Terrorvision

If the rough definition of terrorism is:

"Using fear to manipulate people's actions."

Then there are plenty of things that we really should start counting as terror:

• Tony Blair's lies about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in order to gain support for invasion
• George W Bush's use of terror and terrorism in order to change laws and create havoc throughout the world
  
• "The medium of TV is dying... use our web agency!" Invest now or your company will fail! Faillll!!
  
• If you don't dye your hair you will look old and that 25 year old receptionist won't take you home tonight.

Is Rob, I hear you (possibly) ask... comparing the illegal invasion of Iraq to an ad for hair dye and hyped up Web 2.0 speeches? No. Well actually yes. Yes I am. Sort of. They all use fear to manipulate people, of course this fear is on different scales; but the principle is essentially the same.

Whilst sometimes there is room for comedic/artistic licence in dealing with some silly/consumerite fears; or where good evidence backs it up: "Don't miss out on this deal", "Only this cleaner kills all bacteria" etc ... The playing of real fears in such an unsensitive way is frankly insulting. If the consumer is your wife, then she is going to be pissssed off with you for being that rude and patronising.

What I would like to say here is this: Manipulative hard sell should be dead. Stone cold dead. Cremated and thrown into the dead sea. There is no use, no excuse, and no need for it in this day and age. This internet age means people will talk about it and appearing manipulative will start to bring your brand down, no matter how big you are. I suggest a War on Ad Terror...

Terms of Endearment

As an industry, advertising and marketing is far too full of bullshit terms. Whilst I understand the need to simplify things for ease of use, often we end up screwing around with what these terms actually mean, which in turn affects how clients and others see these things.

What marketing terms are you fed up of? What do you think we should replace them with?

Here are some of my hated ones, plus a few I've heard being discussed:

Brand/s - This is one of those where it makes sense to have a word that describes that essence of what a company/product stands for and does. At uni brand was the buzz word thrown everywhere, and that I believe is why people hate it. Indeed there was a conscious movement by many bloggers not long ago to stop using it for a month.

Consumers - No. People in all their diversity and difference are not simply a category of mindless purchasing zombies. Again, its a useful word in describing people, but really we can do better. It sounds like a big evil corporate mantra that anti-brand (heh) types would have a field day picking apart. We have to engage people, and if we treat them like sheep we are never going to do that except by luck. Why not just say: People.

Social Media - Not one of mine. I think it's a reasonable description. It could be improved sure, and it is getting overused... but it does its job.

Viral - Viral is not a thing. Viral is what it does. You cannot make a viral, you can make some content for your brand (heh), put it up on social media (heh heh) and hope. But if it doesn't work, it's not a viral. If no one likes it, it's not a viral. If all 30,000 views come from agency and client staff, it's not a viral. Why not just say: Content. If you must... Content that we want to go viral.

Regional Agency - Been over this one before. A patronising term that insults the work and staff of every decent agency outside the M25. And there are plenty thank you very much. Why not just say: Agency, UK Agency. If you must: Agencies outside London.

Something that puzzles me

Why it that so many companies seem to believe their product or service is the most important thing in the world to their 'consumers'? I keep noticing it in ads at the moment, and it's quite an irritating trend.

For example: Specsavers. Yes, we know that glasses are expensive and people want to pay a fair price for them. But acting (as their latest ad does) as if buying expensive glasses can cause a nervous breakdown is overstating their importance just a little it seems.

Ok, so it's played for comic effect; but it feels like they mean it.

I hope one day soon brands are going to realise that no matter how aspirational they are, they are still selling products and services. Maybe by better understanding that they are not important they can fit more appropriately into peoples' lives and actually increase their importance by understating it.

What do you think?

Image from sisk-o.stumbleupon.com

Mortimer and Co's Famous Miracle Brand Formula

Whilst discussing Kevin Roberts' idea from the Future Marketing Summit that brands 'are now owned by the consumer'; several of us (myself, Rob Campbell etc) have concurred that was frankly rubbish, brands have always been owned by the consumer.

I do feel however that what has changed is that the customer now controls the brand, as well as owning it. Where as before the customer protested and the brand took notice (or ignored it); now the consumer has the power to change other people's opinions about it before you can even do anything about it.

I did come up with an analogy I like though:

The situation for brands is rather like that of an early 20th century travelling salesman. Whereas before he could pack up and move town; and change his sales technique before he arrived at the next place... now the people already know what he is selling and whether they are interested before he has even got on his horse.

Getting Excited!

I am very much looking forward to the Future Marketing Summit, as it would normally be impossible for me to attend something with so many intelligent people talking about ads/marketing/design/etc.

I asked a little while ago for ideas as to what people think the Future Marketing Summit should be talking about, and here are (most of) the answers I got:

• "what people think about Big Ideas v a collection of little ones.
  
  
• Whatisface was on about this in Campaign, defending the Big Idea - but most of the examples he used were brands that have a long history, back into the old days of messaging."
  
  
• With such product parity, do people think Brand Advertising is MORE or LESS relevant in marketing today?
  
  
• Is the future of brand growth, product led?
  
  
• Will cause marketing become a core driver for brand differentiation/growth?
  
  
• Is brand activation a fad or is it here to stay?
  
  
• Why is creativity not so highly valued as media efficiency?
  
  
• Who are the future powerbrokers of business success? [ie: The retail trade now have the power over the Coca-Cola's of the World which is radically different from past times]
  
  
• Is communication about selling or leaving a positive impression on consumers?
  
  
• How much has innovation got to play in brand success?
  
  
• What is the real power of communicating on the net?
  
  
• Will the impact of copywriting on the public change the importance of creativity in an age where we need to keep doing more to interest people...?
  
  
• Why are their not enough bald men in advertising when there are so many shiny headed planners?

Thoughts..? (bear in mind these will probably be passed onto the organisers of the event)