when dealing with major corporations, government or the like - decisions have already been made internally, or a narrow picture has been painted and acted upon, so any work done creating models or the like is simply justifying the decision that's already been made.

Does this sound familar to anyone who works in oooh, Advertising, PR or Management Consultancy? Kay preaches the need to get started, to focus on those small tasks which work towards the larger goal; new problems and thoughts will occur.

I'm somewhat divided by this book; part of me thinks it's terrific, and a very good justification for trying, failing and carrying on, and has useful ammunition to stop clients deciding that the communications solution is black before they've ever contemplated white.

The more cynical side to me agrees with the Amazon critics; for all its worthy case studies and writing, it does essentially play the same note throughout the whole book. Yes, of course people act with a sense of pluralism - no-one (save the brain damaged) can focus wholly on one goal and never be shifted. Real life's not like that; a small child could let you know that it's not fair, never mind a FT columnist/former Director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

I would say to you (whoever 'you' are) to have a look at it - particularly if you've not dealt with many big corporations in your time; it's a welcome voice of sanity when it comes to goal setting and focusing attention on getting the small things right as an absolute necessity. It also does a good job of justifying some of the more obscure bits of Planning, in my opinion; i'm not surprised the IPA liked it so much.

Time, Time, Time..

The title of the post allows me a spot of Waits. Good stuff.

How long is too long? Does it really take weeks and months to write a thoughtful piece of creative work? What would happen if we tightened the screws and made it days and weeks? Why do some people need years to summon up the courage to tell someone they love them?

Flipping it - when does quality begin to suffer with not enough time? Coming up with a decent creative solution shouldn't be like keeping battery hens and expecting a golden egg every time.

I'd think that this would vary depending on who you asked, like the Tom Waits song of the same name. Account handlers would always like more time. They are those who are often placed in battery hen situations, and it's nice when you have a select few who can rise above it and see the blue skies. I think the reverse happens to planners, in truth. We don't often have particularly concrete deadlines for our work (save pitches and big bits of client scheduling).

And, as the Fast Strategy conferences touched upon, there may be some merit in speeding up the whole planning process now and then. You can have too long to think about something. I bring this up because, well, PR planning has a lot less time than Advertising. You get a month to pitch? We get two weeks. When faced with this sort of thing, it's easy to understand why there's a historical divide between the two disciplines.

Personally, i've always been an advocate of it taking as long as it takes. Yes, I know that sounds incredibly woolly, but to assume that you can come up with anything more than a semi-decent strategy in a day is fallacious. I think the bosses i've ever worked for have understood this - you can come up with a piece of thinking on Sunday that's infinitely better than a week's worth of work when you're obviously trying to think about it.

Strategic thinking's not a linear process, and any job which is actively engaged with the creative process should recognise this. It's not a simple matter of hot housing ideas or thinking. It's about doing stuff to take your mind of it, often. Cwoffee is an extension of this, or even something like my banal twitter account. The aim of both is almost to take my mind off the day job, so I can allow my unconscious mind to chug along to a more interesting solution.

It's also why it's so heartening to realise that most marketeers are beginning to reject the notion of a straightforward purchase funnel. Real life isn't like this, so why the hell should a 'buying process' really exist? It's comforting, but it's damned wrong. It's why the idea of lining up or organising your organisation like a client troubles me; we're The Agency. We are the people who should surprise, shock or delight their clients. Not mirror them. If clients can mildly ape what we can with some talented staff writers and Mac-ites, then proper lateral thinking is the best weapon we have. To foster that, we need to not be tied to being a little sub-client doing factory which you find in many of the agency client relationships around the world.

And when this comes to media, as discussed before, it really puts a lot of the big buying shops under the microscope. Why would you bulk buy media packages? Why wouldn't you be more reactive and creative? To buy even a series of TV spots around a certain type of programming ever more looks like you're spunking money up the wall. Find out where people are inspired and reactively buy. This jars horrendously with the big meeja agency shop's principle of having largely junior staff to fill in spreadsheets and bulk buy, with a smattering of senior staff overseeing the process. Why wouldn't you entrust where the message goes to those who come up with the creative messaging, and actually have RESEARCHED the audience, rather than some limp and out of date dataset which tells you nothing more than what people who like filling in research said, at best, six months ago?

With all of that said, I don't think being thoughtful and being fast are as oil and water as many seem to think they are. To have a set of base principles which inform upon action, which are flexible enough to allow new discoveries to change things (in much the same way Nokia changed its focus from engineering to mobiles many moons ago) seems to be the way to go. To rely on a silo to ensure business success has never seemed so inapt.

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.

Decoding Decode.

If only real life was a bit more like this. Photo via Tim_D (usual rules apply)

Hello there. Been a bit silent on the old blog front in the last month. Sorry about that. It's been rather work-tastic, which has been excellent, but keeping me from writing about of the stuff i've been up outside of work in the last few weeks.

The most interesting thing i've seen has easily been Decode. It's on at the V&A until April, it is only a fiver, and YOU NEED TO GO.

It is the kind of thing that Lauren would fall head over heels in love with, were she still in London educating ignorant people like me about the wonders of contemporary art. Me, I liked it because of all the interactivity and bright colours. But then, i'm a simple beast (albeit one who likes to do star jumps when an exhibition calls for it).

I'm not going to go into detail about the specifics of the exhibits (We Feel Fine was there, natch, as was the video/visualisation for a Radiohead song - House of Cards), but suffice to say, they were a glorious mixture of the fantastic, the obscure and the intriguing. And a few of them were broken, but it made me feel less intimidated and less like a luddite.

No, what i'm going to talk about is the booklet I snagged from there, which features interviews with a few of the leading exhibitors. It really opened my eyes about how certain segments of the art world are facing the same debates as the comms world - about physicality, of how information is managed and dealt with, and how to manage the blurring between logic and magic. (NB: I'm not claiming communication is art, or even getting into that debate right now...heh).

Daniel Rozin (the man behind the 'Weave Mirror' exhibit- check it out here) in particular had some fascinating things to say. When asked about his work, and how much it represented an evolution of a new practice, or whether it was a brand new discipline, he had this to say:

"I certainly think of my work as part of a continuum of artistic expression that is constantly evolving. The main issues of my work - interactivity, point of view, human perception, image creation, participation etc - are by no means new subjects of thought for art. Artists have been thinking about these issues for centuries. The tools that I currently use are tools of technology (and artists have always used new technologies for their art). So I feel like my tools are different, and with the new tools come new opportunities, but the sensibilities are the same."

And there was another good one. When he was asked about the nature of his work, and what it posed for museums and established collections, he said this (shortened slightly):

"On the artistic side of things, both museums and collectors need to build up a literact when it comes to digital art. It takes a certain amount of experience and knowledge to be able to identify the outstanding and significant pieces from the more ubiquitous pieces which are merely flashy technological demonstration."

Now, this is interesting. I can barely code, but like to think I have a reasonably firm grasp on just what to look for in a good piece of communication (digital or otherwise). I do think there are those who don't have much of a digital mindset - by that I mean a lack of an appreciation that pieces of communication are there to be useful, to be shared and to be inclusive.

The facility for identifying this in pieces of communication, or to be able to tell when a tool presents a new opportunity - those are the traits which I think should be valued above all else. Thinking about the space in which things are going to be consumed, how cross pollinated things will be, how contrary people are, how likely things are going to be played with and remixed - those are skills which should always be applied. Slapping a tired old demographic on something, or a hackneyed, banal cliche - that's the enemy of lateral thinking.

Decode taught me that - you had grandmothers doing a dance to change the colours, and small children acting INCREDIBLY seriously around pieces of interactive art (as if they owned it, and it was only performing for them)...it opened my eyes a bit.

And i'll leave it to Golan Levin (creator of the fabulously named 'Opto-Isolator II') to have the last word. He was asked what digital technologies allow you to do that design technologies don't:

"I can create behaviour".

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.

Anti Social Brands...

Lolcat goodness, via msmail. Usual rules apply.

I'll be honest, I didn't go to IPASocial, despite the ferocious twittering around it. So i'm going to caveat these remarks with that.

I didn't go despite the fact a lot of my friends were speaking. While I like socialising with them, I can be sociable just as easily in the pub, as well as debating the finer points of online and offline behaviour (I'd also forgotten when it was on).

Plus, as Sam rightly pointed out, for an event about social behaviour, it was unusual with its differing charges for members and non members (which I usually don't mind, but it seemed to be against the principles of the evening; especially rule 2 - a social agenda, not a business agenda).

I'll be interested to see whether it goes, and what happens when a brand adopts some of those principles directly from the event; that'd make a case study i'd love to find out more about.

With all of that said, I think there's a point it might all be missing; that being 'social' isn't for every company or brand.

I don't give a stuff what most brands think about things - do I care that my bank thinks about the world differently, or cares that all of its customers are bright, shiny snowflakes? No. I don't. I care that it's able to manage my money, not rip me off, and not go bust any time soon. And, to be honest, i'm more interested in giving to a bank which cares about what I think it should be good at.

In fact, I somewhat admire this close minded stance for brands who offer an emotional or physical experience which is like no other brand's. Making a virtue of sticking to what you know, and what you're good at still creates loyalists.

And it can even live on 'social' networks. Look at Tower Bridge, or Henry Winter (the Telegraph's tip top football writer). People know about them, and them not being social or responding isn't really an issue.

I think getting too wedded to social brand behaviour is bloody dangerous, especially as 10% of twitter users generate most of the content. Yes, we're inherently social creatures, but to our friends and family. Not necessarily to brands.

Brands - I don't want to be your friend, I just want you to do your job, and do it better than your competition. In fact, I rather like it when that's all you focus on. Be useful to me and i'll like you. Don't get hung up on being social for the sake of it.

I hate to use the 'brands like people' thing here, but it's true to some extent; some brands are the life and soul of the party. Some are the socially awkward introverts who have other interests than being loquacious. And there's nothing wrong with that.

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?

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.

Funny old thing, nostalgia...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Less Haste, More Speed..

Not me; I drive like a little old lady. Photo via Lazyousuf. Usual rules apply.

Hello.

I've been to rather a lot of talks in the last week or so, so I thought I should write about all three of them, and the overriding thought that's been left with me. It's about not dicking about with things and, rather, doing them speedily.

Speed has been on the mind of the planning community for a little while - most notably the 'Fast Strategy' conference last year which I went to. I think if I learned anything that day, it was that really good strategy can take a long time to get to, but given enough pressure and a (lack of) time, you can get to a good place. It's how pitches are won, and also - why so few clients have the confidence to go with a pitch strategy.

And, thoughts turned to how to sell quicker strategies. Not hasty, ill-formed strategies - the kind of which are hypothesis which haven't been tested, but instead - well founded thoughts which are arrived at quickly using client data, the t'terwebs and tested against current punters. Often, these come from outside the category.

So it was with some interest I wandered along to meet possibly the father (in my eyes) of Fast Strategy, Mr Adam Morgan. His book, Eating The Big Fish, has been a staple for planners in the last ten years or so.

And he spoke on Tuesday about how he was, frankly, a tad pissed off. A little bit cross about how folk (marketeers, planners, communications bods) misinterpreted his theory about challenger brands. Most people, he proposed, view challenger brands as a David vs Goliath story. You're always the little guy, picking on the big brand, or the big issue. And, frankly, he thought it was toss - there was far more depth to the theory than that.

There's probably not enough space for me to go into a massively detailed look at how he sliced it (13 times, which I, in all honesty, thought was stretching it a little far). I liked the idea of a brand being the people's champion (any excuse to use The Rock in a presentation is something we should all get behind) - to fight for a cause which the public believed in, though the danger is that it becomes a little po-faced and obvious going forward; I wouldn't see it as a long term strategy if the brand hadn't done in the beginning. I also thought the idea of a brand as a visionary was interesting - taking a position which is well above that of a category, and never returning to it. The brand is in the category because it believes it sees further than the rest. Could potentially become very arrogant, but it's still interesting. The next generation was another good one - working in a category you know has to change, and you're the first, trying to get it to realise that things have moved on.

There were ten more, but they were all variations on a theme. Essentially, be provocative, but pick just what it is you're going to be provocative about. What *really* interested me, which wasn't talked about, was how you arrive at that challenger position. How do you pick a fight in the first place? Which is the right one? Do people properly quantify it?

My theory behind all of this was a reasonably simple one. I think people like the theory of challenger brands because it's bloody quick (usually) to find what you want to fight against. What's tricky is not being hasty when you're refining it. What IS it about the company/belief/you're going against? Sure, you want to pick a fight, but have you really considered just why you want to challenge it?

Great strategy is born when the challenge is well nuanced, and shaped to be the right one. Getting there will take some degree of time, unless it's so overwhelmingly obvious everyone has decided to do it.

Anyway, the second talk I went to was another IPA sponsored one, but this time, was by the IPA Strategy Group, who had put on a talk about those cheeky 'game changers', who have flipped how we see comms. Or rather, as I took from it (again, broken record) - how to do innovative things quickly.

We had Dan Hon from Six to Start (the name of which I later discovered is from board games...funny) talk about the project the guys have done with Penguin, Tim Malbon from Made by Many talk about MBM's internal processes, and how successful they've been, and finally Giles Andrews from Zopa, who talked about how it came into being.

And again, the same old horse chestnut kept resonating. Be bloody rigorous with your thinking, but don't be precious about it - that way leads to rigid corporations and hasty, and ill-advised decisions. These companies are doing well because they've worked in a genuinely collaborative way - check out the slideshare presos from the first two.

I did stop and wonder just how hard it'd be to implement some of the processes at work. I wondered whether it'd only work with quite small companies; the more people you get, the more emphasis there is on haste, the more messages fail to get disseminated, and the processes begin to break down.

But then, thinking along those lines, what would happen if you set a limit on the number of permanent staff on board, and kept the processes the same, getting your freelance staff/exterior companies to work to it? I think it'd potentially be very compelling.

It ties in a little with the final talk I went to this week, 'What can Google see?'. In short, don't worry if you missed this. I hadn't read the book, but the talk was spoiled by the amount of people who turned up who were either conspiracy nuts, or didn't really know what Google had done in the last few years - what programs they'd developed.

What was interesting was the topic of the 'numerati', which was term used to describe all of the mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists who have a access to the digital footprints we leave online. I wanted to know more about these people, rather than the pat explanation of what search terms people look at, and the idea of very basic market segmentation they can do, which was what the talk focused on.

Imagine, if you will, a flexible, but tight process (think Chinese Fingertrap agency), which is run by a combination of creative agency people, and the numerati. That'd be really interesting; staffing it partly with freelance people who buy into the principles of the agency, and full timers who have the ability to work flexibly yet tight when the need dictates. There'd have to be a cap on the amount of people who worked there, to ensure the agency kept its principles and the quality didn't slip.

This would go along with Tim's thought about the first, small strategy, which could be overruled in an environment where you have to rigorous and speedy.

Anyway...those were the three talks. Some randomness; let me know what you think.