Australian Ads Part 1

As with every country, advertising is generally divided into great and terrible. Australia is no exception. For every Dumb Ways to Die there is a guy shouting about barbecues whilst giving a thumbs up.

Whilst there isn't quite the number of brands perpared to make great creative work as back in the UK, from what I've seen, the standard is definitely improving.

Here's a couple of good examples.

Carlton Draught. Not my favourite beer, but it's definitely better than the cheap stuff in the UK.
This police chase ad from last year is everything you expect from a brand whose creative work travels far wider than the product.

A silly chase that parodies the movies, and avoids taking itself seriously in any way. It's fun and entertaining, taking the semi-mandatory 'several guys in a pub' setup and taking it to somewhere likeable.

It doesn't hurt that Carlton Draught has one of the best taglines of any brand in the world either.




Australia Post. Sometimes an idea is just so simply brilliant that you don't need to create an elaborate ad concept, you just need to show people. It's also another blow for people who keep going on about how QR codes and the like are useless, without realising it was the way people used them that was the problem, not the medium itself. Any postal service that doesn't consider creating this functional

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.

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.

User Generated Outcomes

The Adam and Jane series of ads for BT have been an unusual one. They have always felt a little cliched, an attempt to shoehorn modern day lives into the Gold Blend formula of the 80s. Yet thanks to the writing and casting they have always come across with a warmth that makes them work. (They wouldn't have ran this long if they weren't connecting right!)

Always a great case study for the unspectacular, I also enjoy seeing a creative idea being allowed to develop and grow like this. They won't win any Gold Lions but the audience has time to become attached to the idea and the characters.

With the campaign coming to a close, the public have been roped in to vote for what they want to happen at the end. A pointless excercise in many respects, as I can hardly see "They all get run over by a Virgin Media lorry" winning, it will of course be happy schmaltzy ending or faux-meaningful seperation. But maybe that's okay, when a campaign has connected with people in this way; it's better to end on a cliche than leave everyone wondering 'what the hell just happened?!' - See Renault Clio and Nicole).

It will be interesting to see how many people vote and what comes out as the winning choice, but I won't expect a surprise.




Oh and My Family is still shite.

10 Years in Advertising and Marketing

So, we are coming to the end of the first decade of the new millenium (It doesn't feel new despite us being only 1% through it).

It has been a rollercoaster for our industry, the expansion of media types changing the way we think about planning and creative work forever.

To mark the passing of the event I would like to call for nominations for the 'Ad Pit Decade Awards' (I use the word awards loosely). If I get enough interest I will do a big feature on this nearer Xmas.

The categories are as follows, campaigns must have run between 2000 and now:

• Best TV ad


• Best Print ad


• Best Online content (not website)


• Best Website


• Best Thought in a Campaign


• Best PR campaign


• Best Account Person


• Best Planner


• Best Creatives


• Best Ad/Mkt/PR book


• Best Industry Spokesperson


• Worst Ad


• Best Agency


• Worst Agency (please include a brief reason so I can exclude unconstructive votes)

Please reply or send your nominations to me: rob (at) ad (dash) pit (dot) co (dot) uk

How Sacred Is The Brief?

Here is a thought or two on a topic that I have thought about a lot since becoming a planner. Just how important is the creative brief?

Now this is more a debate than an argument, so I would love to hear people's thoughts on the subject.

The creative brief seems in some circles to be seen as this all powerful master document for the creative work that should follow. An unquestionable piece of Moses esque tabletry that defies all who doubt it. But this makes no sense, we know the point of a brief is to inspire the creatives and lead then down the right direction. Yet as is often quoted, there is rarely a right answer... simply more/less right ones.

If we do our job right then being on brief is good of course. But what if slightly off brief gives a better creative territory? What if there is an idea so good that only works with a tweaked brief. What if we discover something new part way through the process?

I had this argument in the pub with a creative who was discussing a brief where the favoured work was actually slightly off brief. My viewpoint there was (and still is) that we should always be confidence our brief work is spot on, but if creatives are to believe that we have creativity at the heart of what we do, we have to be man enough to admit when an idea (whether from creative or planning) is good enough to skip brief anality. Otherwise why should they believe us when we say the next idea is better because it's on brief.

A 8-10am analogy for this was this:

A hard punch that's 90% on target is better than a weak punch that's 100% on target.

Thoughts?

Hey Dad it's One for the Show...

At last! Both the One Show and D&ad awards have announced that they will take action against scam ads that were not produced to a brief and requested by the client. Brilliantly, D&ad will make ECD's vouch for each ad submitted, and will name and shame those who break the rules.

It's great to know that only real ads will be included after the numerous debacles over the last few years. Admittedly there is still space for fractional media budgeted pieces, but 1 problem is better than 2!

I'm all in favour of showing off the best creative we can make, but recently it's been like drugged up athletes winning medals; it's an unfair advantage that should never be merited. That said, I am in favour of creating a specific award for un-sanctioned ads, a space for us to push the boundaries without cheating.

Advertising that should burn in agency hell for all eternity Part 1

Combine a brand famous for terrible tv ads with the band most hated (and by hated I mean violently disgusted by the sheer awfulness of) by the rock community.

What do you have?

DFS and Nickleback. Singlehandedly lowering the bar for ad music, creative relevance and cliche handling. I understand the idea of being influenced by a video, and it works in that respect, but dear god get a better band to utilise.

Hell, if you get some Machinehead into your next ad I will singlehandedly start the campaign to get it into Cannes next year.

DFS ads were improving... were.

Follow the Bear

His name is always mentioned in advertising creative circles, but as one of the most inspirational figures to me in advertising I think its time to put a Planning mark of respect out there for John Webster.

Not only did he create brilliant ads that captured people's imaginations, he made them work. He got the planning message across, he got the sales message across, but did it in such a way that you never felt like a salesman was shouting at you.

He was one of the first creatives to really listen to planning. To really listen to what they said, and to consider what people liked to watch in the same way as early planners did.

At JWT we talk about making people want to spend time with brands, well no creative ever did that better than John Webster. 6 of the top 100 UK ads of all time are his (that I know of), including the regular number 1 and 2 slot filler.

I talk a lot about how good brand characters can work brilliantly, and if you look at Webster's work; it's full of great characters that work both as message vehicles, but also as engaging entertainment. What was different about Webster was that he created full back stories for every character, they weren't just there for the ads, and that made them feel infinitely more real and likeable.

Take the first Hofmeister Bear ad, it literally tells you the story of the character.


Webster is quoted in Sam Delaney's book Get Smashed "Increasingly, people were using celebrities. Famously CDP had used Leonard Rossiter for their Cinzano campaign. I'd heard that most people in research thought their ads were for Martini so I realised that a celebrity could be a distraction from the product. But if we invented our own characters then we could own them. Plus, they wouldn't age and they'd be a great deal cheaper too"

Sugar Puffs eventually published a full biography of the Honey Monster, written by Webster.

Webster also said "With all the characters I invented I liked to imagine where they had come from and what their upbringing was like so that they'd be real, rounded characters as opposed to flimsy advertising mascots."

With the internet a sense of honesty and realism is more important than ever before in brands, and these rounded likeable characters have been rediscovered by older generations via You Tube. After 20-30 years they still remember them, possibly better than they remember the products themselves...

Client vs Creative

I was sad to find out the other day that one of the best toy ads of all time (that I wrote about briefly a while ago) was only ever shown about 5 times in the UK.



Apparently the client didn't like it as there were no images of children actually playing with the toy...
Such a wonderful ad, showing the huge possibilities of the product in a witty and engaging way; and the client killed it.

Happily its such a good ad that it is still remembered even though it was hardly seen at the time.

The Big Fight LIVE!

Scamp (and others) recently posted about the often tetchy relationships between planners and creatives. How they often dislike or even fail to respect each other and the work that they do.

I know of several love-hate relationships between successful planner/creatives who work together.

Now as I start in planning in a couple of months I would like to ask the following questions and see if I get some useful responses to learn from as regards to being a better planner and maintaining good relationships...

1. Why do some creatives dislike all planners? (and visa-versa)
2. What do planners do that endear them to creatives?
3. What do creatives that feel issues with planners want from them?

All responses appreciated!

Image from.

How Rob Ended up in D+AD 2007

Im getting everywhere at the moment, apart from an actual planning job (*curses under breath*)... recently i've been in Campaign and Creative Review.

Now, thanks to Ben, i'm in the new D+AD annual.

At the Future Marketing Summit in March, we took some photos using the D+AD flag for a competition (winning entries to be used in the annual). One of them featured me getting onto the stage and posing with the flag. Now that has a full page in the D+AD annual 2007.

So well done Ben. Thanks D+AD. Where next for Famous Rob!!

Slightly Famous Rob!

If you haven't seen it, my review of Interesting 2007 was published in this months Creative Review :)

Hurrah! Now, if only my copy had arrived yet...