In the name of progress

It's always nice to see a campaign find its way. This week Jeep appeared to finally find the right spot for their Don't Hold Back campaign.

Sure it's not revolutionary, but there's something nice and simple about the idea that buying a Jeep is a sign of being adventurous and energetic in a world of Utes and status 4x4's, yet for me the ads have never quite felt right.

However this week I saw the latest version, and it really starts to move the campaign in the right direction. Where the first few ads felt a bit blunt and forced, the latest takes it to a far nicer place. More subtle, but more relevant and engaging at the same time.

The simple change of representing the adventure of Jeep through an external object rather than a person directly expressing it makes so much difference.

For a campaign that has been labelled annoying by many people, it's a nice change to see it improve and start to live up to the potential of the idea behind it.

Advertising as a reflection of society

I read a great post by Richard Huntingdon the other week, which discussed how advertising should be more representitive of society, and how we can help break down barriers.

In the last two weeks, two huge brands have taken small but important steps along that road - and whilst we should always be mindful of what our target audience's preferences are, sometimes, reality is too important not to show.

Coca Cola and Chevrolet have done a great job of taking the realities of life in America, and bringing them into their advertising. Both are excellent examples of how the vocal conservative minorities should never stop what we do from reflecting the world around us.



In fact, in both cases, the inclusion of gay couples is so natural and subtle, that it's hard to understand how anyone could object. We know better of course, some people are just that reactionary. But those few seconds are very important to both advertising and the world around us. These are big brands, HUGE brands, who have produced campaigns that truly reflect their audience.

This is not some minority focused campaign, these are superbowl and olympic ads. No escaping or hiding from reality here. I think it's magnificent to see brands take this step, where many would have backed away. I trust and hope that for every idiot who can't see through their own xenophobia or homophobia, there will be a decent minded person or two to replace and increase their sales.



With that in mind, I'm sipping a coke as I type this. Well done Coca Cola and well done Chevrolet.

Be Faster! Nice Work For John West

I love it when agencies and brands respond quickly to things going on in popular culture.

Specsavers have always been fantastic at this, sometimes even being in the newspapers on the same day as the story they are referring to. (E.g.: The South/North Korea flag issue last year)

I saw this image from a creative team I used to work with and thought I should post it. It references something that is big right now, but in a way that is actually related to the brand and the product.

I haven't seen it published anywhere yet, but I hope it is. It deserves to be.

What Marketing Can Learn From Sooty

Yes, you read that correctly.

I was watching the CITV retro weekend, and it struck me how Sooty has been successful for over 60 years. Apart from being brilliantly funny, more so than many adult programmes; I started to think about what made it special.

So yes, here are some lessons we should take from The Sooty Show:


1. Really Know Who Your Audience Is

Most kids shows set their audience as a blanket group of kids. Either young kids, tweens or young teens. Boys or girls. Sooty was one of the first kids shows to understand two important things:

• Kids watch shows together (Especially years ago), so you need to be careful about targeting just one age group.
• Kids watching shows are usually accompanied by their parents or older siblings.

The show always featured in-jokes and references that many kids might not get or be aware of, and combined it with jokes and action that kids would get. Sooty truly knew about the whole audience, and made sure to include something for all of them.

Some of the gags in here I didn't get until I rewatched them years later.


2. Don't Talk Down to People

So many kids shows are designed to be simple and slow, they treat kids as kids. But most kids want to be older than they are, it's why they place so much importance on how old they are. As soon as a show talks down to someone, they alienate them.

Sooty always treated kids with respect. It had scenarios and situations that were relevant to them, but always spoke to them as if they were real people, not in a manner that kids programmes were usually seen to do.

I watched the show as a kid, and then with my little brothers. The respect it showed for the audience meant you could still enjoy it even as a cynical grumpy teenager.

Far too many campaigns treat people as if they are incapable of understanding basic metaphor or symbolism. Or think that the only way to get attention is to lack any subtlety whatsoever. If you look at the campaigns that people love, and the campaigns that people respond to, they almost always treat people as intelligent.



3. Don't Let People Ruin a Good Vision

For most of it's existence, Sooty has been looked after by people who really care about the show and the characters. Except for the time between 1996 and 2008 when HIT Entertainment bought it, and gradually changed the show in a way that led to it's cancellation after over 50 years.

Since the show was bought back by long time fan and presenter Richard Cadell, it has returned to the vision that made it a success, and the response from audiences has been much better.

It's too easy to make concessions that damage the work we do. If we believe in our work we should fight for it every step of the way. If we don't believe in our work, why are we doing it?


4. Details Matter

The little details matter because they signify how much care has gone into what you are making. Take Sweep. Most shows would just have a puppet that made squeaky noises, but the Sooty Show made sure that every squeak was fully scripted. This meant that the character felt more a part of the action, and also meant that people could laugh at what he said before the punch line, creating a double gag.

Care for the details also makes it far more palatable to see something a number of times. Which if you are creating an ad, is a useful thing to have.


5. Make it Good. Don't Make it For Money.

Many kids shows are designed to maximise the profits from toys and licensed merchandise. Sooty was created out of a love for performing and a real desire to entertain, not to make something profitable.

Make it good and the success will come. A lesson I wish more advertisers would learn.

This also goes for shows and campaigns that are essentially designed to mimic the good work of other people. Just don't.


6. Pushing the Boundaries is What Drives Us Forward

The Sooty Show has caused outrage on a few occasions. Notably on introducing Soo, in an era when it was thought to be introducing sex into a show by having a boy and girl together. Similarly when in one episode where Soo pretended to be pregnant by putting a cushion in her jumper. People will always want to stick to the status quo, but we are in a creative industry, we are creative people, if we don't push things forward, then we will only go backwards.

The silly insults and slapstick violence, along with the above things may sometimes cause shock, but by doing so, the end product was right, and they matched what the audience wanted to see. Forget the status quo, we are here to do good work that works for our clients. If we have to break a boundary to do that, then bring on the boundaries.




Also. As someone who grew up wanting to be in advertising, the below episode is lodged in my head from start to finish. Cos Tooty Poo Smesh.

10 Advertising Things That Must Disappear in 2013

To end the year, here is a look at the bad things we need to fix. Next year will start with good things we need to keep doing more of. Happy New Year everyone!

1. Treating People Like Idiots

I can't believe we still have to talk about this in 2012. People are not idiots, we need to stop treating them as if they are. People can understand a point without the use of false setups and bad acting. Let's demonstrate this with an unbelievably bad ad from Colgate.



2. Using Songs in Place of Creativity

If you have a song that sums up your idea, wonderful. If you add a good song as the soundtrack to your idea, brilliant. Using the song as the sole idea in an ad that has no creative or strategic thought in it whatsoever... go away. See also number 10.

3. Using Ideas From the Internet in Place of Creativity

There are two ways to utilise ideas you find online. Firstly, you adapt or involve the original creator to produce something good. As with John West below.



Secondly, you just steal the idea or rip it off. This must end.


4. Unnecessary Copy

I'm thinking particularly of ads which think people are so stupid they have to be forewarned in advance of upcoming blunt metaphors. Colgate again.

"If you think about it, your tooth is a lot like..."

Why the hell do we need the first five words? You could argue that the rest are superfluous too, but the first bit is ridiculous. Remember the maxim that you should remove any words that aren't necessary to get the point across. Please.


5. Bad Faux-Customers and Respondents

Every time I see the Pounds to Pocket ad where the woman says "I'm so glad I went to Pounds to Pocket...", it makes me want to set fire to the TV. It isn't just them though, I've seen others with it too.

See also that horrific Colgate ad in point 1. They couldn't look any less real if they were made using poor CGI.


6. Gio Compario

I had hoped the change of agency would fix things, but instead of doing something with the character they just kept the annoying ad and bolted on an anti-character motif to it. The anti-character thing doesn't work if you subject us to the whole thing in the first place. The latest ad is a step in the right direction, but unless they take another few steps forward, this point stands.


7. Confused.com Songs

Make it stop. Make it stop. Make it stop. Not content with terrible songs, annoying cliched characters, and an apparent total lack of strategy... it even has a main character who appears to constantly pull large objects from her underwear.


8. Client Briefs Based on Existing Ads

"That John Lewis ad is good, give me one of those."

No, no, no, no, no.


9. UK Regional Bias

We live in the age of global instant communication. To see non-London agencies as inherently inferior simply because of their location is an out of date concept. If this bothers you, get over it. American agencies are in New York, Boulder, Portland. Australian agencies are in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide. UK agencies are in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, etc.


10. Replacing Song Lyrics

As demonstrated above by Confused.com. Stop taking well known songs and swapping over the lyrics to something inane or your brand name. It sounds awful, it makes the brand sound awful, and it does not suggest creativity or strategy. Please note this excludes cases where there is genuine strategy or creativity involved in parody or wordplay, rather than just swapping lyrics.

Battle of The Non John Lewis Christmas Ads

You wouldn't think that Christmas ads would be ones to make me pleased about the return of creativity and connection, but compared to previous years we have a surprising range of ads based around one theme.

Well actually, it isn't really that surprising. Following the public and ad-land wide acclaim (for the most part) for the John Lewis campaign, we appear to have a whole chunk of the retail sector who have been strongly influenced by it.

Which leads us to a weird situation, where we have four major retail chains all going with ads that aim to appeal to us with more emotion. A weirder situation where Christmas ads are largely good. Plus an even weirder one where I have something not entirely positive to say about a W+K ad. God help us there's even a not entirely anger inducing ad from Go Compare, though that's not for this post.

So where to start?

Tesco

Edit: Happily having seen the other ads in the campaign, it's just this one execution where the offer doesn't quite tie. The rest work wonderfully, and the playfulness with the logo adds a friendly touch to Tesco that is has been needing for a while as the supermarket behemoth of note.

Let's start by saying this is definitely a marked improvement on what Tesco have done recently. A million million miles better than the Spice Girls debacle of yore.

The key idea is really nice, the connection of the right present with a good Christmas, the joy of finding the gift your kids are asking for with the minimum of hassle. Who could dislike a Furby singing a Lionel Richie track?

The issue for me is the way the ad jumps too much, I don't like the way it cuts from the lovely key idea, to a promotional message that doesn't feel connected to the main idea, back to the idea, then to an end frame with their usual strapline. It takes an ad that leaves you feeling warm and fuzzy and blunts it.

A lovely strategic idea that maybe would have worked better in a longer format, or perhaps by splitting the promotional message into a different execution.



Asda

After what feels like years of out and out price messaging we suddenly get something really nice from Asda. Making no bones about the effort and the hassle of Christmas, but with two reassuring messages that it is worth it, and Adsa is there to help make it less hassle than it would otherwise be. Lots of typical Christmassy problems, but an end result that makes you smile.



Morrisons

What's surprising about this is just how similar this ad is to Asda. They feel like they could have been made with the same brief. Whilst the Morrisons ad is less overtly about the supporting of mums, it focuses more on the trials and tribulations of getting everything ready for that special end result. The wonderfully absurd execution takes the same old Christmas problems and shows them in a way that creates a genuine warm humour. The bit with the Russian Doll cupboard is absolutely spot on.

I think this is my favourite of the three. Although as a friend of mine pointed out, the music ends on a dominant chord, which gives it a really unnerving awkwardness on what should be a happy moment. I am surprised no one spotted that.


Boots

"Here come the g..." Oh.

This is a bit closer to the typical Christmas ad, but the little vignettes are sweet, and feel far closer to reality than the slightly irritating cliche'd 'girls' ever did. It's also a nice strategic way to get around the perception (from how I saw it) that Boots gifts are mainly for women, and are small token gifts rather than significant gestures.

Warm, sweet and funny, great work. The little girl talking to the dog is just adorable.



The Supermarkets all focus on mum, as you might expect, while Boots have gone the other way and opened up more to men. I do wonder whether guys feel left out of Christmas, always in the way or bit part players, whereas I imagine (from my experiences at least) that these days there is a bit more of a team effort. The Asda ad is definitely weaker for this.

As always, knowing how people will react to them is hard to guess. There are a mix of positive and negatives scores to each video on You Tube already. I hope that, given the usual minefield of generic Christmas ads, these will have a positive impact overall.

It's lovely to see so many Christmas ads that make you feel something, and show the season with a sense of honesty, rather than the stereotypical cheesy images we usually get rammed down our throats.

In fact, if there is one problem, it's that by all improving at the same time, it's harder for these brands to stand out than if only one of them had improved. That though, is a great present to us from the retail sector and their agencies.

Should Planners Have Ideas?

An interesting twitter debate kicked off earlier today over the merits of a John Steele quote as tweeted by Dave Trott.

"It's not a planner's job to have ideas, rather to create an environment where others can have them." - John Steele

Followed by Mark Hancock (Holycow) responding to say he agreed that planners need to foster an environment, but that the stimulus planners give to creatives usually comes as an idea. W+K's official account also tweeted that they'd rather have people who create ideas across the board, from planning to HR. I've yet to see any response from Dave Trott, but I think it will be worth reading if he does.

I find this a fascinating topic, because while in many respects it feels like a case of semantics, it comes down to one key point for me:

If a brief is devoid of ideas, how is is likely to inspire creatives?

We can't exactly claim that strategy isn't full of ideas. If a strategy has no ideas, we'll just end up with boring cliche'd briefs that will nudge the creatives towards limited ideas.

If people across the agency are creating ideas, it helps to foster people working together better. Not only that if creatives see that the people around them have the capability to generate ideas then it must give them more confidence that the briefs and development around them are well thought out, and appreciate how they are going to produce ideas.

Personally I have to agree with the tweet from W+K. If you run a creative business, everything that you produce is based upon ideas. Strategic ideas to develop great briefs and real useful insights, creative ideas to bring the strategy to life, account handling ideas to ensure everything runs smoothly and efficiently. Why on earth would you not want anyone in that team to have ideas, to share them and create a culture that works together to create a whole that is massively beyond the sum of the parts. In fact if you look at the difference between the best and the worst creative organisations, I bet one of the key differences you will see is their openness to ideas and the culture of collective creativity that it can help to foster.

Of course John isn't bad mouthing ideas, and I doubt he means planners shouldn't have ideas, just that this shouldn't be the key thing we do. However I think ideas are such an intrinsic part of what we do, that we cannot possibly be great planners without generating ideas.

As I've said before, I am a firm believer that creativity comes from anywhere, and that while we are separated as planner, creatives and account handlers for a reason, that doesn't mean that we are incapable of ideas or feedback on those other areas. We inherently have to understand each others' positions to produce the best work. A planner should accept that a creative might have a great strategic idea, just as a planner might have a great creative idea. In a football team no one says to a defender "You should not score goals", you make sure they do their job of defending, but if they turn up and score, you applaud them for their cross team effort, just as you would a striker who makes a key tackle in the penalty area. (Sorry for the football metaphor, it seemed apt.)

I think perhaps the two things are very closely linked. Fostering an environment that encourages ideas is partly done by having ideas yourself. To cut off yourself from having ideas is to stifle any atmosphere of sharing and generation that you try to create. If you want to foster a relaxed culture, you shouldn't turn up in suit and tie every day, you have to live the culture you are trying to create.

I've seen John Steele present his core thoughts at work, and he is a compelling speaker. I don't want this to come across as a criticism of his work, because as we know, context is everything, and this is a quote out of context and without substantiation. I do think it's an interesting topic to debate further though.

Bleeding Hell

Is it irony that offices of the same agency made this ad too?

I don't like to criticise ads in an unconstructive way, because I know how hard it is to create good campaigns, and to get those good campaigns through the client.



But sometimes you see an ad that just has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and there is little you can do but wonder how in the name of all things creative that monstrosity ever got to air.

 May I introduce you to the Colgate Pro Gum Health ad. 30 seconds that single-handedly takes advertising back 30 years. Their recent ads have all been poor, but at least they were just simple, style free ads that showed you some product and information while interacting with what seemed like normal people.


This ad though, commits some unforgivable cardinal sins of advertising.

• Let's start with the 'real' people who couldn't look more like actors if they had their equity cards held up in front of their face.
• Dialogue that tries to sound natural but feels stiled, fake and irritating, while acted in a way that feels so incredibly posed that it makes you want to laugh.
• There's the 'focus group leader' who looks like he has been recruited based on his looks alone.
• Oh and not forgetting the absurdly comic 'ask your dentist' ending with mind-bogglingly silly photo. (I actually did burst out laughing the first time I saw it).
• Additionally, as mentioned by @AJ_ay_it the stylistic approach to branding of plastering everything in the logo COLGATE COLGATE COLGAAAAATTTTEEEE! , and that this researcher should be reported to the MRS for his selling..!

What decade are we living in?

This ad couldn't feel more dated if it was shot in black and white and fronted by someone who is dead. It talks to people in a way that seems to presume they have all the intelligence of a intellectually challenged loaf of bread. If you want people to understand the facts then just tell them in a compelling way, don't break out sales tactics that would be laughed at even by Alan Sugar.

I find it hard to believe that a creative agency could produce this, an ad completely devoid of any charm or creativity whatsoever. I don't know whether this is the fault of the agency or the client, but this kind of advertising will not engage or inspire anyone. Telling the facts can be a good strategy, but not like this. I spoke to someone at another agency who said it felt so negative that he was actually thinking about giving up using Colgate. I say this as someone who has been a loyal Colgate user for over a decade, their products are good, but talking about them in this way is just horrific.

It's not 1955 anymore Colgate.

Excitement from Toyota

"Honestly, this goes down as the best Toyota I've ever driven"
Top Gear Magazine

I think it's nice when you see campaigns that really get to the heart of the product they are selling, and pull out the truth, making it impossible to miss.

The new ad for the Toyota GT86 (by Saatchi and Saatchi I believe) does exactly that.

In a world where cars try to do everything for you, the GT86 is an artificial assistance free car. A massive buzz of excitement and experience for a price that makes it one of the best value cars in the world if measured in fun.

The ad takes the idea of a back to basics car that is directly and joyously connected to the road rather than through a control centre full of electronics; and brings it to life in a way that is hard to miss.

I'd done a lot of research on the GT86 for a friend, so I knew a lot about it. When I heard the line "Can you feel the thrill of being alive, no neither can I" came on, I thought straight away that this has to be for the GT86, it fits it perfectly.  A car that is designed to push the limits and give you maximmum fun even at the expense of grip.

Sure, it's a little po faced, but it's bold, brave, and most importantly, it doesn't feel like it could truthfully be for any other affordable car.

I mean, look at it. For £25k...! I want one, and I don't even drive.
(Pic from Toyota)

Showing the car almost entirely in CG only is a bold step too, and appears well thought out, allowing the ad to show exciting driving without breaking any regulations. For a car this interesting and exciting, doing the usual boring car ad cliches would have been doing it no justice whatsoever.

If there is any justice, this car should become the new XR3i, the new M3, the new RX8, a truely rewarding piece of engineering that brings all the fun of overpriced sports cars to the general public at a fraction of the price. The idea of reintroducing the thrill of driving for real, of remembering the joy of a real connection to the road, to a public fed on assists and technology, seems like a perfect cry to start that trend.

The Good Ad Club

I had an idea last night.

A thought on how we can gently make a statement about good advertising, trying to inspire better work to be allowed through.

The idea is The Good Ad Club

Essentially it's a club in which we decide which adverts are the best in their market, and then members use that decision to influemce their buying decisions.

In other words, if you were being strict, then no other factor would affect your brand decisions other than whether the advertising was good or not.

So this month for example:

Weetabix for breakfast with Cravendale milk
Insurance from Compare the Market
Alcoholic drinks allowed: Stella Cidre, Fosters
Charity donations to Cancer Research

An odd idea I know. but it would be an interesting one to do!

Stop Trying to be Right

I am a firm believer that advertising is never black or white, that it is made up of infinite shades of grey from which it is impossible to ever get a completely correct campaign. Such a thing does not exist, and even if it did, that does not mean it would work or be taken to heart by the public.

From a planning point of view we can say 'has this worked?' or 'has this changed behaviour?', but we have to remember that advertising is both a creative industry and a sales industry.

What do they have in common? Neither have an answer that is perfect for everyone. No salesperson will have a patter that everyone responds to, not even the best in the world. Just as no creative will ever work for every single person. It's just impossible, we don't work that way as human beings.

There are great ads that have done extremely badly, just as there are good ads that have done unbelievably well. Sure media spend plays a part (Go sodding Compare), but there is never a guarantee that good creative means success.

In a perfect (hah) world Weetabix would be flying off the shelf right now and people would be buying car insurance from Compare the Market; while DFS and Gillette would be going bust.



Our job is to get as close to the theoretical sun as we can, both creatively and effectively. We should never try to be perfect as it cannot happen.



This is another reason why I believe in flexible thinking. If a creative has an idea that isn't on brief but is potentially better in ther ways, we shouldn't throw it away. Sometimes this even justifies post-rationalisation; if you have a random idea that is very good, should you spend another 3 weeks trying (and maybe failing) to get something a little bit better, or do you spend the 3 weeks making the current idea work brilliantly, and fitting it into a sound strategy?

Of course, having seen some clients holding full creative pitches at 48hours notice; maybe we all would get closer to perfect if we had more time... but we need to know when to stop searching and start developing.

Three Guys Walk Into a Bar

Three guys with a perfectly acceptable race-balance and blend of machismo with friendliness walk into a bar...

Three guys working hard feel a little bit thirsty...

Three guys chilling out feel like a beer...

Some negative comments about the new Heineken ad made me think about the whole genre of beer advertising, and in particular just how outdated some of the 'three men and a little lager' ads feel. Though thankfully there aren't too many of them left.

Carlsberg has kept things interesting by having a great tagline, but they recently confused the hell out of it by introducing a second tagline that doesn't seem to fit.

Strongbow's latest ads however, raise a smile but they couldn't feel more like they are trying to be identifiable if the voiceover screamed "Look hard working cockney geezer, this 'ere hard working chap is just like you, maybe you should drink Strongbow too". Were it not a pastiche idea the shot where they look over at the pub would have made me cringe.

There have been so many 'three guys in a pub' ads. Some are funny, or silly, but most just feel like the same template. The beer ads we remember now are the ones that are more expansive, those with wider ideas and themes.

Although maybe, just maybe the criticism of the over-elaborate styling and content of these new beer ads opens up an opportunity for some good ads in the old way. After all, John Webster made the 'three guys in a pub' extremely interesting back in the seventies and early eighties. If we do it though, let's at least do it well.

Shit Hitting Fan - My Thoughts

The past few days have been completely bizarre in the world of planning. A series of allegations and stories have emerged that have created a storm in the plannersphere, and in particular, have led to lots of calls for one particular person to be punished and turned into some kind of lynching figure.

I'll make it clear that I only slightly know both main parties, and I don't know which allegations are true and which are not.

The problem I have is that in a scenario like this it is impossible to know what are the truths and what are lies. Clearly the person in question has done a number of things that he should not be proud of, and possibly some that he could get into serious trouble for.

However, we must be wary of creating a mob attitude until we know the full truth. We don't know the reasons, the coincidences, the personal opinions and vendettas that could change things for each side of the argument.

He may very well be guilty of all of these things, but he equally could be innocent of many of them. I just hope we can all be as understanding and considered about this as we would be if it were a piece of insight or information that we were using for a client. We would* never try and sell in baseless conclusions to clients, let's not do the same here. Let the people with the evidence and the people with the talking to do solve this, and we can all discuss it then.

The last thing we need is for mud slinging, in-fighting, side taking and bitching to take this difficult situation and create a long term problem between people in our field.

*I hope!

Truth, lies, advertising, politics and newspapers

After two years in adland I still don't understand the divide between how we are seen and how other institutions are seen. The worst excesses of hard sell advertising pale into nothing compared to the amount of manipulative bullshit we are fed every day by so called respectable industries.

Particularly shocking is the current election coverage. Here are two examples to demonstrate:

1. Paper publishes online survey suggesting David Cameron won debate number 2. However it was revealed that the poll was opened when he started his opening speech, and closed when he finished it, before the debate even happened!

2. The Sun's own online survey (which requires registration) showed a 40% victory for Nick Clegg in last nights debate. Their headline is: Scrambled Clegg and Toast - but Cameron is full of beans. Ignoring their own polls when it contradicts what they want you to think.

How is it even legal for some papers to talk about the election? The Sun, Telegraph and The Times are Tory propaganda machines. The Mail is a slightly racist Tory propaganda machine. This is the kind of bias that would be slammed in an FMCG product ad, yet millions are allowed to be exposed to what is at best heavy bias, and at worst outright lies.

Lets look at The Daily Star who during the ash cloud fuss published a front page with a 747 jet with engines burning and "TERROR AS JET HITS ASH CLOUD". It turned out that this was a picture from a 20 year old film about what could happen.

From now on every page of The Sun should have a large disclaimer explaining how they are owned by Rupert Murdoch and nothing they say should be taken as fair. There is no parity, no fairness, no justification for government to say that advertising shouldn't be allowed to mislead people when it so blatantly happens every day in our newspapers.

The future of branding isn't advertising. It's buying newspapers and being allowed to print what the hell you like regardless of the truth or motives.

Never be Tried and Trusted

For me, three of the most dangerous words in adland are 'Tried and Trusted'. In an industry that appears to love proprietry charts, systems and generators to distinguish one agency from another, I worry sometimes that we (at least in some agencies) have ended up being too guided by the success of the past.

As soon as we start to rely on an idea or toolkit simply because it has always worked we risk falling over. Advertising has always evolved, but now it is doing so quicker than ever, and just because something has worked for 20 years does not mean it is right for this brief, this client or this problem. If you can look at the problem and data that are relevant and then say 'this model definitely still applies' then brilliant, but fail to check and its the first sign of complacency.

There is nothing wrong with using models per se, as long as they help instead of hindering; don't steal time from the real issues; and are always sense checked for their relevance to a brief.

Some agencies have great models that are really just philosophies to drive themselves. It's why I will always prefer BBH's 'When the World Zigs, Zag.' to TBWA's 'Disruption'. The former (at least from my understanding) is a creative philosophy that doesn't get in the way of finding what is relevant; while the latter feels like a process that every bit of work is dragged through regardless of if it needs. [Please correct me if I am wrong.] Not to say it doesn't produce great work sometimes, but it seems like another hurdle rather than an enabler.

Every case is different, what works for one may not work for another.

Not only that, but this issue is also part of the problem involved in the 'advertising is dead/new model agency' debates that keep coming up. If it is dead, the reliance on archive models and ideas is probably a big reason why. The new models need to make sure their ideas are based on what is right, not what is currently wrong. Even the people claiming to look forward seem to be using the past as their start point.

This is why in my mind much of this debate can be summed up by saying: Advertising is not dead, it's just learning where it needs to go. The tried and trusted models aren't always right anymore.

I believe this industry works best (both in terms of results and in terms of creativity) when we treat every problem with an open mind based on the relevant problems/details/insights around it. Not when we stick a proprietary creative/planning system on top of the problem and end up having to solve two different issues to justify ourselves.

Rob on Planning

[Please note: It's late and I may edit this majorly tomorrow]

A lot of advertising's ills are often placed at the foot of planning. We get accused of being against or stifling creativity, of being account men in disguise, of wanting to please the client not make better work.

Well that's not my idea of planning.

Planning to me is exactly the opposite of limiting creativity, it's about finding information and making great briefs (whether written or verbal, that's another debate) to create better work.

I know a lot of planners are frustrated creatives, and maybe that's true to some extent. But that's exactly why I wanted to be a planner. I know I am unlikely to ever make world beating creative, but I know that I can help others to make it. Or help make sure that world beating creative also creates world beating reactions or world beating sales.

I am not the sort of person who thinks they know everything, I won't sit there thinking I know better; I just try my hardest and say what I think is right. But also, I am not here to make up the numbers. I truly believe if I keep learning and keep working hard I can make a difference to our industry. It might be a small difference, but It's there for the taking.

There are truly great people in this industry that inspire me every day. Some planners, some creatives, some even (ha) account suits. Some I work with, some I just know (and hope to work with), and some I've never met (and hope to work with). It's those people who give me faith that not only can we make better work than we do now, but we can do it whilst producing better results for clients AND making ads that people enjoy and appreciate instead of hating.

Ad land is there for improving, I hope I can eventually help out.

When Advertising Doesn't Work...

I've seen worse mind you...

Tweeter

Twitter now open to advertising... this could get interesting, or boring, very very boring.

Twitter Rule Changes

If only everything was as reliable as Volkwagon advertising part 2

Funny how shortly after I made a post talking about the brilliant consistency of VW advertising, Top Gear do an episode where they try to produce an ad for the Scirocco diesel.

What I like about Jeremy's controversial winning ad, is that the line is amusing but based on product truth as they were rightly advised.

Sure it's not in the best taste, but frankly it was funny enough to get away with it in my opinion.
I can't believe VW would have let it air if they thought it was offensive.

Annually Retentive

(Yes I know that's the title of Rob Brydon's mock panel show)

History is a dangerous thing in advertising. We often look back at our history and revel in the great work and the people who produced it. But we have to beware of letting nostalgia and hindsight affect our judgement of ads gone by.

The example that brought this to mind was the VW 'changes' ad from the 1980's.

It's so often referenced as being completely of the moment, of fitting the landscape perfectly. Treated as some kind of marker for the way society and advertising was at that point. But of course advertising was mostly full of identikit haircare/beauty ads, hard sell bollocks and local 'slideshow' ads.

Not only that, I have never heard anyone talk about how successful it was. How much product it sold or how it changed people's perceptions of VW. All I hear is a praise of the creative and director.

This of course is the danger of D&ad awards, Cannes, Clio's etc. That we let creativity become the only factor in which we judge past ads. Now of course I am not saying that creative is unimportant in ads, just that we cannot let it be the only factor we objectively use to judge past ads.

If we look back at 2000's in 20 years time, our ad history won't include Barry Scott and Cillit Bang, but he created a strong brand, got into popular culture and sold shitloads of cleaner.

Which is why I like public ad polls. You tend to find that ads which mixed creativite brilliance with an idea that really resonated or sold product get to the top. Smash martians, Honey Monster etc. A public poll would put Barry Scott and the Gorilla together, one creative brilliance, one creative annoyance, but on impact and results, both worthy of a place in ad history.