Campaign

Notes from The Apprentice

I don't usually watch The Apprentice. I do however briefly appear in it. Here are a few observations from last night's episode:

1) The first lesson is fairly simple. Do not misread your client. You do not have to be a sophisticated student of human psychology to guess at the kind of advertising which Sir Alan would like. The losing group did fail at this.

2) Our profesional verdict was in no way as clear cut as Sir Alan's. We were in fact quite equivocal: one group had come up with a very good name; the other team had a tolerably good TV execution which could have been rescued with a little work. Alan was also keen that the ad could form part of a series - something more true of the losers' idea than the winners'.

3) Schools should teach people to present. Perhaps we should return to the teaching of logic and rhetoric. This is a conclusion I reach every time I watch Dragons' Den, too. Whereas your average American can stand up in front of an audience and give a good, clear and concise account of an idea or a narrative, Brits mostly can't. This is no good.

4) Margaret and Nick are very pleasant; Sir Alan immensely astute and far more likeable than he allows himself to be seen on screen.

5) I do have an issue with the programme, especially in its later stages. It is not reasonable to expect people to cooperate in teams when they are patently in competition against each other.

6) During the presentations it was alarming to me how young people have appropriated the language of marketing, yet without fully understanding the vocabulary. It is hence used very dangerously.

7) We were terrified about agreeing to appear in the programme: the BBC have a track-record of making advertising people look like idiots though malicious editing. In this case, however, the programme was being made by an independent production company. They were immensely likeable and appreciative.

8) I do not think Raif deserved to be fired, except perhaps for the ludicrous spelling of his name. This is not just a cravat-wearing mafia at work; he was quite good, in an annoying, account-man kind of way.

9) I would bet on Lucinda winning. I have no inside information, but she is quite charismatic and has my approach to colour co-ordination.

10) Both teams rapidly discovered what everyone in advertising knows except media buyers: 30s is often not long enough to tell a story. It certainly isn't long enough to introduce a brand or create a long-running serial.

11) I am glad we did it. But, my God, you and your company brand are a hostage to fate by doing so. Every few weeks over the last six months Gary, Vicky or I have variously woken up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat: will they make us look complete fools?

You can be the judge of that.

Has anyone done any market research into market research?

Elsewhere on brand republic, someone suggests that WPP is buying another research company because "research is measurable, and WPP likes measurable things". I would suggest this is the complete opposite of the truth. Research panders to the love of measurement, for sure, but as a marketing activity I cannot think of anything less subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis than the money, time and effort squandered, oops, I meant 'invested' in researching things. Nemo custodes ipsos custodiet. 

A quick point of clarification. There is a vast difference between measuring things and being measurable yourself. (Referees are very rarely sent off the pitch.) The research industry does measurement  - but is not itself all that measurable. Which is all the more reason for WPP to be buying more of it.

Quite simply the industry enjoys two complementary advantages of any business. One, it caters to a vital and growing need - that of every single person employed in marketing services to be able to point to an Excel chart to justify their last trip to the bathroom. Yet, secondly, while satisfying this need, it is not itself exposed to all that many awkward questions about its own real value.

In truth, I'm not sure marketers question the value of research any more than compulsive hand-washers ask hard questions about the value of wash-basins. It's just something you need. Frequently and everywhere.

The analysis of IPA Effectiveness Awards suggests that ads which are pre-tested are on average less effective than those which aren't. Will this be a setback to the business? Will it bollocks. Research in 2008 is simply like TV advertising in 1976 - it's just something you do by default

If you want to keep your job, go and do some research. If you want to make some money, go and buy a book about behavioral economics instead.

You have to hand it to WPP. A recession is a great time to buy a research company. At no other time is the demand for fatuous self-justification higher.

There is a massive problem with scam advertising....

....and it isn't ethical, it's economic.

Every great ad campaign for a chip shop or a local micro-beer may represent millions of dollars of wasted economic potential. Any other business would see this as a scandalous waste.

Imagine for a moment that the man who invented the wheel had been able to patent it. But that his patent, for bizarre reasons, had restricted the item for use in small children's toys. Nothing larger. So no carts, no railways, no cars, no aircraft.

It's not quite such a fanciful notion. The Chinese invented gunpowder completely blind to its possible uses in weaponry. They made fireworks instead.

I always get reminded of this when trawling the walls of awards, especially in the print categories. Here and there you find a superb idea, which has been used to win an award for a local chip shop - but which could have been the basis of a worldwide campaign for, say, KFC.

Hence something which could have generated $100m of business has instead perhaps generated $5,000 - or, in the case of a true scam, nothing at all.

Moreover, because of the one golden rule in creative land (that you must never, ever be seen to use, adapt or borrow from another's idea) this means this particular idea can never be used for anything else again. Ever.

This is bad news for everyone. Not least for the team who created the ad, who have proudly exchanged a million dollar idea for a gold statuette and a 20% payrise. It's bad news for KFC, who never get to use the work. It's even bad news for the chip shop - who cannot enjoy a million dollar windfall from selling their idea to KFC.

But above all it's bad news for the idea - which never gets to enjoy its full potential. Any award-winning idea of this kind effectively becomes a kind of set-aside - a fenced-off acreage of creative ground on which nothing more can grow.

There are a few questions here.

One. We have obviously created a proxy for rewarding creative people where winning awards is more valuable than creating work of genuine economic value. Hence it matters not at all to a team whether their idea runs for a chip shop or for a global chain. Is this sensible?

Secondly, it seems to be assumed that anyone with a great idea must first lay claim to it by getting it to run in some form - for any brand that'll have it. The economic value of an idea to its creators seemingly lies only in laying claim to it, not in making use of it. Is this healthy?

Why not, for the week before Cannes, operate a great sales event where teams auction campaign ideas to agencies or brand owners? If the idea doesn't sell, then and only then fall back on Plan B and enter it for an award? Would this work?

If this sounds bizarre, remember this is how the film industry operates.

In the film industry - not an uncreative business generally - plagiarism is often seen as a virtue not a vice. Ideas are traded as often as they are commissioned. It is often brutally insensitive
to the feelings of creators. But there are sometimes advantages to this - not least that an idea gets more than one chance to be great.