Posts tagged agency
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 1 the missed opportunities
Jul 25th
So. I have managed advertising agencies, I have been business development director at agencies and I have talked with so many business owners about advertising agencies as well as search consultants (kind of like executive search people for businesses looking for agencies) that I think I have seen pretty much every angle any agency has ever taken to differentiate themselves.
And I think any sane person who stuck their head into this padded room advertising agencies live in would suggest the occupants exhibit some relatively insane behavior patterns on occasion.
Look. No matter how you slice it my friend Luke Sullivan said it best “it’s all about the work.” An agency both has the work and can do the work or they don’t and they can’t (but are trying to convince everyone they do and can).
We in the agency business hate admitting it’s “the work” because then it makes us sound like a manufacturing plant cranking out widgets. Well. Tough nooogies (I love typing that). Agencies are what they produce. Simple as that.
Do they produce ideas (so they can claim they are ‘thinking agencies’)? No.
Those are consulting firms (who typically in my harsh point of view have absolutely no value to the world because they shirk the responsibility of the actual ‘doing the work’ once they have the insight/idea).
Anyway.
Advertising agencies produce “tangible creativity” based on an idea.
Doesn’t mean you should be any dumber because you shamelessly state it’s the work (cause if you don’t have the insight or the idea you ain’t gonna produce ‘the work’ anyway).
A person I admire said “well, our work sells shit.” That works for me too.
Does it mean they do crappy work?
Nope. Just that if you come to them and they develop work for you it will … well .. work.
Anyway.
Differentiation.
So most agencies that can do the work fall into three categories.
- Ones known for a charismatic talented personality. Jeff Goodby. Roy Spence. Alex Bogusky. Stan Richards. And going back in time … David Ogilvy, Mary Wells, Bill Bernbach. Let’s call them “zen masters.” Kind of the Phil Jackson’s of the advertising industry. These are at the top but there are a slew of well known charismatic personalities that can raise the level of an agency that can and does the work to a place in the marketplace where they are differentiated. Oh. And charismatic takes on all shapes and sizes. You may not know the people I stated above but one is reserved and taciturn and brilliant, one is bombastic and pulpit worthy and one is casually brilliantly articulate and one is formal and disciplined and concise. There ain’t no formula here folks for charismatic talented personalities. Other than the fact people like to listen to them and follow them.
- Ones who are known as an agency that does ‘this kind of work.’ So the agency isn’t driven by a charismatic personality but most probably by a distinct culture or attitude that has consistently generated a distinctive look & feel of “work” that has worked and they have become known for something. Cliff Freeman agency probably the easiest one to point out here.
- Ones in between but wanting to be one of the above two (oh. Most agencies are here).
This third group is a morass of all size agencies ebbing and flowing as several are always on the cusp of moving into one of the two categories above and some slip in and some never make it and fall back into the pack. All always seeking that ‘differentiation’ that makes them get considered. And group three is doubly difficult to compete in because this is also the group where agencies who don’t really do ‘the work’ (because they cannot … because … well …. they suck) reside and wander around trying to look like agencies that can do the work and confuse the whole kitandkaboodle (another word I like to type).
Oh. Before I get to the differentiation thing.
So why can’t some really good agencies get up into one of those two categories?
Well. I am going to generalize but try these on for size:
- Charismatic personality. Agencies are typically hotbeds of egos and politics. Elevating one person above the rest is a gauntlet that even the most charismatic person has to be slightly lucky to get there. It is certainly the easiest way for an agency to get in the game but most agencies waste this opportunity through politics and egos. Or. They simply choose the wrong horse to ride to the top. What do I mean by that? Well. An owner of an agency may feel they are the anointed ‘charismatic one’ because it is their name above the door. When in reality they are simply the one who has the cahones to own an agency and manage an effective agency and hire great people so it becomes a great agency. The owner is the wrong horse in this case.
- Agencies that are known for their work. This is a complex group. Couple things fall in here. If you don’t have the account how do you get known for the work? (that is the issue but I will suggest an answer in part 2 in differentiation). Or even worse is the battle between making money and doing work. All agencies have clients in their stable where they don’t do work that completely sucks but it isn’t “all about the work” and it pays a lot of bills. Maintaining that balance is really really difficult. Combine that fact with the fact that most agencies in this group chase anything hoping it is ‘the one.’
Please note that almost everything I have written in this section translates into “the agency is not in control of their destiny.” That is until they get ‘the client’ and even then you are having to prove it wasn’t a onetime fluke but sustainable. Even Crispin, who began in group three, shifted into group 2 (about the work) and ultimately now resides in group one (Alex Boguskyland) was only able to achieve this over a period of time. It takes some consistency to move from group three to two. The one thing that doesn’t take time is a charismatic personality. If you got one ride that horse until it breaks a leg and you have to shoot it.
Ok. Back to the work and differentiation.
First.
I believe most agencies confuse differentiation and being distinct. Agencies known for their work aren’t really different. They just have a point of distinction. For whatever their work is known for.
Second.
So. In the attempt to break out of the morass in group three agencies go to incredible heights of zaniness to break out. The most typical and tried & true is the “proprietary process.”
whew. Okay. Unless some agency has a magic cube they throw their work into that they shake up and then pull out the magical “work that works” no one has a proprietary process.
Sure. They may be some differences. But they are nuances. Pretty much everyone does a derivative of everyone else.
Why wouldn’t you? The best processes are smart and well done and copied.
Anyway. Process differentiation is part 2 of this rant.
Part 1 simply suggests differentiation is simpler than ad agencies tend to make it. Doesn’t mean it is easy. Just means it is simpler if they would allow it to be so.
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 2 the so-called proprietary process
Jul 25th
A noted in part 1 I believe the core of any advertising agency differentiation is “it’s about the work.”
But.
Often the agency that is not instantly ‘knowable’ by its work immediately drops down into “our proprietary process” mode (which suggests .. “We can do as good a shit as those Crispin/JWT
/GSDM/whomever folk because we have a nifty whizbang process).
Why does everybody go to process? Easy.
As it is ‘all about the work’ here is how it goes:
Is the work smart, insightful, educational, entertaining and effective? No (drop out. Process won’t save you. You don’t belong here in the discussion) Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you do it consistently? No (you are in trouble. Particularly if you say something like ‘we can but our clients don’t let us.’). Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you have some formula that guarantees that consistent work? No. we don’t have a process. Its sheer luck of the draw. (okay. Here is why you need a process).
The typical answer here ? ‘Well, yes and no. we don’t have a formula but we do have a consistent process we like to work within that increases the likelihood of success. But, no, there are no guarantees. But our process is pretty good. And we are pretty good. And you are gonna fire our ass if we aren’t successful so we are highly motivated to get it right.”
Ok. But if you are consistent why won’t you guarantee it?
(without getting into compensation discussions)
‘Well, a process is simply a means to an end. It helps uncover true insights and ideas but it only informs us to develop the creative thinking it doesn’t develop the actual creative ideas. “(although it can on occasion but you never tell anyone that).
So. That is your argument for having a non proprietary solid process. But hanging your hat on your process to differentiate is nuts. It’s your work.
But.
Day in and day out scan advertising agency websites and sit through dozens of credentials presentations and if you have enough coffee to stay awake (which is actually not that tough because most are pretty entertaining and everyone likes to look at ‘the work’ …. Oh … the work?!? … ok … moving on) you will have to endure everyone talking about their process. Their proprietary magic cube that generates the work.
Here is what you want to show. Okay. And I want to be clear. In this simple process chart there are boundaries but freedom. The lack of detail doesn’t mean that there is not discipline but the freedom is in the simplicity:
A simple “you & I discuss, we take information, we start thinking, we make sure time & costs meet you expectations, we do whatever voodoo we do on that particular assignment that generates work, we show you work.”
But. Simplicity seems too chaotic. So we decide to show detail:
And then we invest ¾ of a meeting talking about process in the presentation because we either:
(a) feel like we have to discuss each detail point or (b) the audience is so confused they have to ask a zillion questions to figure out what the hell you are showing.
But.
This is the truth. This is really the process chart that reflects a simple truth:
But telling the truth is not good. Because no one wants to trust chaos.
Unfortunately advertising agencies are part chaos (because that is the characteristic of creative thinking) but we pony up a proprietary process to prove consistency and logic and a sense of comfort. Regardless (and this is where I repeat myself) it all ends up with the work. Process is a means to an end.
Here is the real issue. (I think I am going to say something smart here so pay attention)
People confuse process and disciplined thinking.
You look at that last chart (which IS truly what happens in a creative process) and you think chaos. Well. Not really. Let’s call it organized chaos. Or maybe even better said “disciplined chaos.”
First.
I dare you to talk with any creative thinker. Any creative thinker. It need not be an adverting agency person. It could be a scientist seeking a cure for cancer. A NASA engineer seeking a way to build a space ship to leave our galaxy. A product development person seeking an innovative product to meet an unmet need.
Discovery is messy.
Doesn’t mean they aren’t disciplined and have a “way” to attack it.
It is not a process. Or a strict methodology. Because in the end discovery is often about the unexpected or the unintended.
So. What do I mean?
You can attain an awesome unintended result despite a focused articulate smart objective/strategy “aim.”
So if the result doesn’t match the initial objective do you throw the result away?
Gosh.
That means penicillin never happened.
Email never happened (the military discovered it).
That means the atom is ignored.
That means America was never discovered.
People don’t like to hear it but it is exactly the same in advertising and communications.
Discovery is messy.
(sorry about that)
And having a proprietary process may sound good and make you feel good what matters is if your messy discovery creates good ‘output.’
I guess what I am saying is if you are an ad agency and you are investing a lot of emotional and intellectual energy into outlining and developing a whizbang process than I would suggest you are wasting good energy.
But.
With that said.
Say you have your process and you want to differentiate yourself.
Well.
Get to ‘the work.’
Anyway.
Here is my last thought.
Controlling your destiny and differentiation (or being distinct).
You have a whizbang process that looks an awful like everyone else’s but has a nifty name but you have a limited work portfolio. And you want more clients. Bigger clients. But the new potential clients don’t feel comfortable because you just don’t have the ‘work proof’ to get you over the hump.
If I were an agency owner or business development director and I had a budget I would build a soup to nuts beta case study. High risk. High return.
Pick a company any company. Doesn’t matter (although I would imagine if they are really high on your wish list you may as well put ‘em in there). Run them through your process. Get the insight or idea or whatever your process is supposed to generate. Do the work (yes. That is clearly speculative work.) Test it. Show that it “works.” Go back and rework it of it doesn’t work. Get something that works.
There is your proof.
In fact, your process worked so frickin’ well you didn’t even have to have the client there. And when you talk to a client? “Imagine how much better the work would be if a client were involved to provide us with the ‘x’ factor.”
Bundle enough of these and you have test proofed your process, proven you can do the work. Show work that works.
Do large agencies have to do this? Nope. When I was at J Walter Thompson I had so much shit in my bag I could pull out there weren’t enough minutes in a meeting to be able to show examples.
Do agencies who want to get out of group three have to do things like this? Yup.
That is the price of getting out of group three (if you want to get out … because you can make a fine living in group three if you are comfortable there).
There you go.
My rant on advertising agency differentiation parts one and two.
Interestingly I would imagine that while I focused on the advertising industry this applies to many industries where there are massive amounts of commodity like service providers dwelling in some nondescript morass of non differentiated excellence.
So maybe this can apply to you as well.
Hopefully my rants benefit someone other than just my own conscience.
If not? My conscience is at peace.
stay thirsty my friends
Jul 23rd
I don’t always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.
Dos Equis. What an awesome campaign. What an awesome idea. What an awesome way of elevating a relatively unknown product to a place where people are wondering, if not just thinking about the product, of not actually buying to maybe to try it.
Look. I should have written about this campaign, and idea, a long time ago. In fact so long ago I shelved the idea thinking what the hell … it’s too late.
But this campaign keeps coming back and is still interesting.
You may not know that this is the second attempt at using this “most interesting man” character and development of product personality.
The actor behind the ‘most interesting man’, Jonathan Goldsmith, has been playing this part since 2006. And I believe the first campaign of commercials was in 2007.
Apparently it didn’t kick ass originally and went away for a long while. But someone, either at Dos Equis or Euro RSCG (who created the campaign), must have seen enough promise in the concept to stick with it because the same spots started running again the following year. And this time around the “most interesting man in the world” struck a chord and this new beer icon was born.
So. Pretty much anyone who has a TV is aware of, “The Most Interesting Man in the World,” campaign.
The salt-and-pepper haired gentleman with the smooth voice and a taste for adventure. I am addicted to him. I admit it. it is the things that make him the ‘most interesting’ … well … interesting:
He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it feels.
He can speak French… in Russian.
He is the life of the party, even when he does not attend.
Policemen often question him simply because he’s interesting.
He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt.
He lives vicariously through himself.
He goes to museums and they let him touch the art.
Even his enemies list him as their emergency contact number.
Years ago, he built a city out of blocks. Today, over six hundred thousand people live and work there.
If he were to give you directions, you’d never get lost, and you’d arrive at least 5 minutes early.
People hang on his every word, even the prepositions.
He is the only man to ever ace a Rorschach test.
Every time he goes for a swim, dolphins appear.
His personality is so magnetic; he is unable to carry credit cards.
He never says something tastes like chicken. Not even chicken.
He could disarm you with his looks… or his hands. Either way.
His charm is so contagious; vaccines have been created for it.
And his closing line “Stay thirsty my friends.”
So. I am not gonna give you any brand or branding gobbledygook because this was a great idea and it builds a personality for the product.
Period.
(all the branding experts can pile on about all the other things associated with the gant charts you present on how to build a brand).
I don’t care if it’s a shitty product (well. I do actually but that’s a different post).
But. If I drink a Dos Equis I can almost guarantee people will think I am interesting (or at least joke about it).
Once again. Period. Stop. Good enough. Job well done.
Few advertising campaigns actually go beyond advertising and begin shaping the kind of character development you kind of dream of when you start marketing a product. And this one is doing just that.
And it’s not just me. People love this campaign. I know they do (how?).
Because Millward Brown says so.
Dos Equis has been able to take an extremely popular tongue in cheek character and through targeted placement through a variety of tactics get people to send it around the web (and the world and just talk about it) and make it successful according to market research by Millward Brown. The TV campaign is in the top five percent of most enjoyable ads in U.S. research history.
The campaign covers TV, print, interactive online, radio and event promotions. Videos and ads were posted on YouTube as well as a number of other sites with the intent of having consumers appreciate the ‘out of the realm of possibility’ character and send it to one another.
The website is pretty awesomely done also.
So. What makes the character appealing?
The campaign idea (I guess I could call the guy a mnemonic tactic) is not insulting.
It’s so deeply satisfying because it is intriguing, well written and so outrageous it is fascinating to see how “interesting” the most interesting man can be.
Like any great fictional character, even though it’s completely made up, it’s so outrageously true. It lives on in people’s minds because it takes real attributes and stretches them to the unbelievable boundary (which is funny in its extremes).
This fictional character is a cross between Ernest Hemingway, Bill Murray, Burt Reynolds and some Count from a nonexistent place in central Europe. This guy harkens back to the old concept of what a man’s man should be. To the exponential factor. The nth degree.
In love with women and booze, but classier than most, he travels the world seeking experiences (“his beard alone has experienced more than a lesser man’s entire body.”). Awesome.
Lastly. The part I truly love. Possibly the most interesting thing about the commercials is that he never really commits to promoting Dos Equis. He only prefers it. The closest he comes is with the tag line:
“I don’t always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.”
So. The most interesting man in the world is not an avid beer drinker but when he does want one, the most interesting man must select an interesting beer to quaff (or if you are the most interesting man do you sip, gulp, chug or drain?). Whatever, the ads are totally awesome.
Here are a sampling of Three Most Interesting Man commercials (enjoy my friends):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ym2Jma04qo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9GYocBqGyA&feature=related
Don’t stay thirsty. Grab a Dos Equis!
burger mcsausage unoriginal smarts
Jul 21st
so. This television advertisement introducing the Burger King breakfast sausage biscuit (the one where the creepy king breaks into McDonald’s headquarters to steal the mcmuffin recipe):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF86Rb-uFNE
The execution doesn’t confuse me but the effort makes me pause and scratch my head a little.
But I guess if you have more money then you know what to do with and you see research numbers that show “people consider McDonalds for breakfast and not Burger King” and you already know what McDonalds best breakfast seller is then you spend some of that money saying “hey we have the same thing just in case you didn’t know.”
There are several things I do like about this:
Competitive but not competitive. It’s odd but they are going for the competitor jugular in an interesting way. They state that they are going to offer an unoriginal product (in that they are simply stealing someone else’s ‘good idea’). But. That also implies that it’s not rocket science stuff. That maybe the original McD’s breakfast biscuit just isn’t that “unique.” (clever guys those Crispin fellows – Crispin is burger kings’ agency of record).
No superiority. Simply “hey, if you like us <burger king> and you want exactly what you could get if you stopped at the bastards down the street here you go. We have it for you. We are willing to copy if it makes you happy.” Kind of shows you like your customers and will do whatever it takes to make them happy (even steal I guess).
And then the creepy king. Here is where I give Crispin the highest marks of all.
For years while brilliant the agency has been “one-off” brilliant. One great brilliant idea. Non campaignable. Lose client after one brilliant idea because they didn’t really have a great follow-up.
(Look. The BMW mini campaign the agency built their main reputation on was not a creative messaging brilliance idea it was a tactical brilliance concept … which I give them kudos for just don’t want to oversell their brilliance … or misidentify it).
Anyway. Back to the creepy king. Alex Bogusky is our generation’s Bill Bernbach. And he has matured (in my humble opinion) to a point where he is truly earning that pedestal. The Burger King creepy king is a great showcase for why I believe it to be so. The young Bogusky would probably have shoved a brand/company mnemonic device sustaining multiple campaigns over time so far up a client’s ass a proctologist would have been envious. But. He (or at least he encouraged his teams) stepped up and said “well, let’s make the best of it and I want to do it my way …. creatively and interestingly and sometimes creepy when we are wrong in the execution but sticking with it and getting it right.” They have made it work. And made it work over time. They have a sustainable mnemonic device (or branding element or whatever you want to call it).
Anyway.
I slam people but I also want to give some credit where credit is due.
Cannot wait to see what the creepy king does next.
old el paso advertising
Jul 20th
I have been meaning to write about old el paso for awhile. Mostly because I want to write something positive for once about marketing and advertising.
The old el paso flat bottom taco advertising campaign is brilliantly simple (and simply brilliant).
It has a couple of below the line less than obvious components that really take the idea to a higher level.
Solving a problem.
Heck. I don’t know if making my taco stand up is a real problem or not but if someone is speaking Spanish and I am in Middle America than … well … I would assume it is something that keeps them up at night.
Big problem.
Maybe I won’t even buy this product until they solve this issue dammit.
Oh. An advertising campaign all in Spanish (with subtitles).
Wow. Authentic? Heck. I don’t know but I think so.
The simplicity of the solution offered by a new generation. Gosh. Everyone loves it. It’s not just that a kid with a simple thought can solve what was an apparent centuries old problem but rather that a new generation is able to see through honored tradition that those stupid adults (and past ‘stuck in archaic thinking’ generations) were blinded by to see a fundamental functional solution.
Awesome. “Out of the mouth of babes” as they say.
And the production of the execution. It’s the juxtaposition of all the elements which is awesome.
The adult conversational delivery of the problem. (let’s call this a simple build)
The innocence of a child offering a solution (in a subtitle).
Silence.
A moment of silence as everyone contemplates the solution. A moment as the simplicity of the solution slices through generations of adult traditional behavior to get to the core of what would actually be more useful.
Volume. Noise. Celebration.
The raising up of the volume to celebrate the idea (and the ideator) almost shouts that the solution is brilliant.
At the end of :30 even if you didn’t think that it was a great idea how could you not think it may be the greatest idea since the beer frig 12 pack box the way they are celebrating.
Even I, who doesn’t even eat this stuff, now take a second look as I wander the grocery store.
Awesome idea communicated in an awesome way.
It entertains. It educates.
It offers a solution to a problem (I wasn’t even sure I had).
It is delightful. And it seems authentic. And it is a great use of marketing and communicating an idea.
So. Here they are. And I included the :15 version because it is so well done also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrbyVDMUT10&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3KXaF2_UzU&feature=related
(second is :15 second version)
Oops. Gotta go get some mexican food now.
i-phone TV campaign
Jul 18th
Well. While I would put this under the “not an original idea” category I would say it is an excellent idea and glad someone is doing it again.
The new i-phone/ATT television commercials.
I have only seen two (so there may be more) but the two I have seen are awesome. And well executed. And well produced. The both follow the same formula but I am going to show the “haircut” execution at the end.
I like it on a couple of levels:
Being Voyeuristic.
We aren’t seeing the people. We are slipping inside of their lives.
How? By showing the entire story through the i-phone screen we are eavesdropping on a moment between two people we don’t know.
Does it suggest we are all a little voyeuristic or maybe all a little nosy? Maybe.
But that’s kind of our world today. People having conversations on phones in public and standing in line in front of us scanning pictures they received on their phone and do you listen or not? Do you look if it catches your eye or quickly look away?
This campaign says “hey. It’s ok. We will let you into our lives for a minute”. Love it.
Next.
The life moment.
Oh boy. It is perfectly set up.
The boy is presented with the situation where there is clearly an A answer and a B answer (which is more a failing grade then a “B” if he gives it).
And the tension builds because we know how often in real life we men fail ‘in the moment’ with the B answer (and infamous for certainly recognizing the A answer once given some time to think about it … as well as sincerely coming back with the A answer later … but having lost so much ground it takes days to get it back).
But.
The guy comes thru.
He gives the A answer.
You love the story.
You love the “oh shit. What is he going to say” tipping point.
It is quick in the dialogue interplay but you love the gut clenching thought “he’s gonna get it wrong”.
You love the answer he gives.
You love the endearing sincere response she gives.
Excellent life moment. And we get to see it.
Anyway. Like I said. Seen the idea done before. But doesn’t diminish this execution.
Very very well done.
And all I can do is hope to do half as well as this guy if put into this position.
Every guy wishes he could do the right thing in the moment like that.
Every gal wishes her guy would do the right thing in the moment like that.
So. Here is the “hair cut” execution (I have only seen one other execution in the campaign – the “pregnancy” execution):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE8vuNFt69Q
Excellently executed campaign. Oh. Not sure it sells any i-phones but it is certainly a great campaign.
beautiful use of all elements for good cause
Jul 17th
Ok. A friend of mine sent me this link to a very cool UK TV execution. (it’s at the end of the post)
Before I get to the execution let me tell you something I have noticed.
(this is a big generalization because I didn’t do any formal research but I bet if anyone did it would prove me percentagewise correct)
British advertising agencies know how to develop a 1 minute + length television commercials and American advertising agencies don’t.
I don’t know why but American ad agency people just seem to get so excited to have anything more than :30 second of film they lose whatever talent they have and waste whatever extra time they have doing crap that makes you wish they had just done :30 worth of good stuff.
The Brits just develop damn good long commercials (and they aren’t always wacky British Monty Python humor).
Oh.
The other thing Brit ad people seem to do better than American ad people is cast people who look like real people.
I don’t know how they do it but our “real people” always look like actors and actresses and theirs always look like … well … real people.
Ok.
Anyway.
This television commercial.
It’s advocacy for wearing your seat belt.
Look. I do believe advertising has a time and place to scare the shit out of you to educate (let’s say “get you emotionally involved enough to actually care about what I am being told”).
And then there is a time and place to craft a metaphor like story that (unlike some random parable) that tweaks your heart instead of punching you in the gut to educate.
This is an example of the latter example. And a pretty nice one.
This is a beautifully crafted 1:30+ television execution.
Could I argue they could have cut it down maybe 10 seconds or so? Sure. But go with what you got.
The music choice is wonderful.
The casting of the people (especially the kid) is perfect.
The set up is great. It’s simple.
Check it out:
I would have been proud to have this execution on my own reel.
Nicely done.
boy scouts part 2
Jul 13th
So. A friend of mine sent me the following link with the Boy Scouts advertising announcement.
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/boy_scouts_of_america_prepared
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….
Well. Here’s the deal. And I admit. I may not be the best person to be providing a point of view here because I care about the Boy Scouts (therefore I may be biased toward being critical). But. I have a couple of problems … oops .. issues with this effort.
1. No one cares if you (or your company) are 100 years old if that is all you say. If you are waiting to let people arrive at their own conclusion (and you are hoping against hope that they believe it means “hey, I am reliable and you can count on me”), you are screwed. Because most people will suggest 100 years old means you are … well … old … and not relevant. (hmmmmmmmmm … I believe that would be the existing issue the Boy Scouts are dealing with so maybe the intent of this advertising is to support and encourage that belief? Ok. If that is the intent they nailed it).
2. I don’t really see why I would choose to either be a Boy Scout or have my son (if I had one) become a Boy Scout. (ok. what I am saying is leveraging off a 100 year heritage is not compelling enough to make me choose)
3. I would be fine with leveraging a message from 100 years if it were buttressed with some unexpected possibly contradictory thought (anyone surprised here?) that made people think about Boy Scouts differently. (best example I can think of continues to be the Girl Scouts ad I posted once).
Girl Scout example:
Ok. That is the Girl Scouts.
But. In the end I would suggest the Boy Scouts truly missed an opportunity.
The Boy Scouts don’t do a lot of advertising. Therefore missing opportunities like this one means they had better be prepared to continue dealing with the relevancy issues they have already been dealing with.
Be prepared to be called old (or maybe better said “continue to be called old).
Be prepared to explain why the heck they spend money to say nothing like this.
Oh.
And be prepared to do something else.
I do love the decision on the production style. It looks beautiful and classic.
The truly missed opportunity is that if they had put a non classic looking evocative message on that production style they would have had the opportunity to suggest that Boy Scouts actually has both those characteristics – classic & contemporary.
For example (harkening back to my point 3 above) imagine if they used one of these images with a headline that says something like “100 years of values in every One of our scouts”:
Are they exactly right?
Nope.
Would people take a look?
Yup.
Would people start thinking that maybe the Boy Scouts were changing? Maybe.
Instead?
The Boy Scout just look classically old and dated.
Awesome organization. Poor communications execution.
advertising to kids and kids
Jul 9th
First. When I talk about advertising to kids I am talking about say kids up to 10 to 12. That appears to be the age everyone agrees on as being when a kid shifts mentally (or by psychological standards) into a state where they can judge truth versus non truth or thinking capabilities to assess messaging.
Second. While I have been in the business over 20 years I have never worked on a kid’s targeted product campaign. Not by choice simply I have never had the opportunity. Kid’s health education? Yes. Teens/tweens? Yes. Products for kids under 12? Nope.
Third. So. That said. If you are in marketing or advertising and you want to see what kind of game you have, go to a high school and bring up the topic of advertising to kids in a high school class.
Its game on.
In fact. I would rather take a meeting with AG Laffley and Jim Stengel (respectively, the past CEO and CMO of Proctor&Gamble) then 30 to 60 teens discussing this topic.
Now. To begin this discussion.
Let me begin with the silliest thing I have ever heard:
“When I was growing up, my mother told us if the product were that good, they wouldn’t have to advertise it. People would just buy it.”
Well. Sorry folks. We don’t work that way. Some incredibly great products have disappeared off shelves simply because not enough people bought them.
If a tree (product) falls in the woods (supermarket) and no one hears it (potential buyers) it definitely does not make a sound (no sales).
But.
What I have heard that is not silly is the robust level of skepticism and cynicism with regard to advertising.
Here is the overriding belief system in a high school class when you begin the discussion:
“They are in a way trying to trick you into thinking the product was better than it really was.”
In fact, their logic leads them to believe that was the same as lying.
Or.
“When I think how the marketers, advertisers & credit companies manipulate us in order to get our money, I get angry.”
One really smart kid sat up and started talking about “consumerism” as a disease created by advertising (I tried to bribe him with a Snickers bar to shut him up).
I pointed out to him that it is not consumerism.
It is called capitalism and if that is a disease then it is a disease that our country is actually built on. From day one anyone and everyone has had the freedom to innovate, create and sell to make a profit. That is the American economy. Like it or not. That is who we are and that is what makes America America.
Anyway. There you go.
Game on.
Where do I begin?
Choice.
People are going to make choices regardless. And kids are part of people. And parents typically hold the purse strings to those little people.
So. This discussion isn’t about products (because there are a shitload of products I would never allow get made let alone get near a kid). This is about marketing. Or educating choices.
And communicating that Cool is, well, cool. And maybe it would be cool if you owned this widget or that toy widget.
But.
The product experience is king.
“After begging for Spaghettios based on the claim that they are “mmm…mmm…good!” our then 6 year old son was furious to discover that “they lied! They are mmm…mmm…bad!” We asked him if he would have asked for them if the commercial said they were “mmm…mmm…bad” and you could just see the wheels turning in his head.”
Ok. The point here?
Bad products don’t last in the game. Is spaghettios still out there? You betcha. Because there are enough people who buy it that they (and their kids) say its mmmmmmmmmm good (not mmmmmmmmmmmmm bad).
Advertising may be able to fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. Oh. And never in the end.
If it’s not good it’s not good.
If it breaks it breaks.
If it’s not as cool as it looked on TV it’s not as cool
And all those experiences educate kids about choices.
Do I think advertising should be responsible for teaching kids this?
Nope. But it is a reflection of real life.
Learning what to believe, what to question and repercussions to decisions.
And marketing cannot teach kids the difference between “need and want.” (that is really a parent’s job).
Heck. All kids “want.” All advertising does is say “I know you want something (which is already in their energetic little minds) and I want you to want me more than something else you want.”
Some experts claim the result of advertising is “not only an epidemic of materialistic values among children, but also something he calls narcissistic wounding of children.” (and, teens being teens, they don’t use all these fancy schmancy words but they will suggest the same thing as you stand in front of the classroom).
And.
Another expert.
“Thanks to advertising children have become convinced that they’re inferior if they don’t have an endless array of new products.”
Me?
Pleeeeeease. C’mon.
Sure. Advertisers/marketers use knowledge (like psychologists) to understand how to communicate to kids. Some people are “outraged that psychologists and others are revealing such tidbits as why 3- to 7-year-olds gravitate toward toys that transform themselves into something else and why 8- to 12-year-olds love to collect things.”
So what? A manufacturer has a right to sell their products (once again … I want to delineate between the products and the marketing of those products … assume the product manufacturers have the best interest of the child in mind) and in a legally approved manufacturing process in a capitalistic society the manufacturer has the right to be as efficient as they possibly can in gaining knowledge that eliminates wasted efforts which ultimately lowers the costs of their products (which, oh by the way, benefits the final consumer).
By the way. Let me note that not a single study addressing ads’ impact on children has been conducted. So every single “expert opinion” is just that … an opinion. (The UK Government has picked up these concerns as part of the Children’s Plan and has commissioned an analysis of evidence on the effects of commercialization on children in order to understand more fully the benefits and downsides of children’s exposure to commercials).
Anyway. All these marketing efforts seem to work. According to marketing expert James U. McNeal, PhD, author of “The Kids Market: Myths and Realities” (Paramount Market Publishing, 1999), children under 12 already spend a whopping $28 billion a year. Teens spend $100 billion. (I am scratching my head over this … does anybody else wonder where the heck children under the age of 12 get or earn $28 billion dollars?).
Children also influence another $249 billion spent by their parents.
Marketing is always present in our lives and only become even more so with the explosion of the internet. For example the average child in the UK sees between 20,000 and 40,000 TV ads a year. And while TV advertising is heavily regulated, particularly with regard to foods high in sugar, salt and fat, far less regulation is applied to the internet and regulation that does exist is less stringently enforced than on broadcast media.
Hey. It’s not all bad. Even parents are vocal about the positive impact of pro-social messages, for example those encouraging recycling or driving at slower speeds.
Despite how parents may feel about this topic (apparently about 84% in UK are concerned about advertising targeted to their kids) neither parents nor children can escape the commercial world.
And I am not a parent but I have certainly see the despair as the weekly trip to the supermarket descends into tears and tantrums leaving them feeling like villains or weak as they ‘give in.’
Pester power is only too real for them and they wish it would just go away so they could focus on other things. (But. It would be foolish for us in this world of 24/7 web access and knowledge to suggest advertising is the issue. It can increase awareness of something. It can make you aware of something new – a fad, a product or maybe even a real educational aspect.)
Anyway. That is certainly a real, if not anecdotal, parental life experience.
Regardless.
At its worst advertising manipulates children.
And at its best it educates children.
And at all times it is informing choices which are ultimately made not in the advertising, or by the advertising, but by a person.
Now. I firmly believe advertisers have ethical responsibilities especially when it comes to children.
But I believe the larger ethical issue is in telling the truth … not shades of the truth but the truth.
But it’s tricky (I put this entire discussion as a discussion of one huge long slippery slope when talking with high schoolers).
The discussion is a tangled discussion of economics and marketing techniques used by companies to encourage people to part with their money. Teens certainly recognize if the tactics companies used to market a product to people were more obvious then its possible kids would become more resistant to the lure of the product/claim as presented in commercials and slowly learn to be more discerning about their validity. (and one of my solutions – thought 2 at the end – takes this one on)
I do know that I personally (having been in the business) do NOT like the idea that people look at marketing and think “sometimes people say things that aren’t true” and that it was okay for people to question what they saw and heard in marketing. No. I don’t like that.
I do know companies need money to stay in existence and they have to sell things to do that and convincing people to buy their products is simple economics of survival. I just don’t like the “they aren’t saying true things.” (and I take this one on in solution thought 3 at the end)
I do suggest to teens that given America’s belief in capitalism we shouldn’t be discussing advertising but rather maybe it is more about raising smarter consumers.
Think about kids busily soaking paper towels and loading them with various toys testing the claim that the towels were so strong they could carry heavy loads even when wet.
Then find the claim was true and insisting on using nothing but this particular brand of towel in the future.
This is marketing at its best. Truth in communications. Product delivering on promise. Happy buyer. Happy user.
Eventually, the lessons of trusting your own judgment, testing the claims of others, and discovering true value will have value in kids’ everyday lives beyond judging the advertising evil empire.
Dan Jaffe, the executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, says that the industry self-regulates children’s advertising, because they recognize kids are more vulnerable. But he says that in our culture, kids need to learn how to handle advertising:
“What they’re trying to suggest there is that somehow that we can cocoon kids. Then the question is how long? Are we talking up ‘til 12, are we talking up ‘til 18 as some people have proposed? We don’t think that advertising harms kids as long as there is parental intervention.”
It’s a slippery slope when I say this but I have no issues with advertising on products that could be considered either good for children or neutral. I say is a slippery slope because where does the line get drawn? Sweden, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Denmark and a couple other countries I believe have bans on advertising to children under 12. In Sweden they believe because of the way a child’s brain works, it is “not fair play.” I don’t know that I agree 100% with that. But regardless. We aren’t Sweden, Ireland, Greece or whomever. We are the good ole USofA. If we want to change our culture then I will be first in line to make some suggestions (and maybe advertising is one part but I could think of at least 5 other things that would change our materialistic attitude in the USA before I would touch advertising).
And. Is a branded website with educational content the same as a TV spot with cartoons and adorable animals? Is a clown handing out balloons a form of guerrilla marketing? It’s all advertising. And putting a ban on such a massive nebulous thing isn’t the answer.
And, if you conclude your discussion in a high school class on this topic, even teens see the dilemma. That it is not a black & white issue.
But.
I hate writing about things and not offering solutions.
Thought 1. Don’t ban advertising to kids under 12. Silly reason but it just ain’t the American way. If the American way (culture/economy underpinnings) change than I would consider a ban.
Thought 2. While ultimately I believe it’s up to parents to guide their children and balance exposure of marketing messages I would hold manufacturers (and their messaging partners) to a higher standard. A much higher standard.
And I am going balance this thought by being sure I offer an economic outlet to manufacturers while putting a more expensive challenge to them in the messaging guidelines.
Part a: because I m going to suggest more stringent messaging demands make all advertising targeted to kids under 12 :60 commercial minimum and offer them special media rates (a discount) for the longer advertisement ad space.
Part b: the more stringent messaging demand. If you are going to market to kids the messaging has to be comparative. No ifs, ands or buts. Make the choice as clear as possible. Or maybe make the benefit as clear as possible.
Legos? Its fun but we know by learning to put our silly little blocks together increases critical thinking skills. (plus. they are WAY cooler then when we were growing up)
X toy? Well. We have no redeeming value but if you play with us in front of other kids they may think you are cooler.
Barbie? We don’t have proof but what we believe is that making children aware of the positives of plastic surgery enhancement at an early age will help hem understand self esteem (and self confidence) thru their body image.
Shit. I don’t care.
The point is telling the truth in a way so that a kid hears the choice and the parent has an opportunity to say “well, we don’t want it because of x.”
And while I believe cereals in general do a really good job of communicating real benefits even they could take a step further … “hey, yeah, here is sugar on our cereal, but its actually about portion control, or less waste. With light sugar kids are more likely to eat smaller portions, all of it and absorb all the nutrients needed. The box lasts longer and kids get what they need.”
Do you like it? Heck. I don’t know. But it’s the truth. And if you want a non-sugar cereal that the kid doesn’t always eat. Well. That is you choice to make.
Sure. This could get quickly into the absurd zone. Someone smarter than I could insure it doesn’t.
Thought 3: I end each discussion (if it is not discussed within the class itself) with my biggest issue and thought.
My issue is with the advertising & marketing people themselves. The industry.
I have seen the enemy and it is us.
Despite the fact you could probably corner every marketing person in the world and they would state unequivocally “we always tell the client the right thing to do” let’s be honest.
What Alex Bogusky of Crispin stands up and says is the right thing to do is different than Joe Blow from Idaho.
(I bring up Alex because while I have the utmost respect for him I didn’t agree with a recent blog and solution – of a ban – he outlines … agreed with intent didn’t agree with solution)
This is where I have to take it on the chin when talking with a high school class.
I cannot defend what some people in our industry have created. And I don’t try. I admit some marketing is irresponsible.
I don’t know how to do it but certain people in the communications industry and in the business world need to step up to the plate and start behaving like human beings with some ethics (or values … or whatever you want to call them). We need to go to a higher level of responsibility when we are talking about anything to do with kids. A MUCH higher level.
And sometimes I am not sure it is just the people who haven’t had significant training (you know … the local people who say “well, I can do it as well a the big boys can so I will develop the messaging at half the cost and it will be even better because I won’t over think it.”). While I certainly have concerns with that tier of marketing professionals I also think the big boys & girls need to step up to the plate.
Anyway.
Our industry has manipulated the truth for decades (omission of information to me is manipulation). And there is a significant tier of “irresponsible out of ignorance” marketer suppliers.
Somehow we need to be sure that people developing the messaging know what they are doing. All levels of expertise.
So. In the end, I believe making ads for children with integrity is the solution, not banning advertising/marketing to kids.
Anyway. Enough about that.
Regardless of your opinion on this, if you want to see what kind of game you have?
Go to a high school and stand up in front of a bunch of teens and talk about it. Game on. I dare you.
a trip for Advertising & Marketing people
Jul 8th
(this is about the Duke antiquities library in Durham NC)
Okay. If you are in a marketing department or an ad agency or anything to do with the art and science of communication and consumer behavior and you can only afford to send your “brightest minds” on one getaway field trip over a two year span … this is your trip investment. I guarantee it will be the best investment you will ever make.
Visit the Duke Antiquities Library for their Advertising archives.
Duke antiquities library has the largest archive of advertising – non video – materials in the world.
No kidding. A university in North Carolina with the most advertising stuff.
It could also be called the graveyard of materials for the dead agencies. But it also has historical files from existing agencies (JWT being the largest contributor).
I am an advertising history lover. And I will always bleed Thompson blue (JWT’s old color … I think they are paprika, melon and periwinkle now … or something ..) and handling some of the ancient but well crafted simple advertisements and presentations and handbooks was awe inspiring in considering the art & science of communication. In addition you can see how advertising and communications impacted human behavior, and buying behavior, through education of new ideas and new ways of doing things. We often forget the positive role advertising has had on every day life and a trip here will quickly remind you of many of the positive things and thoughts communicated.
A visit to this place can show you how long we have been talking about the same things (make sure you see the 1950s ad talking about integrating the message throughout all aspects). There are agency house ads from the 1920’s talking about “differentiation,” “how much money to spend on marketing,” and even “advertising can only get you an invitation the sale has to be done by the person.” Oh. They also talk about packaging as a medium (1920’s), effective impressions versus soft branding (1950’s) and “saying one thing well in communication (1920’s). They just don’t use all the fancy words we use nowadays. Great stuff.
It can also be a place to help you think and not just revisit “old things”. Great work and thinking begets new great thinking and ideas. I cannot think of a better location for “thought fodder”.
A sample of what you can see is already in the Duke Libraries’ Digital Collections:
- Ad*Access (1911 to 1955)
Presents images and information on over 7,000 advertisements for products in the following categories:
-
- Beauty & Hygiene
- Radio
- Television
- Transportation
- World War II
You can search terms for ethnic groups, as well as other descriptors (women, children, etc.).
- adViews (1950s to 1980s)
Historic commercials for a wide range of products. This resource is organized by company name, and continues to have additions of new commercials.
- Emergence of Advertising in America (1850s to 1920s)
Provides access to over 11,000 images of advertisements and early advertising publications. Stereotypes of ethnicity and gender roles are found in many of the ads.
I won’t go into all the detail on all the material they have but the agencies alone are a ‘who’s who’:
- JWT archives, D’Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles, Wells Rich Greene, Warwick Baker & O’Neill, and Bates Worldwide.
And they have non agency material from outdoor advertising association and person collections and personal papers and … well … the list is too long to type.
The staff is awesome. Accommodating (they can set up any type of exhibit you want) to all and any requests. They can talk extensively about everything they have. They can dig up things you never knew existed (and you would be delighted they did uncover it).
And the location ain’t bad either. You are not only on a great campus in a neat area but the archives themselves is like stepping back into time in an old library with shelves of ancient books and manuscripts.
If you love history and you love communication you will love this visit.
I, personally, was like a kid in a candy store.
It’s a trip you have to make at least once in your lifetime if you are in the communications business.
