Ingwalson

Friday, December 07, 2007

Me and Lisa Simpson and the NDAC

Yesterday morning, someone asked me how much recognition I wanted during the Denver 50 show. And I remembered a scene from "The Summer of 4 ft. 2." Lisa Simpson is attempting to hand out yearbooks when Nelson explains how the world works:

Nelson: Who died and made you boss?

Lisa: Mr. Estes, the publications advisor. I edited the whole thing.

Nelson: If you hadn't done it, some other loser would have. So quit milking it!


Quit milking it. Good advice. I will, in a minute.

There are three things I wish everyone knew about The Denver 50:

1. It wasn't a big moneymaker. At least, not compared to what the ADDYs would've been. We got 170 entries, which included more than 600 executions. Under an ADDY format, each of those executions could have been entered again individually. We left money on the table so we explore a media-neutral format that more accurately reflected the realities agencies face today.

2. It was a huge risk (as ad club risks go). It took courage for the board to let us buck the national awards format. It took optimism for our jaw-dropping judges to spend their time on a local show. And it took faith for agencies to buy into the show concept. People can argue about whether the Denver 50 was a huge success or a giant flop. But I hope people appreciate the fact that we were swinging for the fences.

3. The names of our sponsors. There is an exhaustive list in the book. A little extra love from me to my friends at:

texturemedia, who built the judging site.
Amatucci, who shot the book cover.
Pure Brand, who produced the book.
Integer, who planned the event.
Fueld Films, who shot our video and game.
Thought Equity, who assembled the reel.

Today we're all back at work, trying to do the best job we can. That's the nature of this business. What you did yesterday doesn't matter half as much as what you'll do tomorow. Onward.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Some thoughts for new bloggers

Ian Schafer has some thoughts on the blogosphere:

Anytime the editorial content of blogs is tainted with cash, it de-legitimizes the medium. Even the promise of links is promising traffic which translates into potential ad revenue for the blog. Getting bloggers to create their own ads seems to take them away from what they are (probably) doing best: writing content for their readers. Collectively, readers are smart. They can smell a rat a mile away. Once they realize the content of the blog they are reading is influenced by money, they will move on.


Just to pile on, here are a few other things bloggers shouldn't do:

• Reproduce editorial content without linking to the author.
• Reproduce more than three paragraphs of content.
• Reproduce any photos or art without permission.
• Steal bandwidth by using an existing URL to post hijacked art.
• Fail to hat-tip to a blog that pointed out a story.
• Delete or substantially alter a post, unless you're deleting the whole blog.
• Cross post without linking to the crosspost.
• Astroturf. Seriously, nothing pisses me off like astroturfing.

When I started blogging, I probably violated all these rules. (Except the last one, which I consider almost unforgivable.) You have to give neophytes some leeway. And as more people and more brands enter into a Web 2.0 world, the code of ethics which has bound good bloggers is bound to be stretched a bit. Hopefully the medium won't get so corrupted it becomes worthless.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Internet celebrity, Flannery O'Connor and MakeFive.com

One of my favorite quotes is this from Flannery O'Connor:

Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a best-seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.


If O'Connor could see the flood of crap that we consume today, she would have enrolled us in private classes at Andalusia. And stifled us all. To death with a pillow, if necessary.

The traditional media gatekeepers are gone or leaving, victims of technology, lethargy and their own poor taste. But they withered away ostensibly attempting a great service: filtering out the bad, the amateurish and the tasteless.

One of the great myths of the adolescent is that there is a huge raft of talented filmmakers, actors and artists out there, ignored by the mainstream and forced to create genius in and for the underground. But there's not. And today all the world has access to YouTubes and MySpaces and Seesmics, content creation encouragers that have enabled a wave of celebrities whose only claim to fame is their own shamelessness.

I keep waiting for a killer critic to do for Internet celebrity what Pitchfork does for music and Josh Spear does for product design. But the deluge of wannabe celebrities is probably too great for anyone to comprehend, let alone manage.

Maybe if we all put our heads together, we can figure this thing out.

I've been playing around in MakeFive, a new online community based on lists. The site was launched by smashLAB on November 5, 2007. Its irresistible tagline is "You are what you think." And at the risk of stating the obvious, making lists at MakeFive is less time-intensive than at 43 Things.

My first list is of the five Internet celebs who actually deserve it. Join the community, vote on my choices and add your own, if you're so inclined.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, November 17, 2007

TD50 2008 judges I'd like to see: Gareth Kay

The Denver 50 2007 judging panel was maybe the greatest ever assembled for a local show. Mike Lescarbeau, Mike Byrne, Rob Rasmussen and Kevin Roddy. I defy you to name four more influential creatives in America. I'd love to keep the bar high for 2008. One person I'd like to see is Modernista! planner Gareth Kay. This presentation from his Slideshare page explains why:

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 08, 2007

You must participate

Even though I'm a writer, I have a thing for Web 2.0. Social networks, blogs, SMS, widgets, that sort of thing. I like them because they're marketing tools that "don't just show life to people, but make them live."

To invoke Guy Debord in an essay on marketing tactics is to dare the wrath of a hundred thousand college sophomores. Situationist International wasn't known for purchasing Nikes. But maybe it should have been. After all, "Nike killed the three martini lunch." (And who am I quoting there? Fenske?) Without a raft of ads encouraging us to "just do it," those who can take lunches would probably spend them hitting the bar instead of the barbell.

Nike got rich using traditional media to promote an active lifestyle. But everything top-down advertising does, Web 2.0 does better. It lets people connect based on affinity instead of proximity. It lets local actions take place on an international scale. It gives the people access to the powerful. Perhaps best of all, it tests the concept of juristic personhood by daring brands to live up to their legal status.

And for all the good it does, Web 2.0 only has two real downfalls. It immortalizes everyday language, holding it to an impossibly lofty standard. And it encourages content creation so much that it has confused shamelessness and celebrity. (I wrote a despondent essay on the latter issue; someday I may even post it.)

I think most marketing people buy in to the idea that Web 2.0 is an opportunity for brands to engage with consumers. But how many understand the flipside? Web 2.0 is an obligation. Because consumers now expect brands to make life better. And so Burger King creates a game and Target builds a Facebook group and Adidas shoots a practice film and ESPN makes a widget.

See what I'm getting at? Traditional advertising asks consumers to pay a premium for a product based on brand equity. Web 2.0 asks consumers to pay a premium for a product based on brand utility.

Web 2.0 marketing is perhaps something Debord would have welcomed, if he could have forgiven the spectacle of it all. Because while a brand can't make you live, it can now give you tools and opportunities. That's something that a print ad simply can't provide.

Crossposted on Karsh Connect.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, October 29, 2007

What's a concept?

On September 3, I left this comment on The Denver Egotist about the definition of the word "concept."

I think the problem is the floating definition of the word "concept." In ad school, they teach you one definition, which revolves around the idea that the consumer must bring a bit of himself to the work in order to understand it. But I've heard people use the word concept as a synonym for "theme." And as a synonym for "cool to look at..." [T]he word concept is like the word edgy - so overused it borders on meaningless.


I can't remember who first explained the word concept to me. It was probably one of my teachers at The Creative Circus. But I've always found the following explanation interesting.

Consider the three arcs to the right. In each, the "A" represents the product and the "B" represents the ad.

In the top arc, the product and the ad are right up next to each other. There's no room for the consumer to have fun with the ad, to feel a connection to it. The headline is probably something like, "Today, you can buy this chair for $99." And the visual is probably a chair. This is not a concept.

In the middle arc, the product and the ad are nowhere near each other. Nobody could make sense of this ad. The headline probably says, "Attila the Hun loves you." And the visual is probably a boat, upon which sits a hippo. This is not a concept.

But the final arc is. The product and the ad aren't smothering each other, but they're close enough to make the consumer feel the shock of recognition and a bond with the brand that transcends any short-term product offering.

Of course even that labored and lengthy definition can't possibly explain something as good as this:

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Agency segmentation: A slideshow

A couple of years ago, I realized my favorite agencies don't market themselves as brand agencies or online agencies or promotional agencies. BBH, Anomaly, Strawberryfrog and others are just out there doing, you know, stuff.

But I'd never advise a client to position itself as an all-purpose stuff doer. So I started mulling over new ways to position agencies. And an online discussion primarily driven by Adam Crowe, Zeus Jones and AgencySpy resonated with me.

As a way of sharing the discussion with coworkers, I created this PowerPoint presentation. (I know, I know. Scary stuff, writers messing with presentation software. It's literally my first time using PowerPoint.)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Am me getting myself dumber now?

I consider it part of my job to stay on top of the ways in which people communicate. Blogging, microblogging, social networks. Updating my Twitter page via my cell while overseeing a spot edit and rewriting the script on the fly.

Some of these tools have proven valuable. Others have increased my mania. But now it appears I may just be making myself stupid. From The Atlantic Monthly:

Neuroscience is confirming what we all suspect: Multitasking is dumbing us down and driving us crazy.


The rest of the article is protected behind a password. But here's an excerpt from the magazine:

At the most basic level, the the mental balancing acts that [multitasking] requires - the constant switching and pivoting - energize regions of the brain that specialize in visual processing and physical coordination and simultaneously appear to shortchange some of the higher areas related to memory and learning.


In other words, you can do a lot of stuff, but after you finish, you can't really tell anyone what you did.

It may be true, because while I was typing the excerpt from The Atlantic, I must have forgotten my place at least a dozen times. This from a guy who can recite the alphabet backwards and perform chunks of Shakespeare from memory.

I think maybe this is why many in the ad world - like Sally Hogshead - are worried that new media will hurt our ability to concept. Navigating the maze of strategies, media and applications can be awfully distracting. Especially to a creative mind that verges on the manic without any help from hyperlinks.

It's easy to say,"Unplug, grab a Sharpie and go concept in a coffeeshop." But what happens when your creative director asks you if you've seen the latest viral video and you haven't because you've been off, you know, working?

And now, in an act of WTF blogging, I'm ending this post. Because I've checked my email and my RSS feeds at least a dozen times in the last 20 minutes and I've forgotten what my point was. If indeed I had one.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, August 23, 2007

A parable

You find a great foreign film/viral video that you want to make into a Hollywood blockbuster/TV spot. So you go to the studio heads/account team and tell them about it. And they say that the foreign film/viral video lacks a love triangle/unique selling proposition. And action scenes/jump cuts. And a happy ending/big logo. And it would have been better directed by Martin Scorsese/Thanonchai Sornsrivichai.

So they ask you if you can make those little changes and still turn out something great. And you nod your head very seriously and assure them you can. But you can't.

But when you enter it into the Oscars/One Show, it wins anyway. Because Scorsese/Sornsrivichai is still Scorsese/Sornsrivichai, after all.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 02, 2007

The Simpsons, Halloween and other sacred things

I love Cactus because they blogged the Simpsonization of their entire agency. My own illustrates this post, which is only sort of about The Simpsons.

This post is about messing with the sacred, Which the Simpsons movie certainly does. I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to seeing it or if I'm worried that my favorite show has jumped the shark. (A phrase which has itself jumped the shark.)

For me, Rob Zombie's upcoming reimagining of Halloween is an even bigger concern. The 1978 original is a monument in indie film, horror and urban legend. It's one of the few films to successfully mythologize around the awfulness of fate. And it's scary as hell, without ever getting gory. Zombie is unlikely to take the same approach.

Messing with the sacred pays huge dividends if you do it right. In the world of film, Batman Begins introduced the masses to the real Dark Knight. In the world of advertising, Adidas reclaimed its legitimacy with great work from EVB and 180 Amsterdam.

What the reinventions of Batman and Adidas have in common is that they weren't reinventions at all, but rather a restoration of core values. Batman became the strong shadow of The Long Halloween. Adidas returned to its global athletic roots, which are a couple decades deeper than Nike's, with spots starring worldwide stars like Ian Thorpe and David Beckham.

The lesson is that when you have the opportunity to work on something sacred, you shouldn't superimpose your own values upon it.

I really, really hope Rob Zombie understands that.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Pigs, pitching and the Denver 50

I'm not the first person to blog this quote. Or the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth:

The whole creative process is stupid. It's like washing a pig. It's messy, it has no rules, no clear beginning, middle, or end; it's kind of a pain in the ass, and when you're done, you're not sure if the pig is clean or even why you were washing a pig in the first place.


That goes double for pitching, which Marc Brownstein recently laid into at Small Agency Diary:

I'm not advocating abstinence from dating. It's just that the courting process has gone too far. It's often a waste of an agencies' time to pitch among 12 other shops. Narrow it down, clients! Apply some discipline to the process.


Pure's Gregg Bergan had a good column in The Denver Business Journal not too long ago. He opined that a trip through an agency's portfolio and a long lunch was a better predictor of relationship success than a creative shootout:

Schedule a time to visit each agency. Ask to meet with your entire prospective team and no others. Don't agree to a meeting until all of them can make it. Ask to see a portfolio that represents the work of the actual people who would be on your account. If the agency portfolio includes work of others, you don't want to see it.


OK. But the pitch process survives not only because clients like seeing a bunch of work for free. Creative departments, despite the strain, often love a shootout. It's competitive. Energetic. And win or lose, it gives writers and art directors a whole lot of chances to produce stuff for their books.

When we created the idea for The Denver 50, we all agreed that past award shows thrived on snappy headlines and big egos. And we wanted the New Denver Ad Club's first show to let go of those things and embrace the thinking of agencies like Bartle Bogle Hegarty, Anomaly and StrawberryFrog.

Letting go of the pitch process would take the same sort of willpower.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Sod off, ad world

I wrote "Sod off, ad world" in 2002. Recently I found it floating around my hard drive and decided to publish it here. It's a bit out of date, but still relevant, particularly to marketing directors and ad students. Enjoy.

"If people hate advertising so much, how come I see all these 14-year-olds walking around with swooshes on their shirts?"

Hmm. Curious, isn't it? Anybody else got a question?

"How come some of the best brands in America run ads that don't seem to be selling anything?"

That's a great question, and the answer relates to underwear, but before I go into that, I want to take one more. Anybody?

"How do I use advertising to get people to buy my product?"

Well, that's not just a question. That's the question. Let's take a stab at it.

Why we pee while the commercials are on.

Advertising has been around for millennia. But back in, say, the 1940's, America's mental environment was still relatively uncluttered. There was a certain innocence to advertising back then. "The Kid in Upper 4" was so well-loved that competing railroads hung it in their own stations. "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" was such a popular Montgomery Ward point-of-purchase piece that it went on become a carol more annoying than any of today's ad jingles. Consumers were enthralled by simple-minded taglines like "It's straight whiskey." Ads seemed kind of neat.

But by the 1960's, advertising had run amok. Businesses were getting away with supply-side marketing. The novelty of advertising wore off and was replaced by consumer boredom. And boredom lead to resentment.

Suddenly a few agencies had an epiphany. Instead of regurgitating their corporate masters' mission statements, the agencies decided they ought to serve as consumers' representative to corporate America. So they put themselves in the shoes of consumers and thought, "If I was looking at this ad, what would I want it to say?"

That process gave birth to some astounding ideas. So the brave agencies took their ideas to some equally brave clients and brilliant, enduring brands like Volkswagen and Avis were born. All because a few folks believed that consumers deserve interesting advertising.

When these creative geniuses took it upon themselves to better the mental environment of America, they inadvertently exposed the heavy-handed totalitarianism of the rest of the marketing community. But not every client got the message. And not every agency had the fortitude to spread the gospel. Today, there are still a few agencies building brilliant brands and a slew of dinosaurs spending obscene amounts of money to push boorish fluff upon the public.

So why do people hate advertising? Because the few good ads they see remind them that the mental environment is violated every day by marketing directors with big budgets and closed minds.

Can we please get to the underwear?

OK, OK, I promised underwear. "Showing your underwear" is industry slang for running an ad with a strategy so transparent a four-year-old could figure it out. To prevent you from complaining that I misled you, I'm now going to write about Victoria's Secret.

Most people in America consider themselves independent. Which essentially means they don't like being told what to think, unless they enjoy what they're being told to think about. Victoria's Secret has the luxury of reminding people to think about sex. My unofficial survey reports that 100% of Americans enjoy thinking about sex.

Victoria's Secret's ads get to show their underwear. Literally. And figuratively.

But most businesses' ads don't. Because most businesses' ads don't carry messages like, "Sex is fun."

Think of it like this. The Socket Wrench Company's marketing director says, "The most important thing about my company is that we’re friendly." So he green lights an ad that reads, "The Socket Wrench Company is very friendly." Maybe there's a smiling receptionist in the ad.

A few days later the ad runs. America yawns.

This ad showed its underwear, and it grossed people out.

What should The Socket Wrench Company have done? Well, let's look at an example. I was leafing through an award show book the other day. I saw an ad that read, "We've had some complaints that Monday was a really long day but we've checked and it wasn't." At the bottom was a picture of a Timex watch.

Funny, yes. But Timex doesn't run ads for fun. So what possible reason could it have for greenlighting this ad? I had to think about it for a few minutes, but then I got it. The ad was laid out in bright white type on a neon blue page. Timex was advertising how easy it is to read its Indiglo watch. Without ever mentioning it. Without giving consumers anything to yawn at. The ad simultaneously engaged consumers and told them about a real, tangible product benefit without ever seeming abrasive or preachy.

Genius.

Another example? Nike ran a TV commercial for women's running shoes that showed a beautiful woman escaping from a chainsaw wielding maniac. It was brilliantly conceived. The overt message - Nikes are fast - was inescapable. So was the subconscious message, though I doubt many people could articulate it. What Nike said under its breath was, "Our shoes help women transform themselves from helpless sex objects into strong, independent heroes."

A great message from a great brand.

The things you want to say the most in your advertising sometimes must be said to the consumer's subconscious. That's why America's best brands occasionally run ads that make you go, "Huh?" They're communicating a product benefit through non-rational channels in order to bypass your predisposition to ignore ads. If a non-marketing person can see your ad and tell you what the strategy behind it is, your ad probably sucks.

Don't show your underwear in your ads. Unless it's really nice underwear with a model inside it.

So I need to start selling lingerie?

Well, sex sells sex. Which makes writing ads for sex pretty darn easy. But if everybody goes into underwear, how am I going to buy that socket wrench I need?

The solution is to find a way to communicate real information about your product to people who are programmed to distrust everything you say.

How do you do that?

I saw a comedian once who lobbed what he called "joke grenades." He'd say something like, "I'm going to get a license place that reads I FORGOT. That way, when I cause an accident..." Then the comedian would shut up. About 10 seconds later, the room would crack up, as everybody realized the implications of the license plate.

Great ads are like that. They tell a story but invite the consumer to finish it. They don't leave too much to the imagination, but they leave enough out there so that consumers can feel like they're part of the club that gets it.

Bingo. Now you have a relationship.

Consumers develop relationships with brands that engage them. It's not easy. If your invitation is turned down, you're screwed. But it's a lot less risky than taking the approach that most companies take, sinking millions of dollars into campaigns that annoy their way into people's heads. Jingle-writers love to talk about how well people recall their ads. Well, I recall the time my dog peed on my pillow. Who cares? What matters is whether people like you.

Any other questions?

"Didn't you just give away all the secrets of being an ad guy? Now all your clients will fire you and write their own ads."

Not likely.

You know that saying, "You can never step in the same river twice"? Well, that's how it is with culture. People's basic desires have stayed pretty static for the last few millennia. But the avenues which people pursue to satisfy those desires change by the hour. The ad guy's job is to tell his clients which avenues people are hanging out in on any given day. And then talk to those people in a language that delights them. Not easy. But fun. Especially, I assume, if your client happens to be Victoria's Secret.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Final Destination and the importance of insight

There are only two scary movies. The simplest is called Bad Things Happen Off the Beaten Path. It goes like this:

• Act One: Sin - People choose to stray from the beaten path.
• Act Two: Penance - People are punished for straying from the beaten path.
• Act Three: Redemption - The survivors run back to the beaten path.

During the first act of a movie like this, you find yourself screaming at the screen quite a bit. "Don't create super-smart sharks, you fools!" Or, "Don't sneak into the woods to have sex, you morons!" Or, "Don't go searching for a local legend named Dr. Satan, you dumbasses! Because he's not a legend. He's real. And you'll find him. And things aren't likely to get any better from there."

This first type of movie is a lesson written in blood, encouraging teenagers to follow the established norms of polite society.

The second type of horror movie is trickier, and perhaps impossible, to pull off. It's called Sometimes Bad Things Just Happen.

• Act One: Fate Appears - A mysterious force comes to town.
• Act Two: Fate Decides - The force randomly chooses a victim.
• Act Three: The Fight Against Fate - The victim battles back.

This second type of movie is a way for humans to try to understand the cancers and the car accidents and the horrible accidents that destroy and take lives. It is an explanation of the awfulness of fate.

Over and over, horror movies have tried and failed to mythologize around the randomness of life. Michael Myers was visited upon Laurie Strode for no particular reason, until the makers of the sequel concocted a relationship. Jaws picked Amity randomly, but the town fathers sinned when they decided to keep the tourist beaches open. Sidney Prescott was forced to atone not for her sins, but her mother's. The victims in countless zombie movies will never learn that the zombies were inadvertently created by, say, our own government.

So close, yet still so far away.

In a life of watching scary movies, I have only seen one film that ever really challenged either of these two essential structures. Final Destination. In it, a premonition helps teens escape a fatal accident. Several of the survivors die mysteriously, and the rest realize that by evading death, they have interrupted its grand design. They search for a way to escape their fates as death circles back to complete its plan.

Final Destination squeezes the villain of the latter type of movie into the structure of the former. And in doing so, it captures the very essence of human existence. We come into this world randomly, unable to choose either our parents or our station. And we are faced with only one real possible outcome. Nevertheless, we give great weight to our own choices, imagining that perhaps we'll find some way to rewrite the script of human existence.

It is unlikely that Final Destination was supposed to be a message move. But it is. I've watched it and its sequels a dozen times, always admiring the perfection of their concept, if not their execution. They lack the energy of The Descent and often waver between Black Christmas 1974-style tension and Black Christmas 2006-style gore.

But they have something more important. Insight. And that's why I can't get them out of my head.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, April 16, 2007

Dumb ways to kill good work

Some cliches earn their status. Others are memorable mostly for their inanity. And still others lie in between.

"If you cover up the logo, that ad could be for anybody."

A brilliant insight. Also a clueless, lazy assertion.

It's said a lot by clients. Luke Sullivan took them on in Hey, Whipple, Squeeze This.

Sometimes clients need to be reminded that their product isn't substantially different from the competition's. All that may distinguish the two is the advertising you propose... You need to get your client to see that execution can be content and personality can be proprietary. They're called "pre-emptive claims" - claims any competitor could've made had they moved fast enough.


All well and good. But what if the objection is raised not by the client, but by someone who should know better? An account executive. Worse, a creative director.

"If you cover up the logo, that ad could be for anybody."

Often the definition of "anybody" seems to float along with the motivations of the objector. For instance, Adidas ran a spot where an Olympic weightlifter snatched a heavy barbell, pumped his fist, and walked offscreen. The spot ended with the Adidas logo and the tagline "Forever Sport." Adidas has a rich athletic history and a product line that validates this claim. A smart planner would have supported it. But cover up the Adidas logo and you could easily believe you'd watching an ad for the USOC, Gatorade or even Nike. If the same planner woke up on the wrong side of the bed on that particular day, the campaign could have been consigned to the agency basement.

And even when a claim isn't unassailably authentic, a well-done ad can create ownable space all by itself. Saatchi/London's classic work for XXXX claimed, "Australians wouldn't give a XXXX for anything else." Except that Wikipedia reports that XXXX is one of a few beers popular in Queensland, and unpopular throughout much of the rest of Australia.

"If you cover up the logo, that ad could be for anybody."

Um yeah. And if we covered up the photo, that logo would be sitting next to some whitespace. It's all nonsense. We're not going to cover up the logo, we're going to end up making it 10% bigger. So please, unless the claim is random to the point of dishonesty, give it a rest.

Labels: , , , ,