Archive for the ‘Advertising’ Category

Is advertising art?

Tuesday, June 7th, 2005

About once a week I ran a focus group for various reasons. Sometimes its to explore an advertising concept. The traditional creative view of this is that advertising testing is a destroyer of great ideas. A softening of this view is that research should be used for concept development. Actually, I don’t overly object to testing advertising concepts. In fact, what I find really interesting is that creatives often like to sit in on the groups because they see how people really react to their work. And creatives like a novelist or a screenwriter creates work for their publics.

I was in the pub the other night for a quick beer with a couple of creatives that I work with and the discussion was based around is what we do art or is what we do to sell stuff. Interestingly it was the creatives that were debating this thought. But then what is art anyway.

I argued for the art side. Because what we’re doing is trying to create something that’s of value in people’s lives and that becomes a vehicle for the selling message. This is an extension of the somewhat cynical idea that advertising needs to be entertaining because people will be more receptive to the advertising message when their entertained.

People involved in marketing can be a cynical bunch, but when they’re not they’re often passionate about the value of their product or service to the public. If what we’re offering in a communication is intrinsically of value then the product or service will have offered the communication of itself for people to have. And that may predispose them to consume something offered by the brand that has a monetary value to it.

At its simplest a brand communication may make you feel good about yourself. What else can that brand do that will make you feel good about yourself? As I see it this is one of the futures of our industry that puts human worth back into the equation.

The future of planning

Thursday, May 19th, 2005

At the end of April Coca-cola announced that it was going to form its own account planning group. A curious movement by a client. This article though, is different from the first one that I read on the matter, saying that having planning in house meant that they would work directly with creatives in agencies.

I’ve noticed over the years that clients only see one end of the planning spectrum.Historically, planning had two simultaneous births. One was to work with creative teams, which meant that planners were there to provide insights to creative teams and were part of the creative process. The other was to work with clients and formulate more consumer-centric marketing strategies.

The first article therefore, I believe, expressed the common view by clients that planners are there to help a client formulate communications strategies. Of course they’d want that in house. What client wouldn’t want to own their strategy. It has been strange watching research agencies struggling to own some measure of client strategy and competing with advertising agencies in that struggle. Advertising agencies don’t own client’s strategy either. What researchers miss is that an agency has two bits to understand brands: intellectual and feeling. And in many ways the feeling is much more important than all of the rationalisation that goes around what a brand is. And creatives generally do that best because their job is to speak as the brand.

But it seems that Coke has a wider view of planning than this. BBH created planning to provide deeper insight to creative teams. Planners in this model get reviewed by how well they’re contributing to the creative team. To do this job well you have to understand not just the consumer but what is influencing them and how it’s influencing them. At a superficial level that becomes influencers in the purchase decision, but at a deeper level that is what the cultural influences are and where they are coming from. This is harder, but it is a lot more interesting. Yes, this is the realm of Faith Popcorn, but it’s a lot more than that too. This is art.

However, to me planning is still more than this. Media shops are hiring planners too, because they realise that Marshall Mcluhan was right when he said “the medium is the message.” This has been oversimplified by media departments for years with clichés like: television is an emotional medium and print is rational. The problem they’re facing is that traditional media are wearing out and they’re being demanded by clients to look at multiple touchpoints. Coupled with that is that media fragmentation is leading to a need for the traditional model of reach and frequency to be at least complemented with the role of the touchpoint in consumers lives and its role for the brand. Which means that the more leading edge media shops are doing some advanced planning thinking.

The unfortunate thing is that the planning department gets stuck into one of the three parts of being a planner. This is generally due to the bias of the agency. And that’s unfortunate, because what planning offers is in fact integration. Because planners link the business needs to what will motivate a consumer (I hate that word) – across brand, message and medium. And they do that as partners in the creative process.

Of course Coca-cola wouldn’t want to give that up.

And that’s the job I love.

Who can you trust?

Friday, April 22nd, 2005

I recently watched The Corporation on DVD. I didn’t have the privilege of seeing it at the movies. It’s certainly an interesting addition to the two extremes of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. Everyone knows Michael Moore, but less know of Noam Chomsky. One of his activities is the exploration of bias in the media and one of his conclusions is that the media is controlled by right wing vested interests. The Corporation explores the antisocial agenda of the corporation in modern America.

What interests me is that it seems we are on the cusp of a change in the way that people are relating to brands. People buy brands because they trust them, yet on a daily basis they feel let down by the brands they buy, especially those that can break down. Beer and cigarettes at least in New Zealand have achieved the levels of trust that people are looking for, but electronic equipment has not. So consumers are more and more saying to themselves why pay for a brand when I can get the same level of quality out of a commodity. Supermarkets are also driving this perception amongst consumers with private label brands. And manufacturers strangely enough are willing to help them out.

While this phenomenon hasn’t yet reached critical mass, it probably won’t be too long before it does so. I am seeing evidence for it on a daily basis. Women, in their role as mothers and talking to me as a household shopper, tell me that they’re teaching their children to be critical of communications. The advertising literate consumer is becoming the corporate literate consumer, which is hardly a surprise when brands on a daily basis try to pull the wool over their eyes.

The day before yesterday an e-mail arrived on my computer asking me not to buy from two major oil companies until they got their prices down. I forwarded it to one person just out of interest. She then passed it on to 25 people. If this continues then not only will the consumer lose interest in the brands, but they will begin to actively fight back. The internet has become a powerful weapon for the consumer.

It continues to surprise me that corporations still see themselves as brand owners. It seems that the lesson of Harley Davidson to the corporation is about emotional loyalty to the brand. That’s the obvious lesson. The less obvious lesson is that it’s people who buy brands that own them not the corporations who “own” the trademark. Individuals own Harley Davidsons. The company makes them so that people will buy them and then own them. The company that makes them is no more than a caretaker that earns a living from delivering what people want. When people stop buying and consequently owning a brand, that brand ceases to exist.

I’m not the only one who’s observing this. And consumers are beginning to use the new tools available to fight back. Those two converging trends lead me to think that we’re approaching the cusp of a whole new relationship between people and the brands they buy.