Posts tagged marketing
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.
unhealthy eating Part 4: implementation
Jul 15th
A friend (I use that term loosely) asked me how the program I suggested in Part 3 could be effectively implemented when there is an economic cost of eating healthy and the role the government would have to play in altering that.
Well. First. He is correct.
It is a fact there are some significant subsidies and a lot of companies with great interests in keeping things the way they are:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/
Second. Look. I don’t really believe the wacky pyramid charts in the article (too many dimensions and % of %’s aspects that make it difficult to put in a useful pyramid).
But.
Let’s just agree in the current situation/environment the government subsidizes (for a number of good reasons as well as some wrong reasons) a variety of unhealthy focused items versus more healthy items.
Bottom line? The government spends an average of $4.6 billion on subsidies for corn and nothing on fruit/vegetables.
And according to a March ‘08 NY Times article, My Forbidden Fruits (and vegetables), farmers are actually fined when they plant fruits and veggies on land that is designated for corn (oh, here’s a random factoid for you, a Big Mac registers at 53% corn due to all the corn that the cows ate and the high fructose corn syrup so Big Macs – not picking on McDonalds although I like Wendy’s burgers better but they are also in the same situation – are actually partially subsidized by the government).
Anyway.
I guess the point of all these facts is to point out that the existing farm and government infrastructure is not really conducive to a large population shift in eating behavior.
Well.
You could pretty much have said the same thing about the tobacco & government relationship at the onset of the anti tobacco initiatives in the early 1970’s. In addition that battle continued for decades before subsidies and government programs actually swung in a different direction.
There were lots of subsidies and “keeping things the way they are.”
But. It has changed. It has been a long complex battle but in the end smoking (tobacco) has lost … or let’s say is in the process of losing.
All that said let’s go to implementation (because that will be the way to actually affect unhealthy eating behavior AND actually change the way that government looks at this issue).
So. I have suggested Unhealthy Eating as an addiction.
And Mortality education is the linchpin to a communications program.
My thoughts on implementation.
First. I do believe the recent healthcare reform where the government will become more active in day to day health insurance programs should benefit unhealthy addiction programs. Well. Let me take that back. IF the new healthcare reform (which, ladies & gentlemen, is unlikely to happen as the government argues over stupid stuff) happens, an unhealthy initiative would benefit.
Second. I have already written here I am not a big detractor of government developed programs. I do believe they do a nice job developing and initial implementation of national programs (ongoing management not so much). So some type of national federally funded initiative would work well here. Let me clarify this also. This does not mean it has to be an actual federal program but rather a national fund where states could access matching funds if they meet some specific criteria (portions of anti-tobacco does this same thing I believe).
Third. I would implement unhealthy eating programs on a state level (primarily).
Similar to anti tobacco (anti smoking) campaigns from day one the most successful case studies came from individual states and in fact success at an individual state level eventually drove a stake through the heart of federal subsidies and the tobacco lobbyist construct.
We should let states take this one on in the beginning.
Some will get it righter than others but they learn fast.
The key is getting some success and some trial & error things in place. State driven initiatives are incredibly good at ‘borrowing’ successful ideas from other states (as well as challenging ideas with the intent of always improving … or simply the competitiveness of ‘looking better than those jerks in that other state).
Going back to my “primarily” comment I would like to note that it was a federal program that created the controversial smoking black lung messaging and drugs scrambled egg and John Lennon ‘imagine’ gun control messaging. So a federal based campaign can create a strong messaging platform. That means, stating once again, I wouldn’t be opposed to a federal unhealthy eating campaign.
I just believe in the end if we really want to get some traction and develop campaigns that will affect behavior they should be implemented on the state level.
There you go. Nothing brilliant here. In fact I am stealing the successful learnings from the anti-tobacco initiatives. But why reinvent the wheel?
unhealthy eating part 3.5: response to smart comments
Jul 15th
So. My friend and past business associate and one smart lady has been stepping up and challenging my solution to addressing the Obesity issue and Unhealthy Eating in general. After I posted Unhealthy Eating part 3 she cranked out some fairly extensive thoughts in the comments and one-on-one and rather than get bogged down in the comments section I am taking them all on in a post.
Dear Jen,
Geez. Jen.
I wrote Unhealthy Eating 3 months ago and now you are asking me hard questions and I have to think.
Geez.
Okay. Let me start with maybe I am smarter than I look. When I wrote this originally I had found one technical article citing the characteristics of addiction associated with unhealthy eating. Now when I Google “unhealthy eating as an addiction” my post shows up 5 on a fairly healthy top 10 list. 2 interesting ones included:
http://csr2health.blogspot.com/2010/04/should-unhealthy-eating-be-treated-as.html
http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/addiction/art1966.html
quote: “We pride ourselves on our intelligence but we still engage in many unhealthy behaviors — eating and drinking to excess, smoking, abusing drugs. Can doctors and therapists help us stop these unhealthy behaviors? The answer appears to be yes.”
So. I do believe the conversation about “addiction” as the key to addressing behavior change is beginning.
Anyway.
Before I take each of Jen’s thoughts on I would like to point out that almost everything she wrote is very similar to what someone would have written about smoking/tobacco usage in the early 70’s. We could debate the “shades” of the comparison but self esteem and appearance and image and all that stuff came along with smoking as well as “long way down the road.”
I will take on the “Long road to change” habit to addiction or whatever more directly later on but I thought it was important enough to state that this concept is not a short term idea.
Anti smoking, when it begin in earnest in early 70’s, had a long road to success. It took decades to be successful. Why decades? Well. Not because they did anything wrong (in fact they actually did it correctly) but rather because they were not only attacking perceptions but also attempting to affect behavioral attitudes. And, honestly, the best way to affect behavioral attitudes is not in a generation that already has deep seeded behavioral patterns but rather a younger generation in its formative behavioral growth stage (think safety belts, smoking, and something else I cannot pull out of my aging memory banks) . hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I wonder if aging is an addiction.
Sorry. I digress.
The comments with some type of response immediately following. Please note some answers may be slightly repetitive because of some overlap on what I believe on some underpinnings.
1) Not against the “food is addiction” idea, certainly there’s a lot of research that indicates the chemical “rewards” of eating certain foods. But isn’t there a line between habit and addiction? Or is every habit (even a healthy one) just a low grade addiction? Is every overweight person an addict? What about thin people with a bad sugar/junk food habit which could also kill them? Not totally convinced (at least for now) that we should do a 180 in terms of obesity approach. Think the problem is more nuanced than black & white.
- Sorry Jen. I think as soon as we enter the nuance discussion we are destined for failure. Is every overweight person an addict? No. some people have chemical imbalance issues. If diagnosed properly they fall into a different solution group. Are thin people will health issues because of their food intake addicts? Yes.
I believe the unhealthy eating addiction is non discriminatory of body type. Are certain body types more likely to be indicative of an addiction? Sure. Just as certain geographies or lifestyles are more indicative of tobacco usage or drug usage. But that is a “propensity to problem” discussion.
Also.
I do believe there is a distinction between habit and addiction (I am not a scientist so I don’t have nifty charts or studies to support this). But I do believe society has blurred them. I personally don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘low level addiction” (I think that is something like being kind of pregnant).
Addiction is self destructive behavior. It seems crazy to me that people call shopping an addiction, or sex as an addiction (please, god, I want to meet one of those women) or any of the other wacky things we attach to ‘addiction.’
But it seems as a society we are comfortable talking about ‘raping f humanity’ or raping people of their rights’ and missing and diminishing in some ways the reality of rape … so I guess we are a culture destined to abuse words and diminish their affect through misuse.
(sorry. You got me on one of my soapboxes … they make me feel taller)
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the right thing.
Black & white to me. Addiction.
2) Think it’s gonna be hard to change the reward for eating right from “not being fat” to “not dying”. There are a lot of immediate, short term rewards for being less fat (social acceptance, self esteem, etc), while the concept of “dying” is (for most of us) a loooong way down the road and not very immediate or real.
- Yup. Its gonna be hard. Almost impossible in the beginning in fact. The biggest initial hurdle will be its lack of political correctness. Similar to tobacco a lot of physicians and politicians hesitated to join the team upfront. Its gonna be the same here. But (and I wish I had written this and maybe copywrited it) “nothing really good in life is easy.”
3) So the communication challenge is to make “death” a more immediate reality. I suspect this is why a lot of overweight people have to get a medical wake up call (diabetes, heart disease, etc) before they are motivated to action — death becomes reality.
- Yes. This you nailed right on the head. I believe it is so much easier to focus and ignore all the other things you put in point 2 (self esteem, social acceptance, etc.) because they are not really “I” focused. They can be dismissed (and I am saying this flippantly but you get the point) as “stupid people around me … I am just me being me and I feel comfortable in my own skin.”
This is the exact same issue tobacco usage ran into in the beginning. “All these issues are so far in the future I can put off doing something now and do it later.” That is where addiction came into play. People in the beginning just didn’t think addiction played a role. They thought it was all choice or ‘managing habitual behavior.’ And while I don’t disagree it will be the communications challenge I just want to be sure by ‘communications challenge’ we are saying the same thing – alignment with regard to influencers and all outgoing discussion that ‘death’ is the outcome of unhealthy eating (or intake).
4) I was also thinking that “being healthy” is too squishy a goal. It CAN include weight issues, and it can also include a lot of other things which don’t involve food at all. So solving obesity would be a by-product of solving “everyone be healthy”, right? In the same way we tell clients to set measureable goals, specific goals are definitely part of this solution. I mean, quitting smoking or drugs is pretty specific: you succeed if you don’t do it anymore. But eating is different since you have to eat every day — so how will our “addict” know when they’ve succeeded? To make it more complicated, what’s healthy for one person may not be the ideal for someone else. Also, the more I think about this the more it STILL seems to me there are lots of programs and guidelines that kinda do what you’re talking about in your post — they simply don’t say “you’re a food addict and here’s your 12 step program” (although Overeaters Anon does exactly that).
- I am going to debate on portions of your thoughts but honestly I could be talked out of a couple of things.
First. I don’t think being healthy is too squishy. To an unhealthy eating addict I may add. If you are addicted and you manage it and are successful in healthy intake you may remain ‘obese’ (or whatever measure we may elect to use) but you are maximizing your body type. You are making your body type healthy. So ‘not squishy’ is the fact the reward, true success, is being healthy, living a full life, feeling good and being a good as you can be (not only for you but people you love and care about you). Shit. If that is squishy I will take it.
Second. I do believe healthy eating can be very specific (and a portion of this belief I am addressing in the success discussion). I believe it can be very specific because similar to drugs and tobacco there is a firm list of “do not intakes.” An unequivocal list of don’ts.
Third. Success. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … and now we take on the hard one. Well. For an addict success is measured in moment and days … well … let’s say “day.” each day done right is a success. You go to sleep. The next day an addict has a blank slate of no success yet. Moments of success occur and the day becomes a success. And start over again. Sound tiring? Yes. An addict’s life? Yes. And I believe once we start thinking this way programs that say “it’s okay to reward yourself with a small piece of pie” will go away (or will not be the approved programs). A drug addict doesn’t reward themselves with a couple lines of coke. Nor does an alcoholic reward themselves with a drink.
Breaking addiction means depriving yourself of the perceived pleasure of the addiction and finding your pleasure stimulus elsewhere. The reward system needs to be overhauled in all these weight management programs.
Fourth. Yeah. Okay. You have nailed me on this one before (exiting programs out there). You know? There may be. And there are certainly components of existing programs that are right on. Yet. I continue to believe a program developed from scratch with addiction in mind would look different than anything out there today. Massive differences? Heck. I don’t know. Meaningful differences? Probably. And it is those differences I worry are not in existing programs today.
5) If there were easy answers we surely would have found them by now…
- I did chuckle when I read this. Anyway. This topic is probably a completely different post but let me stay with addiction type things. In all cases, and I will state an unequivocal all, the answers have been easy. And stated pretty early on very clearly and succinctly. The issue is rarely in finding the answer. Someone smatter than me has probably said this even better than I years ago. The issue is that it is hard to do. And hard to accept. And there will be a boatload of people who will fight the “easy,” and right, answer just because they will seek the gray within a black & white issue. This happens everywhere. But. As I said, this is a different post.
Beyond Jen several people have asked why I have written so much on this issue and invested so much energy on it.
Well. First and foremost I hate how the entire obesity issue consistently diminishes women’s self esteem and sets these incredibly stupid social standards. I know a number of women who certainly have fought weight issues but regardless are really attractive in the bodies they have. So all the scams and crap drive me nuts. Simply, with this first reason, I don’t like what this issue does to the women I care about and how it makes them feel about themselves and the unnecessary stress it puts on some pretty amazing, and beautiful, women.
Second. I think there is way too much “fluff” happening and being discussed around a really important issue. Too much rhetoric and not enough ‘hard decision making’ for fear it will be too polarizing or not ‘politically correct.’
Is my thought the best one? Heck. I don’t know. But I do know it would create a hellacious discussion and debate and maybe someone would get off their ass and decide the right thing to do and not what ‘looks good to do.”
Anyway. That said.
I have fought with weight stuff … or let’s say that I come from a family with weight issues and in my own way I am careful (in some ways) and I am surrounded by family who fight it, think about it and discuss it ad nauseam every day.
As for am I just spinning a theory here?
Well.
I won’t debate but I would like to think as my career has gone on and I have tried to learn as much as I can about behavior and the infamous JWT ‘stimulus-response’ as well as an earnest desire to strip away bullshit and focus on functional core to uncover the issue at hand that this is more than a theory but rather a solution to what is becoming an issue couched in politician speak and marketing aspirational verbiage rather than taking the hard road and attacking the issue.
(oh. And I just wrote an entire paragraph with one sentence)
Regardless. This ends my commentary on Unhealthy Eating. Well. At least for today. Unhealthy Eating 4 is on implementation.
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.
unhealthy eating Part 3: the campaign idea
Jul 12th
(foreword note) Ok. This has been a long time coming. My fault. I hadn’t mastered the link placement in post thing. Hang in there and maybe go back and peruse 1 &2 and 4 is actually now on its way.
Assuming you have read Parts 1 & 2 of this diatribe you are tagging along to see where I take the “unhealthy eating is an addiction” thought.
Suffice it to say it is counterproductive to continue pouring money and effort into attempts to make everyone slim, especially when this results in side effects that are disastrous for mental and physical health (widespread body dissatisfaction and poor self-image, eating disorders, appearance based prejudice, discrimination, stigmatization). We’ve had advice, admonition, instruction, rebuke, counsel and guidance through food columns, health columns, TV programs, government initiatives, and local campaigns. There have been guidelines, targets, programs and agendas, plans of action and series of measures.
None have worked.
Yet, as I read USAToday and other publications it seems we are doomed to experience more government anti-obesity campaigns and policies that have little effect on our collective health (or weight) but will make them feel good they are “doing something to solve the problem.
The demand for weight loss fueled by the notion that everyone has a moral obligation to achieve a slim body will continue to eat up more and more of individuals’ budgets and energy (only to fail again and again in their efforts and simply go back to existing behavior).
This is what awaits us (or worse), if we don’t change direction and stop trying to follow the ‘one objective’ (be slim) method.
Look. We are going to have to do something different because it’s not as if we hadn’t heard it all before. For the last 20 years we’ve been lectured, browbeaten, chided and scolded over weight issues.
And let me be clear. We may have the programs available to help resolve the issue but the majority of these programs marketing campaigns (and intent) are appealing to people’s vanity and avoiding a key emotional trigger to inspire ongoing behavior (because vanity isn’t it).
In fact these programs go after the “be slim” concept which is wrong, wrong, wrong.
But I have an idea.
I believe the most recent UK anti-obesity campaign comes close.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2009/jan/02/change4life-ad-campaign
By close I mean they wrap a story around what I would consider the idea that would get adults to really really care.
Almost hidden in the middle of the execution they show and say (basically) that obesity, or being overweight, kills. By the way, the reason they can say that (truthfully) is that there are numbers showing the current generation of kids are believed to be destined to live a shorter lifespan than prior generations (the first downward trend in a long time).
So. The campaign is leveraging an adult’s worst nightmare – they outlive their child.
But they soften the blow in a nice story.
On how to ‘unsoften the blow’ we should look to anti-smoking initiatives and attack this problem exactly like they did.
Now. Let’s be careful with this thought. A bunch of people are gonna start talking about the existing anti smoking programs and “how smoke affects other people” and “not scaring people to motivate them to act.” All those things are correct, and smart, but not what needs to be done now.
We need to go back to learnings from initial anti-smoking campaigns. We need to scare the bejesus out of people so they sit up and take notice.
This is “black lung” type of messaging time.
This is time to tie Unhealthy Eating with dire consequences.
I was recently at an agency where we developed a pro bono “Obesity Kills” campaign. Awesome idea. Well articulated. Made people gasp when we presented it. Half the room loved it. The entire room was scared of it. That made us feel like we had hit the nail on the head.
No one had the cahones to use it. (That didn’t make us feel as good.)
Anyway.
Similar to the UK campaign I would use the fact that Unhealthy Eating can affect the lifespan of children. I would highlight the fact Unhealthy Eating is an addiction.
I do believe a campaign can highlight the effects of an unhealthy eating addiction in children to change adult behavior (and therefore create a circular behavior effect – “I need to change my child’s eating behavior so they won’t die so I need to change my behavior as an example for them – and ultimately I will be healthier also).” It may sound indirect but adults do amazing things to protect kids.
Look. We hear a lot about “childhood obesity campaigns.” That’s stupid. A marketing campaign directed to children won’t address the issue. We can try and make sure the right things are available to them. But kids aren’t stupid. What kid doesn’t look to their mother and father or favorite aunt or uncle as an example of behavior? So. This behavior shift isn’t really about kids. Kids are kids. We can tell them about unhealthy eating until we are blue in the face. As soon as on their own they will grab the snickers bar over the apple. (cause that is pretty much what adults do).
So. In the end I believe we need to change adult behavior (and ultimately that will change children’s behavior).
Unhealthy Eating is an addiction that Kills.
The role of this umbrella campaign is to get people stimulated to do something. Get in a “quit program.”
Once in program we should be encouraging a practical systematic approach to healthy eating (that was in Part 2).
To me we should be driving people into an HAES system so “kicking the addiction” isn’t about getting slimmer it is about achievable ways to optimize health for each individual regardless of size or shape. Once again, HAES emphasizes the benefits of sound nutrition, active living and body confidence as ends in themselves, not as a route to weight management.
Bottom line. Weight control is NOT about being fat or obese or skinny or any body image word you want to write here. It is about being healthy or unhealthy in the body you have. Bodies come in all shapes and sizes. Let them come in all shapes and sizes. Let’s address how we treat those bodies. Unhealthy eating is an addiction. Treat is as such.
