No man can serve two masters

I'm a Mac and I'm a bully

Macintosh, the brand of the outsider, the creative mind, the free thinker. Think different was a spectacular campaign which wonderfully encapsulated this philosophy and flipped the thinking of the historical big enemy IBM on it's head. (IBM had been running their very successful 'think' campaign for many years).

But how much longer can this go on for? Is Mac really still the elite brand for the in-group? Perhaps it is, there are still a relatively small number of cravat wearers who flourish their Mac in Starbucks, but the worm may be about to turn. Since iPod is now such a massive global brand with untold millions of units shipped around the world and I think around 80% market penetration in the MP3 player market and iphone trouncing all over the mobile handset market I think they need to be very careful with how they are perceived.

This year their I'm a Mac / I'm a PC campaign got a response from Microsoft. In a change from the standard approach of the market leader which is to ignore the competition in communications, the big blue monster came out with their own 'I'm a PC' campaign that tries to show PC users as the full range of creative, scientific, working and playing people that make up their users. Given even now,  at their lowest point they still control over 92% of the home computer operating system market it shows they are taking the threat seriously.

People's perceptions of a brand health a lead indicator of future sales and onwards to customer satisfaction. Apple had been cutting into Microsoft's market share in tiny, but reliable bites and they need to deal with it if they want to stay at no. 1.

The I'm a PC campaign that broke over the past year is a really fantastic piece of work making the corporate Ogre that Microsoft had become come across as human, self effacing and even funny. Perhaps even a little bit what Mac was like back in the day.

Compare this to where Apple are now with their perceived weak points - that they are expensive, value style over substance, a somewhat dodgy hardware reliability reputation and now to top it all off picking on the geeky, bespectacled, socially awkward kid, they are coming across a little bit like a bully. I just found that Charlie Brooker has said this a lot better than I can when the campaign first broke in the UK, drawng the analogy of the UK actors roles in Peep Show

"in which Mitchell plays a repressed, neurotic underdog, and Webb plays a selfish, self-regarding poseur. So when you see the ads, you think, "PCs are a bit rubbish yet ultimately lovable, whereas Macs are just smug, preening tossers." In other words, it is a devastatingly accurate campaign."

Why am I bringing all this up now? Well Windows 7 has just been released. Amazingly, to some acclaim. It will be interesting to see how people react to Windows 7 now that Microsoft is acting with a bit more humanity. Their strength ironically is in their fallibility, if they can successfully show that they care about the people who use their products and are doing their best then that would likely be a powerful antidote to Mac's supercilious elitism. Aspirational is probably a losing tack in tough times anyway and as a typically British lover of the underdog, I hope Microsoft sticks it to them. Never thought I'd say that.

Originality is an effectiveness issue

Every now and again you hear about how some famous piece of advertising or marketing work has actually been directly 'inspired' (or copied) from something else that previously existed. Notable recent examples include Honda's 'cog', Sony 'bunnies', the road safety basketball one and that Aero one with skateboarders in the swimming pool. In fact it is now the fun game du j0ur to see if people can spot the artistic or cultural references that spawned the commercial.

It is particularly important to creatives, the people paid, and are often under pressure to develop ideas, who prize the creation of something totally new so highly. Somehow, to be directly influenced by something that has gone before is cheating. However we are here to make money, not art and the end point of the journey is not the glittering diamond we release onto a virgin and untrammelled world, it is a change in the business fortunes of our clients, ultimately (dare I say it) sales.That is not to say by any means that originality isn't  important in the development of creative ideas. To create a difference between you and the competition, as David Ogilvy put it - “the burr of singularity” is vital. We humans delight in the novel, think on the truism that you and I are basically living inside the bodies of cavemen, we are always looking for the colour of a tasty new fruit, or the red flash of danger in the forest. The sea of green blends into the background. To create something new and different screams to our psyche, and that is why we as marketing people need to do it.

Bill Bernbach agreed,  “In communications, familiarity breeds apathy”

So while I agree that distinctiveness is vital (the Trifecta of Ogilvy, Bernbach and Law cannot be disputed), it is not necessarily that case that total originality is required, simply rather that the majority of the people you are exposing the work to consider it to be different enough to warrant attention.

Now we live in a recombinant age, but as pedants the world over write, was it ever thus. John Webster was well know for taking inspiration from situations in the street, other art work or references in culture. Who cares? William Shakespeare nicked all sorts of things including the whole idea of a number of his stories, as well as passages, characters from the classics and contemporaries. They used to have a name for it, it was called the renaissance. It is worthwile noting that there has never been a successful court case for plagiarism in advertising in the UK, and that is because, contrary to popular belief, copyright does NOT extend to ideas. Copyright applies to a tangible work, not to the idea behind it, so if you use a similar idea, but execute it in a different way (ie. Not a direct remake), no copyright infringement exists.

The point is not that there is nothing original any more, it is that whether it is completely original or not is not important.. The important question is whether the majority of the target audience will consider it to be a novel stimulus, if they do, it is original enough, and we should then content ourselves with evaluating is the work itself effective at its stated aim. Stat.

Maybe Smash Martians was a shit ad?

Has anyone been to the supermarket recently? Did you see a gondola end stacked with powdered potato? No you didn't because powdered potato, while it makes pretty good mash, is nowhere in the modern cookery lexicon. It's brief spell in the sun came in the 1970s, before fading from popular consciousness, presumably now forever. The product itself is not bad.

In fact recently on the wife and my big cycle trip we ate quite a lot of it. It is cheap, relatively calorific (a good thing) and easy to transport dry. Ideal for cycle touring. Aside from that however, it is also very good at making a tasty mashed potato product, almost indistinguishable from that made fresh.  I just checked with the Mrs and she backed me up, saying “I could tell, but I wouldn't grumble [if I ate it again].”

So why, dear reader has this happened? Now I am not going to tell you that the actions of the entire population of the UK over the last 30 years in eschewing freeze dried potato are down to John Webster (peace be upon him) and his magnum opus “Smash Martians”, but it could be argued that it mis-read the attitude of the time, which had negative long term implications for the fortunes of the brand .

Think back my friends to 1974, the OPEC oil crisis had just ravaged the world economy, half of the country is on a three day week. The nation is collectively thinking about the need to get back to the important things of life. John Seymour, author of the Fat of the Land and The Complete Guide to Self Sufficiency is coming to the public attention on his smalholding, and we are a  couple of years before the debut of the Good Life on television.

The Smash Martians was doubtless a great ad in capturing the public attention. Webster (pbuh) had a unique knack of creating catchy communications that entered the consciousness of ordinary people. The campaign itself formed a light moment in a dreary decade, and the ad ran for eight years, and has repeatedly been voted the industry's and people's favourite. So why are we all not eating Smash with our dinner?

My humble assertion is that maybe the aliens had excessive focus on the space age features of the food, doubtless inspired by the recent moon shot, misjudged the opportunity to become a meme with the potential for long term relevance and life.

Of course as an account man, and an enemy of all Good Work, that is what I would say. However the end result is still fairly conclusive. Once the ads stopped running priming people to sales, what was left with the brand focused too much on a cold, hard, technological focus on the process of creating Smash, rather than the earthy smell of the soil and the life giving goodness of the potato.  The brand has disappeared into irrelevance as a consequence.

Against process

For the whole duration of my career every 18 months or so there is a renewal of "The Process", the agreed procedure for how the company internally organises and codifies the relationships between the different departments. A series of events that brings a heavy heart to all who hear its name. I suspect that this will continue until the day I retire, have a breakdown or drop off the perch, whichever comes first.

Since I have spent most of my career focusing on digital communications, I would be interested to see if the same thing happens in direct or 'ATL' agencies, as their workflow is more established. However, since a lot of the friction and the proposed changes are due to the shifting power relationships between different departments as much as they are around the quality of the output I would imagine they will be.

Ultimately, the intention of any formalised process for doing things is to create an environment in which great ideas can flourish and not be killed as they are born. The difference is whether this is an idiot proofing of the system, to prevent ineptitude destroying good work, or whether it is a collection of best practices to help people create better work

This is an important distinction as competent people (and you should be working with competent people) do not need a process. If you are working with incompetent people, you will never achieve anything so get out of there as soon as you can.

Nothing is ever comprehensive enough to cover all of the potential situations that may arise anyway. Suppose you are close to your deadline, the client requests copy changes that will make you go over budget and the only way to get them done is to feed them directly into the final website or artwork. The creative director has an alternative copy version that will mean the layout needs to change slightly and you will probably need to do this on Saturday morning. How can any piece of paper tell you what to do, or in which order in this situation? And this isn't even that uncommon a type of occurrence

Countless hours have been spent constructing impressive looking documents, which are gret if that is what you need – to impress clients for example, but in practice they are just not used by the vast majority of people doing their daily business. While they are potentially useful tools in learning the craft of managing a creative business, I do not believe they are useful on the whole in actually carrying it out.
 
Paul Feyerabend was an influential philosopher investigating how scientific developments  came about. His seminal work – Against Method – rebelled against trying to codify or contain the creative endeavour of what is essentially an anarchic process. Essentially, in creative matters "anything goes"

Scientists do not solve problems because they possess a magic wand - methodology, or a theory of rationality - but because they have studied a problem for a long time, because they know the situation fairly well, because they are not too dumb (though that is rather doubtful nowadays when almost anyone can become a scientist), and because the excesses of one scientific school are almost always balanced by the excesses of some other school.

People stumble on the right answer often over the course of a project, and while awards entries encourage Olympian levels of post rationalisation suggesting that the only successful campaigns are the ones that run like clockwork with a well thought out big idea that arrives fully formed some time after the creative brief and before you start finalising any artwork. The truth of the matter is that you never have the strategy completely nailed before the creative work is on the table, the concept is only half done when you go into production, and changes that right at the end of a project make all the difference between success and failure. I would contend that not 0nly is this the only realistic way of doing things, it is also important to the creative method, and the way things should be done.

So what are the important features of a process? For one thing, a process acts as the statement of a philosophy or way of doing things. At the very least you would understand from it if you are living in an authoritarian regime or not. Acting as a 'playbook' from which you adapt and use the relevant parts is a good way to go. Dare have the somewhat happy clappy 'good and nice' philosophy to recruitment policy which filters through to the key stages process. This is infinitely better than a massive document that nobody uses.

I had  a previous client who was beside themselves that the agency I was working at could not produce an encyclopedic process document. We ended up writing one, which was 90% made up on the spot, to my shame we didn't but should have insisted that we work to a series of waymarkers based on our own experience, an make the rest up as we go, and that is the best thing to do. I wonder what they would have said.

Fallon 0, Dare 1

 

Match report from Capt. Green - www.daredigital.com

Substitute Phil Wright sneaked a memorable victory over rival agency fallon last night during a blustery friendly at Maida Vale.

Captain Green gambled when he replaced Rohit Mistry with Phil Wright at half-time with the scoreline locked at 0-0, yet it was this ploy that paid off in spectacular style as Wright scored with only 10 minutes remaining, putting away a brave header past a stranded fallon goalkeeper.



1st half

The game had started competitively with fallon showing decent composure on the ball from the kick off. Dare occasionally regained possession but it soon became obvious that the game was to be won or lost physically as fallon constantly stifled our early attempts at possession.

Despite what was a period of dominance for fallon dare were just able to contain the best of their opportunities mainly thanks to some absolutely crucial tackles from both Kassam and Charlton, with Nadeem intervening.

A cruel wind would also cause havoc throughout the evening with the direction of the ball becoming increasingly unpredictable when launched over the top of both defences.

The half-time break came, the team re-grouped swiftly and calm was restored as the squad shared their concerns and advice with each other. Two changes were made with Suman making a straight swap for Dip upfront and the same with Rohit swapping for Phil Wright on the left-wing.


2nd half

The game became more even in the second half with dare beginning to show signs of adjustment to the high standard fallon had set. Confidence and belief grew stronger yet chances were few and far between as the game gradually became a crunching midfield battle. Both teams still maintained some decent chances but none looking realistic to convert.

Then would come the decisive moment in the fallon defence where the goalkeeper struggled to claim a high ball. Phil Wright had risen bravely to challenge for the high ball and with Wright intimidating the stranded keeper, the ball connecting and bounced successfully into the net securing Phil’s first 11-a-side goal in dare colours.

Fallon's spirit was far from broken after the goal, with their forwards missing three decent chances late on from close range with 5 minutes remaining. Eventually the game came to an end after some desperate clearances in the dying moments.

Overall, a defear for Fallon was harsh after they played some great football. However, their efforts were not enough to defeat the spirit of the dare squad who quite literary wanted the game more and eventually forced the goal that made all the difference:

You are fallon. We are dare.


(old picture from the Glue testimonial game unfortunately)

Team rating

8 - Nadeem Daniel
Despite struggling with his goal kicks Nadeem made a great return to the 11-a-side scene for dare and played what was his best game to date. Made a crucial low save in the 2nd half and helped the defence vocally throughout with their positioning and marking. A clean-sheet also being a dare first (I think?).

7 - James Filmer
Struggled to settle in what was an unfamiliar position in the 1st half. Had a much better 2nd half wining some crucial headers and combined well with Lathwell and Wright to contain fallon’s attacks down the left.

9 – Lee Charlton
Rarely put a foot wrong with only the occasional clearance going wide. Constantly won crucial headers and performed some marvellous lat-ditch tackles to prevent fallon all-night. Also did very to channel his aggression from what was a very relaxed referee.

7 – Captain Green
After battling the wind (and Roy>) in the 1st half the captain had a comfortable night at the back mainly thanks to Charlton's and Lexi’s timely interventions.  Struggled a little physically on this occasion with the forwards and should of been a little more committed in the tackle. Clearances were also a little too wild for my preference. However, was proud to help lead a very positive dare team to a memorable victory.

8 – James Kassam
With the wind against him more than most Kassam took some time to settle down in the 1st half with some wild clearances at times. However, he produced a stunning tackle to stop fallon from what was a simple close range finish and rescue dare during a crucial period. A strong performance 2nd half when faced against both a decent winger/full-back combination.

8 – Gary Lathwell
A good return to the scene from Lathwell. Help bring some calm to the centre of midfield and his physical presence was vital duing tough times in the midfield. Helped well all night down the left and combined successfully with Lexi on several occasions.

9 – Lexi Cherniavsky
‘The engine’ - finally returned to dare fc after weeks of excuses and absences. Lexi was crucial - upping his game to cope with the onslaught fallon were causing in the middle. In the later stages Cherniavsky absorbed a lot of the pressure from the opposition and still managed to contribute well when dare pushed forward. A match winning performance only lacking a goal to top it off.

6 – Rohit Mistry < Phil Wright
Unfortunately Rohit only had limited time to make a mark in this game and he struggled to get much service in the first period making it difficult to judge his performance. Overall, Rohit has yet to bring his fantastic 5-a-side form to the 11-a-side game. Although he has the potential to be a great asset if he can work on his appetite for the tackle.

7 – Ian Fooks
An experimental role for Fooks he seamed well suited for an opportunity on the wing after recent 5-a-side performances. However, Fooks struggled to get comfortable in the wide-role and looked a little behind the pace compared to his last outing against Glue in the middle. Had one good effort on goal and interchanged well at times, but has and can play a lot better.

8 – Roy Nayee
Provided a great range of passing and composure to the midfield, and covered very well in desperate times during the 1st half. Lost his discipline a little in the opening period but returned in the 2nd fully composed. Had a few efforts on goal but never really had a decent opportunity to finish comfortably.

Roy’s experience helped calm a busy midfield and assured an organised unit when times were tough.

6 – Kit Suman < Dip Mistry
Despite his obvious motivation for the game Suman struggled to get into his lone role against a tough defence. Service was limited and it soon became obvious he would need added support upfront to get his game going. Like Rohit, Suman excels in the close-range intimacy of the 5-a-side game but lacked the presence needed yesterday to trouble the fallon back line.

8 – Phil Wright > Rohit Mistry
Brave ‘Pip’ scored a massive goal and made a great difference in the 2nd half with his covering on the left-side. A greatly committed performance deservedly capped with a goal to finish.

8 – Dip Mistry > Kit Suman
Dip’s ability to hold and use the ball helped rescue the 2nd period for dare. From an early point he added a new dimension to our attempts at pushing fallon forward. A crucial injection of calm and composure.

Carboard furniture

 

Ad agency Nothing in Amsterdam has had this cardboard kit inserted into their office. I am sure that I had something like this when I was a kid made of MDF.

Via PSFK

Digital and ATL account planning payscales 2009 (the talent business)

Digital agency planners

ATL agency planners

With thanks to the Talent Business.

Again, more or less equal until you get to the senior levels - although given the current skills shortage in digital, you are likely to be able to earn more, younger, in a digital agency compared to ATL.

Account Management figures here
Creative figures here

Account management: pay scales, 2009

Digital account man salaries

ATL account man salaries

Following on from Scamp's post about agency pay scales, I have tapped up the nice people at the talent business for account management figures.

The numbers above tend to echo the overall findings from the creative scale, in that overall the ATL salaries are higher - with a particular skew at the more senior levels. At the graduate, Account Manager and even AD grades, the salary levels are more or less the same.

The key difference coming in with the senior levels comes about as a result of the gap that exists in the digital industry of truly senior players. At just about every level that exists in inter-agency meetings there is a three to five years (minimum) experience deficit in the favour of the ATL agencies.

Planning coming later...

Skittles replaces website with links to twitter, flickr, facebook, yada

This is a brave and interesting idea, Skittles have replaced their entire corporate website with a series of links to various social media sites. The homepage is the twitter search page of everything that people are saying about the brand right at that very moment.

  The flash panel at the top left of the screen links to the other sites, and ties the whole thing together.

'Products' links to wikipedia, 'media' links to youtube and flickr. 'Friends' is the facebook page and 'contact' links to a contact form on their own site.

Interestingly, 'chatter' is the same as 'home' currently, suggesting that the twitter feed homepage is temporary. Perhaps this is a stunt to get twitter attention? Lord knows it's so hot right now.

A lot is currently being made of how people are hijacking the skittles twitter page to include profanities etc, but this is temporary, and if anyone from the skittles marketing team is reading this, you should tough it out as this approach will probably pay off for you in the long run.

Friends page

The idea is quite extreme at the moment, but what is good about the idea is that it is flexible. There are not massive production implications of changing the flash panel and shifting a few links around. Probably in a week or so you will find a 'proper' homepage going over the top of the site, if only to link to the other environments.

Media page


Product page

Bravo to whoever sold this in, as it is going to be big.

Ryanair is a great brand, discuss

I had a fantastic chat the other week with an ex-client of mine and the boys from we are social about whether or not Ryanair was a brilliant brand. Everyone said they are arseholes, and to be honest I do not disagree one bit. Instead, and perhaps controversially, I feel that being an arsehole is a fundamental part of their incredibly successful brand personality.

Everything they do or say is set up to give across the impression that they will do anything they can to save money. From the fact that they have the cheapest aircraft interiors, tackiest colours, the seats don't recline and they charge for luggage. Famously, if there is any problem with the flight, all the airline staff have been reported to disappear, leaving the abandoned passengers to work out what to do next.

In Dublin airport, they actually have a poster from a legal firm near the Ryanair desk explaining what your rights are, and giving you a number to call for more information and legal advice, presumably because there are so many customers who would have cause to use such a service.

All of these things make you think "these are some people who really care about how they can save a few quid".

Their brand attributes I guess could be summarised as canny, smart, cheap, money grubbing

This is an incredibly successful business model. Ryanair is one of the only airlines that actually turns a profit. I think the key to it is that people by and large are not introspective. They don't think that they will avail themselves of a five pound sandwich, or need to bring more than one piece of hand luggage. They laugh at the other chumps who fall foul of these rules, but they are smart, they won't be sucked in.

Yesterday they pulled a blinder. On the day they posted their first quarterly loss in recent memory, they made an announcement that they intended to charge £30 for any duty free that is not put inside the single item of hand baggage. This sent the Guardian readers in apoplexy. It was a good idea as it deflected attention from the business performance, and played again the familiar cheapness script.

Remember we ought to be, mentally at least, giving ourselves piles if we're trying to sell preparation H, and the readers of the Guardian are unlikely to be the heartland demographic that Michael O'Leary is trying to attract

Corporate identity
This logo looks like it cost about £750 to put together. I am sure that is exactly the effect they are after. Also, if you look on Google images, you can see that the logo itself changes about once a fortnight. They are too cheap to even have any guidelines made up. If ever they get a new temp in to put the next ad campaign, they just do what they feel.

Customer experience: This is like the inside of a big dirty bus. I would not be surprised if there was chewing gum on the underside of every one of these seats. There is no way anyone is going to nick or crease one of their safety cards either:

For Chrissakes they even have calendar girls

Website: this screams at me that this is the airline equivalent of PoundStretcher. Every fibre of its being says cheapness, and this is very clever.

Michael O'Leary himself even plays his part. He is not a stupid man by any means and his japesterish tactics and unapologetic style ties in with the whole brand framework.

I would be curious to know if they had any help with any of this work or if they really did do it all themselves. I doubt any agency would includes something like this on its portfolio, but in my opinion you cannot deny it is successful. I wonder who worked on it because looking this cheap probably costs a lot of money.