Quick Takes

Images from Business Week's cover story on Steve Jobs

Sun, 09 Oct 2011 04:13:00 -0700

Digital Etiquette

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:39:00 -0700

Now if only No. 25 was taken seriously in Advertising - many of the meaningless, blame games between Account Management & Creative would have been avoided.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Advertising Cartoons by Tom Fishburne

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:50:00 -0700

via tomfishburne.com

Incisive. Brilliant.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Birth of an insight

Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:43:00 -0700

via tomfishburne.com

Awesome. You can fill in the blanks on the in-between processes: the creative briefing, creative iterations and the discussions

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Why Every Child in America Needs an iPad

Sat, 07 May 2011 22:37:00 -0700

Why Every Child in America Needs an iPad
Share91
15 Comments
By Mike Elgan (6:32 pm, May. 07, 2011)
My wife and I sat down at a table in a nice restaurant last week. Our table was right next to a larger party of four adults and two young children — both girls under the age of 7 years old or so.
Each of the girls had her own iPad, and each iPad had some really nice noise-cancellation headphones plugged in. One girl was engrossed in a children’s movie, and the other was enjoying a series of apps designed for kids.
So of course I whipped out MY iPad and blogged about it.
Granted, this scene took place in Silicon Valley, where there’s no such thing as an inappropriate social context for using consumer technology and, in fact, in the very town where Steve Wozniak lives (Los Gatos). Still, it was a remarkable scene, and one that will be repeated across the nation as the iPad phenomenon spreads.
Letting kids use or own iPads is controversial. Parents, teachers and others aren’t so sure about letting kids get sucked into yet another electronic diversion.
Everybody’s asking: Are iPads healthy for children?
I’m here to tell you: That’s the wrong question.
The right question is this: Is the iPad a healthy *replacement* for TV? And I believe the answer is a resounding yes.
The iPad is scary because it’s new. But most parents have already accepted a gigantic role for television in the lives of their children.
When parents complain about inappropriate shows or advertising on TV, they’re told by society: Well, you should watch TV with your kids and discuss the programming, or get a V chip.
Gosh, thanks, society!
As any parent will tell you, managing what kids watch on TV is far easier said than done. The reality is that for a long list of reasons, American parents let their kids watch TV. A lot of TV.
Kids spend more time watching TV than in class (1,500 hours on TV per year vs. 900 hours in school).
More than two-thirds of daycare centers let kids watch TV during day-care hours.
One-quarter of preschoolers, half of school age children and two-thirds of teenagers have TV sets in their bedrooms.
Two thirds of American families watch TV while eating dinner.
The average American child watches 20,000 TV commercials per year. The number one category of product advertised on children’s TV shows is junk food. And even children’s shows themselves have constant references and even product placement for the worst kind of junk food.
I could go on for pages. The bottom line is that TV is a massive, negative, toxic, unhealthy influence in the lives of American children. I think parents already know this.
Television dominates childhood for a very simple reason: It satisfies everyone’s basic requirements. Children want to be stimulated with humor, drama, fun and novelty. Parents need a break.
That’s why fearing the iPad is such a colossal error. The iPad isn’t a new problem. The iPad is a new solution to an old problem.
By *replacing* TV time with iPad use, parents can dramatically improve the lives of their children.
From a parent’s perspective, the iPad is superior to a TV in every significant way:
* The iPad has far fewer, far less harmful ads than TV. It can even be rendered “commercial-free.” Imagine that.
* The iPad is interactive, for the most part, rather than passive. Instead of just staring motionless at TV, kids could be solving puzzles, actively playing games, typing, drawing and other activities.
* Parents can control iPad content. The App Store contains literally thousands of educational children’s books, games and other apps. By not sharing the iTunes password with children, parents can have total control over what’s on that iPad. By not connecting it to the Wi-Fi network, parents can easily prevent even Internet surfing.
* The iPad can be made age-appropriate. Who knows what kids are watching on TV in their bedrooms? It’s common for children to be attracted to programming for teens, and for teens to watch programming for adults.
* The iPad can be taken outside.
* The iPad can encourage the following of curiosity and discovery. By loading that sucker with a huge number of educational programs, kids can explore and search and discover what their interests really are, rather than being spoon-fed their interests by the commercial-driven TV industry.
* The iPad builds skills. By using an iPad, children can learn typing, multi-touch navigation, problem solving (with puzzles and games) and many other skills. Watching TV imparts zero valuable skills.
* The iPad can actually facilitate parenting. One example of many is a new app called “You Did It!,” which lets kids earn points for doing their chores.
Rather than fretting about whether an iPad is unhealthy for their kids, parents should instead be thanking their lucky stars that something highly educational and parent-controllable has finally come along that kids enjoy using at least as much as the TV.
If you want to argue that electronic, screen-driven devices *in general* are bad for kids, well, I can’t really disagree with that. But if you believe that iPads are worse than the TV kids are already watching — well, that’s an argument I’d love to hear.
My advice to parents: Unplug that TV and run, don’t walk, to Toys R Us and buy each of your kids an iPad 2 — before TV turns them into “average Americans.”
Posted in iPad, Top stories | Comment on this article
If you enjoyed this article:
Subscribe via RSS or email, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter

via cultofmac.com

Tend to agree on iPad being a better addiction than TV (mostly). The other day, I heard characters on a cartoon show in one of the kids' channels mouthing 'asshole'. Less said about the quality of English in these shows, the better. And one has no control on the kind of ads which appear on these programmes.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Official goose, Windflower Resort, Mysore

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 06:14:17 -0700

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Hamam ad, circa 1944

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:04:00 -0700

Vintage Ad for Hamam. Advertising concepts haven't changed for years - this one promises convenience - argues that a 'royal bath' is now easily available with Hamam.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

RIM CEO reacts to the Playbook reviews

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 03:49:00 -0700

via geekculture.com

Brilliant!

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Tetley new logo: I like

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:21:00 -0700

via underconsideration.com

I quite like the font used for Tetley and the tea-leaf motif in the name.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Seen and noted - Washington Lottery

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 04:18:00 -0700

via adsoftheworld.com

Interesting outdoor campaign by Cole & Weber for Washington Lottery. Liked the way the've taken the 'Easy to play' idea forward.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Is bizarre the new advertising?

Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:52:00 -0700

I understand that advertising needs to change -- keeping pace with the changing tastes of the new consumer. I understand that in developed markets with high media clutter one has to experiment with non-traditional media to appeal to your audience. I understand that product hard-sell in these new age videos is not a cool thing -- one has to subtly weave in the product features & benefits.

But what I don’t understand is how some weird, bizarre stuff masquerading as advertising gets lapped up by consumers -- going by the view count of these ads on YouTube. Take the Juicy Fruit video featuring Sara Silverman and a serenading Unicorn. Yes, a serenading Unicorn.It sounds funny and it is in parts. But there’s not a single mention of the product save for the first and last frames. The ‘story’ if you can call it that can very well fit in with any other mint. But then hey, by online metrics it is hailed a success.

via lbhat.com

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Illustrations by Nithin Rao Kumblekar

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:06:00 -0700

via nithinkumblekar.com

Brilliant ones by Nithin Kumblekar.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Folks at RIM brainstorm on how to beat the iPad

Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:28:00 -0700

via geekculture.com

The 'let's beat the iPad by stuffing ours with more features' seems to be the mantra of most would-be iPad killers.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Ad Agencies: Consultants, partners or vendors?

Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:51:56 -0700

Are advertising agencies consultants, partners or vendors? How do clients view them and more importantly how do agencies view themselves? I guess a lot depends on the client's attitude in general to Advertising & the agencies. However, most agencies aspire to be treated like brand partners. Agencies sometimes equate themselves to specialist consultants like doctors, as an argument for clients to accept their recommendations without seeking options. Clients, on the other hand, seem to accept recommendations without seeking 'options' only from specialist consultants of great repute.

Is there a mismatch between the aspired positioning and the one that is practiced? Quite common, me thinks. We want to act like consultants but behave like vendors (noun - a person or company offering something for sale, esp. a trader in the street), especially when it comes to pricing. How often have we seen agencies undercut each other when it comes to new business pitches? Or display an 'as you please' attitude to remuneration?

If you look at the client-agency relationships that have lasted a long period of time, common factors include a commitment from both parties to make the relationship work, senior management involvement, consistent quality of work and perhaps a just remuneration. And there are others who keep calling for pitches every two years. While the reasons cited could be quality of inputs & work from the agency, it could be triggered by change in brand management team or wooing of the client by someone who offers the same wares at a cheaper price. Ditto with pitches. I can understand competitive pricing but some agencies will go so low with their pricing that it becomes difficult to sustain servicing of the account over time. And it triggers the cyclical process of poor servicing, followed by a pitch.

So are we vendors more and consultants less?

via Posterize

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Bob Jeffrey Is Dead Serious About Winning BK - AgencySpy

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:40:00 -0700

via mediabistro.com

So helping BK get from 70k to 1mn 'Likes' on Facebook, demonstrates an understanding of the brands, how new media works and shows passion for winning the business?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The real value of a Facebook fan

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:09:00 -0700

via tomfishburne.com

"The value of a Facebook fan is ZERO until you do something with them. There is no inherent value in amassing fan"

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Dominos Pizza Boxes: why we joined advertising

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:00:22 -0700

No, don't get me wrong. We didn't join the business because agencies serve pizzas on working weekends. It's because its in a way most fun you can have with your clothes on.

Let me explain: agency is either asked to create (or has thought of this on their own) packaging for pizza boxes. It could be seen as just another packaging job. But they created 'Pizza Proverbs' - an online contest in the US. While all entries are displayed for voting, 8 of the chosen ones will get custom-designed pizza boxes with their lines on the cover, as memento.

Agency: CP+B Group. Via: The Dieline

For many of us in advertising, the joy of going beyond the brief and creating something that is fun, relevant and positively impacts a brand is an unmatched high. Sometimes, it involves thinking out of the box, literally.

Original Article

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Seen and noted: Sanitol

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:57:00 -0700

As propositions go, the hand sanitizer category has perhaps seen it all: 'because you cannot carry a wash basin everywhere to what you touch has been touched by a million others. Most of those featured in ad blogs have brought in a fresh new perspective visually. In this context a campaign fro Sanitol caught my eye.

Agency: McCann Worldgroup. Via: Ads of the World

While I get the idea (Touch him. And you touch everything heâs touched.), one can't help the feeling that there's something amiss...something lacking...crafting of copy, finesse of execution that just stops this short of making it world class. Especially in comparison with advertising from the West, South America or Thailand. No?

Original Article

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Who is best placed to handle Social Media for a brand?

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:06:39 -0700

Two recent Social Media snafus were in the news for different reasons: one, where the CEO was seen as insensitive in his social media avatar and the other where an outsourced social media agency used inappropriate language on a brand's Twitter feed. The former was a case of 'in-house' social media presence and the other was outsourced. Social media content for a brand is created either through specialist agencies who handle ORM and social media content or through in-house teams at client companies. And then there's the possibility of the mainline ad agency doing the job - through a specialist Digital team or Division. Who among these is best placed to handle social media activity?

The answer: it depends.

A presence in Social Media is not mandatory for all brands. Those who do need it come in varied shapes & sizes: heritage brands, technology brands, service brands,Â entrepreneur-driven brands, leader brands, follower brands and so on. Each one will adopt a Social Media strategy that is best suited for them: as a customer support tool, a means of entertainment and buzz monitoring. Even among the agencies who handle such activity there could be varied levels of experience & understanding of the brand, the medium etc.Â There are endless scenarios and possibilities. So naturally, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. But some general observations:

First, the pitfalls of outsourcing. Your new agency could be a 'specialist' digital agency with a great understanding of how the medium works. They may be great in creative too. But they are only as good as their understanding of what the brand is all about. One way of understanding the brand is is handling it over a period of time. Chances are - and here I am not dissing anyone - the copywriter at your digital agency has only spent a few years in the business. His understanding of what a brand is all about comes from what has been told to him. A sharp definition of the brand, its boundaries is critical in such a scenario. So is close monitoring of the content.mThe second danger of outsourcing, especially in a scenario where multiple agencies are involved (one which creates strategy & produces mainline advertising, another which handles PR, another which handles media etc.) is one of dilution or fragmentation of efforts. Working in silos never produces the best result especially when its all about team work.

On LinkedIn, I had asked if Social Media should be outsourced; here's one of the responses:

Branding is much about consistency in the signals you send to your customers, and giving them the same experience of your brand no matter where, how or who they get in touch with it.Â Therefore, I believe that the company knows the strategy, but more importantly, also the values of the company the best.

It is perfectly fine to get a consultant to help with how to use social media, but eventually the company will be better at being consistent in the signals they send, thus brand themselves.Â If it should be outsourced then the values of the company and current brand strategy should be crystal clear for the agency taking over the face on the social media platforms. Â The agency might know social media very well, but it is a big responsibility to outsource.

It is eventually not about how competent you are at using social media but more importantly how competent you are at sending the right signals in coherence with your brand.

The option of doing it yourself, may work best for owner-driven brands whose reputation is linked to the head honcho. It gives a personal touch to the brand. Even with large corporations - airline brands, retail, automotive brands there are several examples of successful social media campaigns - perhaps created in house. I think companies should focus on whatever they were created for - making cars, creating financial products etc and leave the interaction with consumers (be it in traditional media or new media) to the 'experts'.

The expert is one who best understands the brand and how to bring it alive in different media. Theoretically, it could be the ad agency. They have traditionally spent the maximum amount of time with the CEO, CMO etc in devising brand & creative strategies. But they have not acquired the necessarily skill sets (or at least seen not to have) to steer the brand in new media, leaving the field open to specialists. I hope the ad industry does not repeat what it did in the early '90s (hiving off specialist media agencies) which led to total lack of communication between the two critical aspects of brand communication: creative & media. They are best placed to drive the brand perception in the right direction be it on a 30-second TV commercial or a 140-character tweet. But will the agencies rise up to the challenge?

Original Article

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Indian consumer: we are like this only

Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:40:01 -0700

The diverse nature of India is a subject of fascination for most foreigners. We in India are used to it simply because its all around us - depressing slums right next to posh residential areas, stories of opulence grabbing headlines along with those of extreme poverty. As consumers too, the diversity is apparent - glucose biscuits could very well be the only breakfast some can afford while there is a market for luxury brands too. India's consumer buying power - 101 BMWs booked in one day in Aurangabad or the celebration of opulence through TV programmes like 'Shaadi 3 crore ki' have made the news rounds.

The story that brought this alive for me was this one:

Years ago, a man visited the cosmetics counter of a popular departmental store in the Mumbai suburbs. He was ordinarily dressed and did not seem to be the kind who would frequent high end stores. What's more he was asking for M.A.C brand of cosmetics - apparently the most expensive of the lot. He gave a list of products that were to be bought. He was given suspicious looks - thanks to his physical appearance. When enquired who it was for and if he had the money to pay for it (as the bill ran into several thousands) - he pulled out wads of currency notes. Turns out that he was a driver, who was flown in from Delhi that morning to Mumbai. His job was to pick up these cosmetics - worth Rs.50,0000 perhaps and fly back to Delhi - just in time for an evening sangeet.

Yes, we are like this only.

Original Article

Permalink | Leave a comment »