OK folks, pastrami really needs your help. And because I obviously have not done the job well enough, I've gone the tried and true account planner method - the consumer clips video. If you can;t say it yourself, have somone else say it for you. So after you see this scroll down and vote!!
Vote here...
Shareholder value value is a widely used term in (US) business, but for a while there was an alternative model: stakeholder value. This took into account not just the free cash flow created for the company's owners, but the value created or destroyed for employees, people in the business's local community etc.
In doing some thinking for the Miami Ad School class I am teaching, and in particular in re-reading John Grant's book, I feel we are in a similar place with brands, although hopefully one with more traction than stakeholder capitalism (which never took on here at least).
Faris had a great post where he points out that brands are socially constructed reality. Initially, in the days of the USP, this was done using a shared understanding of the product values. Next came a sharing of distinct image values. Now that both these ways in are facing challenges from anyone who is not truly innovative, one alternative is to add value directly to the collective that create the reality.
I use the word collective rather specifically, because what I means is creating public value - something that we can all share and participate in and derive equal benefit from (even if, in some cases at least, we do not own or buy the product).
You might call this a brand's stakeholder value, but I'd rather call it the social value i.e. the value brands add to everyone (not just those connected with it). I doubt I am saying anything radically new, but I do think this is a little different than John Grant's cultural ideas or what Alex Wipperfurth writes about in Brand Hijack . For example, a fertilizer that is good for the environment and donates a lot of product to help grow food in Africa is a brand with social value, but I am not sure if it is a cultural idea (I may be wrong). On the other hand, Run London is both a cultural idea (an event) and a social idea (it adds value to everyone). Nike + is "just" a cultural idea because you have to own the product to touch it.
My point is not to try and make rigid definitions, but to note that, in an increasingly connected world where we can interact in new ways, the way a brand affects all of us (not just, for example, what it says about the user), is a new playing field that any companies are not taking into account.
I'm advocating for pastrami over at Jared's Carnivore Project and I'm against Kirsty who is gunning for kangaroo (though hopefully not literally). It is an honor to talk about this great to meat though it has given me hunger pangs. Read on here but whatever you do,
The Wall Street Journal has just ran an interesting article about Imagini an online visualization company that is starting to use image sorts online as part of research surveys (though right now the site also offers you the chance to figure out your visual DNA).
I have been an advocate of this for a while but never found a provider to work with. For on thing, it makes the best use of the online medium to gain greater depth of information among a large group of people. More importantly, it allows us to do quant or (if we are forced to by clients) quant ad research that goes a small way to solving the issues Robert Heath rightly brings up about ad testing and the need to access working memory when thinking about ads.
A nie little coffee morning turnout on Friday. Hanso was back, and this time we were joined by Paul, Jeff, Kaitlyn, and Bob (both cut out of the picture). Conversation started off with the iPhone and went through Canada and graphical interfaces.
The next one will be on February 16th at Cafe de la Presse.
The Venice Project has now changed it's name to Joost and has finally (and somewhat undeservedly) decided to send me a beta invite. Apparently these are being somewhat sought after, so why i have one is a mystery.
As of right now though, I am not being blown away. Technologically, and experientially, it is like watching TV. Pure, on demand video at a reasonable (computer) resolution with a searchable customizable channel guide is the equivalent of nirvana for most people, who really only want to watch/pay for certain channels and not entire packages. And while admittedly this is software in beta stage, you can't get a feel for how big this could be without the right content. As of now, it feels very corporate: lots of record company videos, an interesting MTV documentary on people's reactions to AIDS adverts and some "making of" videos put out by bands. What is missing is the human element.
What makes Google special is not always what you find there but what you might find. The openness of the platform means you could find a diamond in the rough, and looking for something cool is half the fun. If I know what I will find, it's less interesting. Hopefully, Joost will evolve into a higher octane Google, where people will be able to create channels for interesting films or programs they are making and (helping to)bring about the vision of the Long Tail. It's not the only way for Joost to win, but it would be a fun one.
It's been a hectic start to the year so I'm a little late in putting this up - hopefully you've resolved to have an open calender.
This month's Likemind SF is on Friday the 9th at Cafe de la Presse (grant and Bush) at 8am.
Hope to see you there.
Web 2.0 is based on and creates trust. You use and rely on other people's reactions which causes you to trust them, though you need some degree of trust there in the first place.
At the same time, trust is at an all time low - in fact we are demanding more accountability from institutions, brands and even (when money is concerned) look for accountability mechanisms when money is concerned (e.g. zopa.com or eBay being able to get your money back).
Which is why I am very intrigued at the kinds of things trustmojo found out. In particular, I wonder how the nature of the US legal system (much more open and litigious than other places) and the way in which people have to openly establish credibility in a community, go a long way to negating the general mis-trust that pervades the nation. Perhaps the politicians should get online and start making travel recommendations to boost their ratings (after all, they see more places).
Talk about optimism - this is how bullish Apple are feeling. Having just come back from a quick trip MacWorld I can't blame them. We've all heard/read about iPhone, but then there is the Leopard OS and products like eyeTV (which can pick up over the air HD signals and play them off your computer.
But some of the best stuff I saw was from the vendors - I am not talking about the products necessarily. These guys knew their audience and played up to it withsome great brand theatre. There were the gents in lab coats promoting the SmartCam (v. powerful solid state video recorder for only $299) to the gent in the white tuxedo for Crumpler bags .
The best one yet wasthe one that took the most advantage of the audience. KNowing the number of designers etc. at MacWorld they left out sheets of paper and asked the attendees to design a new product using their iPod cases and various other tools. The next day people voted for the design they liked best (either by going online or checking out the design as posted on the both)and Belking would make it.
Yes people are there to ooh and aah and tlak tech. But they also need to have fun.
OK, there is no denying that it is here, it is cool and that (in all likelihood) 99.8% of planners are salivating over it. And lets face it, an iPod with a phone that also runs a full OS would be hard for anytechie not to love (though I see Engadget is not happy about the lack of 3G).
But what put me off a little was the tone.
""As I said, we have a very strong lineup of players this holiday season. We had a new competitor this holiday season, Microsoft's Zune. How'd they do? They garnered 2% market share in November 2006... we don't have data for December. No matter how you try and spin this, what can you say?"
"So how are we going to take this to a mobile device? Get rid of all the buttons, and just make a giant screen. So how are we going to communicate? We're going to use a stylus -- no. Who wants a stylus?? Yuck!"
This, combined with the pricing and lack of an open interface smacked a little bit of a superiority complex. And while it's easy to be thee when you are on top, one of the things Jobs poked fun at Microsoft with is their arrogance and rigidity (the new switchers as features PC guy going for surgery ot get Vista installed). Not all of Apple's products have been a success (e.g. their iPod hifi system) and looking at the comments on various blogs, reaction was surprisingly mixed.
Even if you are great, isn't it better to play the humble upstart?
In preparing for this course, I started re-reading the APG's "How to plan advertising" (edited by Alan Cooper) - mostly to see what I could swipe from there.
Although it was published it 1997, I was chagrined to see how many of the concerns we face in US planning are still around. For example....
"Clients have begun to look outside the agency for higher order thinking
Back then we were worried about consulting - now it's that,plus digital media agencies, media shops, ex-planners etc.
"More than ever, clients need transformational ideas that transcend advertising"
Well if it was more than ever then, how would we phrase it now?
Planners, and therefore agencies, are losing the high ground in advertising research
Much as we would like to think otherwise, ARS and ASI are still in business and there are plenty of (big) advertisers using their services. This is a dragon that we have yet to slay (since 1974 and Testing to Destruction )
So why has this happened? One simple explanation may be a failure to invest in resources for the common good of planning. Agency fees have been under such pressure for some time that there has been an inability by individual (smaller) agencies to invest in new research, training schemes etc. In addition, the conglomerization of the business has meant short term shareholder returns drive a lot of holding company decisions (vs the longer term thinking/planning we need to slay these perennial dragons).
It is interesting that the blogosphere has begun to provide much of the discussion and answers around the second bullet (and even the third). By using our time as an economic public good, are we doing what an entire industry cannot?
As with many great ideas, I'm not sure why on one thought of this before. ParkMatch matches people who own/pay for parking spaces in SF but don't use them all the time, with those that need a spot for the day. A great way to save the world from more unsightly parking garages.
I'm going to be teaching a course at the Miami Ad School on strategy for the next semester. The interesting/great thing about it is that I am teaching creatives not planners.
That being the case, I have a question to ask anyone reading this: while I/we know from experience that the best creatives are also great strategists (as are the best account people), how do people feel that teaching junior creative people about strategy should be different than teaching planners?
I suppose I should start with my own response, or at least where my head is at since this is till a work in progress. My feeling is that there should more emphasis on some of the upfront parts in the process as opposed to the actual development of strategy. To me, how you define and see the problem, as well as how you define the role of communication, are the elements that determie how far you are going to push the eventual ideas. Arming anyone with this skill would, hopefully, make them a better partner in the process. In contrast, people (in general) inately spark to an interesting idea or insight, and have the curiosity to go and look in places where these insights can be found.
That being said said, I am very open to being wrong :)
I found this interesting post at Fast Company which talks about the difference between authenticity and sincerity.
We talk a lot about companies needing to be authentic in order to have a true conversation with people. But this post made me consider if that is possible. Everyone knows companies need to make money and know that they are beholden to the financial markets. But they do not want to know that. They do not want to really know the inner machinations of these organizations - frankly it might frighten people to much if they did know what goes on in the proverbial sausage factory.
What people want from brands is sincerity, which Patterson describes as
"presenting oneself to the world according to standards of social interaction, concealing socially unacceptable feelings in favor of behaviors that, although they may exist on the surface only, function to keep non-intimate relationships running smoothly."
What does this really mean. One interpretation is that what people really want is for brands to be more human and behave according to inerpersonal standards. This seems to cover a lot of ground: from how you engage with people (not shputing or interrupting them is ussaually a good start) to how you treat them (listen to them, don;t screw them).
Can the Golden Rule be the simplest way to talk about how brands should act in a web 2.0 world?
Interestng , article in yesterday's NY Times disussing whether or not free will is an illusion. It cites research showing that when someone is asked to do something, the unconscious brain reacts before the someone is conscious of making the decision to move. The implication is then made that we are so driven by our sub-conscious, that free will is an illusion.
Let's say we buy the argument that free will is an illusion. This fits nicely with what we as planners know about research - that people can;t articulate emotions or reasons well at all. Gareth posits the issue well in his dangerous idea: we need to pay less attention to consumer insights because they are not as real, differentiating (or true) as we may have thought. So what do we do. Yes, we draw from culture and look at the stories brands can weave. But this issue also suggests that we have some gaps in our knowledge when it comes how we advise clients to go to market. Do we know people's reflective reactions to things? How do we even research this?
Then reason I raise this is because a lot of people are pooh-poohing neuroscience as a way to again this knowledge and do research. But there are very few ways (that I know of) to get beyond conscious "backfill" reasoning. If we understand people's reflexive reactions to things a little better, we can better construct experiences etc. If that means hooking people up to machines, so be it.
I'm not usually big on New Year's resolutions. They are usually pie in the sky promises to myself with no pressing need to accomplish them. Having said that, I gave up smoking one New Year's Eve, so now I am going to have a go at a few other things in 2007. Namely....
1) See more live music
I have loads of excuses about why I haven't done more of this. The kids are a convenient one (as well as the fact that my wife and I have opposite music tastes so there is not a ready person to go with). The other thing is that I actively dislike the huge venues that bands play in these days (more of a US problem). But in SF there is no excuse - the Civic and Berkeley theatre are all great. Keane are arriving in January so that's a good start.
2) Set up more longitudinal research projects
When you have an existing client, you have an existing target. Yet all to frequently, we dip in and out of target's lives and don't really live with them. Setting up a recurring kind of anthropology project where you visit the same set of people and circumstances is one way to help us avoid cliches and get a better level of immersion.
3) Read more, read less
The blogosphere is exploding (it's hard to keep up with just the planning stuff), so I'm sure there are a ton of non-planning blogs I am missing out on. So that means finding some good RSS software for my Treo so I can keep up on the go.
4) Go to bed earlier
My newest bad habit is blogging and working 'till late, rather than getting up early and doing it. I work really well in the morning plus I can work out, so I am my own worst enemy in that sense. Less 12 am, more 6 am.
5. Cook more
I used to cook a ton and have since ran out of time (plus am not home early enough to do it for the family). At one point in time I could whip up a reasonable quick dish, but now find that I am so rusty that the taste....lets just say it can leave something to desired. So even if I just cook once a week, it's a start.
