STEVE KOCH CD / ACD COPYWRITER

RISK REVERSE

2010-05-02T17:13:00.001-07:00

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Near the end of the world war, in 1944, my father enlisted into the German Air Force. He had no taste at all for politics or war, yet it was that distaste that guided his reasoning. At the time, the SS (Schutzstafel or Shield Squadron, Hitler’s personal guards) were conscripting tall, robust, imposing boys. Aryan types, like my 6’4” father. To avoid any possible association with this abysmal group my then teenaged dad took control of his future as best he could, sidestepping fate and chancing on a lesser evil.

Fast forward to Berlin, 1945: Germany’s last stand. Scarcity of aviation gas had demoted my father from the Luftwaffe to the paratroops then ultimately to the infantry. He, his comrades, and the city itself were surrounded by the advancing Russian forces. There was nothing left to win. The fight continued only to hold Stalin’s troops in the hope that the more merciful Americans would arrive. Surrender to the Russians was considered suicidal.

It became clear that a Russian assault was imminent. Typical from an offensive force prior to an attack, shelling ceased. To avoid revealing their positions the Russians suspended all fire. From a veteran soldier, my dad had been enlightened: should he want to live, this time would be his best chance. Volunteering for perilous perimeter duty now would likely result in discreet capture rather than a reception of sniper fire.

When the call for volunteers came, my father — in what he describes as the hardest thing he has ever done — raised his hand. Predictably, he was taken prisoner. And after Germany’s wholesale surrender, he was shipped to Siberia, to return home only when he became too sick and weak not just to work but to even feed himself. But he lived. To date, he is unaware of any other member of his squad who survived the slaughter that was the fall of Berlin.

Remembering this story always makes me question what is real versus perceived risk.

When forces are in opposition to your interests, beware the conventional. When friends, colleagues, or clients take about the ‘safe’ way, they are speaking of the familiar. Yet safe and familiar, anywhere where it really matters, are opposites. To truly guard your interests, much less be successful, it is necessary to comprehend the real terrain and vigilantly remain open to original, and especially unconventional, courses of action. Blindly following has been known to be lethal.

GET IT TOGETHER ON COLLABORATION

2010-05-02T17:12:00.000-07:00

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Letter to Advertising Age in response to:

Conor Brady’s article 12.23.09 (following)

http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=141216

Ladies & Gentlemen:

Ideas have always come from anywhere. And it has always been the creative director's responsibility to discover, develop and promote those with merit. What has changed is that sources for ideas have evolved from off-hand remarks at the reception desk to more sophisticated channels. Yes, that is good news.

However, to that point, only a member of the Creative Department is responsible for an idea. When has a receptionist ever lost sleep over the obstacles to next big one?

Ultimately, going out on a limb for an idea is a much more grown-up endeavor, AHRL, than throwing stones from inside a suit; there are always scores more reasons not to proceed in a direction than there are reasons to do so.

Original ideas are steps into the unknown. They require collaborative courage to put forth. That said, with all the voices now chiming in with research, analytics and sometimes mere opinion, a creative director with sound judgement — one who has not lost his link to the human aspects of marketing — will become ever more necessary and sought out.

'Bout time.

By sjrkoch | Calgary, AB December 28, 2009 12:09:25 pm

original article:

Creatives: Are You OK With Collaboration, Measurement and Failure?

Welcome to the New Creative Sensibility

Posted by Conor Brady on 12.23.09 @ 04:00 PM

This just in: Creative is no longer larger than life. This is a bold statement coming from a life-long designer and creative director and the chief creative officer of a major digital agency.

The truth is that the battered economy, the ascent of technology, the need for marketing intelligence and, overall, the ability to better connect with customers on their terms have conspired to end "big creative's" chokehold on the advertising agency. Don't get me wrong, the Big Idea is still critical but in this new era ideas come from a myriad of sources, not least technology, and the days of creative for creative's sake -- the "trust me, I know what I am doing" attitude -- is done.

What we are seeing now is a new era of creative, one that I like to call the age of creative sensibility. Adhering to a creative sensibility means the creative director isn't the only creative voice within the agency. Creative directors may hold the status as the leader of ideas but their outlook on the process has evolved as they begin to embrace collaboration.

Collaboration
The willingness to collaborate not only with their colleagues outside their discipline but also with other agency partners and clients is not a quality that most would associate with the creative director of yesteryear. What we are seeing today is the emergence of a new breed who acknowledge that great ideas come from everywhere -- a member of the agency's technology team, the person manning the phones at the front desk or your partner agency. And it increasingly takes a whole team of often unrelated folks to get it done.

Take a Bank of America campaign called "Morris on Campus" that we worked on at Organic. The financial-awareness campaign was designed to educate and empower students to take control of their finances and bank with confidence in the new academic year. A critical component to the success was the team's ability to successfully collaborate with our Omnicom partners, each of which brought with them a very specific specialty to the table that was essential to the campaign's success.

Analytics
Perhaps just a surprising as the creative director's embrace of collaboration is the admission of measurement's role in driving campaign success. For years, the creative team and measurement gurus drew on opposite sides of the white board. Now the smart creative director, one who doesn't hide from marketing intelligence behind their big ideas, is embracing strategy and craving analytics and research capable of providing a deeper understanding of the consumer.

What many are finding out is that knowing how consumers prefer to be marketed to before forming a campaign is far more effective than simply cramming what you think is cool down their throats. They are also discovering that the customers themselves can serve as the catalyst of inspiration which in turn results in a winning campaign capable of propelling the brand towards its goals.

AKQA provides a tremendous example of this with its Eco:Drive campaign designed to link drivers with in-car diagnostics in order to improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions. The effort represents a tremendous example of analytics (i.e. driving data) serving as the genesis of a campaign (rather than in a more reactionary role where it is measuring its performance, post launch) and can then "fuel" a winning creative effort that "drives" meaningful results.

OK to be wrong
Creative directors that embrace collaboration and intelligence will find that the end result to this mindset shift are campaigns that are in-line with the wants and needs of the customers. However, in the event of a misfire, a key third component of the creative sensibility becomes essential: It's OK to be wrong.

There is a sense of knowing when to admit you're wrong, and when to embrace the mistakes of the past in driving the creative of the future. The reality is that most campaigns are in a constant beta mode and it's safe to expect some bumps in the road. The key is to admit defeat, quickly make the needed adjustments and steer the campaign towards success.

The age of creative sensibility marks a dramatic shift from the "big agency" practices of the past and the ideas presented above are really just the tip of the iceberg. In future columns I look forward to expanding these themes and laying out the full creative sensibility doctrine. What you will come to find is that we are in the midst of a massive philosophy change in the advertising industry and success is only possible if the creative director is ready to embrace it.

Conor Brady is chief creative officer at Organic, an Omnicom agency.

SERENDIPITY: SEARCH UNDER 'BUSINESS' OR 'ROMANTIC FICTION'?

2010-05-02T17:11:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

It sounds like another word for luck. Even the dictionary definition is unflinching in its use of words like good fortune and chance.

David Armano, commenting on Chris Brogan's position (Why Serendipity is Underrated) this week remarks, "Serendipity is underrated because it's fuzzy, intangible." Agreed. So, what gives?

Please endure this personal anecdote to begin to understand the point I'll soon make.

After hearing I was single, yet nevertheless open to marriage, a woman friend surprised me by asking straight out, "What are you looking for?" I surprised myself by not only having an answer but one that was comprehensive and concise. Though never having considered the matter so directly, I responded without hesitation: "Beauty."

(Lest you think this response was simplistic and superficial I knew instinctively that my version of beauty included and transcended the anatomically attractive. Suffice to say, it had much to do with the nature of "her" relationship with the world.)

Less than three weeks later, I met the woman who in six months would become my wife.

Contrast this with a friend whose life could be said to revolve around frequent, atypical sexual activity. He is seldom shy nor short of a saga about a remarkable, frequently unimaginable, tryst. And after each tale

I ask myself, "How does he find these women?"

Well? Is finding a partner or mate, customer or client just co-incidence? Or is there more to it?

Let’s look at is this way: It seems that when we construct specific models of what we genuinely want (who we really are) we open the door to achieving our desires. Whether this ultimately happens at a conscious or unconscious level is immaterial. As long as we consciously articulate our goal(s), we allow events to begin to work in our favor.

The less ambiguous we are about who and what we are, the more attractive we become to those with some use for us. In broad daylight, which light attracts moths?

Few disagree that a business ought to be specific about what it stands for, what it wants, and what it offers to whom. These things, in other words, are positioning, goal-setting, targeting. All business.

Whether for an impulse purchase or for a long-term romance, who today can afford to leave serendipity to mere chance?

ONE SMALL STRAIGHT RIGHT FOR A MAN

2010-05-02T17:09:00.000-07:00

Monday, July 27, 2009

It is often recommended that we judge men not by what they say, but by what they do.

Once America’s most trusted man, Walter Cronkite, died this week at age 92. As a newsman, he was largely judged by what he said.

And what did he say? Cronkite was huge booster of the space program. He died just days before the 40^th anniversary of man’s first landing on the moon. He said that it was true and that it was good.

One day some guy named Bart Sibrel said it wasn’t true. And he once said it to the face of a guy named Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin — who was the second man to walk the moon that summer of 1969. Buzz didn’t like how he said it, and did something about it. With his fist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Now, whatever side you fall on, you gotta think both of these guys deserve credit for calling it the way they see it: manning up, if you will.

On that same day that Apollo 11 descended to the surface of the moon, a ‘76 Delta 88 jettisoned off a Chappaquiddick bridge, taking a woman named Mary Jo Kopechne to her death at the bottom of the water.

The network news themselves never got to the bottom of the story — but the circumstances suggest her escort, Senator Ted Kennedy, in patently unmanly fashion, turned his back on her. He didn’t even report the incident to the authorities, until pressed later the next day. Maybe he was lucky that Cronkite was otherwise occupied in Cape Kennedy (named for the Senator’s assassinated brother, the former POTUS, John F.). The story too was submerged later when the Kennedy family “intervened” and the Kopechne family publicly abandoned any further interest.

That year, the world was introduced to a new pop band: the Jackson Five blasted (as they would say at the time) onto the charts with a hit, “I Want You Back”. Lead singer, Michael Jackson was just 10 years old in that summer when Neil Armstrong and “Buzz” stepped foot in the Sea of Tranquility. As is already well known — and you’ve seen it coming — in 1983, Jackson debuted his signature dance “Moonwalk”.

Jacskon’s recent death remains this month’s biggest news story — despite a floundering worldwide economy and an American war on two fronts. There is much media angst about his loss to the world. Certainly he was great, but it’s hard to suggest he was a man. His arrested development manifested in even suggestions of pedophilia — which were conveniently drowned out when lawsuits were “settled” out of the public eye.

I was close to Michael Jackson’s age in the summer of 1969. Of course I remember him. I remember the moon landing. And I remember Chappaquiddick. Because I delivered the morning newspapers that day and I still have a copy. When I was that young boy, I would naturally wonder what it must mean to be a man. Even back then, I knew integrity was always going to be a part of it. And today, if I could still have my choice, would I want to be a rock star or a leader of people?

I think I’d still rather be an astronaut.

OPPOSITES DON’T DETRACT

2010-05-02T17:08:00.000-07:00

In response to: WANT TO TRANSFORM YOUR AGENCY? by HEIDI EHLERS

http://www.blackbagonline.com/blog.php?id=62

Friday, May 15, 2009

Years back, I was exposed to an “atomic theory” of marriage I’d call Big Chunker/Little Chunker.

The idea was that one electron (partner) can only be attracted to its opposite electron (partner); one thinks in Big Chunks, the other in Small Chunks.

How does it manifest? If you’d have asked me what I did the night before, I might reply, “Had dinner.” Had you asked my (then) mate, the response would have plunged into (endless and excruciating to me) detail about courses, cutlery and cooking times.

Guess which of us was the free-associating copywriter and which was the diligent broadcast producer?

I believe awareness of this state-of-affairs is crucial when hiring or otherwise selecting a professional partner. (Probably why the writer/art-director paradigm has endured.)

Why do dog owners look like their pets? I believe they unconsciously choose themselves. I suspect a lot of interviewers do the same: they look for themselves in candidates.

Now, shared values are laudable. They contribute to a harmonious workplace. But if the objective of a business is innovation or creation, isn’t it essential to shatter conventional thinking? Thus, wouldn’t it make sense to hire someone with a point-of-view that is, if not opposing, at least divergent?

Again, it’s about intent. We have to be cruelly honest with ourselves. Do we genuinely want to break new ground? Or do we far prefer to stroll hand-in-hand along a well-worn path?

SIMON SETHS

2010-05-02T17:07:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Millions hang on to his assessment of vocal talent that we can easily surmise for ourselves. Still, judge, indeed we do: the results of responses mean millions into the pockets of the American Idol crew. Yet judge Simon Cowell dresses like we’ve caught him in a hardware store on a Saturday morning. And his pronouncements are delivered with stale similes and meagre metaphors inferior in originality and wit to those of his nemesis, the scorned Ryan Seacrest.

Why do we listen?

Meanwhile, Seth Rogen has recently created an audience for characters that aspire to the most fundamental of human longings, like holding down a job and/or maintaining a first-and-only romantic relationship. What is delivered from the mouths of his characters could reasonably be considered base (or even obscene) in average company. What goes in? Typically, fumes from contraband substances.

What gives?

Seth Godin, in All Marketers Are Liars, writes that people respond to authenticity. Yes. But it’s more than that. I believe people are hungry for truth.

Say what you will about him, most would agree Cowell speaks the truth. At least, as he sees it. That alone, isn’t enough, of course. Everyone has an opinion. But what Simon says has merit, because he has a history of success in the discovery and promotion of musical talent. That’s legitimacy. And because, for most of our lives, we suppress saying what we really feel, we secretly adore the brand of Simon — because he says what we wouldn’t dare, should we ever find ourselves in his chair. (And in that T-shirt.) That he’s clearly a self-admitted, self-satisfied prat, well, that’s authenticity.

Rogen, of course, speaks simultaneously for our inner fearful child and our inner hedonist. There is (previously unspoken) truth in his words. Legitimacy in his acting. And authenticity in his brand projection of hangdog expression combined with (until recently) a doughy physicality.

Marketing now is effectively becoming a dialogue — a live performance over a broadcast special, if you will. The truth will arise somewhere. If not from the marketer, certainly from the audience, if one even shows up.

The objective for marketers who genuinely wish their brand to be embraced, is to establish their legitimacy and, in an undeniably authentic voice, trumpet a fresh, relevant truth an audience can unashamedly clamor for.

TIME’S UP: addendum to an article on ad age.com by MARK WNEK

2010-05-02T17:06:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

http://adage.com/agencynews/article?article_id=134398

There’s no disputing time to think is in short supply. So be it.

Certainly, a halfway decent individual or team can fashion a solution in any given amount of time. (I once conjured a piece — that earned a place in my book — in under forty-five seconds, as a layout was on its way to the printer.)

The trouble is, while a solution may be workable, is it original? When rushed, we tend to grasp for familiar tools. When rushed, can we create work that isn’t derivative? Work that moves (sells) because it is relevant, memorable and speaks for our client alone? Maybe.

If there’s little time to conceive an idea there’s probably no time for a brief. More often than not, I’ve found myself rewriting any particular brief that chances to come my way because, let’s be real, precious few deliver any genuine, workable insights.

The answer for time-starved creative departments is found in continuous familiarity with the client and his business. When there is human contact we (creative types) are exposed to the truths and nuances that are the seeds from which we can germinate real ideas (as opposed to familiar, hackneyed executions).

If any agency genuinely believes it’s “all about the work”, don’t insulate your creative teams from excellence by layering the business with levels of account contact.

Account people can seldom know what information is necessary for great, original work. That’s not an insult — for neither do your writers and art directors. Until, that is, our frontal lobes begin sweating blood with a deadline looming just thirty minutes before the start of Flight of the Conchords. (HBO/HBOCanada. Check local listings.)

VOX UNPOPULAR

2010-05-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

— Financial Times, December 30, 2008

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Pepsi Max just killed this ad featuring a calorie committing suicide.

Why?

Because voices on Twitter began a ‘mass’ condemnation that resulted in Huw Gilbert, communications manager for PepsiCo International, eventually posting this response:

"Huw from Pepsi here. We agree this creative is totally inappropriate; we apologise and please know it won't run again."

Many have lauded Pepsi for being responsive to public opinion. And many similarly praise Twitter for allowing an expedient forum between company and consumer.

Nevertheless, the episode leaves me queasy.

For one, if the ad is so ostensibly ‘offensive’, how was it allowed to run in the first place? (I’m not saying it is offensive. Or bad. Or good.) Have the Pepsi people lost control?

Now, while it’s inarguably prudent to have an ear to public opinion, should a company fall on its knees at any provocation?

Companies have always received correspondence critical of their product or practices. It sometimes befell upon me to respond to these offerings. While some seemed admittedly sincere, too many were clearly products of minds otherwise unoccupied. Expressions of false outrage. In short, crank.

With Twitter and other mediums, voices that deserve to be heard now have equal status with those that aren’t worthy of being directed towards a box of cats. Unlearned opinions can now so easily escalate into huge non-issues.

And here’s a thought: Who really starts these groundswells? Twitter and its ilk afford an easy vehicle for corporate sabotage. What a simple and anonymous way for any of Pepsi’s competitors to initiate an embarrassment sufficient to cause a company to publicly slit its own wrists.

2 MUCH 411

2010-05-02T17:03:00.000-07:00

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The average American couldn’t tell you which is bigger, Detroit or Milwaukee.

The average European could.

You might think that’s because the average European is smarter. But, actually, it’s the opposite that’s closer to truth: the average American knows too much.

More specifically, the average American knows too much about his own country.

Most Americans are aware of both cities. Yet most Europeans have heard only of Detroit.

Which is exactly why they tend to guess the Motor City is larger: they’ve heard of it. Europeans outscore Americans on this question with results significantly greater than chance.

Thus is supported Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer’s theory (in his book, Gut Feelings) that intuition rescues us from being overwhelmed by extraneous information. In fact, he argues, acting on gut feelings is the reason we are all still able to stumble about this planet.

In our industry we’re often bombarded with masses of research results. Everyone, from client to customer to cashier, has an opinion. It is the task of the writer (OK, and art director) to isolate only those salient bits of information that will lead us to a relevant insight. Perhaps this is why the more I think about how I’m reaching an idea, the more focused generally comes the idea.

Most ideas form from the mysterious ether of the unconscious. (Really, we don’t know where the heck they come from.) But this does not suggest that idea generation is passive.

Our thinking can be directed. At least somewhat.

For a recent pitch to a luxury client with an unusually long and complex sales process (with products in the range of millions of dollars) we established four pillars by which to guide our thinking and assess the work. (For the record: prestige, precise, practical and personal.) In a dramatically limited time, we — according to the client — blew all the other agencies out of the water.

I’m certain it’s because we were aware enough to focus on only what was relevant.

As it happened, we followed Gigerenzer’s advice:

“A simple rule that focuses only on the best reason and ignores the rest has a good chance of hitting at the most useful information.”

ADVERSITY BREEDS INNOVATION

2010-05-02T17:02:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

When, in the late 90s, I lived in Japan what amazed me nearly as much the depth of culture was the cost of a simple telephone call. Public phones gobbled coins throughout conversation. Far easier was to employ magnetic phone cards that, while equally ravenous, were more discreet about their appetites.

When Internet usage began to swell throughout North America, it lagged in Japan (and Europe too). Why? The most obvious conclusion would be prohibitive telephone rates that discouraged dial-up usage.

Cut to the Kobe earthquake of January 1995. Among the casualties were telephone cables.

Their loss isolated hundreds of thousands. After the disaster, sales of cell phones accelerated to the point where today, nearly every Nihon-jin owns one.

Now there’s broadband. And overseas, almost everyone is mobile. My Japanese brother-in-law Googles on his cell. He pays his train fare with his cell. He watches television — any station — on his cell. And, of course, he phones exclusively on his cell; he simply doesn’t own a landline.

Last month, I rode the Tokyo subways and monitored usage in my immediate circle. Nearly 30% of riders (including my daughter and her Nintendo DS) were connected to devices. And those on phones weren’t talking. Signage specifically discouraged conversations within train carriages — and some things haven’t changed: the Japanese are notoriously obedient.

Here, we in North America trail other continents in mobile technology. Once digital leaders, we have been handily leapfrogged.

Today, our digital adversity is similarly, price. We consider mobile data services excessively expensive. (And that may be so as we occupy significantly more expansive masses of land. Yes, it’s wireless but wireless needs towers everywhere, right?)

Just the same, but Yoshi in Tokyo willingly pays the equivalent of $400-500 a month for his mobile services. Think: As gas prices continue to rise, will our demand for digital information and entertainment drive demand and competition up and prices down? Will we invent something new? To renounce over-paying for fuel, will we just shrug and forward a monthly $500 to our digital carriers instead?

THE TRAIN EFFECT

2010-05-02T17:00:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

In 1895, as legend has it, an audience filled a theatre to view the Lumière brothers’ experiment in the new medium of cinema. Plot simple: a train advances on the audience. Audience is thrilled; risking personal injury, it is said they storm from the theatre in panic.

Nowadays, it’s unlikely you could coax a single soul into a room to observe a black and white locomotive huff on-screen. And that’s the way I think about the internet.

The novelty has worn off.

For me, every internet destination must immediately provide value. Now, value is subjective. It can be information a user needs or entertainment of quality. (Today, most people aren’t watching DVDs of Three’s Company; they’re paying hundred of dollars for box sets of The Sopranos.)

This week AdWeek demonstrates they too appreciate the demand for worth and utility.

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3i1de189927bfff758384728f89282cfdd?pn=1

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what anyone in the industry thinks. For, if there’s no idea, or no purpose, every single user will storm out of a site (pardon me: application) with a barely perceptible twitch of a finger. Nobody will get hurt. But nobody else will ever know.

THE CASE FOR OPEN SOURCE GOES BOEING

2010-05-02T16:59:00.000-07:00

Sunday, January 20, 2008

An aerospace version of open source was found wanting this week as Boeing announced (New York Times) another delay in their 787 Dreamliner program.

Almost every aspect of the aircraft is outsourced — built elsewhere and brought home to Seattle for final assembly.

The premise, simple, the promise worthy: specialists can be easily procured and the massive costs controlled through tender. (Boeing’s main competitor, Airbus, already employs a global collaborative design and manufacturing approach.) But the reality of creation by committee has disturbingly manifested itself.

As too few suppliers were able to deliver completed assemblies, Boeing has brought home virtual baskets of bits, in the hopes that their own technicians will be able to sort through the mess and assemble a proper aircraft.

Meanwhile, Rolex SA of Geneva has adopted an opposite initiative: vertically integrating every aspect of their watchmaking. While many of their legitimate competitors still outsource even the fundamental movement, Rolex strives to conceive design and manufacture virtually everything in-house: a foundry casts their own gold alloys; avant-garde magnetron sputtering coats dials atomically with gold; Rolex developed, patented and manufactures their own paramagnetic blue Parachrom hairspring — just to boost precision by mere seconds per year.

Realistically, collaboration is only ever a matter of degree. Little, if anything, ever gets done purely through the effort of any one individual. Nevertheless, should Boeing ever get a 787 assembled, and I find myself strapped into one, I suspect I’ll be particularly vigilant for peculiar squeaks and groans (beyond my own).

Doesn’t help that one of their 777s dropped short of a runway this week when both engines quit without warning.

Doesn’t help at all.

INNOVATION HAS A FUTURE. HUZZAH.

2010-05-02T16:58:00.000-07:00

Monday, December 17, 2007

“You will not find me alive at sunrise”, was probably the most accurate prediction by Nostradamus. True to his word, he was found dead the next morning. This effectively relieved him of having to answer for, or even explain, his other, more cryptic visions of the future.

This week Business Week released Innovation Predictions 2008. It’s unlikely anyone will ever hold the publication to account on the accuracy of their particular prophecies. Nevertheless, there is money on the line.

In August 2006, Boeing announced it was extinguishing Connexion, its high-speed broadband service. Just over a year later, Forrester is predicting in-flight Wi-Fi will be the next big thing. This, to me, seems less Kreskin than Greenspan. In other words, it’s inevitable.

Apparently, Boeing’s customers balked at the hard costs of retrofitting aircraft, said to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But businessmen with expense accounts are why airlines exist in the first place. How long will they put up with non-productive in-flight time? Especially when the alternative is yet another viewing of the dreaded Pirates of the Caribbean.

BW also predicts a “Mobile Explosion”. Who doesn’t think Emerging Media is a misnomer? It doesn’t even qualify as foresight. That’s because it has long since emerged in Europe and Japan. Already, my brother-in-law in Tokyo pays for his Pocari Sweat with, and watches network telephone on, his mobile. Try that with an iPhone.

For North American digital media agencies, this is practically a free ride. Sheesh. All we have to do is copy what works. (On my next trip to Japan, think I’ll take my former Dentsu company baseball team to lunch to play some catch-up.)

Where earthquakes and/or crippling landline telephone rates arrested the development of early, personal internet use, the net result was accelerated adoption of newer and less restrictive technology. Let’s see what we can come up with. No reason to think it can’t be mobile.

(I’d like to see technology leapfrog keypads and offer voice-recognition capability to make the mobile experience usefully portable and a lot less like the cumbersome desktop experience.)

However, the most provocative prophecy might be that “identity” will replace “experience” in media and design. “People (will) create their own identities interacting with products and services. The notion of a consumer experience is…so 20^th Century.”

I’m suspicious that people will find it necessary to create identity if they are able to accrue sufficient experiences. For years now, Europeans have begun to measurably shun material symbols of status. Rather, they have invested time and money into genuine life experiences.

The upshot is that when people are busy “just doing”, aren’t goods (and for that matter corporations) rendered insignificant? That result would be consistent with the predicted exodus to personal associations free from corporate intrusion.

For BW also suggests that Facebook and MySpace crowds will turn away from the “commercialization of their personal information and relationships”.

They see a move to exclusivity and privacy that replaces the open community. Sure. Could be. But for me, the issue isn’t so much intrusive corporations.

Frankly, it’s just that I hope merely to see most of my “friends” nailed to a Funwall.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA?

2010-05-02T16:57:00.000-07:00

Thursday, December 13, 2007

“How’s that ad coming?”

The question is well-meaning. Innocuous. So it must only be the ignorance revealed that evokes in me such incandescent loathing.

To anyone who’s ever attempted to create an ad, it’s obvious that such a query is unanswerable.

If I was a mason laying brick, or even your wife, I could tell you how near I was to completion. So let me tell you: if you’re even halfway to an idea, you’re nowhere.

Because an idea is or it isn’t.

OK, smartass. What is an idea?

And for that matter, since there’s nothing new under the sun, what on earth is a new idea?

I’d say an idea(!) is a reorganization of information — usually, a juxtaposition of two things that have never before been considered together, the sum of which represents an original perspective. If it isn’t new, then it isn’t an idea. (And probably somebody else’s work.)

For our purposes, the better the idea, the more surprising it is. And it’s best when it reveals a previously hidden or unacknowledged truth (that is relevant to some benefit of our product).

Time is Everything

The struggle is the fresh bit. That’s what takes the time. For when deadlines loom pros and amateurs alike can sow previously harvested fields and produce perfectly passable, if not formulaic, product.

Generally, these are first-level “solutions” that any team, any agency (or worse, any client) could produce. They may not be embarrassing to any party. We’ve seen their like before. But because they ring familiar they can’t be electric. They just are.

The stereotype of the creative team staring blank-eyed at each other for hours isn’t false. And that’s because, as best as we can know, while we stumble, ideas are developed in an inaccessible back room somewhere in the sub-conscious.

I suspect that many people (most of whom are known to wear suits) believe there’s some sort of infinite intellectual warehouse that holds every possible solution to every possible advertising problem. Because that’s certainly how they react — with petulance, anger or threats — when, even after a day, their team has not “delivered the goods”.

From my experience in better agencies, it was never, ever for lack of trying or talent. But now, finally, there is an alibi in science. In a current issue of Scientific American Mind, Graciela Flores reports that in order to make hidden connections, the brain requires downtime and sleep.

Flores reports on work by researchers from Harvard Medical School and McGill University that examines relational memory;

“the ability to recognize hidden relations among our memories, a characteristically human feature, is vital for solving problems in creative ways.” Neurologist Jeffery Ellenbogen concludes, “The process of binding memories together evolves over time.”

That doesn’t mean inspiration can’t strike quickly. Crucial for idea generation is a propensity — a talent — for making unusual connections. Often quickly. But in this business, talent is mere price of entry. And worthy of no more discussion here.

Info Loading

To accept the model of the brain shuffling around memories is to acknowledge that information must be present to become a memory. (Duh.) This suggests a creative team should absorb as much information about the task as possible.

(But beware. Luke Sullivan, in “Hey Whipple, Squeeze This” — the closest thing a copywriter could ever have to a bible — quotes Mark Fenske: “Don’t ever give into the temptation to take the factory tour. Resist. It makes you think like the client. What happens is you’ll start to come up with the same answers the client does.”)

It should go without saying, this project-relevant information should be augmented by all kinds of other — seemingly irrelevant — life experiences and impressions, so that novel connections can be made. (The majority of the population doesn’t work for an agency or a production house; why are so many ads industry in-jokes?)

Practice Your Practice

From what I’ve seen, the best at what they do still have to work at it. There’s talent, there’s knowledge, there’s wisdom. And there is, and will always be, application. That doesn’t at all mean only on prestige assignments. The successful writer or art director knows the value of craft. And that craft must be honed on even the most mundane assignments.

Screenwriter Steve Pressfield, in The War of Art, wrote: “The professional is sly. He knows that toiling beside the front door of technique, he leaves room for genius to enter by the back.”

Now, on the subject of genius, who better to have the final say than Mozart? Many assume he was a natural, that his masterpieces came to him effortlessly. In The Creative Habit, Twyla Tharp reveals the truth in a passage taken from his private correspondence:

“People err who think my art comes easily to me. I assure you, dear friend, nobody has devoted so much time and thought to composition as I. There is not a famous master whose music I have not industriously studied through many a time.”

How’s that arpeggio coming, Amadeus?

LAZY FRANK

2010-05-02T16:56:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Big, lazy circles at centre ice. Of all the players in blue and white you could always pick out Frank Mahovlich. And he would usually set off my dad. “Look at him loafing out there. Why on earth do they keep him?!”

Presumably Pops approved of Eddie Shack. Crowds adored him. Nicknamed Subway, Eddie would huff and snort down the left wing, rip off a shot, swing around the net then peel off, winded, to the bench. His trajectory formed a sort of letter “J” — much like the shape of the (then single line) Toronto subway.

You could see Eddie working.

Not many years ago, two colleagues of mine were out for skate at a Toronto arena. They shared the ice with only one other: an older gentleman. Tall guy. Long legs. Languid, easy strides.

“It’s Frank Mahovlich.”

Recognizing the great number 27, pride obliged them to quicken pace and stay alongside. A brief nod. The laps continued in silence.

The friend who told me this story recalls thinking, yeah, he was skating about as hard as he could, but it was worth it: keeping up with a National Hockey League legend.

And then, one, two pumps, and Frank was gone.

Eddie Shack 239 career goals. Frank Mahovlich 533 career goals.

Since that story, when I interview prospective writers or art directors, I always wonder to myself. Am I sitting across from Eddie the Entertainer or money Frank?

DIGITAL SHOWS TRADITIONAL ITS DIGIT

2010-05-02T16:53:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

In Experience Matters, David Armano, VP Experience Design at Critical Mass, suggests that advertising agencies are in peril because they haven’t reconfigured their ‘advertisement factories’ to deal with the new realities of the digital age.

His position is that, unlike print or broadcast, digital isn’t a channel, it’s a lifestyle. The implication is that digital agencies are better equipped to thrive as their billing models aren’t dependent upon massive media buys.

That may well be, but digital shops dedicated to the construction of websites for their clients may be just as unprepared for what’s coming.

The behaviour patterns of users argues that the new technology liberates a consumer from the tyranny of the dictated ‘brand message’. Bill Bernbach long ago stated that, “Word of mouth is the best medium of all”. It seems that customers are taking him at his word — given that at least half of all purchase decisions are made without a single visit to a manufacturers’ website. Instead, users are exploiting their freedom to choose their own sources of information about what to buy and why.

In a previous discussion with Mr. Armano, he stated a big weakness for traditional agencies is that “they have not moved beyond focus groups and trends.”

I would, and did, argue that that could change in a single day. The real advantage for traditional agencies creatively is that they are not beholden to any single channel or technology. Most employ teams to conjure solutions to business problems. Sure, these solutions have typically been print campaigns plus the occasional 30-second TV or radio spot. But the agency doesn’t produce these. Photographers, cinematographers, directors, editors, are all sub-contracted. Whereas, digital agencies employ web designers, developers, etc. Which means any solution to any business problem will invariably include a microsite or, at least, an e-banner.

Of course, writers and art directors from traditional backgrounds have been trained to create traditional ads. But it isn’t logical to conclude that that’s all they are capable of. Of paramount interest to every decent client, employer or partner I’ve ever worked with is the idea.

Digital technology simply offers alternative canvases upon which to manifest these ideas. But not the only ones. (Chalk on a sidewalk can be compelling. And cheap.)

From now, an idea that offers more than minimal value will be what matters most. Because now that consumers have the freedom to choose where to get their information — if even they feel like looking at all — it’s never been simpler to disregard what doesn’t engage them.

Stated in the clumsiest, addiest possible way: No matter where they’re at, ideas are really where it’s at.

Art & Copy: The Movie

2009-10-05T13:17:00.000-07:00

Among the issues raised in the documentary, Art & Copy, was the relative scarcity of real talent in our industry. Hal Riney’s (I think it was) remark was qualified by the observation that there is, at least, a paucity of opportunity for talent to shine. My opinion is that this is closer to the more prevalent truth.

Surely, there are many charlatans who work among us. I’ve met a few. (And still wince at the memories of them. Do you even know who you are?) Maybe I’m editing history, but my impression is that this industry is, nevertheless, flush with intelligent, savvy and engaged minds.

The problem is, as it has even been, that it is far easier to demolish an idea than it is to create one. For, really, all it ever takes to topple a worthy line, idea or campaign is a tiny, lone voice of fear or ignorance.

The irony? That which is usually attacked is the unorthodox. The easy target is that which is different. Original. Unusual. Which is precisely what is necessary to engage a message-saturated audience.

What is most striking about the characters in Art & Copy is their boldness. (OK, call it ego.) Which translates into an unshakable respect for themselves. For their ideas. And for the integrity of this chosen profession.

Sadly, mediocrity still sells plenty. However, with the onset of the (measurable) digital age, perhaps there’s real hope there will be no choice but to produce genuinely good ideas. May they soon be the only currency that counts.

With an audience given the power to interact, the new paradigm can be compared to a live performance versus the traditional broadcast performance. If a brand can’t perform on this new stage, everybody knows.

Ultimately, it’s up to us to be aware always how vulnerable an idea can be. Like the memorable Braniff campaign, the first work that ever won me an award was also literally rescued from a trash can. Work to recognize, protect and promote what is rare and deserving.

Write Brain Theory

2009-09-07T11:32:00.000-07:00

Synesthesia is a condition in which people’s perceptions cross typical boundaries: letters can be perceived as colours; numbers or days of the week may be perceived as personalities.

The condition appears to be hereditary. Neurologist Vilayanur Ramachandran’s work proposes that the likely scenario for its appearance is a failure of some neural pathways to properly grow distinct from one another.

At birth, all the human brain is interconnected. As we grow (and learn, I suppose) sensory systems isolate themselves to become discrete pathways of perception: sight, touch, sound, etc. In synesthetes, some pathways never fully separate. Curiously, this happens most often in writers, poets and novelists.

Now, one way to describe what a good writer does is draw surprising, illuminating connections between things that aren’t initially obvious. That’s metaphor. Imagery. Humour.

All this evidence suggests that there is indeed a biological component to writing or artistic talent. Which further suggests not everybody can nor should be a writer. And the good ones out there? Maybe they’re rarer and harder to come by than y’all thought.