Dave Trott’s Blog - All Comments

Twitter Trackbacks for Semiotics v Reality - Dave Trott???s Blog - Blogs - Brand Republic [brandrepublic.com] on Topsy.com

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:26:30 GMT

Pingback from Twitter Trackbacks for Semiotics v Reality - Dave Trott???s Blog - Blogs - Brand Republic [brandrepublic.com] on Topsy.com

re: Semiotics v Reality

Grilla Login — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:50:19 GMT

Jayne, Grilla has never been one for taking offense, or sitting on one.

Swarms of locusts/swarms of humans.

Both create similar outcomes, except the humans is global in scale and devastation.

re: Semiotics v Reality

Jayne Marar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:09:20 GMT

i've read Straw Dogs, yes it's a very good book and Gray does say the above. but he also says the rest of the time humans aren't any better than animals in lots of ways (no offence intended Grilla). in fact we're worse than animals because we have an ego, do indeed think we matter and will do anything (especially when the chips are down) to survive or attain our goals.

re: The spirit of the law v The letter of the law

Kevin Gordon — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:10:02 GMT

Hi Dave,

So the winner of the next election will be the Party that puts its tick box in the middle of the ballot paper? Can the organisers charge preferential rates?

re: The spirit of the law v The letter of the law

Dave Trott — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:32:58 GMT

Hi Thomas,

I agree absolutely.

Take a look at this blog I wrote about De Bono's 'PO' on my other site:

www.cstadvertising.com/.../po

re: The spirit of the law v The letter of the law

Thomas Heginbotham — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:58:29 GMT

Nice post Dave.

That second Einstein quote reads very much like a line from a de Bono book I picked up in a charity shop: "No matter how truly disconnected an idea may be when it is introduced into the problem area, a connection will eventually develop...a context which includes them both.... this connection gives a new entry point into the probelm: an entry point which would not have developed from the nature of the problem."

I like the idea of making the leap and building the bridge back. Unfortunatley my still works in a linear, logical fashion. It's what five years of analytic philosophy does to you. I'm learning though.

As I'm sure you're aware, de Bono also talks too about avoiding the rejection function ie. saying no to ideas based on the current/old frame of reference, before they've had chance to develop their own context in which they will make sense.

One of my favourite pragmatists, John Dewey, says something similar. That we should allow ideas to develop (almost in isolation) and that we should refrain from criticism till they have done so. This way, we avoid thwarting a revolutionary idea whilst it is still in it's foetal (and not so attractive) stages!

If I ever find myself a creative partner, I'll think rule number one will be 'BLURT'.

Don't keep it in because it doesn't seem rational, put it out there and see how it develops.

I'm not sure where I read it, but it seems like a good rule.

re: Semiotics v Reality

Grilla Login — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:19:47 GMT

Give that man a banana ; )

re: Love as violence

Jayne Marar — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:22:48 GMT

Dave, wow, thanks for keeping things so very, very interesting :)

re: The spirit of the law v The letter of the law

A Different Hat — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:15:42 GMT

Thanks, thanks, thanks and thanks! I'm building on the frequency of my campaign here but will try and get it sorted........keep up the great work.

re: The spirit of the law v The letter of the law

Dave Trott — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:48:54 GMT

A Different Hat,

I like both your comments (it must be a campaign).

Respondents want to be helpful.

So they'll tell you how to make your ads look more like the advertising that they're used to.

They'll also help by telling you where you've gone wrong, and it doesn't look like what they've grown accustomed to.

I think you put it very well, twice.

re: The spirit of the law v The letter of the law

A Different Hat — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:57:24 GMT

Phew! What a relief. I agree with Einstein. In research, respondents can only respond in the context of what they have seen before. So, if the work is DIFFERENT, they are more likely to be negative ("I've never seen this before. I prefer that"). It is not their job to make the intuitive leap and say "That's great. Let's run it." To extend this logic, if respondents DO like the work, then it cannot be DIFFERENT, which it needs to be to stand out in the big wide world (rather than an enclosed and forced research environment), and cannot be any good. What would Einstein think about that?

re: Semiotics v Reality

Bob Ashwood — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:54:35 GMT

John Gray in his excellent book 'Straw Dogs' say it's humankind's obsessive search for meaning in everything that differentiates us from other species. Semiotics is all about symbols and meaning. I agree with you Dave, it's about language and I'd include body language in all that too. But, it occurs to me, interestingly, body language also apply to the animal kingdom as well.

re: Semiotics v Reality

Giulia Pignone — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:39:05 GMT

Hi Dave,

The advertising have been invented to sell products or sevices and the creatives have to do the job in the way that better pursue the purpose.To make the product memorable and a desirable object for the target. If the idea fit these points can be crazy creative and follow the professionals' semiotics but always the creative should embody the customer to deeply understand his Semiotics first.

I think after the launch of every campaign the agencies should do a research to see if their work was relevant in people's mind. They must want to know if the message get across the customers and if the campaign works. I am surprise that the most of the time is not like that.

Giulia (Julia)

re: Semiotics v Reality

Giulia Pignone — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:34:25 GMT

Hi Dave,

Giulia (Julia)

re: THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW v THE LETTER OF THE LAW

Rob Mortimer — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:30:44 GMT

At Uni I loved how they taught marketing as if people go into Tesco, looks at 5 tins of beans and then create a Price vs Quality chart in their head and use that to decide.

Also good is the research they did on tv where people went into a wine shop where they played French/Italian music; you were more likely to buy the one matching the music if you were unsure of what to buy to start with.

Looking forward to learning more about behavioural economics, seems to be the in thing... but hopefully for the right reasons.