The Creative Britain debate rages. Well, sort of. Thanks to the IPA for an intriguing debate last night about the ‘new improved’ knowledge economy. A distinguished panel of Peter York, Moray McLennan, Will Hutton and a nice lady called Christine from the design industry talking about copyright as our commercial future, and new interest and energy on the subject from the government which has suddenly realised that our other forms of exports are suddenly screwed. For those of you that saw the launch in Golden Square, it’s a great initiative, but I worry that the commercial premise needs a little more thought.
The debate, whilst witty enough, studiously ignored two fundamentals. One, the Chinese economy, soon to be the largest in the world, represents a billion new capitalists with a different point of view on copyright laws. Competing on the world stage will be tougher. Two, the ad agency business, in general, hands over all copyright to its clients. Intellectual property will be a new battleground for agencies to learn about. We do support the copyright of our supply chain, as it happens, with image rights and usage rights and so on, but give away our own ideas on the basis of monetising the upfront advice in the form of fees and charges over production.
In my own company we do ideas and make stuff, but we also develop software. This makes us an unusual combination, but a useful one in this context. Years of experience of warranty on the applications we develop (those now ever so trendy brand utilities) and code libraries that (in theory at least!) help us sustain new product at a commercially viable rate. I think all the digital agencies do this to some extent, but as we have to compete on the world stage, we’re all going to have to get a bit more serious about this.
PS Loved the definition “Intangibles are fluff, tangibles are stuff.”
no comments
Or government bail out, which looks the most likely if you are a German or Irish bank. I suppose bleating about how big you are doesn’t help at this point, because what matters is public and private confidence in the business and stability of client relationships who will continue to look for better ways of getting and keeping consumer attention.
A little reassurance from the past. All across London, there are houses that were built in a mini boom in the early thirties. Think Chertsey Road. Twickenham. Hampstead Garden Suburb. The Holly Lodge Estate. (How can this be? I hear you cry, as the cold winds of the 1929 crash summon up images of the dustbowls of middle America). But the 1930s were in fact a golden age for British innovation. London expanded dramatically, as a trip to the Tranport Museum in Covent Garden will tell you. The cat’s eye was invented, to ease night time driving on the increasingly utilised road networks. That was when modern became post - modern. OK, so there weren’t so many people then, but clever media was just beginning, and modern typography and illustration blossomed.
It was a time of the first jet engine, the first nylon stocking, the first biro, the first parking meter and the first television. All great inventions, and developed at a time when the world was in crisis. I guess Sir Martin Sorrell and Rupert Murdoch have a point – that if you wait for the recession to bite you, it will. Mind you, they’re probably in a better position than most. But for everyone else, it’s not a time to panic. It’s a time to think. And to invest in innovation.
I was most taken with the comment headlining this post - a quote from Craig Barrett, founder of Intel, last night, courtesy of and Oxford Business School event I was lucky to attend. It reminded me that one of the things that digital marketing has taught the industry in the past ten years is about remembering to innovate. Advertising people talk about innovation rather a lot, but rarely deliver it. Because we have people with ‘creative ‘ job titles, we think we have a god given right to talk about innovation. Wrong. Most of the innovation in our industry comes from technology changes, and insight into consumer’s use of technology. I’d like to ‘shout out’ as Jamie Oliver might say to the technologists who solve problems, make stuff happen, think of new stuff every day. We are closer to how magical that can be in a ‘new media’ world than perhaps some of the new entrants are with their mad men ways. I do think that belief in innovation will become an important differentiator in the not too distant future. It true that creative content generators take advantage of technology, and put it to brilliant use, but they’d be sitting twiddling their thumbs most of the time without clever people who invent things like the internet, make the cinemas 3D, make the computers work. I guess the true test of successful innovation is imitation. And we’re really good at that, aren’t we?
Once upon a time in Ireland, if you earned your living as a writer, you didn't have to pay income tax. What a great way to encourage a creative culture, from the country that brought you Joyce, Behan, Yeats and Samuel Beckett. Now WPP is moving to Ireland to take advantage of the tax conditions.
Is the Irish government encouraging creative accounting as well? Of course it's not so simple. WPP is a holding company with hundreds of entities serving a variety of distributed client contracts around the world. It is, on one level, a British 'success story'.
As the Goverment launches its 'Creative Britain' campaign, it seems ironic that one of the major firms that capitalises on creative talent should be fleeing the country. I wonder if they'll all fly Ryanair.
4 comment(s)
Speaking at Ad tech today, we discussed how the shape of the new media agencies is changing again. I love this business. Because no sooner have you sorted out your organisation to cope with the client demands as is, you need to reorganise because the industry has changed again.
Brand utility is the latest trend – the principle being that because there are so many consumer controlled barriers (PVRs, Sky Plus, general indolence to advertising and the like) that giving useful stuff to consumers is the way to get through. Stuff that is so useful it attracts, engages, builds loyalty, keeps customers happy.
Shiny stuff, as they say at Naked. Good stuff works, though. Colour selection advice if you are Dulux, or traffic reports or train times for Brighton’s commuters, or fun things to play with like Doodle dogs and so on. Widgety goodness. Measuring is is a bit more problematic though. That discussion deserves a conference of its own.
One insight from the Mad Men TV Series was just how ‘competitive’ (read selfish and self-obsessed) the ad men were in 1960. Plus ca change? Chatting over a brisk lunch with an old buddy in Soho, we discussed the fall of Fallon’s Gorilla in face of recent research damning the campaign for failing to grow market share. My friend pointed out that there are probably agency people all over town going “ha – it didn’t work! Told you so. One off.” A more detailed look at the numbers showed that the Galaxy’s share has indeed grown by 12%, but size of share relative to Cadbury’s is 40%. Now there is a well travelled view that it’s far ‘easier’ to grow smaller share aggressively, but there does appear to be something behind the change in that Cadbury’s had changed the packaging and the promotion of the product, but haven’t done anything to the product. Galaxy (and Dove as the brand is know in Asia) had changed the packaging and promotion, but also the product. The chunks are smaller, rounder, more appealing to women, as is everything about the brand. Cadbury’s may well have tried to target ‘everyone’ which is always a tricky brief.
MySpace are on the panel session I'm doing at ADTECH LONDON in two weeks time. What would you like to ask them? I'll pose your questions on the day to the panel, which includes Mark Cridge, Steve Henry, George Bryant, Anthony Lukom and Shaun Gregory. According to Facebook, brands can have fans rather than friends, but what's the value in having ten thousand fans compared to advertising impacts, for example? As the word 'utility' slips into the marketer's vocabulary, what does it mean for advertisers?
1 comment(s)
Dontcha just hate pseudo profundity? I’ve recently seen (again) the PowerPoint urban myth of the Chinese symbols shown as an answer to the economic conditions the marketing community and indeed the whole community faces. It really doesn’t wash. In fact, check out an incisive critique of this pictogram/linguistic fallacy. I know, I know, we work in the world of overclaim. We are all simple purveyors of seductive presentation technique. But I am also very keen on substantiation, evidence and consideration of the facts in making decisions around investing Clients’ money.
Today the OECD published stats that indicate the UK economy is in technical recession, according to the definition of recession as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Are we able to substantiate this in our own industry? Can we ‘create’ our way out of the gloom?The last Bellwether report back in July used the dramatic turn of phrase ‘worst downturn in marketing spend since 9/11’. It’s a whole two months to go till the next one, but I predict that it won’t be particularly favourable. On the other hand, I am not sure how slavish we should be in responding in a flippy floppy way to these quarterly reports. In Q2 last year, marketing spend was at its highest levels for three years. Not even six months later, it’s at its lowest. Now whilst this data is well qualified, I am of the view that we need to reflect on slightly longer term trends to help focus our minds, and indeed our investments, when it comes to planning.
Where are consumers spending their time? Where can we deliver the most engagement with a brand? Which is more important - providing a useful service from the brand (a brand utility in the fashionable parlance) or creating advertising to seduce consumers into believing the proposition? What is the most cost effective way of getting consumers to spend time interacting with the brand? Does our idea actually make a difference to the brand? These are great questions. It has to be enjoyable, challenging and exciting to answer them. But there remains no excuse for intellectual paucity in our answers.
I was very small indeed when the three day week was a legitimate concept to bring the nation's economy back into line. It's a curious concept now to think that working less would help.
Back then, the manufacturing and industrial heart of the nation was all about production, and increasing supply without so much thought for demand, until the orders for ships stopped coming. Britain now is far more oriented to service than industrial businesses, and working harder seems to be the general idea all round. We talk of a demand economy, and to be successful we have to know how create demand as well as desire for brands.
Advertising then was about differentiating products from each other, sometimes with a benefit, sometimes with glamour, and outspending the competition was too often the strategy. Advertising (which isn’t advertising any more, of course) is now about experience and brands are diversified services rather than just things you buy off a shelf. Outspending a competitor remains possible. Outspending the competition (just think how many brands were launched last year) just isn’t.
Admittedly there was significant shrinkage in advertising work force in the 1990s, (just post shoulder pads, red Porsches and personal cab accounts). But there was no digital, sales promotion was in the basement and direct marketing was direct mail. Now, there is a real issue about the true nature of talent in the industry, as all of these previous departments have formed their own mini industries, claim each other’s space, and don’t always operate efficiently together. It is less easy to decide how to recalibrate budgets now as it was then.The good news imho is that there is definitely room for clever people who can bring new ideas for how to take brands to market in new ways, and insight remains valuable. The less good news is that clients expect so much more knowledge, especially about digital complexity, that everyone has to work twice as hard just to keep up. (Just one look at the upcoming Ad:tech London agenda gives us a veritable smorgasbord of clues).
In a harsher economic climate, more questions will be asked about the efficient use of clients’ budgets, and the big question we’re being asked is about how digital will fill the gap. I don’t believe that running TV ads as online video is the answer. Although I’ve commented on the Orange campaign execution, I do think the brand should be applauded for its commitment to new endeavour. The online experience will become, for Orange, the main touchpoint for the consumer. (Read the interview in Revolution). This is already true for many B2B brands, and is really only beginning to kick in mass consumer oriented brands. Amongst the doom and gloom in the national press, this can only be good news for (digital) economists.
Another ad about me hits our screens. Mercedes has taken a spooky and moody treatment to promote the cars to a younger audience with three TV commercials using 'I am Mercedes' as the payoff. The first aired in May featuring Josh Brolin, star of ‘No Country for Old Men’, and the last has just gone out featuring David Leon, soon to appear in Guy Ritchie’s next piece of work. These ads take time, care and significant investment to develop.
They are artworks. I am Mercedes. But am I any the wiser as to why I should spend £40K on one? I am unclear. It’s not that complicated a brief to sustain the emotive connection the ads make as we go online. Now that pretty much every new car sold is substantively researched online before anyone goes near a dealer, it should be an imperative to have a linked up strategy for the web. But (and I hate to say it again) when I search ‘I am Mercedes’ I find two sponsored links – one to the Mercedes web site, the other to the I am Orange thingy I’ve commented on previously both here and on the MRM Worldwide UK blog. All the natural search links are to various trusted places where I can see the ads again, so that’s good. On the Mercedes web site though, I can only see…the ads again!
And some production sequences as well. Hmm. Two things spring to mind. When will we stop thinking that the making of the ad is interesting to anyone but ourselves? Secondly, in this instance, shouldn’t the online experience be the starting point?
<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/7k6wmwbuzf" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>
Steven Berkoff is a compelling, forceful and powerful stage presence. This ad, endeavouring to show us what it feels like to have a heart attack, seemed to me to be a good use of of his talents, but one wonders if he could easily have done the job in 30 seconds. Or less. Mind you, being shown only once in the Midsomer Murder repeat says rather more about the state of our ITV than the state of the nation's tickers. I'm just a little unclear about what the ad is asking me to do, other than ring 999 if I happen to have a heart attack. Which, I can assure you, I'll be doing. I think I'll also be going for a run later.
Orange has eschewed the campaign URL in its latest campaign “I am” where the payoff asks consumers to search for “I am everyone”. When you do, you get a paid link to click on. The first natural link however, is for a site called “I am bored”, and there is no sign of Orange in the natural rankings at all.
As a control test, I searched for 'minimise-me', MRM Worldwide UK’s latest work for Windows Live Messenger, and the URL www.minimise-me.com is number 1 link, as indeed are all the following links (on Google). I was amazed to find that minimise-me and the personalisable emoticons dominated the top 100 search listings - literally, 90+ of the top 100.
Both these campaigns broke around the same time, with probably very different budgets and indeed objectives. If getting online 'buzz' was an objective for both campaigns (quite possible), I'd have to say Windows Live Messenger is winning by a country mile. You can see pictures at www.participationmarketing.co.uk. So which is the more clever campaign?
8 comment(s)
Being proven right isn't always a pleasure. A third consecutive IPA Bellwether wobble. Only a fifth of companies report upward online spend. The signals have been around for a while, though. Pitches that used to take two months are taking five months. More talk about efficiency than effectiveness. Incidentally, US ad spending growth forecasts have been halved this week, even though there is optimism in global markets like Argentina, China and Russia. I have always carped on about how digital agencies need to step up their management skills to be able to handle global problems for Clients. I also believe in how an understanding of technology can bring significant competitive advantage. More of our briefs are about building excitement around a brand's value proposition in the context of lower cost delivery of the brand to the consumer, in every way possible.
As McKinsey will tell you, technology is intrinsic to every lower cost delivery proposal in every FT100 company. All agencies like to talk about the first thing (especially with some digital seasoning sprinkled over it). Not many can talk about the second, which requires some understanding of business and technology and without which the 'excitement bit' can become rather fruitless and costly. Few can do both. The next two years will be an interesting filter. Campaign recently referenced the 't-junction' for digital agencies, where they choose to become 'production' companies or 'branding' agencies. It's not quite as simple as that, as good business people tend to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic, but in our sector it is increasingly about whether you can deliver the brand at a lower cost to the consumer. This demands an ability to help brands stand for something, and help consumers (who also, btw, stand for something too) get their brand.
I've signed off the agency's accounts recently, which are filed under compliance duty to US GAAP (generally accepted accounting practice) legislation. Is there such a thing as Generally Accepted Advertising Practice? By this I mean measuring what we do using common principles across all media. I know this argument rages up and down the lifts of the land, but where are we at with it? In the early days of digital agencies, we used to rail at TV being somehow less measurable that online. I'm reminded of the Simpsons character Crusty the Clown setting fire to the curtain exclaiming in outrage - "It says it's inflammable, what kind a of a word is inflammable, it's not supposed to go on fire." The impact of our TV campaign is immeasurable, one account director after another would claim over the years, and we would go, "oh ok then" and comment wistfully that click throughs did a different job and actually linked to selling stuff.
Now, the flaw of GAAP (the accounting one) is that it discounts, for accounting purposes, around $300 billion of shareholder opportunity cost. Does this apply to my new generally accepted advertising practice? If a brand isn't on air for a time, do people forget it? I remember an excellent question put by a former client (of a famous sports brand) about having to choose between a microsite campaign and some pitch-side panels with his brand logo at a football stadium, as they cost about the same and he couldn't do both. At the time, I argued that side panels probably reminded people of a brand they were wearing already, if they noticed them at all, and the online campaign (if it got noticed at all) was promoting a new trainer and linked to a site where it could be bought. We worked out match attendances versus the (rather more) impressions served, and talked about each doing the same 'branding' job, only more quickly impacting the bottom line with a sale. An argument that lives on today. The only difference is that technology has moved on considerably. We're already talknig about tagging TV ads, and when we do, we'll be able to add the feed to our black box (our very own, very clever and very secret one) that knows the answer to everything. And then we'll be investigating GAAP again.
Two commercials on the telly tonight made me think. And not in a good way. First was for Cadbury’s Twisted. Apparently it’s not a Crème Egg. It’s a “twisted” Crème Egg. This means that the Crème Egg is mashed up in a grater and turns into a chocolate caterpillar that grunts a lot and goes splat. Peperami did this years ago, only sooo much better. Gor’ bless ya Lever International Advertising Services, and Ade Edmonson. (And this is after Cadbury’s hired Dom Joly, as Peperami did a few football tournaments ago. See blogging for food passim.)
The second was for Abbey, converting a miniature Lewis Hamilton into some sort of corporate message about F1 and Abbey. Big change for the bank, building society, Banco Santader or whatever Abbey has become these days. The only problem is, the media placement, in a break before the clever but gruesome Criminal Minds show, makes me think of the miniature killer character from CSI. Not entirely the sort of association a brand like Abbey deserves.
Alastair Duncan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 10 Oct 2008
Total Posts: 45
