go to this (if you can)
Delighted as always to plug the good people of PSFK and their doings. This year's conference series kicks off March 27th in New York where you can learn about trends and that. Be there or be square.
being particular
Quote from Wendell Pierce on the success of The Wire: 'The more specific you are, the more universal it becomes.'
Beautifully put.
the age of conversation
I'm going to write a bit for this this year. Which is exciting. I'd be surprised if any of you hadn't heard about it from last year (Gran, it's a book where each author writes a different chapters on the same topic and the proceeds go to Variety, a children's charity), but if not you can go here to find out the full deal. And crucially to vote on topics. Not sure what my vote goes to yet. I'm mulling.
panelling it up
I'm very pleased to be part of a scarily mighty and very interesting lineup of people speaking at this excellent conference. On June 1st of this year. Faris of Naked, Russell of OIA, John Grant of John Grant, George of Adscam, Hugh of Gaping Void, Iain of Poke, Johnny of Anomaly NYC, Jess of Contagious + Regine of We Make Money Not Art will all be impressive, and I'll do my best.
Be lovely to see you there.
day II
Much later than I wanted, but here's my roundup of Day II of the Marketing Summit. Ben's done a very strong one, which kind of makes this redundant. But I drew another picture and wanted to unleash it, so here goes. Briefly. Highlights, like.
First up we had the US footage. Someone asked a panel an interesting question about fear of technology, and someone (I think from the Barbarians) claimed it's not technology itself we're afraid of. It's being behind, or not knowing how to use it. Or being seen to not know. Which was interesting. On the same subject another panelist made the very good point that you can't just talk about this new stuff. Do it. Blog for a month. Goddammit maybe even Twitter. Then you can pontificate (if you have to.)
The Digit talk I enjoyed. Mike Bennet spoke about how online design is all about Moments, in contrast to ads, which he thinks are stories and concepts - a more passive kind of experience. At Digit they put 10% of their time into R&D, to develop their tech knowledge offering.
In the Entertainment discussion, Michael Wall of Fallon made a similar comment - in reply to Alex West's comment that whilst McKinsey spend $12k a year on training each employee, the average ad agency spends $100 - about the important investment being people's time. He'd rather buy employees' time so they can spend a significant proportion of it doing whatever they like, exploring, than loads on training. I'm inclined to like this idea. But can't help thinking there'd always be a 'So what you got?' at the end of it.
The Viral Factory talk was strong too. Made me realise how prejudiced I am against the whole bandwagon concept (or at least the formalisation of it). A good half of it was spent dispelling myths (and this must be what Ed Robinson has to do with almost every new client) which convinced me they were as cynical about the unthinking enthusiasm virals have attracted as I am. (We all know banners don't engage anyone; UGC is rude, it tramples all over your copyright; consumers don't care as much as you think - and if they do it's in a negative way usually; don't be hysterical about negative stuff; negative engagement is as valid as positive; the editorial dilemma; YouTube is not a channel; viral is not a bankable element of a campaign; give people the liberty to do anything and they're less likely to abuse it; become part of their world instead of pretending to.) So that's good.
Ed had these UGC images running independently of his speaking.
The Google BA talk was fascinating, to me. Mostly because I'm so far behind with the whole Google cult thing.
Obi from Google did all the right things to make me even more intrigued. She was strange and nice and interesting and...quite powerful in an odd way. She said things like 'we eat our own dogfood (which meant doing their own marketing I think), and 'big ideas move us', and 'we are lucky that people want to engage with us' in a way that made you want to be part of a club. It seems on the face of it that their philosophy is very simple, almost ascetic - 'the brand is the product and the product is the brand. We let others speak for us, and word of mouth is still our strongest endorsement.'
Google see partnerships like the BA one as an extension of this word of mouth endorsement. Which is a nice way of saying they didn't pay a penny ('We don't have a big marketing budget'). The control Google had over the entire campaign was palpable. One AOL overlay developed by BBH was seen as too intrusive when Obi presented it to her colleagues so they insisted the BA branding was upped and the Google Earth branding all but removed. At no point did Google want to be seen as advertising. Which of course was fine with everyone.
All in all you got the sense the BBH had a tough balancing act here - something Obi made very explicit when she contrasted the lightning quick decisions made by Google throughout with the weighty process at BA. Before Ben Malbon cut in. Which is not the same as inferring that Google were rash - the caution was clear ('Google is about using not buying. This is the most retail thing we've done.')
And funnily enough, some of the best education I got was probably from Famous Rob and Ben about Google after the talk. It's all stuff you'll know of course, being far less behind on this than me. But I'm glad I know.
So my conclusions. Hm. I still think lots of these events (especially when they're expensive and they're about The Future) feed on fear. And that there's a (sorry can't think of a better word) disconnect, between the kind of people people pay to 'network' with (i.e. big powerful older people) and the kind of people who are leading the charge into The Future (i.e. the small, unknown, younger people). It felt the speakers were mostly of the first variety. Of course were exceptions. And of course it's possible to have informative ideas about the future even if you don't have a diagonal haircut. But a bit of a mixture might have been good.
And one of the big themes - that brands need to contrribute to their environment rather than just spam it up - set the sponsors in stark relief. Of all of them, barely any contributed to the summit environment - with the exception of the very nice man from I Have An Idea - or even turned up. You'd think if something like that was worth sponsoring, it's also worth being there. Just a thought.
So that's it. I had lots of fun thanks to FR and NDG. And I learnt some.
day 1
This is a little late to be topical and relevant. But I couldn't get wifi at the conference, so here it is.
Very excited to finally meet Ben on my first intrepid morning. I can't depict his face because of the Design Conspiracy privacy rule, but this is a rough impression.
And Famous Rob. Who was much taller than I thought.
These two were my conference crew.
So first up was Kevin Roberts. Very interesting accent. Quite unplaceable but a bit like Naomi Campbell's.
The future of new marketing is all a bit like Star Trek, apparently.
Kevin says great things like 'ROI: rinky dink! But what about return on involvement!' And 'recommendation from a friend is the best advertising - 2000 years of timeless truth and you know it!' I wonder, why 2000 years, in particular? Did Jesus do the first word of mouth marketing? Also 'the consumer is not confused at all. She's ecstatic'. Which is nice to think.
Kevin believes the consumer is boss now. I'm not sure why anyone has to be boss. Or why anyone cares who's boss. Seems to me it's only interesting if you have a sense of entitlement.
Kevin also feels we are moving from having to make brands irreplaceable to making them irresistible. Which feels a little short termist. (Can't they be both? Or sometimes one, sometimes the other?)
Apparently now we all live in 'the land of and and and.' You need to be good at tv and online and experiential and...and and.
Next up is the first panel called Reality Check, on the summit theme of Integration. With John Shaw, Carsten Beck, Martin Raymond and Russell. Panels must be very intimidating. Like in meetings when you know you have to say at least one impressive thing, but a hundred times more so.
It strikes me that Russell is very good at disagreeing whilst not being at all objectionable of argumentative. What a skill. And that he is the only person who doesn't seem threatened by the idea of the future. It also strikes me that Kathy is absolutely right about conferences: face to face is important. There's stuff you can't learn online. You need to hear how to say good stuff, and be persuasive.
John Shaw says Ogilvy are working on a tool called The Big Ideal. Which sounds a lot like Richard and John's ideas. And quite Bristolian. The examples he gives (like Coke: glass half full attitude; Dove: empowered women makes for a better world) make me think that with this theory it's ok for ideals to be patronising as long as the message isn't.
Russell suggests that brand theory and having ideas is easy. It's getting lots of people thinking as a body on them that's the hard part.
Justin Bovington of Rivers Run Red is interesting. He talks about how worlds like 2nd Life are one way of answering the question 'how can I be less alone' - a question that communes tried to answer in the 70's, and which is perhaps more urgent now than ever. I wonder how well 2nd Life answers the question.
It seems women are the leaders in 2nd Life. Avatars are classified as Creative Expressionists, or Social Participants. Justin says that although he's not allowed to paraphrase like this, he thinks of these groups as givers and takers respectively. I wonder if these classifications hold in real time.
Justin suggests that whilst the internet has traditionally been an information-centric, rational function, 2nd Life is something that people cannot talk about without emotion. They love it or they have a problem. I think this is a bit like blogs. You either come across evangelists or naysayers.
There's a strong warning that brands must be active members of this community rather than setting up in there just to own an empty building. Again, the parallels are clear in 1st Life. I wonder if 2nd Life is like that technique they use in focus groups when they encourage people to talk about their feelings as if they were someone else's. (Maybe it's easier for us to learn lessons through a virtual world?) There's a fierce sense of ethics in the way Justin talks about this particular point. He says he's advised some brands not to bother going into 2nd Life. And he admits that River Runs Red created the 2nd Life Liberation Army themselves, at which some people gasp.
Justin describes how we've moved from a conversation with the consumer, to a relationship with her. Which is a step on from the 'who controls the brand' question.
Next up is a sparkling, funny, and erudite introduction from Richard to the Technology Debate. (I'd expected nothing less.) Steve Henry thinks it's imperative to be 'entertaining'. Amelia has a good consumer quote about brands being bloodsucking vampires on spaces like Myspace.
Richard makes a very nice point that a good brand idea (or ideal) is generous to the agencies working to it: you know you'll do great work when you see it.
In the final panel (on Delivery), no one can answer George Bryant's excellent question about which of the panelists he should go to first if he were a client.
A man from I Have An Idea is in the audience. As he asks his question I admire his t shirt. I think team t shirts are a great idea. Especially when you're very likeable.
twittering a summit
So. I've never been sure about whether I want to twitter. But I thought maybe I'd would for the Future Marketing Summit thing today and tomorrow. To try and be a bit more relevant and topical like. Not very good at that on here normally. Far too much pressure. (Top left.)
question
(Tell me what you think about this.)
Got this email today:
I'm a baby creative who's worked in 3 agencies now and i'm starting to think its all egos and tossers. Is this true?
and ended up thinking about it more than I thought I would at first.
Of course I don't think it's strictly true. But it is easy to start thinking like this if you don't happen to meet the special people who make it into a very good industry to be in. And I know planners are known for being interesting, inspiring, humble - mostly - so I've entered perhaps the nicest discipline. On the other hand headhunting have me a rather twisted perspective on things. (Being headhunted brings out the nasty side of egos in people all too often.)
I happen to think there are far fewer egos in design. I've talked to more people than I could easily count who work in design and who think yes, advertising is full of nasty, silly people.
So I thought I'd throw it open.
Actually, just thought. Maybe it's time for one of those Blue Votes that decides things officially. Haven't done one in ages. Please feel free to comment as well though.
impressive. officially
Matt doesn't get impressed with the product of our world very often. Hardly at all. Apart from stuff I've done, for which he shows a healthy partiality. So it's always a big compliment when he's impressed. And he came home very impressed with this marketing from the Guardian for their Cycling Guide last weekend. It's been on his bike ever since.
So if anyone else if planning to be at any of thee, let me know. Always nice to see friendly faces at these things.
Recent Comments