[ paul isakson ]

Feeding The Lions

Seems that the snubbing of Big Spaceship by BBDO in regard to the gold Cyber Lion for the HBO Voyeur site is causing a bit of a stir. After reading the above two quotes by Mr. Rosenshine (from earlier this year) it starts to make a little sense. When you read the response of BBDO's current chairman and CCO, David Lubars, it becomes even more clear:

"Ideas are timeless. Ideas are what inspire people. Ideas are the root of all execution. On 'Voyeur,' BBDO thought of the idea, shot the idea, then brought in Big Spaceship to do what they do. They did a great job (and we've made every effort to acknowledge them). What's the issue? Maybe Cannes should consider the idea of a Palme d'Or for digital production."

While on the surface this appears to be an argument about who should have received credit for an award, I think it's really a bit more than that. In fact, it just might not be about the award at all. It's not even just about BBDO and Big Spaceship. Instead, what it's really about is money and control and a big network agency not wanting to lose any bit of either with any of their clients.

BBDO wants to retain control over as much of their client relationships and budgets as they can. By painting Big Spaceship as just a vendor/production house who executed BBDO's idea, BBDO positions themselves as the power-player with the ideas and strategic leadership. They're essentially saying, "Without our idea, Big Spaceship never would have pulled this off."

It also works to present Big Spaceship as the equivalent of a talented photographer or director that BBDO might use on a print or TV ad campaign. Yes they bring value to the overall work, but the clients wouldn't ever just go to the (TV) director or (print) photographer directly. They need BBDO to come up with the strategy and ideas first. Then the director or photographer get involved.

In saying Big Spaceship was just the digital producer, they're saying that the clients still very much need BBDO first and foremost.

The bigger behind the scenes issue here is that BBDO and the other major agency networks are often sitting on significant contracts from big clients to be their lead brand agencies. The BBDOs of the world want to keep things as they are. Meanwhile, smaller agencies working on small- to medium-sized projects here and there for bigger clients are wanting a bigger piece of the pie and can't get to it because of these contracts.

If it becomes clear to the clients that other agencies can and are pitching-in great ideas on the work being done for them, it doesn't bode well for the enormous retainers the network agencies have grown to love. So, if BBDO admits that Big Spaceship played a larger role in this, it begs the question of why wouldn't HBO just start to work with Big Spaceship directly on some future projects.

Not only that, but it could additionally raise eyebrows around the globe as to whether or not the traditionally air-tight contracts between large agencies and their clients need some re-tooling to allow for more flexibility in the modern age of marketing. (The answer is yes, they could and should.)

All of this is symptomatic of the biggest issue facing the ad industry right now - massive change. Any time you're dealing with large-scale change, there are bound to be conflicts, frustrations and turf wars. Both BBDO and Big Spaceship are doing what's best for their respective companies here and you really can't fault either of them.

What's tough for BBDO is that by pushing down Big Spaceship and fighting to claim they deserve all the credit, they're making themselves look like the big bully who doesn't get today's culture of openness and collaboration and instead showing that they're stuck in the era of control and possessiveness. As Clay Shirky points out, that might not work out so well...

And if that doesn't say it clearly enough, I don't know what will.

A Few Worthwhile Reads

Some interesting things I came across yesterday and would like to post more on, but probably won't be able to for a day or two if at all, so for now, here are the links...

First, Dave Trott Live Chat via Scamp - Dave shares some great advice and thinking on how to get a job in this business and what he thinks makes for great advertising today. I also really liked Scamp's approach to this for two reason. First, Scamp wrote a post arguing that much of what Dave wrote 30 years ago on getting a job in advertising was irrelevant today and followed it up by allowing Dave to have a conversation with Scamp's readers to defend/explain himself on the Scamp blog. Second, I think using the comments section of a blog post to host an audience driven interview was a fantastic idea. Thanks to Alan (a.k.a. Tangerine Toad) for pointing it out via Twitter.

Second, Scholz & Friends has posted an interesting presentation titled Brands and Communication in the Era of Media Democracy that is well worth a look. For those browsing here, following is the slide show. For those reading this where it won't come through, here's a link.

Lastly, BMW has revealed some inspiring thinking on the future of car design that caught the attention of quite a few. I love that they ignored conventions and took a fresh look at things. A bit from the WInding Road post:

Chris Bangle, head of BMW Group Design, describes the philosophy behind this wildly innovative GINA Light Visionary Model as “Being flexible. Thinking flexible, acting flexible – context over dogma.”

The Power of Unexpected Creativity

Earlier this week, while working away on some slides for a presentation, I left the TV going in the background after eating dinner and watching a re-run of Seinfeld. Being "in the zone" I wasn't really paying much attention, but the music to Robert Muraine's performance combined with the laughing and "Oooooh. MY. God!" comments coming out over and over from the judges made me look up half way through his routine. I was instantly transfixed on what I was watching. As soon as it was over, I rewound it and watched it again. And again. Then I tried to find it online to share here.

What I experienced in watching Robert's performance contains a truth about building great brands.

In the previous version of the W+K Web site, Dan Wieden talked about the power of the unexpected creative insight and its ability to take people to a place they didn't think they would go and never would have gone had they followed logic and reason. In Dan's eyes, it is these insights that build some of the world's most powerful brands. They connect brands with people because they cause people to feel something emotional and that feeling was caused by unexpected creativity brought to them by a brand. You certainly can't argue with the success W+K has experienced based on this simple principle.

It's not just true or Wieden and Kennedy though. It is part of what made Cadbury's Gorilla and Sony's Balls spots so powerful. They took simple ideas grounded in the brand (Joy and Colour Like No Other) and brought them to life in unexpected ways. I think this is also why the follow-up ads fell short for many. Given the first for each brand, we now had much higher expectations and rather than surprising and delighting us with something totally different and new, just as they did the first time, the agencies and brands elected to attempt to mirror their previous successes with different executions of the same idea.

Using unexpected creativity is a powerful way to connect with people - no matter if that comes from a brand or an individual. It's something we need more of in today's world of advertising and brand building where so many things seem to have become all too familiar and formulaic.

Drench Water: Smart Hydration

Was over on brand new earlier today and came across this ad, which Gareth found via Rob.

I have to say, it's one of the best ads I've seen in a while. It entertained me. It made me smile. It reminded me of yet another reason it's good to stay hydrated. It even made me think kindly of a product that is often accused of doing more harm than good.

(And maybe part of the reason I like it is due to it reminding me of one of my favorite music videos.)

Then I immediately started to question the strategy. (I know. I always have to poke holes in good ads, don't I. Sorry. Can't help it. It's just in my nature to question everything. Anyway...) It's selling a benefit of drinking water, not the brand.

You don't have to drink Drench water to be properly hydrated. You just have to drink water, or any non-dehydrating liquid for that matter, to stay hydrated. And as far as I can tell, there's nothing special about Drench that makes it hydrate you better than any other water.

Now, to Drench's defense, if you go to their site, you'll see that they're positioning themselves around "smart hydration," not just hydration. (Seems like it would have been a great position for smartwater, no?) And using Brains from Thunderbirds as a spokespuppet is quite clever and yet another reinforcement of the strategy.

I think really what they're doing though is not so much trying to own hydration as they are trying to create a unique voice for the brand and basing it on smart hydration to start with.

With bottled water, I would imagine this is actually an imperative in order to demand a price above the low-cost leaders. If it's all just water no matter what bottle it's in, then it will be your marketing that makes people chose to pay more for your brand.

Clearly people are willing to pay a premium for Fiji Water because of the marketing, maybe even more so now that they're working to be carbon negative.

If I look at it in that regard, that they're using hydration as a product-relevant launching point to taking the position of being a light-hearted and fun water brand in category filled with overly-pretentious high-end brands, non-distinguishable mid-tier brands, and several low-cost players, then it all makes much more sense.

Given the slow growth the brand has experienced the past two years, with no TV advertising and a campaign based strictly on hydration, this approach - of developing a fun, interesting and entertaining voice brought to life both on TV and digitally - could be just what the need to get things going.

Agency is CHI & Partners.

The Future of Advertising is Design (Redux)

Through all of the rambling that was the post titled, The Future of Advertising is Design, Linda was kind enough to leave a link to a post she put together in the comments which contained the above quote from the venerable Mr. Lee Clow.

I have always intended to do a shorter follow-up post to clean that mess up and this quote gave me the perfect lead-in.

What I intended to get at, but derailed with tangents, is that based on what Mr. Clow is talking about above - that what we do now (at least those of us who are to survive in this industry) is far bigger than what in the past has been called advertising - we have to think bigger than advertising at the beginning of creating ideas.

If an ad agency* is to prosper at whatever it is we'll call it in the future, they have to think bigger than the standard TV, Radio, Print and OOH model that then tosses a bone over to "interactive" by asking "the web guys" to put the TV spot on the web site. O.K., they also want a micro-site based on the TV spot. And make it a "viral" micro-site while you're at it. Oh, and get the PR agency to do a press release on the new campaign. There. It's all integrated now. Right? (Pssst. No. That's wrong.)

Where most ad agencies are getting into trouble, at least in my best guess, is that they are starting with looking at reaching the client's objective/goal by asking, "What's the ad campaign we need to create to solve this?" Or, "What's the message we need to tell people that will solve this?" If your approach is to start by assuming it's an ad, or starting by assuming the answer is to tell people something, then you're going to miss significant opportunities and as the quote above says, your client's brand will not be able to survive against others taking a bigger picture approach.

This is where the link to design came in. I didn't mean design will become advertising or advertising will become design. I simply meant that as an industry, we need to bring design thinking into the process to help us think bigger than advertising.

That's all. For now at least... Ha!

*For the record, we can plug "digital agency" into this equation too. If a digital shop is only thinking about how to best solve their clients' problems with web/digital solutions, they're going to quickly end up in the same situation. The only thing keeping them safe right now is that what's going on in the digital arena has everyone excited and so they're not taking the same heat as the traditional ad shops. Once the shine wears off the penny, they'll be hearing the same song.

Discovery: The World is Just Awesome

Discovery Channel has a new logo, a new ad and a new tag line. (TV spot via 72 and Sunny. Logo via Viewpoint Creative.)

Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but ever since someone called out that the "smile" on the Amazon.com logo is actually an arrow linking the A to the Z, and Faris reminded me of that bit not long ago when he noted the arrow in the FedEx logo, I've started looking into new logos more.

Anyway, it looks like maybe the "c" and the "o" are kind of forming an infinity sign, which if it's true and equates to there being infinite things about Earth that we can discover, well, that's kind of cool. Or maybe they're forming the viewing end of a pair of binoculars? I know. Now I'm really stretching.

The ad was fun. It definitely caught my attention. And now the song is stuck in my head. Overall, I liked it.

So, there's my over-thinking this stuff... What are your thoughts?

[found]

Who Gets Runners, Better?

A while back, I posted two spots aimed at people who run. One for Nike+. One for New Balance. I left the request fairly open-ended, asking people to let me know what they liked or didn’t like about each, or to compare and contrast them. I especially wanted to hear from people who run.

I did this because I am not a runner, nor do I run. There is no love/hate relationship for me with running. It’s all hate. When someone asks me if I run, I like to use a phrase a friend of mine says when asked the same question, “I only run when chased.”

Why am I telling you this? Because I want to be clear from the start that with me not being a runner, I couldn’t tell you if either of the commercials in question speak to a runner. And that’s why I asked the question I did. With that, here’s what I learned from those of you who responded both in the comments of the post and via Twitter with a few of my own thoughts/hypotheses thrown in...

Real runners actually do have a love/hate relationship with running. There are days when they just don’t want to do it, but they do anyway because they know that afterwards, they’ll feel better for it. Real runners are intrinsically motivated. They don’t run to lose weight or to get in shape for another sport or to stay trim. They don’t run to be a part of a “running community.” They run for themselves. They run to run.

Real runners don’t need something telling them in their ear how far they’ve gone or how much time they have left until they’re done. In fact, they’d rather not have anything to listen to other than the sound of their feet hitting the ground beneath them, their breath hitting the air and the thoughts running through their mind. For real runners, running is personal. New Balance gets this. And while their execution may fall a little flat for some real runners, the idea still resonates.

Nike+ on the other hand doesn’t speak to the real runner. Nike+ speaks to the person who runs, but not because they love running. The person who uses Nike+, from what I can ascertain via the feedback on the commercials, is doing it for some other reason. Possibly to get back in shape. Or to lose five pounds. Or to stay conditioned for another sport. Or maybe to get in some daily exercise in leu of going to the gym.

Therefore, the Nike+ user is more likely to be extrinsically motivated. There is no love/hate relationship with running. It’s mostly hate. This person runs as a means to an end, not because they love running. Because of this, they need extra motivation. They need to feel like they’re part of a larger community to be accountable to. They need music to help them keep a pace and not think about how much they hate what they’re doing at the moment. They need a voice telling them they only have a little bit further to go, only a few more minutes, until the self-inflicted torture ends.

The Nike+ ad follows in the footsteps of Nike’s historical approach to advertising, which is to speak to the inner-athlete in people who aspire to be more/do more than they are currently. By presenting Nike+ in a way that makes it feel like it’s for real runners and is a way of bringing real runners together, they speak to the masses who aspire to be more/do more and are running as a way to achieve this. Real runners look at this ad and scoff. But those who run for some purpose other than for a love of running look at it and say, “I want to be a part of that.” Nike+ makes it easier for the person who runs for external reasons stay with it.

So, there you have it. That’s my take, based on what a few of you told me. New Balance is going after a niche - runners. Nike+ is hitting the masses outside of that niche - people who run. Two different brands/products for two different types of people who run. What do you think? Did I come close? Or did I miss the mark? Runners, what do you have to say?

Volkswagen UK Makes An Ad About Making Their Site

UPDATE (02 April 2008): Maybe I was just a little tired last night and not feeling the best. As Crawford reminded me in the comments, it's just meant to be fun and give you a good feeling about VW.

Volkswagen, at least here in the States, has historically been about "the joy of driving" if you will (Drivers Wanted) and this certainly touches upon the fun feeling you can get zipping around in a car you love driving. So, yeah... Maybe I was just in a bad mood and over-thinking it.

As I said near the end of the original post below, it is a well done site and the video is nicely done as well. I am certain a lot of people put a lot of hard work into launching the site. This wasn't meant to put them down in any way. It was a challenge to the business decision made here.

In digging around a little more, this might not be running on TV and just as a "viral" online video. I don't know for certain on that one since I'm not living in the U.K. If this video was made as a reward for all the hard work that went into building the site and then it happened to get put online and it was not meant to advertise the new site to the public, then this entire post is for naught.

Final note... Fun as this may be, the business strategist in me still says any money spent on this would have been better spent getting in front of people actively searching for a new car online.

I know, I know. Sometimes businesses have to have fun too. Especially if they're rewarding their employees and agencies for all the hard work that goes into what they do every day.

I'll quit being a grump now.

-- ORIGINAL POST BELOW--

I might be out on an island here, but does anyone else find it at all peculiar that Volkswagen UK made an ad/video to tell people they have a new web site? Won't anyone who is in the market for a new VW already be going there anyway? Isn't this just driving a bunch of traffic to your new site for the sake of driving traffic to your site? Is this really going to help sell more cars?

Who Wins the Race?

New Nike & New Balance Running Ads

VS.

Just saw a new New Balance spot from BBDO, New York while watching some college hoops.

When I went to look it up on the YouTubes, I decided that I'd like to do a new kind of post to get more involvement from all of you new visitors (thank you for adding this to your RSS/bookmarks by the way). So, I went to look for some of the more recent past Nike running work as well.

In that search, I came across the top one. According to the notes on the YouTube post, it's from W+K, Tokyo, not CP+B. I think it's fairly new as it looks like the new menu system for the iPod at the end. Anyway...

I'll give my analysis/comments in a forthcoming post or in the comments after we've got a good conversation going. For now, I just want to hear from all of you. Compare, contrast, criticize, compliment... Get after each other if you wish. Be nice to each other if you want as well.

Just leave your thoughts on whatever you think about one, both or the two against each other. Especially interested in hearing from those of you who run. Who gets it? Which one speaks to you more? Or do both? Neither? Is one/both trying to hard? You get the picture.

Hopefully a few of you comment so I don't end up looking like an arse here. Ha!...

UPDATE (30 March 2008): It has been called out that these are for two different products. One is for shoes, one is for technology tied to the shoes. Sorry. Should have been more clear in the original request. I want to discuss how the BRANDS are demonstrating (or not demonstrating) their understanding of runners and running.

Both brands are trying to show the runner that they understand them and thus, hope to get them to buy their products and/or shoes. Through these ads, which brand shows they "get it" when it comes to the runner and running? Do both? Does one more than the other? Which one appeals to the runner more? Or neither? Does that help make more sense of what I was getting at?

The Nike Addicted ad that Age refers to can be found here.

Again, sorry. Please continue the thoughts. Great stuff so far...

Schweppes Burst Self-ComBursts

Schweppes Burst from ipub on Vimeo.

I started this post ready to praise Schweppes for what a brilliant ad this is. And it is a brilliant one as far as ads go. But as you'll see, my experience degrades almost as fast as it was built up during my journey from watching the ad on Dino's blog to researching it more for this post.

Normally I'd just post the ad, mix in a few quick thoughts and be done. But for this, I thought I'd share the story of my experience with it since that is what we're creating now. Experiences. Not ads. Experiences. It's a tragedy really. Anyway, here we go then...