pe care il gasiti aici si la care cativa oameni au pus comentarii. editorialul relua o idee, pe care o mai discutasem cu colegii de agentie, despre impresia eronata a unor clienti - sau chiar a unor colegi din industrie - referitor la cat de usor sau nu este sa faci Internet. I-am spus "complexul Facebook" pentru ca mi se pare ca Facebook a facut cel mai mare serviciu si in acelasi timp si cel mai mare deserviciu marketingului online in Romania. Serviciu, ptr ca nimeni nu poate sa ignore avantul acestei platforme si toata lumea a fost nevoita sa isi faca un cont, asa ca, vrand nevrand toata lumea a inceput sa foloseasca apps, sa invete sa scrie niste statusuri, sa inteleaga cum si cat de repede merge o stire pe net, ce este interesant etc. Deserviciu, pentru ca nivelul de "user friendliness" pe care il vad ei la FB este transferat automat si proiectelor pe care vor sa le dezvolte pe net fara niciun moment pierdut sa se gandeasca la cat timp le-a luat celor de la FB sa dezvolte platforma, cate erori si buguri au fost rezvoltate, cate probleme de scalabilitate surmontate etc.
oricum, problema e mare si eu am scris putin si mai degraba histrionic despre asta pe Digital IQ Ads. Insa, ce mi-ar placea - si am spus-o si in comentariile de la editorial - ar fi ca oamenii sa sugereze solutii. Si ar fi si mai misto daca nu am arde-o cu fraze sforaitoare si absurde ca "e nevoie de educatie in piata" "ne lipsesc profesionistii". Evident ca astea sunt cauzele problemei, lipsa de educatie si de profesionisti, dar nu poti raspunde unei intrebari despre solutii cu cauze. Asta se cam numeste "a bate inutil din gura" si, din pacate, televiziunile romanesti sunt populate numai cu oameni care stiu sa faca asta si numai asta.
deci, daca cineva are vreo idee practica de propus, ar fi misto sa o scrie undeva. eu ma gandisem la un videocast unde sa explicam the basics intr-un limbaj simplu. cred ca s-ar distribui usor si repede.
alte idei?
.............
Si, da, m-am hotarat ca o sa scriu alternativ in romana si engleza. Practic sunt subiecte despre care cred ca trebuie sa stie si oameni din afara dar sunt unele legate exclusiv de Romania.
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
4/17/2010
4/11/2010
Why it's good to be in digital this year
three reasons:
1. any creative that gets done this year will have a digital component if only for two simple reasons: a) www recorded the fastest growth and marketing managers will want to get on that boat b) www remains cheaper
2. most international brands will try to cut regional expenses by making creative hubs and sharing creative work which means that some regions will only get access to dubbing other people's creative, but so far the movement of localizing websites has not caught on completely, simply because sometimes it's cheaper to make one locally
3. every agency is trying to become digital either by integrating digital in all its operations or by working more closely with its digital siblings. digital work results from that more than ATL work
so, if you're in digital, you're the lucky ones.
the same works for direct, or e-direct and mobile :D
1. any creative that gets done this year will have a digital component if only for two simple reasons: a) www recorded the fastest growth and marketing managers will want to get on that boat b) www remains cheaper
2. most international brands will try to cut regional expenses by making creative hubs and sharing creative work which means that some regions will only get access to dubbing other people's creative, but so far the movement of localizing websites has not caught on completely, simply because sometimes it's cheaper to make one locally
3. every agency is trying to become digital either by integrating digital in all its operations or by working more closely with its digital siblings. digital work results from that more than ATL work
so, if you're in digital, you're the lucky ones.
the same works for direct, or e-direct and mobile :D
3/30/2010
Palimpsestic advertising
This kind of title makes you almost invisible for search engines :D
Naturally writing 'poster hacks' would be a lot easier but then I would not be able to comment on this trend of "commenting" on already made artifacts. And since advertising seems to be one of the most accessible forms of expression, commenting on advertising is happening all over.
This one is my favorite - the original poster turns into that when the light turns on at night, but there's a whole list here
3/27/2010
Be stupid
I like this campaign by diesel. In Romanian we would say "nu fi absurd, nu fi tampit, nu fi penibil" :)
2/25/2010
Rescuing print
Somehow I am getting a wiff of an underground lobby movement to revive the dying trade of print advertising :D
Can it be a coincidence that one our best and most respected bloggers is quoting one of our best and most respected creative directors - known for his love of [and exceptional talent in] the printed ad word - and posting a full article about why print is a great medium for advertising and only days later there's a second post about the same thing? :DDD
When I first read this I got sucked into the pathos of the writing and posted an enthusiastic tweet about it. Later on, I kept going back to it in my head and realized there was something amiss with the reasoning. It's an interesting train of thought to start discussing the virtues of print ADVERTISING when the very existence of PRINT is questioned. Mainly because advertising is not something that should be a reason to save print for. Somehow a move by, say, the IAA to preserve the existence print just for the sake of putting print ads sounds ludicrous. I mean we all loathe advertising right? Would it not be seriously silly to try to save print because we need to place print ads in it - especially since only 5-6 years ago everyone was complaining about the rape of print by advertisers when full pages of red or green ads covered the first pages of newspapers?
I fully agree with the need to have print but on the other hand I am finding it hard to understand why print needs to remain the ad volume driver that it used to be. Just to save jobs? Interesting train of though for a country where budget deficit is driven by the government's continued subsidization of industries that contribute with nothing. If ad people need print to continue to get a job maybe we should also continue paying miners to dig on in empty mines.
Okay, we need newspapers and magazines and we need them mainly because of two things: 1] the kind of reading experience they provide - more personal, more applied, quieter, more analytic and 2] the kind of editorial art they require - more diligent, more analytic, more in depth, more opinionated. But this kind of experience requires pairing with a certain kind of advertising, and the aforementioned article bemoans exactly the death of that kind of ads: comprehensive, introspective, smart, brand driven vs sales driven. And now, to be completely frank: we had stopped doing these a long time ago. Because Romania is a country of growing needs and growing bellies and these need to be fed fast and cheap and mindlessly. And that kind of advertising in those kind of newspapers and magazines would not do the trick.
So we really don't need print for print ads. What we really need is a customer base interested in both print AND that kind of print ads. Which we do not have. Yet. Or ever?
-------------
PS: and the art of copywriting is real because that letter made me jump for joy with enthusiasm although later on I questioned almost every line :D
Can it be a coincidence that one our best and most respected bloggers is quoting one of our best and most respected creative directors - known for his love of [and exceptional talent in] the printed ad word - and posting a full article about why print is a great medium for advertising and only days later there's a second post about the same thing? :DDD
When I first read this I got sucked into the pathos of the writing and posted an enthusiastic tweet about it. Later on, I kept going back to it in my head and realized there was something amiss with the reasoning. It's an interesting train of thought to start discussing the virtues of print ADVERTISING when the very existence of PRINT is questioned. Mainly because advertising is not something that should be a reason to save print for. Somehow a move by, say, the IAA to preserve the existence print just for the sake of putting print ads sounds ludicrous. I mean we all loathe advertising right? Would it not be seriously silly to try to save print because we need to place print ads in it - especially since only 5-6 years ago everyone was complaining about the rape of print by advertisers when full pages of red or green ads covered the first pages of newspapers?
I fully agree with the need to have print but on the other hand I am finding it hard to understand why print needs to remain the ad volume driver that it used to be. Just to save jobs? Interesting train of though for a country where budget deficit is driven by the government's continued subsidization of industries that contribute with nothing. If ad people need print to continue to get a job maybe we should also continue paying miners to dig on in empty mines.
Okay, we need newspapers and magazines and we need them mainly because of two things: 1] the kind of reading experience they provide - more personal, more applied, quieter, more analytic and 2] the kind of editorial art they require - more diligent, more analytic, more in depth, more opinionated. But this kind of experience requires pairing with a certain kind of advertising, and the aforementioned article bemoans exactly the death of that kind of ads: comprehensive, introspective, smart, brand driven vs sales driven. And now, to be completely frank: we had stopped doing these a long time ago. Because Romania is a country of growing needs and growing bellies and these need to be fed fast and cheap and mindlessly. And that kind of advertising in those kind of newspapers and magazines would not do the trick.
So we really don't need print for print ads. What we really need is a customer base interested in both print AND that kind of print ads. Which we do not have. Yet. Or ever?
-------------
PS: and the art of copywriting is real because that letter made me jump for joy with enthusiasm although later on I questioned almost every line :D
2/16/2010
The art of ageless advertising
There's hardly ever a time when I feel the urge to praise people in advertising, mainly because I also do advertising and I seldom feel I do worthwhile things. But today something I witnessed got me thinking about one essential quality that good advertising people should possess and which makes them truly remarkable: AGELESSNESS.
Think about this: as you grow older, your most inherent tendency is to derive insights from what is most familiar to yourself, not necessarily things like gender, but most likely things like age, marital status, kids or no kids, your circle of friends, your interests. It stands to reason that not having had a kid will make it difficult for you to relate to mother with kids and it also stands to reason that as you move around in an environment more than in another you will more often draw inspiration from the more familiar one.
And now, imagine a 40 yo creative faced with the challenge of talking to 15 yo and having access to true and original insights. And when I mean original, i mean NOT something that he himself has gone through as a 15yo but rather something which is contextually and temporally relevant to this 15yo. They will both have liked candy given out by a nice smelling mother, but can the 40yo relate to the lifestyle brought about by incessant texting? continuous contact via YM? In Romania more than anywhere, some generations have different lifestyles both socially and historically.
So, I tip my hat off to ageless advertising people. I think it takes an excessively flexible mind, like that of an excellent actor who can not only play himself in all the parts but rather play every part like it was a different person, to be able to stay tuned to the all generations we have to deliver adverts to.
Think about this: as you grow older, your most inherent tendency is to derive insights from what is most familiar to yourself, not necessarily things like gender, but most likely things like age, marital status, kids or no kids, your circle of friends, your interests. It stands to reason that not having had a kid will make it difficult for you to relate to mother with kids and it also stands to reason that as you move around in an environment more than in another you will more often draw inspiration from the more familiar one.
And now, imagine a 40 yo creative faced with the challenge of talking to 15 yo and having access to true and original insights. And when I mean original, i mean NOT something that he himself has gone through as a 15yo but rather something which is contextually and temporally relevant to this 15yo. They will both have liked candy given out by a nice smelling mother, but can the 40yo relate to the lifestyle brought about by incessant texting? continuous contact via YM? In Romania more than anywhere, some generations have different lifestyles both socially and historically.
So, I tip my hat off to ageless advertising people. I think it takes an excessively flexible mind, like that of an excellent actor who can not only play himself in all the parts but rather play every part like it was a different person, to be able to stay tuned to the all generations we have to deliver adverts to.
1/15/2010
The joke that good food becomes in times of crisis
I live next to a McD restaurant and sometimes at night when I cannot sleep, I drop by to grab some fries which are my overt food sin. Lately I have been unable to get my fries in less than 15 minutes because the queues at the drive in are humongous. In the restaurant too. That's because after hitting the neighborhood with 2 for 10 lei offer (that's approx 2.5 euros for 2 burgers) McD has literally stolen the market with full Menus for just 10 lei.
As you know, Romania is in deep financial crisis. So deep the government is scrambling to raise taxes from anywhere they can to keep up the country. This affects McD in two ways, firstly because you'd expect people to not go to McD's which, a while back was a neat place to take your family for a celebratory Sunday. And second, because the government also decided to tax fast foods under the hypocritical excuse that Romanians are getting fat. Yeah, it's a crisis dumbasses: we're definitely NOT getting fat.
At any rate, McD's has once more proven its marketing acumen by turning the situation around with the two hit offers. They are positioned as "a full meal for only 10 lei" so basically what they are doing is saying that you can replace one of your daily meals with a McD Menu for a meanial price. And it worked. First, people assumed that they will beat the crisis if they eat this cheap cheap fast food. Second, people will get offended if the government taxes this cheap cheap means and makes it less available. Good job McD!
What is exceptionally striking about this also is how fast McD dropped the Health card which they played on all through 2008 before September. Gone are the huge OOH posters with fresh salad. McDs does TV now with "eat all you need for 10 lei" messages. Nobody's asking nutritionists anymore: because if we did they would tell us to eat healthy fresh food, which costs more than 10 lei to make. The age of the probiotic is dead. When the choice is something to eat versus nothing to eat, you go for something. It really does not matter if it's actual ...well, food.
image from here. Thank you.
12/27/2009
Bet your entire money on Internet?
2009 has been a year when on several occasions I have had to look people in the eye and say, yes, we can do this without being 100% certain we could. It was also the year when, leaving behind the sweet non-committal years of strategic planning, I have had to put a price on what I believed to work or not.
Scamp places planners last on the list of people who should be asked to comment or have a say in the final form of a TVC (read here), and, somehow, he may be right because, unless the kind of planner you are makes you take responsibility for your recommendations, sometimes the environment can release you from the burden of a final decision.
Not so in 2009, when, after being asked how much I was willing to pay if my agency screwed up a project, I again found myself in a situation where the full burden of a budget was placed on one thing alone. In December 2009 I was asked if I thought replacing the full offline budget (non-trade) of an FMCG brand with online activities was going to increase its brand awareness and brand profile sufficiently to warrant a volume increase. In a crisis year.
I said yes and I am confident that we can make it happen BUT I find myself aware of the scarcity of tools at my disposal to give me the confidence I had offline that my answer was not hasty.
Think of these:
First, we cannot/will not/ have not measure[d] the impact of online over brand. Second, we have approximate tools to recommend media planning and split of budgets according to website clusters. Third, we are fully unequipped to complete the conversion funnel online for anything other than items which can be sold online. Fourth, we cannot measure something that has become more than 50% of the online time of users: social media. Fifth, most relevant social media channels are NOT monitored in Romania. Sixth, we are slowly but surely losing the credibility battle online now that concepts such as branded content, brand utility or brand spaces have but been buried by the financial crisis.
So, do I feel confident? No. Do I think I have my work cut out for me in 2010. Hell yeah! :D
Scamp places planners last on the list of people who should be asked to comment or have a say in the final form of a TVC (read here), and, somehow, he may be right because, unless the kind of planner you are makes you take responsibility for your recommendations, sometimes the environment can release you from the burden of a final decision.
Not so in 2009, when, after being asked how much I was willing to pay if my agency screwed up a project, I again found myself in a situation where the full burden of a budget was placed on one thing alone. In December 2009 I was asked if I thought replacing the full offline budget (non-trade) of an FMCG brand with online activities was going to increase its brand awareness and brand profile sufficiently to warrant a volume increase. In a crisis year.
I said yes and I am confident that we can make it happen BUT I find myself aware of the scarcity of tools at my disposal to give me the confidence I had offline that my answer was not hasty.
Think of these:
First, we cannot/will not/ have not measure[d] the impact of online over brand. Second, we have approximate tools to recommend media planning and split of budgets according to website clusters. Third, we are fully unequipped to complete the conversion funnel online for anything other than items which can be sold online. Fourth, we cannot measure something that has become more than 50% of the online time of users: social media. Fifth, most relevant social media channels are NOT monitored in Romania. Sixth, we are slowly but surely losing the credibility battle online now that concepts such as branded content, brand utility or brand spaces have but been buried by the financial crisis.
So, do I feel confident? No. Do I think I have my work cut out for me in 2010. Hell yeah! :D
10/07/2009
Strategic planning in Romania - where to?
I have become very separated from planning in the past year because it seems managing a company is not a part time job :D But a recent meeting with some colleagues who are still doing planning as a first job reminded me of the good times and how we felt that planning could save the world.
Interestingly enough these days there is little talk about planning in Romania for obvious reasons:
- the crisis forbids development of the community of planners, it's hard to hire someone still considered a nice-to-have
- there is not enough know-how pouring in because people are stuck on day to day issues
- the former strong planning group is now focused on other things
This is not okay since planning is meant to help especially at times like these when the industry is at a loss. So, the opinion piece Stefan Stroe writes makes a lot of sense. While I do not empathize with all his points, I respect the insight behind: this is a time when planning should show what it's made of. And it is not. What are we going to do about this?
His full presentation below
Interestingly enough these days there is little talk about planning in Romania for obvious reasons:
- the crisis forbids development of the community of planners, it's hard to hire someone still considered a nice-to-have
- there is not enough know-how pouring in because people are stuck on day to day issues
- the former strong planning group is now focused on other things
This is not okay since planning is meant to help especially at times like these when the industry is at a loss. So, the opinion piece Stefan Stroe writes makes a lot of sense. While I do not empathize with all his points, I respect the insight behind: this is a time when planning should show what it's made of. And it is not. What are we going to do about this?
His full presentation below
How will we handle it when HI5 becomes mainstream?
There is an interesting "snobbery" being perpetuated in the marketing industry in Romania. We have two channels of communication which are being programatically ignored by most advertisers and most agencies: HI5 and OTV (local tabloid channel with huge audience). HI5 is, by all accounts, the largest online community in the country. Yet because people choose to feature silly images of themselves, which do no resemble the hygienic families in our ads, HI5 is deemed off-limits for any self respecting brand.
Now, HI5 is finally being monitored by the official meter in Romania - SATI - and the first reactions (on Twitter) are telltale: people are scared. We feel invaded by a world we feel alien and we resent the attempt by this "outsider" to fall within the limits of our prejudices. From now on there will be no rational reason to reject HI5. When monitored reach is huge brand compatibility is hard to invoke. So HI5 has made a clear step towards credibility.
Yet the questions remains: how will brands navigate this world they have nothing in common with? We make advertising for perfect human beings, for picture-perfect families and sometimes for funny people. But we have never made communication for people who do not relate to Grey's Anatomy, who prefer cheap novellas and listen to manele (local oriental-like music) on a daily basis. We do not know how to communicate with people who do not like Discovery. The edgiest we have ever gone is a tele-novella featuring gypsies on a national channel. But when edgy for us is premium for them, what will we do?
1. My first guess is that some extensive research should be done. On more than the "protected" demographic of Bucharest, where even the back of the neighborhood boyz are mainstream material. We need to understand what we are dealing with in point of cultural references and align our own with the ones of our target.
2. Second we need to understand that communicating for this target is not beneath us, that it does not make us worse people BUT rather it makes us better professionals.
3. And finally, we must internalize the idea that communication can reflect OR inspire and we can either give them what they know or show them something else they might like and we can live with.
I have a feeling of unease writing this, since I use "them" as a term of alterity, as if this target is somehow alien to what is mainstream and common. In the statistics of things though, and SATI will prove it, it seems that we are "them" and they are the norm.
Now, HI5 is finally being monitored by the official meter in Romania - SATI - and the first reactions (on Twitter) are telltale: people are scared. We feel invaded by a world we feel alien and we resent the attempt by this "outsider" to fall within the limits of our prejudices. From now on there will be no rational reason to reject HI5. When monitored reach is huge brand compatibility is hard to invoke. So HI5 has made a clear step towards credibility.
Yet the questions remains: how will brands navigate this world they have nothing in common with? We make advertising for perfect human beings, for picture-perfect families and sometimes for funny people. But we have never made communication for people who do not relate to Grey's Anatomy, who prefer cheap novellas and listen to manele (local oriental-like music) on a daily basis. We do not know how to communicate with people who do not like Discovery. The edgiest we have ever gone is a tele-novella featuring gypsies on a national channel. But when edgy for us is premium for them, what will we do?
1. My first guess is that some extensive research should be done. On more than the "protected" demographic of Bucharest, where even the back of the neighborhood boyz are mainstream material. We need to understand what we are dealing with in point of cultural references and align our own with the ones of our target.
2. Second we need to understand that communicating for this target is not beneath us, that it does not make us worse people BUT rather it makes us better professionals.
3. And finally, we must internalize the idea that communication can reflect OR inspire and we can either give them what they know or show them something else they might like and we can live with.
I have a feeling of unease writing this, since I use "them" as a term of alterity, as if this target is somehow alien to what is mainstream and common. In the statistics of things though, and SATI will prove it, it seems that we are "them" and they are the norm.
9/25/2009
Advertising yourself
Online is a lot about personal branding. Bloggers are essentially small brands and they make money like small brands, by co-marketing with bigger ones. So promoting oneself is actually business as usual - you do it via your social media accounts, through the blog, through images you upload.
But recently, one marketing manager chose to promote herself with the classical means of offline advertising: she needed a job and so she booked a huge mesh prism in downtown Bucharest which sent you to a website. They both said the same thing: "17 years of experience, 4 multinational companies, 9 brands introduced: Marketing Director Seeking Employment".
The initiative created a storm online with people speculating that it was: a) a hoax b) real c) a great guerilla campaign by a new jobbing service.Everyone was mesmerized by this, either because it was so daring and so crazy, or because it was so desperate and crazy. Eventually, pretty much everyone got convinced it was real (the person exists, people have worked with her).
But the question remains: WOULD YOU HIRE CARMEN?
There is always two sides to advertising and we never seem to understand which is the one that matters most, or that makes the difference. We have awareness, everyone is talking about Carmen and then we have affinity, the right people are saying the right thing about Carmen. Which is more important?
Awareness was achieved in this case: she got people talking. A lot. Mostly that she must be desperate, that the crisis was hitting deep, that she was taking huge chances, that she was paid to do it. Everyone knows Carmen.
But did she get affinity? Did her audience - CEOs in search of a marketing manager - understand that she was proactive [she did not sit on her ass and expect to be head hunted or simply send out CVs], and using the tools of her trade [she is a marketing manager, so she used advertising to market herself]?
This is where the connection breaks because if no one hires Carmen then she will have made the point that awareness/buzz is not enough and that her message somehow was not sent using the correct means or to the right people. Which I tend to think is the case. But what if, seriously, what if someone does hire Carmen? What then?
.....
Then, we have two ways of looking at it: a) mere awareness is still enough of an incentive to buy or b) innovation will make a difference. Once. At least for Carmen :D
But recently, one marketing manager chose to promote herself with the classical means of offline advertising: she needed a job and so she booked a huge mesh prism in downtown Bucharest which sent you to a website. They both said the same thing: "17 years of experience, 4 multinational companies, 9 brands introduced: Marketing Director Seeking Employment".
The initiative created a storm online with people speculating that it was: a) a hoax b) real c) a great guerilla campaign by a new jobbing service.Everyone was mesmerized by this, either because it was so daring and so crazy, or because it was so desperate and crazy. Eventually, pretty much everyone got convinced it was real (the person exists, people have worked with her).
But the question remains: WOULD YOU HIRE CARMEN?
There is always two sides to advertising and we never seem to understand which is the one that matters most, or that makes the difference. We have awareness, everyone is talking about Carmen and then we have affinity, the right people are saying the right thing about Carmen. Which is more important?
Awareness was achieved in this case: she got people talking. A lot. Mostly that she must be desperate, that the crisis was hitting deep, that she was taking huge chances, that she was paid to do it. Everyone knows Carmen.
But did she get affinity? Did her audience - CEOs in search of a marketing manager - understand that she was proactive [she did not sit on her ass and expect to be head hunted or simply send out CVs], and using the tools of her trade [she is a marketing manager, so she used advertising to market herself]?
This is where the connection breaks because if no one hires Carmen then she will have made the point that awareness/buzz is not enough and that her message somehow was not sent using the correct means or to the right people. Which I tend to think is the case. But what if, seriously, what if someone does hire Carmen? What then?
.....
Then, we have two ways of looking at it: a) mere awareness is still enough of an incentive to buy or b) innovation will make a difference. Once. At least for Carmen :D
9/12/2009
A year later - Orange's new adv platform
Almost a year ago I was writing a blunt "I Hate it" post about the new worldwide positioning of, my then favourite telecom brand, Orange. I think it's smug to quote oneself but I was saying this: "The communication is bland, indiscriminate, boring. The commercials are like corporate presentation movies, featuring expressionless and uninteresting people. The OOH are stupid, uninsightful, lost in the noise."
A year on and I find myself looking back and thinking that I may not have been as silly as I was told back then. Back then, talking to a friend she saw amazing potential in the campaign, she saw campaignability and generousness, she made me think I had no clue.
Today the only thing that differentiates Orange's ads from anyone else's is, sometimes, the soundtrack (smugly and posh chosen tracks from smug and posh artists such as Nouvelle Vague, Jasom Mraz and such headliners at a possible smug festival in Bucharest). Sometimes the poorly understood insight with dreadful executions like the one about the pathetic husband whose wife won't let him do what he likes (where the pay off is "I am all the people who think they know better"). Today I remember every Orange ad, because it's just so under expectations. Common looking visuals, common looking people, septic environments, 80s style smiles and everywhere a non-sell non-telecom line "I am ...". I have no figures to support my claim but I know for a fact that I have not heard people talking about Orange ads for, hmmmmm, almost a year now. Back then the marshmallow duo was on everyone's lips, and the postpaid services with their eerie minimalistic executions were posted on artists' blogs.
I know it may sound biased because I work in an agency who works for the competition BUT Orange was my favourite brand a year ago, even with the agency working for another telecom, and I would have stuck with it. I don't do corporate brain-wash. Fortunately for my paycheck Orange did me a favor and turned bad. So now, I can be on-message with my agency: I have no reason to like Orange anymore.
A year on and I find myself looking back and thinking that I may not have been as silly as I was told back then. Back then, talking to a friend she saw amazing potential in the campaign, she saw campaignability and generousness, she made me think I had no clue.
Today the only thing that differentiates Orange's ads from anyone else's is, sometimes, the soundtrack (smugly and posh chosen tracks from smug and posh artists such as Nouvelle Vague, Jasom Mraz and such headliners at a possible smug festival in Bucharest). Sometimes the poorly understood insight with dreadful executions like the one about the pathetic husband whose wife won't let him do what he likes (where the pay off is "I am all the people who think they know better"). Today I remember every Orange ad, because it's just so under expectations. Common looking visuals, common looking people, septic environments, 80s style smiles and everywhere a non-sell non-telecom line "I am ...". I have no figures to support my claim but I know for a fact that I have not heard people talking about Orange ads for, hmmmmm, almost a year now. Back then the marshmallow duo was on everyone's lips, and the postpaid services with their eerie minimalistic executions were posted on artists' blogs.
I know it may sound biased because I work in an agency who works for the competition BUT Orange was my favourite brand a year ago, even with the agency working for another telecom, and I would have stuck with it. I don't do corporate brain-wash. Fortunately for my paycheck Orange did me a favor and turned bad. So now, I can be on-message with my agency: I have no reason to like Orange anymore.
8/28/2009
The meaning of advertising
I got this interesting link from Zoso. This artist is mixing corporate slogans and Flickr photography in the avowed intention to prove this point:
"By remixing corporate slogans, I intend to show how the language of advertising is both deeply meaningful, in that it represents real cultural values and desires, and yet utterly meaningless in that these ideas have no relationship to the products being sold."
[Some examples above]
Naturally this sparks some happy grins on the faces of advertising haters because, lo and behold, someone has proved advertising is pointless.
This got me thinking what a vicious circle advertising is in. Companies make products but in order to make money these products are not all that special or all that different. Advertising is meant to make them different. But in order to make them different advertising cannot relate to something in the product (as shown above, economics prevents differentiation). Advertising thus needs to create something beyond the product to make it stand out. This has grown to be called the brand. A brand makes a product different but in order to stand out a brand needs to feed on its own difference and thus becomes ever more separated from the product is was created for. Eventually advertising promotes something which is very special but in very little ways connected to the product. So, QED the artist.
BUT, if advertising stuck to promoting what the product is then there would be only two options: EVERY PRODUCT would need to be very different or there would need to be so much fewer products and economics would suffer. Of course, there is the third option: no advertising.
In reality, advertising is a part of culture just like music videos and the reason it is so, it's because products are NOT so different, the marketplace does NOT work solely through direct to consumer and NOBODY would listen to or look at ads talking solely about the qualities of a product. As human beings, we have an inherent craving for stories and get them from every piece of culture be it movies, music, pictures or advertising. The trick, as with any artefact, is to make it good.
8/26/2009
Creative Internship
Internships are very important when you look at them for what they are. An opportunity. But internships are the easiest way for anyone to screen something else which is equally important: people's attitudes towards opportunities. And this is valid not only for the people having interns but also for the interns themselves.
Opportunities are not occasional. I know the essential definition of an opportunity is something in the way of "an unexpected events which occurs and opens a new path of action which may lead to positive results" BUT one big mistake we make is to wait for opportunities and assume that they will always be "special, unexpected, opening up something wonderful". Opportunities are everything we do. They are not occasional but they are ordinary and how we choose to deal with them transforms them into THE OPPORTUNITY versus just something that happened.
It works pretty much the same with internships and trying to be a creative intern. You walk into an agency and expect them to give you a shot. You look for the opportunity. But all you get thrown at is stupid research, running errands, filling out forms no one wants to fill in, or simply getting ignored. And here is where opportunity radar kicks in: you either choose to be bored, annoyed and irritated at the stupidity of it all OR you choose to see an opportunity in getting coffee.
Malcolm Gladwell makes a point in "Outliers" that there is no such thing as exceptional people but simply people who, when put in the right context, know how to make the most of their talents. Some people are lucky in that they understand they are in the right context. With internships, you are ALWAYS in the right context because you are smack in the middle of where you want to be. So, think that opportunities are everywhere and if you think your OPP radar is a bit off simply try to do something special anytime you are given the chance.
Opportunities are not occasional. I know the essential definition of an opportunity is something in the way of "an unexpected events which occurs and opens a new path of action which may lead to positive results" BUT one big mistake we make is to wait for opportunities and assume that they will always be "special, unexpected, opening up something wonderful". Opportunities are everything we do. They are not occasional but they are ordinary and how we choose to deal with them transforms them into THE OPPORTUNITY versus just something that happened.
It works pretty much the same with internships and trying to be a creative intern. You walk into an agency and expect them to give you a shot. You look for the opportunity. But all you get thrown at is stupid research, running errands, filling out forms no one wants to fill in, or simply getting ignored. And here is where opportunity radar kicks in: you either choose to be bored, annoyed and irritated at the stupidity of it all OR you choose to see an opportunity in getting coffee.
Malcolm Gladwell makes a point in "Outliers" that there is no such thing as exceptional people but simply people who, when put in the right context, know how to make the most of their talents. Some people are lucky in that they understand they are in the right context. With internships, you are ALWAYS in the right context because you are smack in the middle of where you want to be. So, think that opportunities are everywhere and if you think your OPP radar is a bit off simply try to do something special anytime you are given the chance.
7/30/2009
Writing professionally - for others
Publishing online is a constant, if not hefty, source of revenue from advertising. The plan is simple: you start a website, you generate loads of pages and then sell ads on those pages. The bigger the inventory - number of pages - the more ads you can sell (in theory, of course. In practice, recent events have shown that most publishers are facing dire problems because they can only sell their front pages and are mostly unable to market any of the secondary ones, unless for dumping prices like the famed 0,05 cents :)).
But let us not talk about that but rather about something that revolves around content creation. There's a couple of ways for you to get content for pages:
- you make it yourself
- you steal it (Zoso has plenty on this one)
- you flatter it out of suckers
The first option is the path least taken because making it yourself requires time invested, paying people, etc etc. When you have expenses, well, your revenue goes down.
The second option is the easiest one, but eventually you get caught, and people call you names on their blogs and you feel like shit (in theory).
The third option is the funnest one and it works like this: you start a webpage and then you start calling the most important people in the industry related to that webpage. You tell them you want their expertise spread on the newest and hottest publishing site around. Can they write a couple of articles for your readers? Can they become honarary editors of your site? It would be much exposure to them and much help to the readers who are just dying to read their precious advice. At no point do you offer money because that would be demeaning. Obviously these people are just longing to spend their time writing for you for free in exchange for the love and glory this will bring.
Let me make it clear to everyone wanting to do this: IF YOU WANT GOOD CONTENT FROM GOOD PEOPLE YOU SHOULD PAY FOR IT. NOTHING GOOD IS FREE EXCEPT LOVE (and that not all the time)
People who write articles do it for two things: fame or an innate desire to educate the industry they're in. The former ones usually write bland, generic type articles, with lots of personal opinion, no insight and no research. The latter ones do research, do think out what they write, do make a difference. These ones contribute to a growing corpus of knowledge which is useful and meaningul. They work hard, they spend time doing it, they care. Using these people to make your inventory and not even trying to comenpsate them is callous. I don't think NYT editors write for free for that thing. Neither do GSP blogger for that matter. So, please people, stop pitching free writing opprtunities when you're trying to make content. The only thing you'll get is bad content.
But let us not talk about that but rather about something that revolves around content creation. There's a couple of ways for you to get content for pages:
- you make it yourself
- you steal it (Zoso has plenty on this one)
- you flatter it out of suckers
The first option is the path least taken because making it yourself requires time invested, paying people, etc etc. When you have expenses, well, your revenue goes down.
The second option is the easiest one, but eventually you get caught, and people call you names on their blogs and you feel like shit (in theory).
The third option is the funnest one and it works like this: you start a webpage and then you start calling the most important people in the industry related to that webpage. You tell them you want their expertise spread on the newest and hottest publishing site around. Can they write a couple of articles for your readers? Can they become honarary editors of your site? It would be much exposure to them and much help to the readers who are just dying to read their precious advice. At no point do you offer money because that would be demeaning. Obviously these people are just longing to spend their time writing for you for free in exchange for the love and glory this will bring.
Let me make it clear to everyone wanting to do this: IF YOU WANT GOOD CONTENT FROM GOOD PEOPLE YOU SHOULD PAY FOR IT. NOTHING GOOD IS FREE EXCEPT LOVE (and that not all the time)
People who write articles do it for two things: fame or an innate desire to educate the industry they're in. The former ones usually write bland, generic type articles, with lots of personal opinion, no insight and no research. The latter ones do research, do think out what they write, do make a difference. These ones contribute to a growing corpus of knowledge which is useful and meaningul. They work hard, they spend time doing it, they care. Using these people to make your inventory and not even trying to comenpsate them is callous. I don't think NYT editors write for free for that thing. Neither do GSP blogger for that matter. So, please people, stop pitching free writing opprtunities when you're trying to make content. The only thing you'll get is bad content.
7/22/2009
Making presentations work
Presentations are an important part of selling any project. There's a number of presentation styles but in advertising the most frequent ones are Big PPT onto screen and small people in front of screen talking.
As such the pressure to make the words sound louder than the writing on the screen is huge. firstly because when people are shown something they have a tendency to read rather than pay attention and since you are showing them something, they assume you expect them to read.
But more than that the rhetoric of an advertising presentation is often at risk from a number of things:
- many types of material: strategy, data, creative, explanations
- too much information: not seldom presentations run over 150 slides
- different presenters: in most agencies, teamwork requires that several people pitch in when the presentation is delivered.
Talking about one such large presentation it has occurred to me that what is essential is that the presentation should take the listener on a journey to a predictable point. Rhetoric is essential to set the stage, arouse expectations and then deliver. The process should focus on
- deducing a clear objective/destination from client brief
- presenting the road to that destination
- detailing the main landmarks on this road
- reaching the expected destination
Essentially one presentation could be summarized in a sentence like this "From the data you provided and our own research we have deduced that this is what needs to be done and the best course of action is this and trough the following actions we have reached exactly that which we said needs to be done."
OBviously how you say it is equally important. So, if you want to prove creativity you would say "We had a look at your info and WOW, we had this enormous epiphany! Once we had realized that a bunch of ideas just kept flowing in and when we put them together we found that WOW! this all gave a brilliant solution!"
Some other things which are important for a presentation flow should also be mentioned like:
- no speaker should be forced to read other people's ideas
- if at all possible no more than 2 speakers per category of information and
- if the presentation does not convince you or if you feel you're faking, then redo it. nothing is worse than an unconvincing presenter. not even lousy creative.
pic via here. and BTW, these are Sharpies and one great creative director told me that no self-respecting creative should go without Sharpies.
7/10/2009
Tissue session
One thing that stuck with me after the W+K seminar last week is that. Tissue sessions. I think I may have blogged about this in a previous life because it seems like such a common-sensical thing, yet something that seldom happens here.
They call them "tissue sessions" and I deduced (no confirmation from google) that it comes from the fact that, when you have an idea, you sometimes doodle it on whatever comes handier, and usually tissues are handiest. What it is is an intermediary session with the client when you have some ideas but want to run them by the client before developping them further.
Now, please take a moment to think about what this means: a relationship with the client which is so good that you can drag him aside, like you would your mother, and say "look, we have something, it may be crap, we don't know, but it may be genius also, so we thought we'd run it by you just before it gets out of hand". And the client agrees to listen to ongoing work and give you his two cents.
This is very much in contrast to what happens with lots of clients, where presentations are always handled as if they were the big "taddddaaaaa". Even if we develop a tagline to the TVC we feel the need to drag a planner onboard, make a huge ppt, rob flickr clean of all the inspirational images it has, and arrange a meeting with all the marketing staff of the client. I think it may have something to do with the following:
a) advertising is always a narrow balance between knowing-what-you're-doing and not-having-a-clue, so everytime you do something you feel like you have to prove you know what you're doing
b) the dog-eat-dog mentality is sooooo entranched, that you always feel the need to give the client more than his money's worth just in case you get evaluated and they decide you're not trying hard enough
c) advertising is always to be blamed or commended for EVERYTHING so we make sure nothing we do seems unimportant.
Weirdly enough, this always positions the ad agency as the circus freak trying to make a show and the client as the snorty audience. It's a serious and painful divide perpetuated by god-knows-who but which definitely takes its toll on the work.
Tissue sessions are nice because they build consensus, they build team and trust and most importantly they help with brainstorming, with safeguarding brief objectives early on.
So, how about instituting Tissue Sessions for everything? :)
They call them "tissue sessions" and I deduced (no confirmation from google) that it comes from the fact that, when you have an idea, you sometimes doodle it on whatever comes handier, and usually tissues are handiest. What it is is an intermediary session with the client when you have some ideas but want to run them by the client before developping them further.
Now, please take a moment to think about what this means: a relationship with the client which is so good that you can drag him aside, like you would your mother, and say "look, we have something, it may be crap, we don't know, but it may be genius also, so we thought we'd run it by you just before it gets out of hand". And the client agrees to listen to ongoing work and give you his two cents.
This is very much in contrast to what happens with lots of clients, where presentations are always handled as if they were the big "taddddaaaaa". Even if we develop a tagline to the TVC we feel the need to drag a planner onboard, make a huge ppt, rob flickr clean of all the inspirational images it has, and arrange a meeting with all the marketing staff of the client. I think it may have something to do with the following:
a) advertising is always a narrow balance between knowing-what-you're-doing and not-having-a-clue, so everytime you do something you feel like you have to prove you know what you're doing
b) the dog-eat-dog mentality is sooooo entranched, that you always feel the need to give the client more than his money's worth just in case you get evaluated and they decide you're not trying hard enough
c) advertising is always to be blamed or commended for EVERYTHING so we make sure nothing we do seems unimportant.
Weirdly enough, this always positions the ad agency as the circus freak trying to make a show and the client as the snorty audience. It's a serious and painful divide perpetuated by god-knows-who but which definitely takes its toll on the work.
Tissue sessions are nice because they build consensus, they build team and trust and most importantly they help with brainstorming, with safeguarding brief objectives early on.
So, how about instituting Tissue Sessions for everything? :)
7/05/2009
Singing the joy of online
This is brilliant. the problem seems to be
a) TV still works here
b) not even online people know algorithms that well
c) I am not sure who plays the original of this :P
(via)
a) TV still works here
b) not even online people know algorithms that well
c) I am not sure who plays the original of this :P
(via)
User Generated Advertising
Is not a myth anymore. Current TV, which is Al Gore's online TV channel, has a system called VCAM - Viewer Created Ad Messages - which enables users to create ads for their favourite brands and have them played on the television station if the advertisers approve them. You also make 2500 USD if they choose it and up to 60000 USD if the ad is played on another TV station.
I have watched some ads and they are interesting, well produced, if not mind blowing funny or smart. So, with a bit of practice users might put advertisiong agencies out of business also, after print is starting to give out :).
[PS: maybe this is a good time to restart that debate about users being unable to create useful or good content :)]
Three things not involving money
Ever since the crisis has been upon us I have sensed a change in the speech of the online community. If one year ago it was all about getting smart, showing the world what we can, making great things happen, today it's about one thing: MONEY.
There is more than one explanation for this: investment money is running out and people who used to live on that money, thus having plenty of time on their hands to generate ideas and projects, now need to make a living, advertisers are less inclined to spend money on long term commitments since they need short term results. The term branded utility, which I fell in love with at that time, has almost disappeared. Nobody thinks about making meaning anymore because we are down to the bottom of Maslow's pyramid - we need to fulfill basic needs.
However, this is depressing.
Online was the brave new world and now it's turned into the world-which-hates-itself (banners :)-and-makes-little-money and is frustrated. That's why I need to put on the table three things:
1. Optimism 2009 - made by Manafu, this conference is very much like Russell's Interesting (read this instead) only focusing on how to keep up spirits and remain creative in a time when all energies are focused on raw production. While I think that some of the initial thinking behind Optimism has been lost, with a bunch of speakers being the "inspirational" type, which I don't particularly like, I think it's a good thing to be in a conference where we don't speak about how to make money but how to make optimism.
2. A challenge: I run a digital agency and we do not spend a lot of time making anything that makes a difference but a lot of time making money. That's because we have shareholders who have expectations. I know a lot of people who are in the same position. I promise I will talk to each and every one of them and invite them to a challenge: each agency needs to make a project that is not for money but makes a case for innovation, good thinking, meaningful additions to the Internet. My deadline is end 2009 when all projects should be written up and completed.
3. Knowledge: the digital community here does not share too much and obviously with internet not monitored it's hard to keep up and learn and understand more in point of advertising online. There are no publications involved in analysing the online advertising evolution in Romania very much because, as said, it's hard to monitor. So, the thing that needs to happen is an online collectuion point for all the good projects from all players online (Much like bannerblog). This I plan to start and would like to enlist the support of as many people doing online advertising as possible. This will only be possible if everyone shares what they do and is great.
... so there, maybe this will help get over the money-making blues.
There is more than one explanation for this: investment money is running out and people who used to live on that money, thus having plenty of time on their hands to generate ideas and projects, now need to make a living, advertisers are less inclined to spend money on long term commitments since they need short term results. The term branded utility, which I fell in love with at that time, has almost disappeared. Nobody thinks about making meaning anymore because we are down to the bottom of Maslow's pyramid - we need to fulfill basic needs.
However, this is depressing.
Online was the brave new world and now it's turned into the world-which-hates-itself (banners :)-and-makes-little-money and is frustrated. That's why I need to put on the table three things:
1. Optimism 2009 - made by Manafu, this conference is very much like Russell's Interesting (read this instead) only focusing on how to keep up spirits and remain creative in a time when all energies are focused on raw production. While I think that some of the initial thinking behind Optimism has been lost, with a bunch of speakers being the "inspirational" type, which I don't particularly like, I think it's a good thing to be in a conference where we don't speak about how to make money but how to make optimism.
2. A challenge: I run a digital agency and we do not spend a lot of time making anything that makes a difference but a lot of time making money. That's because we have shareholders who have expectations. I know a lot of people who are in the same position. I promise I will talk to each and every one of them and invite them to a challenge: each agency needs to make a project that is not for money but makes a case for innovation, good thinking, meaningful additions to the Internet. My deadline is end 2009 when all projects should be written up and completed.
3. Knowledge: the digital community here does not share too much and obviously with internet not monitored it's hard to keep up and learn and understand more in point of advertising online. There are no publications involved in analysing the online advertising evolution in Romania very much because, as said, it's hard to monitor. So, the thing that needs to happen is an online collectuion point for all the good projects from all players online (Much like bannerblog). This I plan to start and would like to enlist the support of as many people doing online advertising as possible. This will only be possible if everyone shares what they do and is great.
... so there, maybe this will help get over the money-making blues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
