[ paul isakson ]

lejo dj. wtf?

This one goes out to Dino.

i take it back. they are a bad idea.

Earlier, I posted that at first seeing these spots from BP, I started out being horrified that a gas station/petroleum company would even think about insinuating they were the least bit green. Then as I dug into what they're doing, I softened up to it a little. I was wrong.

I am back to thinking they're just plain bad. Horrible even. Now they have cartoon babies driving and fueling up? C'mon BP. Get a grip. You're selling gas. It's a necessary evil for the time being. Accept it and don't try to sugar coat it. (Yes, no matter how much you want to think people could quit driving and using gas, you're wrong. Too many industries are locked into it and to get out of it really is cost prohibitive currently. We can all work to use less, but it's not going away any time soon.)

Even if you are doing a little bit to make things a little better, it's not enough. It's all a bunch of greenwash. God forbid they have a tanker spill, are they going to try to make that "a little better" too? You're selling glass freeze pops here, BP. Stop it.

2 interesting music videos

Lika Barn Avvika Bäst Del 2

Fujiya & Miyagi Ankle Injuries

it's not just network TV. it's a brand.

Or it should be.

Just when I was starting to like ABC a little bit for putting their shows online so you can watch them when you want, where you want, they go and announce this a while back. What!? Do they really think the viewers are that easily fooled? That people will think they're still watching the show because one of the key characters sat down in front of a TV and now we're watching what they're watching and it happens to be three minutes of commercials? Is this what they call brand integration? Give me a break.

It seems to me that the networks (primarily ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX) could learn a thing or two from HBO. When you don't sell ad space, you better damn well create some good content (shows) that draws people to you and makes them willing to pay their hard-earned money to bring your brand into their home. (In fact, could all brands learn something from HBO about creating original content to support and/or build your brand image? Hmm... Maybe. Going to give that some thought later...)

How about instead of airing anything that gets by the FCC sensors so long as they get paid their going rate for it, they start looking at their networks more as brands and protecting those brands by carefully selecting everything that goes on air? (I seem to remember that at least ABC tried this once. With the bright yellow ads and black reversed out logo? Anyway...) In doing so, they start requiring that the ads companies/brands want to run on their network have to score at a certain level for things like interestingness, relevance, entertainment value, production value, or something like, "would make me NOT change the channel," to get put on air? * By requiring that EVERYTHING they put on their network helps build and strengthen the network's brand image, won't they be building a stronger following? (Hmm. There's a thought for helping the Super Bowl get back to having more good spots on the air in there. These last few years have been terribly disappointing.)

Why else should the networks start looking at themselves more as brands an not as much as paid media vehicles? Oh, I don't know. Maybe because now that commercial ratings are around the corner, brands are going to be able to see that people didn't actually see their spot because either it lost the consumer's interest or a spot that ran somewhere before it made them change the channel? Or maybe because the show it was airing during wasn't all that interesting on that particular night? Or maybe more importantly, because the number of homes only receiving broadcast TV is somewhere around 13-percent, if not lower by now, and making your network stand for something against the hundreds of other channels 87-percent of people are watching might be a good idea? And this doesn't even take into account things like Joost or Apple TV.

Maybe this all sounds crazy and some of you in the ad biz are thinking I'm off my rocker. I know more testing would require more dollars and those might have to come out of the overall budget. And believe me, I'm not one who gets up on the pulpit and preaches for more testing and research. If it becomes part of the standards though in order to get a spot on air, in order to make sure ALL of the spots running are of high quality, it's worth it in my opinion. Maybe budgets would just have to bump up a little bit. Or, God forbid, we have to be a little more critical of how we're spending our clients' money and try to find ways to make it happen while keeping the quality we require at the budget we currently have.

Ah yes, but you're already producing great spots that get watched not only on TV, but sought out on YouTube. Really? Do you know for sure they're being watched on TV? Or could it be that the spot right before yours, or two before yours, was so annoying or irrelevant that the majority of the viewers flipped the channel before they ever got to your award-winning work?

If something like the commercial ratings are going to help raise the creative bar, I say it's worth it. If brands and agencies are being made to create good TV ads because of it, like we all want to do (or at least I hope we all do), isn't that a good thing? If we start getting consumers to tune in, instead of tuning out, thereby actually helping increase sales and/or change behaviors, might that be a feather in our caps when it comes time for agency reviews? I don't imagine you'd get too big of a fight from the creatives on this. At least not those who give a shit about the quality of the work they produce for their clients. I don't know about you, but those are the ones I like working with.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that commercial ratings are the end-all-be-all. They're just a step in the right direction. They're a step towards requiring that the work improve. Just because a spot was watched, doesn't mean it was a great spot. And just because an ad didn't get watched, doesn't make it a bad ad. But knowing your spot was or wasn't watched is a lot better than what we have now and it gives us something to build upon. Building and improving things are, and always will be, good in my book.

*Disclaimer: Of course we'll still have to make it all relate to the product/brand in a way that will move whatever needle it is we're trying to move. I'm not supporting the idea of doing creative/entertaining commercials for the sake of being creative/entertaining. I never have and I never will. Work that is only creative/entertaining/provocative/etc. for the sake of being such is worthless in my humble opinion.

(photo credit)

things that make you say 'wow'

Read this earlier today. All I could say was "wow."

"The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation," Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons said, referring to the Civil War American general George Custer who was defeated by Native Americans in a battle dubbed "Custer's Last Stand".

"They will lose this war if they go to war," Parsons added, "The notion that the new kids on the block have taken over is a false notion."

image via REUTERS/Chip East

thinking out loud: game vs. play

I've been kicking around Bogusky's thought on "What's your brand's game?" some more. I'm posting this as a stream of thought. It's not final by any means but I'm just trying to work out where this is going. I think what he said was quite interesting and it has obviously stuck with me. So, here's how I've been thinking about it lately...

I'm not so sure this question/idea works entirely across the board. At least not if you take literally, which I think he was meaning as he used "Tic Tac Toe" as a possible answer and it was in close proximity to his discussion of video games being a very interesting area he's constantly thinking about.

I believe it might not be so much about what your brand's game is as much as I believe it gets to the bigger question of how will your brand provoke someone into interacting with you. So maybe the question is more about "How does your brand play?" Or, maybe even more importantly, "How does my brand's audience like to play?" and then "How can my brand add value to that form of play?"

I like the idea of keeping it in the framework of something kid-like. And I like keeping it about creating an interaction and getting someone to do something. I also like keeping it about something fun. Games are generally fun. Playing is generally fun.

If you make it about playing, then you can go beyond games. Some kids like to build things - toy models, Legos, blocks, etc. Some kids like to solve puzzles. Some kids like to color. Some kids like to sing. Some kids like to run and dance and constantly be moving around. Some kids like to joke and tease. Some kids like to ride their bikes or skateboards. Some kids love learning and so they play in ways that are educational, yet fun.

I also like playing because it is social. Playing for the most part involves doing something with at least one other person if not a larger group. Playing generally requires people to interact with each other based off of another person's actions in that group. And then someone else reacts based on the new action. And so on, and so on. If you make it about playing, it gets to how is your brand going to do something fun with others.

I've always believed that brand loyalty and/or brand preference is built over time through repeated positive experiences with a brand by a consumer/user. (You can say it, "no duh, Paul.") Those experiences take shape in many forms. How the brand's packaging looks and feels. What the brand's advertising conveys. How the brand's product or service itself looks, tastes, feels, smells, sounds. What others say about the brand. Etc., etc., etc. All of these add up over time and if they all build to an overall positive experience, you're in good shape to build brand preference and loyalty.

By looking at your marketing as how you're going to play with your audience, it might open up new ways of building your brand. Instead of asking what you can tell them that will make them choose you, maybe consider asking yourself how can you play with them to get them interested in choosing you.

When thinking about this, I think it's important to be sure to make it involve your brand's audience and their perspective. You can't just make it about what you want to play. Think back to when you were a kid. You had your favorite ways to play. Your friends might have had other favorite ways to play. Sometimes in order to get them to play what you wanted them to, you had to first play what they wanted to play.

So long as you're building a postive exprience with people who can utlimately become loyal advocates for your brand, does it really matter whose form of playing you're doing? Yours or theirs? Either way, aren't you getting what you want?

I'm going to keep thinking about it and will continue to share where my head is going with it. I kind of like this idea of playing and taking it beyond games. But who knows what tomorrow or the next day will bring as this continues to bounce around in my head.

If you've got some thoughts, I'd love to hear them...

photo via NikonD40Rob

things that make you say 'wow'

Found this incredible site for Red Interactive Agency (Canada) last night. They call it Red Universe 1.0. I call it simply brilliant. It's smart on a number of levels. And it plays right in with where I think things are going.

Go there now. Play around. See where things might be going...

what's next?

That's the question Alex Bogusky said he is constantly asking himself. "What's next?" He's always looking for the next big thing. The next cool way to bring a brand to life. If you read much about CP+B, you know that's ingrained into their culture and the way they think. It was clear in this interview that this comes from the top.

Last Thursday, Alex was on stage being interviewed by John Temple, editor & publisher of the Rocky Mountain News, about his agency, their work and a bit aboout how they go about it at the request of the New Denver Ad Club to kick off their new organization.

Since Sean already shared a lot of his notes and a lot of what I jotted down when I got home is similar, I'll not recap all of mine, but instead call out a few highlights/recurring themes and share some thoughts.

Pop Culture, Pop Culture, Pop Culture
These two words came up more than a few times throughout the session. It's very evident that pop culture not only influences the work at Crispin Porter, but that it is their mission to do as much as they can to influence it as well. This clearly works for some of their clients quite well (Burger King anyone?) and other's not so much (Miller Lite? no thanks.). In looking through their body of work, you can see that they don't always try to push the limits of pop culture, but when it feels right for one of their clients, they certainly do hit the gas pedal.

Let's Play a Little Game
A short video was presented on the Burger King XBOX games, showing how these came about from early "information leaks" to gaming enthusiasts, to developing a support cast of characters for the King by increasing their presence in TV ads, to the ultimate success of the campaign. Shortly thereafter, Alex was sharing his thoughts on where things are going and that he sees games as an area that is becoming more and more interesting for brands. And then he brought up that this is something he has been thinking a lot about lately.

He said that for the longest time, it has been about "what's your brand's story?" But now he wonders if it shouldn't now be "what's your brand's game?" I think he's right on this. A game is something you play. It creates an interaction. In a story, you're telling someone something. A story is one-way communication for the most part. But a game requires some type of interaction, thinking, reaction. A game requires you to DO something. (More to come on a future post as it's been in my head for quite some time and just keeps building and building as I read and hear more.)

He said Crispin has always been looking to play games with consumers, for ways to be interactive, even before there was "interactive." He used the example of the stolen SpongBob Squarepants inflatables, or Spongenappings as some called them, from Burger King to support this. Rather than getting mad about it or not doing anything about it, they decided to have fun with it and send out a reward for information leading to the safe return of them.

Method Branding
One thing he brought up ever so briefly was that they (CP+B) practice method branding. (Hmmm. Think this is based on method acting?) He said they will take a product home (or in the case of Burger King, eat a lot of burgers) and live with it, sleep with it, play with it, etc., until they find something really special about it. Something you can really love about it. They then come back and start creating ideas based on this. They know they're on to something good when they can look at it and it changes the way they look at the product.

I feel like I have heard this term before elsewhere, but can't quite remember where. I like the idea of looking at it this way. I think it's something that some of the best creatives have probably always done, but maybe haven't always called it such. If you're going to be asked to create an interesting  ad or idea for something, what better way to do it than this? You can have all the research in the world but I think there is something to be said for experiencing a product first hand if you can.

Creating Intellectual Property
This string of three words came up a few times as well during the course of the interview. If you visit CP+B's web site, you can see that they refer to themselves as a factory for advertising and branded creative content. Given the way they are approaching compensation on some things now though, I have to think this is how they're looking at their work and ideas for their clients moving forward and that it will impact how they are compensated.

Pick One Please
I think this came up around when he was talking about the method branding thing. He used a couple examples but the one that stuck with me was for Burger King and how they decided to be all about burgers and sandwiches. They decided to not try and chase the leader. They're happy to let McDonald's play around with salads and wrappy things. Burger King is for burger lovers. "How can it not be when your name is Burger King?"

This is something that many of us often hear and/or preach all the time to our clients - that you have to pick one thing and stand for that consistently. You can't be all things to all people. You can't say fifty different things in one ad about why your product is better. Pick one. Repeat it over and over in different ways. Make sure it's big enough to do this. And damn it, make it interesting. Don't just tell people you're this. Show them. And then ask them to show you. Play with them. Make it fun. Sorry. Got off on a tangent there...

Miscellany
Some random other notes from the evening:
- Two people he admires: P.T. Barnum, Howard Gossage
- The only two agencies he mentioned other than CP+B - Goodby and Wieden + Kennedy
- Suck up everything you can from those around you. I suck up everything I can from everyone at the agency - life is a pyramid scheme.
- Don't ask anyone to do something you wouldn't do - if I don't want to go to a client meeting because they've gotten rough to sit through, maybe it's time to do something about that
- On measurement studies - You can raise all the awareness, brand tracking metrics you want, but if it doesn't increase sales, you're going to get fired, so why measure that stuff? The only thing we look at/care about is if it's driving sales.
- On focus groups - Focus groups do to creative ideas what the wind tunnel did to the car - they take all the edges off and you're left with a bunch of cars that look like eggs. The Pontiac Aztek is a great example of a focus group car. (I don't think he was knocking focus groups as a whole on this, just when they're used by clients to judge creative ideas before they're produced and then using that info to "meddle" with the creative/idea.)
- His belief is that you either go with an idea 100% or it doesn't work. To the point that if a client is doing "fearful meddling" on something, he'll stop them and not ask them to trust them but to go with it the way they've presented it and if it doesn't work, they can fire them. His support on this was that they do their homework. When they present ideas they define the problem, show the strategy, show a bunch of stuff that supports all of that and then show the ideas that resulted and support for why they'll work. If you only go 80 or 90%, it's not going to work.

NOTE ADDED: Andy also posted about the interview here.

tokyo subway becomes flick/flip book

Suz over at Left Pocket points out this interesting idea for some ads now appearing in Tokyo subways.

While I do think it is a cool use of the space, I have to wonder - is it just more clutter? With people reading, listening to their iPods, sleeping, conversing and otherwise tuning out, is it really doing anything for the brands using it?

Maybe a better use of the space would be for a brand to sponsor silent films that go up on the walls. Or short videos meant to be viewed while listening to an audio file you could download and have on your iPod/MP3 player.

Could be a very interesting way for a band to launch a new album - having the first appearance of the video be in this format in major cities along with some other "transmedia" type stuff that all works together. Or a brand launching a new product.

I don't know yet. I think the use of the space is a good idea in this manner, just not sure cutting up a TV spot to fill it is the right approach. Anyone out there have any thoughts?