I've been pussyfooting around what I think, the future agency model should look like, and I may have failed quite badly by alluding to things rather than getting to the point. I was trying to suggest that the future agency (in some way) was likely to have some sort of Black Swan meets transmedia planning as a fundamental approach to work, although I never really explained in simple terms how things would tick, and then I saw that Adrants wrote that Wendy's used the inefficacy of an ad to explain what I wanted to say, and so I thought it best to be brutally simple given that I haven't seen enough to support the article's main assertion and more importantly the one I wish to emphatically make.

These are fast moving times and so it's even more important to be professionally radical, given there are fewer chances as the money dries up, to do what ad agencies excel at under the right conditions: kick ass commercial messages, produced to the highest level with flawless scripting (something the US market leaves the UK in the dust for), micro second timing and creative touches that often are more emotive than the creative idea. I think the days of doing an expensive TV commercial as the shop window output of the agency, or ground-to-air communication missile for clients are numbered. There will always be room for this kind of work. A smarter agency-client relationship will coallesce that it's a lot more effective to deliver more frequently and more experimentaly, then execute in Lo-Fidelity, responding lightening quick and making use of contextual dynamics such as what was on the news an hour beforehand. That's just for starters.

Easier said than done, as to embrace this communication ideology means making and accepting lots more mistakes, yes more inexpensively but creatively (statistically speaking) doing more surprising and succesful work that is, by the potential of its breadth, much more internet sticky. It makes a lot of sense to do 20 to 50 different types of communication pieces for a brand knowing that one or more is destined to be a Black Swan viral than to do a one-off that is by any historical assessment likely to be a well-polished and quickly forgotten museum piece. Sure there will be times when it's not smart to use this route. But in principle, if a polished but unmemorable piece of work is the category modus operandi, then more variations (and predictably forgetabble failure) make sense in much the same way that say the author of The Black Swan (Yes I know, his pecker is rarely removed from my chops these days) Naseem Nicolas Taleb espouses spreading risk over 50 biotech stocks rather than one blue chip as an investment strategy providing worthwhile returns.

We can see in the prevailing global financial topography, that mediocristan is not so safe or smart is now self evident. Actually it's dangerous but nobody took an economy down by doing mediocristan advertising to my knowledge. Or maybe just by beating any creative or intellectual pulses into submission we extinguished the likelihood of respect from our customers.

If we start to reorganise agencies around the idea that experimentation and failure make for much more interesting and effective work, as well as marrying the successes into transmedia execution -- or part of it -- I think a more robust case is made for spending marketing budgets today by deploying more unprecedented attempts at risky but rewarding ideas than are currently being implemented. There you have it. 50 scripts, Lo-Fi execution, one or more hits that get passed around, and a model that doesn't bank on the bazooka approach but takes a good idea and lets other media play around with it as Faris would espouse. I would love to know if any people disagree with this. There are lots of gaps that need filling but surely the status quo of risk aversion and forgettable TV commercials is a scandalous waste of money. Particularly in these belt tightening times.

Let me say that again. Most shit is scandalously shit and furthermore it isn't hard to figure out why it was so easy to get away with in the past. That media context is changing so fast I can't see many modern marketing/advertising types surviving a brutal employment cull. My only hesitation is that as the volume of output increases with the model I'm proposing, the attention intervention, isn't necessarily deserved. It's likely though that the old frequency metrics which shaped 'campaign' efficacy are nowhere near the levels I'm thinking of for Transmedia meets Black Swan. Even the best virals I've watched only a handful of times. Naturally this idea will piss off a lot of creatives, and scare the crap out of agencies and clients who have built whole careers on risk aversion, but there's a shed load of opportunities too, if any are suspicious of what ostensibly looks like random shot blast for marketing communications. It itsn't. It's about playing.

I make no claim for coming up with something new. Just being a bit culturally recombinant about existing ideas and knowing how the system worked in the past. Those days are numbered.

 Lots of people that I have a healthy respect for in the advertising world have criticized the new work by Crispin Porter for Microsoft and I can't agree with them. I'm with Grant and Adrian on this one because from what I've seen so far the work achieves two important goals.

 Firstly I like it. Not in a rapturous Gorilla or Monkey kind of way but it's likable and that's not an easy thing to achieve. I've rarely watched Seinfeld even though it's likable and funny content, I'm not a cheerleader for Bill Gates (I think luck was an important factor in his success) and generally I don't find using stars to be a credible route for marketing communications. BBDO starfuckers I think George calls this genre.

 However it's not important what I feel. It's amusing and that is a matter of subjectivity. I'm sure you can make you're own mind up on that.

 More importantly there are a lot of strategic communication problems that are in my eyes being solved by the work I've seen so far. I also think it's kind of interesting that it's quintessentially American advertising and yet there's a Windows Video Channel on Youtube it is universally distributed. A potent communications model for some American centric global brands if you stop to think about it (McDonalds? Nike?). Something along the lines of act local, think global (A word play on an oxymoron I've long disliked). But anyway, Microsoft using a Google owned distribution channel and not their own? Even Soapbox points towards the Youtube content. That says a lot to me after a chat with Geert in LA a couple of months ago where it was pointed out to me that use of non MS software is/was often frowned upon.

 I think it's only the commercially naive who could believe that communications can solve the Microsoft problem. The job of advertising here is to ameliorate the rising dissatisfaction with the brand and possibly communicate that Microsoft is determined to get closer to its customers through more down to earth and likable dialogue; for surely even monologue commercials such as this provoke a discourse that was seldom seen in the fifities when advertising took hold. Look, even I'm doing it. It's the internet you see!

 Back to the problem. What is Microsofts problem? Why is one of the most succesful companies on the planet in trouble. Simply put the operating system is unwieldy. If you pay a army of coders to improve stuff, they will invariably make additional stuff that isn't needed. It's called feature creep and is a recurring problem with technology associated designers. Reliability is also an issue when it comes to discussions of unwieldiness. The bigger the system the more opportunities there are for the system to break down and that is often the case with Microsoft. That's their core problem but the immediate emotional problem is they are increasingly unliked.

 I've recently made the transition from Microsoft to Apple and I couldn't be more delighted with the results but it doesn't mean that I'm blind to the advantages of the de facto operating system of the world. Without Microsoft I'm not even sure Apple would be as good as they are. Who knows? Nobody can prove stuff like that anyway. It's all theoretical. But in any case maybe you can take a look at the first piece of content I saw, liked and decided to write about. It's not revolutionary, but then neither is Microsoft anymore.

 Just off the top of my head I think shopping in the budget shoe store is strategically right for Microsoft. The future for the brand is one of lower entry and upgrade cost for the average user. Apple is still one of the most profitable brands on the planet because it charges a lot more. A sitcom genre is just right for mainstream America as primary customer segment (with Mexican family making a first sensible guest appearance - California is majority Latino in 10 or so years) but also for the wider world. A sitcom is quintessentially American. It's likeable, funny, comforting and about as far removed from excessive oil, corporate greed, dirty politics and war as one could wish to hope for. In short it's the best of America, and I don't even watch them so this is not a fanboy's perspective.

Seinfeld is an excellent pick.


 Microsoft is simply never ever going to be hip and so this is a mainstream ad - Any hint of hipness and the same critics calling for Crispin's blood would be accusing the brand of unreal aspirations or tonality fumbles . Think General Motors over Toyota Prius and a profile of the customer is conjured up pretty quickly. This is a comfortable way to get to know Bill Gates, a man rarely associated with humour and love him or loathe him, he comes across as likeable, keen to be liked and not without a sense of humour. I'll leave you with the lastest segment that I've only seen while writing this article and frankly I think it's close to brilliant in that way that American sitcom writers are the best in the world at. I've laughed out loud while eating in an upscale restaurant in Beijing with my fellow late afternoon diners enjoying my mirth and while I'm not prepared to go back to Windows (Indeed my next move is likely to be Linux) I'm more inclined to cut Bill Gates some slack the next time I'm sat in front of a Microsoft product running on a computer (highly likely). And maybe that's the point, maybe it's about stopping the hate and giving one of the most remarkable people (faults and all) in the history of commerce and technology some room to manouevre. I know I will. What do you think? Do you really still hate Microsoft more after watching this?

This is Nils and he's waiting until September. The Kaiser thinks it's for Ikea but whoever it is they've just gone and nailed advertising on the internet. You can call Nils on +49 40 22 61 11 61 to ask him why, in any language. It's one of the best bits of digital I've seen since the Uniqlo thing. Again simplicity is best.

Via Marcus

One of the first bust ups I had with the Red Bull pitch that we won was the use of this visual. I rejected it on the basis that it used women who aren't the main customer group, but more importantly because it is everything about branding in China that is wrong wrong wrong. It's easy for marketing people in China to look at the smiley happy people in Western FMCG advertising and think that's the way to do it, but what invariably comes out in China is a thick smear of unvarnished schmaltz. The notion of portraying anything approaching real life is anathema to the marketing heads in China including Li Ning who hasn't got a clue that the branding part is the dramatization of the blood pumping through an organisation, not some laquered image projection.

These girls are the Olympic hostesses. They are trained to smile and it's this training that is the problem. Not the solution. The Chinese bless them, have had a tragic modern history, that like the Russians is bloody and dripping in carnage juice not to mention infused with suspicion and fear. Nobody could really deny it, even the Chinese, but they choose to ignore it collectively white wash over what makes them who they are today. That's where it goes wrong.

So you can see that the smile is part of the Olympic orchestrated image. The idea put in front of me (yes this is the level of creative in China we often see) was that after a hard days working at their smile, a gal just needs to take a swig on her Red Bull to make it through the day. Of course the idea is risible and explains why I often want to just write the fucking scripts myself but just to be professional I pointed out that the reasons for rejection were, it wasn't female, it wasn't blue collar enough (lorry drivers are often paid a subsidy to drink Red Bull and not fall asleep at the wheel) and most important of all, that the smile did not come from the HEART. A synthetic smile is exactly what I expect Li Ning to insist upon and make no mistake he doesn't undertand that it's all about saying 'fucking hell, I failed' that makes a brand.

It's not just Li Ning. It's the entire country. 1.3 Billion population and despite loving them hugely for so many things, I've yet to come across one Chinese entrepreneur, or brand visionary who has the balls to embrace their flaws and their run with it.

There are reasons for this and I'll explain some of those in some later posts.

But in the mean time I'd also like to see a Western agency that can see past their noses and their short term immediate profits (show me one ad, just one ad) that knows it's all about saying no to clients who are often under immense pressure to deliver the synthetic goods, on time and on budget. What most Western agencies don't realise is that this is an economic bubble we're living in and that doesn't justify running with what I think is so often some of the weakest creativity I've ever come across and I think I've worked in more countries than most. 

One of my predictions however is that just like punk emerging from the ashes of a charred British society I anticipate an unleashing of the creative Chinese spirit once this amazing country hits harder times. When it's not all about the money because there will be less of it about. 

For the time being though most are on the oxyacetylane rampant consumerism which the smarter people in the West know has a logic that predicts and defines it's own end with a simplicity that will leaving most people gasping......or choking if you wish.

Just follow it. The ad is in your hands (don't forget to click in the Youtube video to direct the narrative - It's a new format)

Via Digicynic

Dave Trott was, is and always will be an advertising legend. His Blog is spilling  grade A advertising experience onto internet screens around the world for free and not only that, unlike when I was getting into the advertising business, you can engage in dialogue with him if your comments are in shape. 

If you're not sucking on his RSS feed yet, you should be. It's not too late either to go through the archives without sacrificing a whole weekend. It's worth it.

One of the best advertising blogs on the net is Scamp. You probably know that already but I've learnt lots and lots from his Tips on Tuesday specials, of which I will be the first to shell out some cash on the book when it gets published because it's required reading.

Scamp did a post recently about cheesy endlines and asked his readers to contribute their own which is always a healthy reminder that most marketing people who make these increasingly meaningless decisions are far less capable of recognising creative and/or believing their own 'value proposition' bullshit than they would like to think. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Anyway lo and behold I was flicking through Insider ("The classic magazine for high society in China") and once I got bored of rich folk telling me why they are rich, I shot through it quickly and reached a classic ad on the inside back cover that I feel compelled to post about.

This is quintessential Asian advertising, in so much as it's far beneath the marketing person at Sofitel to hire a 'farang' or a 'laowei' or a 'gweilo' or a 'gaijin' to check the spelling. There's a reason for all this but lets not dwell on that because even though I'm in Beijing the ad is for for travellers to Thailand, and no better example of what might be called superlatives and 'aliterative copywriting' could exist. Take a look.

No it isn't.

It's out in the sticks and if you want to stay in a decent Bangkok hotel it's either The Conrad for the Diplomat Bar, The Peninsula for the ferry ride across the Chao Phraya, The Sukhothai for its elegance (and its Central Business District location between Sathorn and Silom) or maybe The Oriental if you like fawning waiter service that can remember if you like one lump or two after two decades away from the joint while they crawl on their hands and knees in the Authors lounge where Somerset Maugham kept rent boys waiting in a line while he wrote toptastic prose (OK, that bit I just made up; he just stayed there). The Bamboo Bar is top notch Jazz singing at The Oriental but the rest is claustrophobic.

There's more. I've discovered it's actually "Ideally situated on a motorway"

What else? Erm 'Ideally situated' written twice in the first two paragraphs? I thought that was one of my blogging specialities! Is this plagiarism? Have I started a new trend? Is this one of those god damn fucking memes?

Anyway click on the pic and read it for yourself because it ends on that old chestnut. "Who says you can't mix business with pleasure?" I mean that sort of language is for the wankers who have butt plugs fully strapped-in, isn't it?

I see at the end they've gone for a strap-on line of "Simply Thai, Absolutely Different" Isn't that the same as "Sim Same But Different"? (Oh don't get me started on that one)

I'm probably going straight to hell for this post but seriously, I could probably write a better headline in Thai for Sofitel, if I put my mind to it. ("Tam ngarn sudyort, yu sabai sabai?) but the main point is to go over to Scamp, because if you like the craft of advertising he'll put you straight on a few things.

If anyone from Sofitel is reading this I've no regrets, as the Sofitel in Hua Hin which I've frequented more times that I should have, is equally up for a good kicking and just because it featured in "The Killing Fields" doesn't mean its up to scratch. The Elephant bar is possibly the dullest lounge West of "Heart of Darkness" in Phnom Penh.

The End.

I was over at Zeus Jones blog a few days ago, and Adrian’s post on monetization of social media got me thinking about digital again, and whereas I usually fire off a long comment when that happens, I reckon it’s time to write some thoughts down over here.

Firstly I can’t bear that word monetization. It’s the English part of me I guess, but it just feels crass that everything has to be monetized. I’m reminded of this each time I watch Fox News, because all the bullying of any (pinko Commie bastard) liberal guests they bring on to bait is won by their vulgar but implicit idea that if profit is not made then its not of worth. This is the point where I think the United States has gone slowly wrong in the last 50 years because the values it was built on are not about profit to the detriment of all else. OK I got that off my chest. Back to making money! We’ve also all got bills to pay. The environment of course being the biggest!

Yes of course there should be some sort of transactional value exchange model between social media platform providers and the people who frequent them. It does however feel like the old media model of huge profits and mass market broadcasting persuasive powers has disintegrated.

Micro-transactions work very well here in China for the most popular platform QQ using a virtual currency that is paid for in hard cash. (Kind of like a Second Life model) but this is where I like to think social media should embrace a number of revenue streams and think about revenue diversity because it’s obvious (to me) that good old fashioned bread and butter banner advertising works very effectively in Facebook. I generally love the ad to the left of their pages because they are eerily effective and are mainly China location based services making them highly relevant. In short they work. I like them even.

So we’ve got micro-transactions, and then traditional banner advertising. I like to call this distractive (contextual) advertising because if it’s good enough, then it distracts much like print advertising does today, interruptive advertising which is generally disliked but is based on the commercial break and includes pre-roll advertising as well as the hated pop up and even ideas such as “get this digital mobile phone for free as long as we can give you x number of ads a month”

I also think there are more innovative ideas that could be considered such as tiered or rewarded internet activity. Adrian has done a fine post about social media but as he correctly points out most people are hanging out on the net to get away from dull content and patronizing marketing communications. However the tiered subscription or rewarded activity is based on a model that really needs to embrace some ideas that Adam Crowe was, I think, the first to bring my attention to. The notion of data portability. The information accumulated by internet usage should belong to the customer not us.

If we (or Google or the ISPs) do the unthinkable and give our potential customers their own internet usage data to trade with us we then are truly opening up ideas loosely called the free market economy. It’s probably more American/United States than apple pie and fanny packs put together now that I think of it. This then opens up our potential customers to benefit from their data portability in the best way possible. The provider they choose to allow receipt of marketing communications from. It’s a bit like a bazaar. If you don’t like the voice of the trader or the goods they are selling, you can stay clear of them. Imagine a world where in return for premium content we permitted ourselves to exposure of specific marketing models. If the advertising sucks we make a decision about whether we can get by with lower value advertising-free content or not at all.

Either way I think we are moving into a new era of marketing communications because as an advocate of 'the medium is the message' it's clear to me that I never got ‘spammed’ while watching a commercial in a movie theatre, direct mail is lower down the food chain because its so much more cheaper to indiscriminately ‘target’ (using the language of old) with geography or basic demographics acting effectively to the point where a 3% response rate still makes it worthwhile.

But here’s the context. The internet is both a place where I can watch a Cannes winning Youtube clip and also open up my mail to be offered a larger penis or a fake Rolex watch. That never happens on TV or even direct mail and so the value of the internet is diminished by this activity. There are innovative ways around this if advertisers want to raise the perceived value for a short while. Like for example if I was P&G I would buy all the available online advertising space within a specific digital media aperture. Maybe the whole of the NYT or The Guardian for a few days. Just wipe out every ad in the online editions and put one sponsor message on there, advertising some spot removing clean or dandruff clearing shampoo. Something relevant seems appropriate!

There are ways to be creative on the internet, although finding the clients bold enough to do stuff like this is tough. Anyway in principle the point I want to end on is that it's not us who should be targeting the customers, it’s the customers who should be targeting us.

This is after all the 21st century and not the 20th. We had two world wars in that one.

Update: Adam links to this which is just the sort of example I'm talking about with P&G. i.e. buying space that would normally be filled with ads.