That Gormandizer Man

One Step Beyond

2011-12-02T14:14:18+00:00

Spurred on by this tweet, I thought I'd jot down a few things I think are good pointers to either a) Get into Planning; or b) Be a better Planner.

(I think I've written similar articles in the past, but can't be bothered to see if this contradicts them to be honest...)

Anyway, all of them can be categorised: One Step Beyond.
And in keeping with the music metaphor, I've offered 7 opinions - one for every inch of vinyl.

1) One Step Beyond experiencing
It's imperative for all of us that we know what's going on in the industry and we have a decent grasp of who is saying what, when, and why.
But, don't just experience activity and watch ads. Watch other people as they experience them. You see, it's one thing to see what's going on, but it's quite another observing how that thing impacts on society. So next time you go past a billboard, don't just look at it, look at others looking at it. Next time you see a trend on Twitter, don't just look at the thing people are sharing, look at the profiles of the people sharing.

2) One Step Beyond admiration
We all see work we think is good. It might be great strategically, great creatively, or it might be in the perfect media channels. Well, if you're someone trying to get into Planning or if you're a Planner looking to speak to a new business client, you need to do more than admire work. If you see work you think is good, think about how you could make it better and let the relevant people know.
If you want to work for that agency, find some of their work and show them how you'd make it better - creatively or strategically. If you want to work with that brand, find some of their activity and show them how you'd like to improve it.

3) One Step Beyond reading
As this post exemplifies, we're not backwards in coming forwards as an industry. We're all chomping at the bit to share our opinion - be it on blogs or in traditional media. Well, if you see a viewpoint you agree or disagree with, pen a response with your reasoning why. Even if you don't send it this is a great exercise that helps you build up skills of forming arguments and using evidence to support your case. We're in an age where we can find and converse with people across the globe instantly. The internet has truly democratised communications between people, and whether they like it or not, you can probably find the email address of the person you want to share your opinion with.

4) One Step Beyond geography
As I just touched on, everything around us is instant and accessible. That means we can talk with people, learn from people, and challenge people wherever they are on earth. I find that truly exciting. I can read the press anywhere on earth, and respond to the relevant person instantly. And that doesn't have to be an email. It could be a face to face chat on Skype, by sharing images on Instagram or by having a conversation in public on a blog. Bored of reading the same old stuff? Pick a country and look at their press, look at what's going on in their world and learn something new.

5) One Step Beyond brands
A good client knows their brand inside out. A good Planner can either better that knowledge, or they can provide essential objectivity. You see, I think a lot of clients inevitably become Brand Blind. This is a term I've originated myself, but I think it's true. They spend about twelve hours a day, about six days a week inside that brand, surrounded by that brand and consumed by that brand. They notice it more in daily life, they talk about it, and they know and understand the machinations which drive it internally. Well, unfortunately for them, most people on earth have either never heard of their brand, or don't give a shit about their brand. In my mind a good Planner should provide that objectivity, and should think beyond the brand and think about where, how and why that brand sits in society as a whole. In the daily life of people. Of culture. Of societies. Don't think outwards from the brand, think outwards from society.

6) One Step Beyond silos
Traditional agency models are broken. Modern agency models are broken.
The world is moving so quick that the success of any business model is dictated by the inherent flexibility it has at its core. Mr Perkin would call this agile.
Within any system or model are silos. They might be explicit or implicit, but there are silos. Traditionally the Planner's silo was to dig around to find the insight, then inspire the creatives to come up with a big idea. I think that's only part of the Planner's role, and those boundaries should be flexible. If you've written the proposition to inspire a creative idea, have a think about some creative ideas yourself. If you've got an idea you want to sell into a client, start planting the seeds with the Account Team so they can lay the foundations with the client for you. Don't just sit in the Planning Department, have your head in other departments too.

7) One Step Beyond work
Planning doesn't stop at 6pm, and it doesn't stop in the office. Planning is a way of life, a way of living and a viewpoint on the world. In my mind, anything you espouse in the office should be carried into your private life too.
The cliché of being interested and interesting, unfortunately is true. (I just hate clichés OK?)
So for me it's all about travel, writing and exploring. I always want to learn more. I always want to do things I haven't done before. I always want to be excited about a place, a thing, an experience. I want to travel every inch of this beautiful world of ours. I want to get every thought in my head on paper, either in words, in charts, or in pictures. I want to explore everything from music to film; from food to beer; from people to isolation. It's all out there, and we can touch it whenever we want.

To misquote Samuel Johnson, "When a Planner is tired of going One Step Beyond, he is tired of life."

A simple business made unnecessarily complicated

2011-11-30T17:45:31+00:00

I penned a letter to Campaign last week and to my surprise it got printed. I thought I might as well put it here too, as at the very least it'll mean I've put something on my blog for the first time in ages...

I think they might have amended it slightly, but this is the version I sent them:

--

Dear Editor,

I noticed a theme between two articles in your November 11th edition. On page 18 Jonathan Fowles wondered whether most agencies understood what Comms Planning is when they sell it to clients, and on page 24 Richard Alford shared his recent experiences of agencies selling 'vacuous, cod-philosophical' manifestos and mantras to clients.

I've had experience of agencies doing both of the above during my career thus far and they're both self-serving, short-term and ultimately do more to widen the agency/ client relationship in the longer term.

The two items above are exemplified by two of my pet hates:

1) Selling complexity instead of simplicity.
The agency role is generally a simple requirement: sell more stuff; find more people to sell stuff to; make my brand look good to certain people etc. Yet as an industry some seem intent on overcomplicating this simple equation for their own short-term gain. I have had first hand experience of this in the past and something a friend was told by a superior springs to mind: "Use big words and drop in the odd word which confuses the client. It makes us look good." This was an internationally networked agency with global clients.
We must never forget our role as agencies is to simplify our client’s business challenges and provide them a communications strategy which answers those business challenges.
Simplicity from complexity. Not vice versa.

2) Jumping on the bandwagon.
Whether it's a new media channel, a new technology or new terminology it seems there's no shame in jumping in there as quick as possible and getting it on the agency creds with no-one questioning the relevancy to consumer or its consistency to other communications.
Andrew Cracknell nailed this last week at the Yahoo! Provoke Summit when he stated: "There is a fixation of doing what can be done instead of doing what should be done."
Asking WHY before asking HOW is essential.

These aren't solely the issues of agencies however, and clients have to take some responsibility for the situation. Some clients like to pass the confusion onto their superiors to confuse them into the belief of progression, and clients too want the new shiny thing on their CV even if there’s no real business reason for it.

Only by simplifying (and not complicating) and by asking why (before how) will we reach a point where longer-term relationships are forged with clients which ultimately add real value to all involved and deliver engaging and relevant communications to consumers. That’s the aim of all of us here at nexus|h and it’s something I’m personally passionate about.

The answer isn't Amazing or Safe. It's Best.

2011-10-28T14:47:03+01:00

There have been, are, and always will be movements in our industry.

Movements that are generally started by one person, amplified by another and then grasped by all and sundry. In essence it's the industry Planning the industry much the same way we try and Plan some of our campaigns for mass consumption: Give the message to a thought leader; let them share it with a chosen few; watch it amplify.

A perfect example is the current "Let's make stuff instead of talk about stuff."
Loads of people are saying it, loads of agencies are saying it and it's now part of the everyday parlance for a strategist, Planner or creative in an agency.

Loosely affiliated to this, I believe, is the whole 'Be Amazing' thought that is all pervasive. Where every brief is an opportunity to do Amazing things. Encouraging the client to make risky decisions instead of defaulting to the 'Safe' standard we know it'll be easier for them to sell in internally.

We all want to sell 'Amazing' because Amazing is where we do something new. Something that breaks boundaries, uses new technologies, sets new levels and gives the client and the agency a whole host of self-PR opportunities.

As the opposite to this, we're told to resist the 'Safe' - the Safe which gives us a traditional print ads (with NO QR-CODE SHOCKA!), use of traditional media, and maybe amplified through a simple Social Media promotion. As strategists and Planners we're told this is boring. We won't win any awards for that, surely... will we?

Well I think both of those approaches are totally self-serving and are there for the ultimate gain of the individual client or the agency.

I believe in the Best. Whatever that Best may be.

That Best may well be a new technology to use, an innovative and high-barrier to entry Social Media mechanic. But equally that Best may be a traditional print ad in The Times with a simple Call to Action to a freephone number.

You see, it's really simple: It's all about the business aims of the client and the success criteria attached to them. Don't think about the creative answers until you've well and truly got stuck into this fundamental question and agreed how to answer it.

One valid answer is Amazing; but another equally valid answer is Safe.
Whatever the aims are and whatever leads to Best.
But having a predetermined answer of Amazing (or Safe) is fundamentally wrong.

Don't ask me, team up with me

2011-10-20T14:51:19+01:00

So I've just been to Office - the footwear shop. A successful trip really as I walked out with a pair of trainers on sale. Bonus.

Anyway, when I was in there paying for them the transaction went like this:

Cashier: "That's thirty-five pounds please."
Me: "There you go" [inserting card in to the reader.]
Cashier: "Would you like to donate one pound to Breast Cancer research?"
Me: "Me? Erm, no I wouldn't. Sorry."
Cashier: "That's thirty-five pounds then please."

There's something on their website here explaining their support for Breast Cancer Care and of course, I think it's great to support charities.

But here's my problem.

Office are a brand with (what I can count from their site) about 120 stores and concessions in the UK. I am a single human being on a single salary.

Aren't they in a better position to give £1 to charity instead of me?

You see, I walked into your store to give you money. If you ask me for more money without telling me what your side of the contribution is, I'm going to walk out in a negative state of mind. (And write a blog post like this!)

As it was I felt a little embarrassed being asked if I'd like to give the money to charity. Of course I want to give money to charity, that's why I run regularly for the British Heart Foundation and why I've signed up to the swearjar. But what I don't want is to be asked by a brand in front of other people. I might come across as unsympathetic or unfeeling. And I'm not.

So I have an idea Office. Let's see if you're up for it.

I'm not going to donate £1 with every purchase.
I don't want you to donate £1 for every pair you sell and make a profit on.

I want us both to team up together and every time you make a sale I want to donate 50p and I want you to donate 50p too. Let's do it together, not put pressure on either of us (and especially people who walk in who undoubtedly have less money than you.)

So come on Office - are you going to join with your consumers and work with them, or are you going to just ask them to make a contribution?

When a monopoly becomes a fair fight

2011-10-19T15:14:44+01:00

SKY TV have recently lost a court case which potentially means anyone can now watch Premier League games via different TV providers outside of the UK.

(This is a visual metaphor for a fair fight. (Jesus, I sound like those pants Barclays ads.))

This is a major blow for SKY as they've pretty much had it their own way for a while now. They are a financial powerhouse compared to the hamstrung BBC, have the heritage and experience over pretenders like Setanta and as such have been in the driving seat for a while.

But good old Karen Murphy has buggered it up for them. In the short term at least...

Now if I worked at SKY's advertising agency I'd see this as a massive opportunity. Overnight they've gone from a position of ultimate power and instead are now sat alongside a host of overseas TV providers most people have never heard of.

The advertising challenge was: If you want all this football, subscribe to SKY.
This is now irrelevant and they need a new proposition.
The advertising challenge is now: If you want all this football from a trusted source, subscribe to SKY as we're better than our competitors because...
... and it's this because that can have such rich substantiation attached to it.

You see, the Jamie Redknapp's of this world have never really been a selling point of SKY. They've been a bonus on top of the access to the football. Now that access has been democratised, the remainder of the SKY offering has become the main selling point.

Offering access to the football isn't enough any more, it's the other stuff that'll make SKY desirable over other providers.

What SKY need to do is figure out if all this other stuff (the ex players; the presenters; the technology etc) is good enough to compete with the overseas providers. If so, then there's their strategy right there. If not, then it's a signal to us that they've abused their position of power and competition from others will make them stronger.

An Idea: Making second hand products more appealing

2011-08-18T17:08:43+01:00

My dad bought a guitar from EBay recently. It's an old Fender Jazz Bass from the 70s and it's beautiful. It's battered, worn and the paint is flaking off. It sounds absolutely amazing.

It's exactly because it's an old guitar, because it's been used by lots of people that it's desirable. It has history.

I think he told me that he checked that the serial number was a genuine one online. I think you can get the serial number and pop it into a website to find out the guitar colour and age and stuff and you can see if it's been resprayed etc. A good idea.

This made me think about other similar items - things like cars where there isn't really any desire to own a pre-owned car. Unless it's a classic, buying a second-hand car is a necessity of cost and perceived as a risk. Again, you try and find out about the history of the product to check what you've been told but you'd probably buy a new one if you could.

I remember going to a talk a few years ago and some chap from Howies was there talking about a coat you could hand down to other people when you'd finished with it. I like this. The problem for brands, though, is that it goes against exactly what they want. They want people to buy something, and wait for it to become redundant so you have to buy it again. Some even plan this very process into their products.

All this got me thinking about how we could start to track the history of items for both rational reasons but also emotional reasons.

My dad was interested in whether his guitar wasn't the original thing from a value point of view. Whereas I'd love to know what kind of music it's played, the places on earth it's been and the people that have used it. That stuff would really give it a rich history me and turn a functional item into an item with soul.

This could be done with unique identifiers such as Serial Numbers but you could also do it with something a little more dynamic. If we could start embedding intelligent chips into items we could track so many different things.

Think of this.

If a chip in a guitar could collect location information for example, we would be able to find out what venue the guitar was at. Cross reference that a couple of times with the venue website and we'd be able to tell which band it was in. Then we'd be able to tell the kind of music it was playing. Even link it to a specific person. A guitar owners family tree as such. All we need is a small chip in the guitar that is charged by the amp and shares its info when it is in a wifi area.

I think that kind of rich information gives a product a history, a rich history that adds value to the item, not takes value away from it.

If this is the kind of information that adds value to a second-hand guitar, then what kind of information could we collect to add value to second-hand clothing, second-hand cars, second-hand anything?

If we think about it properly could the addition of some key bits of information move second-hand items from a rational necessity to an emotional want?

Optimum Product Placement

2011-08-18T09:17:19+01:00

Was thinking about Product Placement the other day and the strategy needed to optimally place a product in a TV show. (I've been watching a lot of films recently and although placements in movies are a much more mature channel I've been a bit surprised (and even offended) at how blatant some placements are.) See Jake Gyllenhaal's watch in Source Code as a good example of something that's a little too blatant IMO.

You see, if there's an imbalance from any of the three stakeholders I don't think the placement will be successful.

Let me explain:

From a Brand point of view, you have to select the most relevant show for you and you have little control over how the product is placed (whether your chocolate bar will be eaten by a nice person and praised, or spat out by the bad person who says it's horrible); you have to be sympathetic to the TV Scriptwriter in the same way Planners are to Creatives (make them believe the product adds something to their show, not denigrates it in any way); and ultimately so the End Consumer doesn't have their viewing experience ruined by the product. If your chocolate bar is out of place, commands an inordinate amount of screen time or focus or breaks their vision of fantasy and reminds them it's just a TV show - then you're in trouble.

But, if you balance these three things out successfully you're on your way to placing a product in the way it should be.

What Other People think about Marketing and Advertising

2011-07-05T09:37:00+01:00

So I started a new section of the blog a while back where I asked normal people what they think about marketing and advertising. The purpose for this was just to remind myself once in a while of the real people on the street.

The industry is great at discussing and sharing new awards, new technologies, new hypotheses and personal egos with all and sundry. So much so, I think, that lots of people within the industry completely lose sight of the fact that there is life outside of it.

That's anathema to the way I think, and the way I believe a good planner needs to think in order to do their job properly.

Anyway, I started this new series and my friend Tom Harle emailed me and said he liked it and asked if he minded if he could do something similar. Not at all. Tom has started his series over on his blog over here and it's very interesting - you should give it a read.

An open letter to [something that sounds like 'CTS']

2011-06-07T13:27:01+01:00

[Edit: I've had assurances from the orignally named law firm saying the call below is most definitely not them. Trusting their word, I've removed their full name.]

Hello,

I have never been involved in a car accident.
This is an important fact, as around 10 minutes ago I was contacted by someone from [edit: something sounding like CTS] telling me I had been involved in a car accident.

Working in marketing, I know how cold calling works and am not instantly dismissive to the person calling me. After all, I work in a connected industry.

However, the conversation went like this:

Me: "Hello?"
Caller: "Hello is that Mr Hadfield?"
Me: "Yes."
Caller: "Hi, I'm calling from [something sounding like CTS Lawyers]."
Me: "Erm, right. Is this is sales call?"
Caller: "I am not selling anything today Sir."
Me: "OK I'll rephrase that, as I know you'll have been trained to say that. I have never contacted you, no? You are instigating unsolicited contact with me?"
Caller: "I'm calling you about a file I've been given about a car accident you were recently involved in."
Me: "Really! That's interesting. I'd love to see that report, as I've NEVER been involved in a car accident."
Caller: "... erm... OK..."
Me: "Can you send me a copy of that report please? I'd love to see it. I'd love to read about a car accident I've never been involved in. Can I see it?"
Caller: "I'll make sure we take this report off our records."
Me: "I suggest you do more than that, as, just to re-iterate the fact: I have NEVER been involved in a car accident. OK? Goodbye."
Caller: "Goodbye Sir."
[I'm paraphrasing, but those words are roughly what I said.]

What I object to is not the cold-calling. True that is annoying, and one of the most wasteful forms of marketing as it hits a lot of people that are irrelevant, the wrong demographic and in the wrong frame of mind (I was just going into a meeting).
To be honest, I'm not even too concerned with the strategy of using a lie to try and talk to me.

What I am most upset with is that the lie that I had been involved in a car accident is utterly distasteful, and for anyone you successfully target that had had a 'minor scrape' you're also going to contact people that have deep emotional scars if either themselves or a loved one had been involved in a bad car accident.

I suggest you re-think this strategy as you have all of your phone numbers on your website and it would be easy for a person more annoyed than me to get them and use them. Maybe to ask you all how you are feeling after your recent lawnmower accident half way through a meeting for example.

This letter has been posted on my blog here.

I hope more people read it, and I hope it prompts you to change your marketing strategy.

Yours,

Mark Hadfield

What Emma Scutt thinks about marketing and advertising

2011-05-31T17:12:45+01:00

Number Three: Emma Scutt

Your name: Emma Scutt
Your age: 40
Your location: London E17
What you do for a living: Freelance mural artist
How you know me – if you do: via Twitter
--
Q1: What do you think about advertising?
A1: To be honest I think there's too much of it around. There's a bewildering amount of advertising from all angles these days, there's no escape! Whether on television, radio, on-line, magazines and newspapers, there's constant bombardment. I understand that it's necessary for brands and products to get their messages out there and attract the attention of potential buyers, but I sometimes feel it's a little overwhelming.

Q2: Which ads have you liked recently? Why?
A2: Most adverts go in one ear and out the other, but there's a few that have stayed in my head for a while. I wouldn't say "like" is the right word, but I thnk the NSPCC "stop" campaign was extremely effective at getting it's message across. I like the apple iPod ads as they're fun, colourful and punchy. And the Sony Bravia ads with the colourful rabbits/bouncing balls/paint were beautiful.

Q3: Can you remember any ads from the past? Which?
A3: The Guiness ads are works of art in their own right - the "white horses" surfing one was stunning and always seems to crop up in best advert awards. Also the recent Cadbury ads have been fun and innovative. I thought Cadbury were brave to go down that road, as the actual product didn't even feature in the ad, yet the adverts were such a talking point that the brand awareness must have increased hugely.

Q4: In a sentence, and without googling!, describe what you think a brand is.
A4: A brand represnts the visual identity of a product, and it's core values.

Q5: Which brands are you loyal to, or passionate about now? Why?
A5: Apple - To me their products instantly represent quality, style, and beautiful yet functional, innovative design.
John Lewis, Boots and M&S - Traditional, tried and trusted dependable British brands which consistently offer excellent quality and value for money.
Heinz - I've tried the cheaper supermarket own-brand versions and I'd never go back.

Q6: When was the last time you took advantage of an offer? Who and why?
A6: Apart from Sainsburys/Boots BOGOFs which I take advantage of every week, it was probably Pizza Express - they send me regular emails with discount vouchers.

Q7: Do you think advertising and marketing is good for society?
A7: Difficult question. If they didn't exist, I have a feeling the world would keep on turning, and people would somehow manage to find the products they need. I think it's probably better to have it so that there's an awareness of what's out there, though not sure if it's "good" for us exactly? If anything, I think the bulk of advertising encourages people to spend money they don't have on things they don't actually want or need. Also the preference by the industry for using only thin/young/beautiful people to advertise absolutely everything can have a massively negative psychological impact on both sexes.

Q8: Do you think advertising helps sway your opinion on whether to buy something or not?
A8: Well I'd love to say no, but I think that would be extremely naive! Whether I like it or not, perceived brand messages and values are hardwired into my head, and definitely affect whether I do or don't buy a product.

Q9: If you worked in advertising, how would you do things differently?
A9: I'd just be honest. I don't believe there's any point in exaggerating the benefits of a product, as the truth will be exposed at some point anyway. I think most people appreciate honesty and integrity, and will reward with loyalty - especially these days when there's less money to spend, so people would rather get value for money and not be ripped off.

Q10: Would you like to ask the advertising industry any questions?
A10: Yes! Why don't you use more "real" people in your advertising?