enclaved

What happens when a community is forced to spread out - especially an influential one? The NY Times has an interesting article about the decline of America's most well know gay enclaves - SF's own Castro.

To say decline is probably a bit of an exaggeration and at the very least, it still holds a special status. But the fact is that the real estate market has forced the gay community to spread out and this is naturally creating less of an identity.

It's interesting that, as the article notes, no web 2.0 community is able to make up for the physical separation that is taking place. Physical proximity creates more powerful immediate motivators than speaking virtually, whatever the results of moveon.org or Howard dean prove. Equally, adding physical engagement to something that is virtual (like a brand idea)cannot be avoided - you can't do it all online.

The article also made me wonder about the breaking point at which a community changes it's character and becomes less powerful. I am guessing that after a certain number of people join and are involved, the character of a group changes so much that it becomes to diverse and less potent (in physical communities that number is also a factor of physical distance). I would also expect that number to be lower for a virtual community because you need stronger ties to make up for the lack of physical distance. Facebook seems the exception only because it is not a community but thousands of small communities.

Finally, there seems to be an interesting "creative class" point here. In Richard Florida's book, the number of gay people in a city/area was one of the key predictors of how creative a place it was. As the gay community spreads out, how does that affect the local economy or other economies. You can already see more vibrant gay communities in smaller American cities such as Kansas City (already fairly creative anyway). Maybe there is a benefit to the real estate boom?

prophetic

...in an odd sort of way. The original is here

nice NY

Here's a really nice ad of work from BBH for the NY tourist agency- just seem to capture the theater and "outsizedness" of everything that is they city.

weird idea #127.3

Russell posted this great piece of thought on how communications/branding can have a positive impact on the environment.

One of the things I notice not happening in this space is that governments have not changed the incentive structures for people the way they have changed them for companies. Admittedly, companies are the biggest polluters, so imposing a carbon cap and trading scheme makes sense. But consumer consumption does not help, and we cannot rely on the market (e.g. through the jacking up of the oil price) to provide the necessary discipline. Lets face it - despite the crisis, the price of oil is still below the (inflation adjusted) level of the 1980 oil crisis.

So what if consumer's could sell their savings?

It might work like this: suppose you cut energy consumption in your home by 10%. Right now the only person that benefits is the energy company, who gets to resell those BTUs to someone else. But you are the one doing all the work saving the energy! So what if the power company allows you to resell your savings onto the market - participating in the carbon cap system. Consumer could package their carbon credits and sell it to companies, creating a further incentive to save money.The incentive to the company is that they have fewer regulatory issues to deal with, less pollution of their own to pay for and they do not forgo as much profit.

Another idea in this vane would be being able to sell your recycling directly to manufacturers - be it plastic bottles or old sweaters.

tinker or blow?

Change is one of those words that can mean very different things depending on the degree. Very (probably most) often it means altering something in some way - not a major overhaul but tinkering with the way things work, adding a function or something like that. On the other hand it can also mean a wholesale destruction of what's there and replacing with something else.

I'd argue that when it comes to human behavior, it's very hard to tinker. Maybe it is because changing the dynamics of interaction is to hard - it means over-riding a lot of the patterns people have built up over time. Changing cultures within organizations is hard for those reason and you need to use a lot of strong incentives to do that: pay structures, hiring policies and executive behavior to name just three.

Maybe this is why "blowing" up the situation is an easier kind of change where people are concerned - even though I'd guess that most of our briefs and communications objectives don;t reflect its. There are two good agency examples here. One is this one from Giles Rhys Jones about the fact that Draft FCB is offering people redundancy as an option as it restructures some of it's departments. Rather than try and tinker with hard wired structures, why not blow it up (and signal the degree of change you are going to make in the bargain). Anomaly is pre-empting the need for a hard change by doing something similar in the US - starting a sister agency (literally Another Anomaly) in NY, rather than let itself get to big.

Thinking about this a bit, how many of our strategies are aimed getting people to buy a brand on just one more occasion or to use more of a product. How likely is this to succeed. I'd argue,, not very.

to much information is dangerous

There is a saying in English that a little information can be dangerous. But intuitively we know that to much information can be paralyzing.

Gerd Gigerenzer's book, Gut Feelings (which Gareth has lent me and I am slowly going through, lays out the reasons why.

The book is about the power of intuition to find the right answers. Gigerenzer find that with a little information people use various heuristics (like recognition) to figure out the answer to a question e.g. which city has a higher population, Munich or Trondheim. To a non-European, recognition will get you the right answer two out of three times; to a non-European a to much information is dangerous (they over-think and don;t rely on intuition).

This recognition heuristic underlies a lot of how advertising used to work: if I think I've heard of it it must be better. But in today's world of over saturation, this doesn't work - everything gets a Google hit if its half way decent. Today, everyone has a little to much knowledge. So maybe there is something in deliberately not saying a lot to consumers about the product and letting them be intrigued. If they want more, they can simply find out for themselves.

valid frustration

One of the things I miss the most about the UK is Radio 4 (especially the Today program). Having said that, our local public radio station - KQED - has some great programs, one of which is City Arts and Lectures.

Unfortunately they don't podcast, because otherwise I would be able to share with you the great interview Danie Hander (the real identity of Lemony Snickets ) did with Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie. They are both musicians so they spent a lot of time discussing the writing process. Gibbard writes like it's a 9 to 5 job - literally setting himself a schedule to just write music much as many writers give themselves writing "hours during" the day. But one thing that he and Handler noted was the just because you don't get anywhere doesn't mean that your day was not successful. It is just a fact of the creative process and means you explored several avenues you may not need to see again.

It is interesting where you compare this attitude with advertising agencies. There is often a huge amount of time pressure on teams (and planners for that matter) and so frustration with strategy or ideas can mount. We would do well to remember that frustration can be constructive to.

behind the glass

I'm sure a lot of people have seen this video by Roger Baldacci and Lawson Clark of Arnold, showing what a focus group does to Apple's classic "1984". Personally I am in two minds about it.

I'll be the first to admit that showing boards in a focus group is imperfect. As Roger points out in this conversation with Ed Cotton, they can manipulated by moderators and interpreted subjectively by clients. Not to mention the fact that the very act of doing research bias's the whole situation.

On the other hand, I think this video is a bit of a con. It's obviously been heavily edited (god knows, we've all taken the choice bits of a focus group to show to a client - now we just know what it feels like) - I'd love to see more of the flow of the conversation. What's more, any good (unbiased) moderator would steer people away from production related content and focus on what the main message is etc. Equally important, it's an ad that it totally out of cultural context: the original worked so well because of the way IBM was perceived and because it was 1984.

Finally, stomping our feet and screaming about groups is not going to make client's less nervous, literal etc. I have had clients who do as Roger would like them to do, and hold groups after the work has been produced. But they are very few and far between (and it's mostly with print). And i don't think anyone wants more quant testing.

So there are two sides to every story. The real deal is a) weeding out the bad moderators b) training clients to have a better understanding of the role of research and c) figuring out a better way to do all this!

it only looks small

We've been moving house this week - luckily it was only from one end of town to the other - and your truly got the job of cleaning up the old place so our ex-landlord didn't make a fuss.

When I finished the job, for some reason I got a new perspective on something that I'm sure I had noticed before: that the rooms looked smaller when they had no furniture in them. Now I've seen those rooms with stuff in them and we managed to get a lot in there. But without the help and suggestion of something there in front of me the room still felt small, no matter how good my memory/imagination was.

Translate this to the real world. Any idea or space can look small unless you try and decorate it first. It's hard to predict the bigness of something until you see where it can go. Besides, even a small space can be very rich.

It also points out the struggle in talking to consumers about ideas without really filling in the blanks for them. We might to think that written concepts or boards are some kind of proxy, but I think it just harder psyiologically than we imagine to get the full effect of what we are trying to say without some very rich detail.

fading giants

The Wall Street Journal published an interesting article last week about the downturn Wal-Mart is facing. Not that the company has stopped making money - its not as if the US government has paid any decent labour laws recently. But it's growth has flattened out (from sales increases of just over 5% a year to increases of just over 1%).

The appeal of small niche brands, the increase in quality at other supermarkets (places like Safeway hare undergoing huge refits and providing fresh, pre-prepared food) and more desire for convenience are all part of what is killing Wal-Mart's growth. But one quote in the article really stood out for me:

"All retailers have a formula.They grow as fast and as far as they can with that formula" Lewis Groel, Growth Ventures Group

It may be a reminder of the dead obvious but it is still a useful one. Wal-Mart failed to change before people got tired of huge super centers with no sales help, and before other retailers figured out how to lower their prices. What's more, the strategy of places like Target or H&M allows them to buck this law, namely that their strategy of bringing in fresh merchandise with better designs means the formula doesn't feel like one to people.

What this points to is the need for more retailing spontaneity. It was the spontaneity of the baristas at Starbucks which helped make that experience what it was. It's the corresponding lack of spontaneity (doe to being to busy or poor hiring) which is causing that brand to feel as if it is slowing down a little.

crazy people

I saw this film close to when it first came out and loved it then. Now things just seem to go full circle.

Thanks to Tim for posting it.

random testing

There is an interesting article in this week's Ad Age which I both admire and am troubled by.

On the one hand, it advocates the "try it and see" approach to advertising and marketing that I've talked about before. With Internet sampling and site building being so cheap - why not see what the response is like to different options, because there really is nothing better than a market test to see if something works.

On the other hand, the article reminds of the days in (pre-war) advertising when they used to put out 5 different ads, each with a coupon, and the one with the best response was run again. Now, in fairness, this is a lot like the optimisation that goes on with Internet ads today. But the article, and the book it covers ( Supercrunchers ), seem to go off the deep end - advocating that these kind of random trials be used instead of judgement.

The real danger of this kind of belief system is that it snuff's out any kind of risk taking culture in companies. The ability to CYA and defer to a testing system actually kills gut instinct and judgment which, if you belief Gerd Gigerenzer's book , is pretty accurate. Unfortunately, the Supercrunchers author, Ian Ayre, is such a pure statistician that he puts down this very valuable tool we all have.

In thinking about this it also strikes me that balance is a very hard thing to achieve in corporate culture; creating a workplace where people are allowed to trust their instincts but are also allowed to test and experiment before really committing. (many of my clients do make judgment calls, but the test is seen as the be all and end all confirmation of that judgment).

start ya bastard

Al Crowley, Planning Director at DDB Sydney, brough to light this great brand during a presentation he gave at our recent conference in Beijing. It's an Australian brand of fuel additive for "dead" engines, whose owners say that they couldn't come up with a better name for than: "what you say when your bloody engine won;t start". Sheer genius in the spirit of Fat Bastard wine and one I wished I had remembered in the last few naming sessions I have been running.

the great leap forward

I'm finally now getting a chance to write about the last few eeks, one of which was spent in China my week in China (that and the pitch that I went straight into the day I got back are the reasons for not blogging).

The week in China was a huge eye opener in many ways. I had ended up studying a lot about Chinese history and culture in school, but given the huge changes that have gone on since that time (I keep forgetting/won't admit it was 18 years ago), I did not know what to expect. The biggest surprise was the invisibility of the Communist trappings or elements of control. Compared to the Soviet Union in 1988 (when Gorbachev was in power), there element of authority was invisible to the naked (and western eye). I'm sure that if I had started shouting or praying on Tienanmen square that would have changed and it is that knowledge/fear that keeps people in check.

The flip side of the bargain, the thing the Russians did not have as much of in 1988, is the economic freedom. Again, I not sure why I did not expect this, but Beijing is a fully fledged capitalist city, complete with traffic jams, Kentucky Fried Chicken and people running up to you wanting to sell you anything (including some great Mao watches). The buildings, cafes, stores etc. were much more up to date and in better condition than my last visit to Moscow as were the people. This then seems to be the social contract in China: people are free to make money, and not to much noise.

Western brands have fully invaded China (and yes if your clients aren't there it may be to late). In fact the ones who got there early have had a chance to resurrect themselves. Buick's for example, are everywhere. On thing that there wasn't was a lot of urban spam, so that balance seems to be going the right way. Having said that, one (Chinese) creative director I spoke said that the advertising and ad market has a long way to go in terms of what people know they can and what people see as effective, so all this may change. At least for know though, the balance is such that, while more and more modern office buildings are going up, you can still walk into the Forbidden City in the middle of Beijing's metropolis or stumble into a series of old alleys/hutongs and courtyard houses in many of the places in the city.


One of the most interesting places which Mike Andrews (one of our creative directors) and I went was an art area/colony called 798. It was started by a few people in a disused electronics factory and has now turned into four or five square blocks of art galleries, restaurants and workshops. There was some amazing art and some nicely designed galleries. Frankly, San Francisco would do well to have a place like that. Again, it was interesting to see the limits that people could push in a place like this. There was political art and the use of old symbolism(even old communist symbolism), but what can't help wondering what wasn't there.

Despite sounding like a tourist, I was in Beijing for a DDB conference of planning and creative directors. The conference itself was actually great - it succeeded in making a very big company (DDB has something like 14 000 employees) feel very small and having a "we're in this together" kind of feel, which I guess is half the point of these things. Equally important was hearing from or meeting people from around the world and just hearing about all of the stuff we blather on about from their perspective.