what we can learn from pick up artists

Seeing as I am based in Holland, I thought it time to write a bit in Dutch, and for a Dutch blog.

As of today I will be blogging for Molblog, one of Holland's most read blogs about marketing.

My first piece of writing is here, but since some of you may not be fluent in Dutch, below is a translation.

What we can learn from pick up artists

There is a crisis. Not that economic one. No. There is crisis in the world of pick-up gurus. Yes, pick-up gurus. Men who can get every woman an teach followers how they can get laid as well.

It all started with a book several years ago. Called "The Game". It describes journalist Neil Strauss, on his quest to become PUA, Pick Up Artist. The book was a bestseller. But also ensured that women got insight into the workings of these PUA's. 

Because, despite all the shits and giggles, these gentlemen had a process. Their practices were secretly shared on forums and message boards. 

From opening sentences, to routines and field reports, PUA's were constantly trying to improve efficiency and speed up the scoring. 

Yet suddenly opening phrases were known, routines (a fixed linguistic pattern to achieve a positive result, think AIDA, but in the pub) were spotted and PUA's were ridiculed. This led to a number of the gurus proclaiming that they found a new way.

Method vs. Natural 
This new group was a response to the way it had been up till now. Until now, PU's were a series of steps and mechanics. First there was the opening, then the routine, then increasing the tension and finally .. action. Hence the name Method. 

But by now the audience knew how it worked, the effect became less strong. This led to even crazier openings, increasingly complex routines. But this did not lead to improvement in outcome. Only more noise and ridicule.

Group two said that a pick-up (PU) was a spontaneous, natural thing, and that you as a PUA attracted women by being yourself. The best self you can be, but still yourself. 

No script, no story,just a spontaneous interaction that had an open ending. If there is no script, then you could get caught, and if they liked you because of you, you do not need to worry about fullfilling the image what you portraying with your routines (self-insured and cocky, etc. 

For followers and gurus, this is a more difficult path. It requires self-improvement of personality, appearance and self-confidence before you proceed to chase. But if we believe the feedback the Natural way is beating Method. 

Not in the least because the practitioners are at least feeling better about themselves and are no longer stressed out memorizing routines. 

Action speaks louder than words

Yeah ... .. so what you're think. This is a marketing blog. Correct. And from a marketing standpoint there are some interesting observations. 

Google, Hyves, Facebook, HBO, Skype, show us that many of the strongest brands over the last 10 years were built by attracting customers through a disproportionate focus on product and service innovation. Not product and service communications (which still plays a role, but a lesser one). 

Research of the University of South London shows us the same. In a study of purchases over time, researcher Charles Graham discovered that despite large amounts of money brands spend, market shares remaines stable. He saw that the market shares of most brands in the study increased or decreased by 3 percent, but always within that margin. 

Only six brands increased their market shares by more than 6%. These changes were "not achieved by changes in promotional mix" but by "exceptional, strategic and structural innovation." 

So ... 
Like PU gurus we are in a crisis. Consumers are more aware of our practices, trust the advice their friends more than our commercials and many businessowners and CFO's can't get a good answer to the question of "what that budget is contributing to the bottom line".

But therein lies the opportunity for our industry to show our value. Not by better creation of campaigns, but by challenging our customers and clients to learn, innovate and be of real value to the lives of consumers in those moments when they need us. 

Only we will have to look at ourselves first. For an industry that brags about innovation and creation, we have only played a modest role in the creation of the above mentioned brands or the many other innovations that we know. 

Not that there is no place for advertising agencies, but decades ago an agency developed the idea of the soapseries, now we fill the few minutes between content blocks. 

For just as women do not mind a talking to fun, spontaneous guy who, in addition to humor and self-confidence, actually has something to say, consumers have nothing against seduction by advertising, products and services, or spending money. 

Only the umpteenth variation on "Don't I know you from somewhere ..." will not get us of the list of "things which can be cut", just as it won't help PUA's get dates...

Billy Apple exhibition in Rotterdam

thx to her. If you are in Rotterdam, do visit here.

don't care about being original, care about being great

Clients remember: output and risk not input and gains matter when judging creative work

The cultural and commercial worldwide success know as MTV Unplugged came about by sheer luck and coincidence.

Bon Jovi was asked to perform at the '89 MTV Awards. The crowd at home and in the audience responded with great enthusiasm to their stripped down version of two great electric songs. Executives at MTV took a chance and ran with it. The rest is history.

Never judge the work on how it came about. Best never to ask either. Only judge it by the outcome. For the process is often times messy and unruly and sometimes literally just takes seven and a half minutes to produce great work.

And don't worry if it will become a hit. You don't know. Look at the risk instead. If the downside is something you will survive, take a chance, so at least you know what does not work and you can move on to something else.

Nobody got ahead by staying at the back of the pack.

everything you need to know about getting a date and doing effective advertising

Flowers? No
Money? No (perhaps, but for the sake of argument, let's not open that can of worms)
Cars? No
Stylish dressing? No
Humor? Mehh
Good Looks? Don't hurt, but not really dealbreakers
Social skills? Usefull
Power? Hmmm...

All of the above are really just rationale that help propagate certain emotional triggers once all that matters is said and done.

So without further ado, and with an explanation following, the one thing you need to know, the only thing you will ever need to know, the thing you wish somebody had told you when you were younger... to get a date or to create advertising work that works is:

Get people to do something for you. *pin dropping*

Get people to do something for you. That's it. You don't have to believe me, and you are allowed to be sceptical.

But is it true. Under certain circumstances, which are not difficult to figure out or to set up, all you need to do, to be effective, is to get people to do something for you. Allow me to explain.

As I was walking around Berlin, I experienced something that amazed me.

Being approached by strangers, who, after spotting me and my mates standing there with camera's, would volunteer to take our picture infront of set building or whatever.

Total strangers who after taking the picture would, without being asked to, proceed to explain something about the place, ask what we had seen, so they could recommend other things and in some cases even offer to show the way or play guide. And all the while seeming to enjoy it and having a blast doing it. Absolutely amazing.

So I asked myself: would asking for it have the same effect? Would me going up to total strangers and asking to have my picture taken, have some of the same generosity effects?

It turns out that it does. Walking up to elderly, kids, mothers, police men, and off course good looking females, pretty much resulted in the same things:

1) They were more then happy to take my/our picture;
2) When given the chance to, most were happy to either walk us to some other piece of culture, tell us what they knew about that one, or exchange numbers to continue the conversation at another time.

Asking a tourist or a local was not much different as far as the actual action taken was concerned. The conversation that took place after was, but that is natural as the context changes from interaction to interaction.

This experience a bit of an eye opener. And it also helped me cristalize certain vague ideas.

First of it made me even stronger in my belief that awereness is overrated. And that people who think in terms of

1) Awereness
2) Interest
3) Action/purchase

are missing the point and are wasting time and money that clients and agencies could and should be using more wisely.

As I touched upon here, the idea of figuring out the conversion side of things down the line, is thinking that is not going to help convince clients with limited budgets and consumers with selective attention.

Start with action in mind and build from there.

1) solicit an (predictable)act (of culture)
2) create a conversation ( and in the case of brands a relationship, though remember that the one with the least invested controls the relationship)
3) allow for the experience to spread

This is a far more effective way to go about things. Perhaps counter intuitive but effective.

Why?

1) First off because by getting people to do something for you, instead of you doing something for them, you can cancel out major penny gap effects.

See people are inherently selfish. If you cook a meal for others, you do so off course to have them enjoy that meal, but there is also the expectation of getting some kind of compliment. Nothing wrong with that, but the selfishness is always around. Not being acknowlegded makes for sour grapes fast

And well, most brands, when making that piece of funny film, commercial, ambient or giving that stuff away for free, act friendly but expect to monetize on that friendship at some point down the line. But as Dan Ariely has shown us, doing business after we have been social does not work, most of the time and for most industries.

By asking for action from the other party first a couple of things happen. The most obvious is the fact that you learn the other party's flight or fight mechanism. If they don't run away, or turn hostile on you, well you got yourselve a keeper.

Always nice to know up front and not after you did your whole song and dance routine, if only to keep you from overcommiting some sterile strategy that got the ok in focus groups (kicking a ball into the back of the net during a match is still the only way to score, nobody get's point for training extra had). Which off course does wonder for the accountability of the effectiveness of an agency, as you end up doing stuff that works in the field.

Secondly from action follows belief and enthusiasm. Or more exactly the belief that "If I do something for you, well you must be ok. Because no way in hell am I gonna do something for someone I do not like. And if I like you, well I might as well like you alot."

Asking up front for action (and by the way this can be a small action, because as long as it has some cultural/social element build into it and is asked in the right context, it will resonate and kickstart our heuristic mind and thus resulting in conversion with bigger than expected certainty) we thus avoid the problem that most guys dread: How to go from friends to lovers after you've invested time and resources, making her think you are friends. Or how to convert all that awereness into action.


2) As I said here, the magic starts after the act is performed. After having asked for an act (of culture) by the other party, and this act is performed, the other becomes part of something shared. And if it is something worth spreading, he will do so if only for the simple but powerfull reason to have something new to say to friends and relatives.

In my personal experience, having my picture taken by other tourists with a mobile phone, allowed me to get the picture bluetoothed or mailed to me, my mates there and at home and all of their friends. A simple and easy way to make the act of taking a picture into something more, a story/conversation starter.

Circumstances

As I noted above, one does need to take into account certain things before asking for action.
A couple of major once are:

1) the context of asking

When I asked to get my picture taken at the subway near the appartment outside of the tourist city centre, the results were not as great. Still not to bad (as most people even though we are selfish, or perhaps because we are selfish and do it to make ouselves feel good, still want to help others when asked), but not as great. So the obvious lesson is: Context.

Right time, right place, determine how forthcoming the other will be and how effective the proposition asked will enhance the status of the one being asked in the eyes of his peers (turning down a tourist in a non tourist part of town, may not make you seem a bad city ambassador as when you do it at Checkpoint Charlie.)

2) The culture of the solicitation

As noted above asking something at the right time and place makes for better response. To upp it even more the question posed has to have some culture in it. Asking somebody to take your picture at a tourist spot, feels natural and right. Our instincts do not raise red flags. And since we are genetically trained to spot that which stand out in order to survive, we should take into account the history of humans when asking.

Asking people to look after your bag in a library, or asking for a light inside a pub, also work. One because well library = earnest= safe = off course you would watch a bag. The other because pub/club = fun = flirting, fire = danger. With the smoking ban it becomes somewhat of a law defying act thus making you seem masculine. (But this all pure speculation. Though the results were good. Better then asking for your picture to be taken in a library, or having someone watch your stuff in a club).

So there you have it folks, ask (don't give) for something that seems natural, fun and sharable and people will most likey do it, with pleasure and talk about it afterwards. All markets are solliciations, so might as well ask.

briefings and/of the future

"I came into this motherfucker a hundred grand strong
Nine to be exact, from grindin G-packs
Put this shit in motion ain't no rewindin me back
Could make 40 off a brick but one rhyme could beat that
And if somebody woulda told 'em that Hov' would sell clothin
Heh, not in this lifetime, wasn't in my right mind
That's another difference that's between me and them
Heh, I'm smarten up, open the market up
One million, two million, three million, four
In eighteen months, eighty million more "

What do you do when you sell drugs, but you figure out that your rhyming ability can earn you that much needed goal of money, cars, hoes* faster and safer? You start rhyming off course. Quite obvious really.

Now what do you do if your artform is laced with refferences with regards to luxury items, such as clothes, cars jewelry etc? Get endorsments by those? Mehh..could go that way aka the "tommy hilfigger is my nigga" namecheck strategy by Mobb Deep.

Or how about you start your own companies (RoccaWear, Roccafella Film, Roccafella records, Armadale Wodka to name a few) in one or more of the markets you are already are advertising for as a platform? Get some of that equity out of those acts of culture instead of a paycheck? Sounds more like it, right..

Well if it does sound more like it then why is it not more common?Why is Jay-z worth more than 200 million and Mobb Deep say, one or two million? Leaving aside issues of musical taste and talent, the revenue streams were there for both of them, yet one took full advantage and the other did not.

And the difference: Effectual reasoning.

Effectual reasoning is basically the mindstate of an entrepeneur. It asks the simple questions: What do I have of value?
Who am I?
Whom do I know?
Will I survive if this path fails me?

In other words it starts with the available means and the risk and works toward eliminating risk (thus gaining ways that work), instead of stating a problem and rewards and then working towards achieving those rewards.

Now why is this distinction important? It could inginite the industry again to become the force it was during the the 1960's and it is the writing on the wall for those who continue to hold on to the olden ways.

Couple of factors also make it the perfect time to stop and think about our way of working.

1) Abundance in the West
2) Growing importance of cultures and regions where abundance is not standard


Right now the tech advances are such that companies/citizens in the West can pretty much get all the supplies they need for free or at bargain prices. So the need to spot a gap in the market, which will always be important, is not the primary point of entry anymore. If most markets are without scarcity and work for free, you will need to be about more than product differentiation and pricing. You need to be about you. And this is good because?

Well everybody is banging on about authenticity, story, narrative, recession, budgets, monetization, accountability and the likes. And well, they are right. By looking inward at what you have build up in the last decades, at the resources at hand, you will find true differentiation in little acts of culture or in processes that are unique to you. Things that could help your customers within habits established, without it costing you a dime. Again I like to stress that it is not just about soft stuff, but also the hard stuff that you have under your noses. Change the point of view and they become assests.

Africa, Asia, Latin America. Powerhouses of the now to next. But also places where resources have been scarce. And will continue to be for some time. However because of the somewhat levelling playingfield via the web and globalisation, the culture of making the most with what you have and not being tide down to methods (because the only criteria you have is, does it work, as in does it feed me, give me shelter etc NOW) all of a sudden becomes a major business advantage.

You see just coming up with an goal idea and then trying to get it spread without any backend, is nice when you've got funding. When you have to fund yourself along the way, you learn the value of conversion and monetization. And who likes monetization? We all do, and clients the most.

(The next creative advertising revolution will come from the third world cultures, largely because their definition of creativity is different. It is creating something out of practically nothing, not getting bogged down in form exercises that serve no value, but that is a post for another time)

Taking these (out of many more ) factors in account, working from a viewpoint that allows for quick connections and affordable failure enables us to achieve more tangible results, hence not only making the adland industry gain that much needed Accountability tag, but it also allows us to slip in the social(ist)/2.0 principles the plannersphere has been wetting itself (me included) over, up to the C-level.

And doing it all while not costing the client any money. And that is important. Because reality is, fear still works. Fear of loss of face, job, prestige, budget etc works. Quite powerfully.

Right now it works to stop advances, because we can't convey the value down the line. But it could work in our advantage as we focus on taking away fears because we elimate the downside instead of trying to figure out the upside in advance.

Off course this is easier said then done, hiring practices will have to change at agencies, training has to change at agencies, compensation will have to change at agencies. But guess what..That will happen with you or without you.

Don't say I did not warn you. Smarten up, open the market up...





*lyrics by Notorious BIG

presentation P&O Cruises

P&O: Staying ahead means thinking ahead

View more presentations from nikoherzeg. (tags: strategy marketing)

thoughts on brands

Parts of an exchange about brands. Was very helpfull in clarifying some of my thoughts, so it is being reprinted for those who like this sort of stuff with kind permission of Rob Campbell


Rob,
Why would a brand want to live forever? especially with the life span of 18 months when it comes to brand managers why doesn't anybody retire brands like they do rockbands (and releasing a single to pay for your ex wife does not count as keeping the beatles alive, they died the day ringo stopped replying to fanmail!).

Killing it prematurly is surely a strategy. Hendrix, Che, JFK, The Wire will live on more powerfully with the great "what if..? question" sparking the imagination then say the brand of Law & Order or Bill Clinton...

I would really like to hear your opinion on heritage in brands, does this burden or enhance? and should you sometimes kill them off? The product life cycly is just another midless act people refer to. Brand euthanasia is surely in order. who needs 2000 jeans brands?


I think it’s an interesting strat however there’s a few points that will probably stop it from ever happening …
1/ No company will kill a brand that is making them tons of cash. Apart from the fact they crave profit, if they are listed, it is a legal duty to do whatever is in the best interests of the company and as much as you could argue it will give the brand ‘emotional longevity’, it’d be a hard sell to shareholders.

2/ There are lots of brands that meant a lot to people that got pulled [because of poor sales for example] and whilst they still live in the minds of the fans, their commercial value [unlike Hendrix/Elvis etc] is minimal.

3/ The fact is that in the main, ‘brands that are manufactured’ just don’t have that much importance in people’s lives. Sure they like them, but they don’t love for them – mainly because their communication is primarily blatantly commercially based as opposed to musicians that often represent a more emotional value, even if in reality they are designed to get money out of your wallets.

As I said, I do think it’s an interesting idea, but killing the goose that laid the golden egg – especially from a corporate standpoint – is sadly, quite unlikely.



like i said, I believe that legal issues (such as obligations to shareholders) are preventing growth of brands.

So I believe that first of lifting the copyright protection on a brand will free up a brand and simultaniously scare them into delivering tangible value. If you look at the stock market crisis it's alot down to intangible fears. A lot of companies are very liquid but lose value.

If it's free market you want, well let the market decide. basically it's Rome. You got two brands (copyright free) and the consumer get's to decide if they live or dy. They can vote (think the brandtags thing of Noah Brier but with thums up or thumds down vote, not asking abbout associations).

And secondly by making brands creative comm licence esque, the public will indirectly decide what happens to a brand. If a brand is good and acts proper, you will most likely see small charities and other projects hop on their name. If it's shite you will see most likely some cynical and satirical stuff on youtube and in other media that will kill it. self regualation, much like wikipedia.

If 'i've learned anything it's that brands only exist in the minds of those who buy/believe in them. So either you deliver uplifting meaning and raise spirits (such as Nike) or you flog a good enough product at cheap prices so it meet needs.

I see a future where there are two type of tangible product brands: autonomous brands that deserve to live and the Unicef brands. by Unicef brands I mean that the major (multi religious and otherwise) charities start adding their label to products. so you get the typhoid south africa pants, the fresh water shirts.

This way not only do we rid the world of bad brands (and the hacks that support them in their comms) but we make sure that either you get someting great or you do something good. Web based brands will be a different story, because of the low cost of scaling.

Might never happen, but that's what they said about communisme in the usa!


Quick question, if we follow your idea to its natural conclusion, what role does marketing then have given it used to be about ‘influence’ whereas you seem to almost be saying it should be totally upto the people’s choice or am I missing something?


It's about filling in the akward silences that occur when conversation is turning from interesting to not [PR is gaining in importance]. it's about becoming the one people can turn to in time of crisis.

So instead of toning down their presence to inlfuence, marketing has to ramp it up, when it matters and with different content!

via:
1) internal company development (structuraly, legaly, productwise, making JFK "we will put a man on the moon in 10 years"goals)

2) relevant culture converstation starter/matchmaking problems with solutions (enabling journalist to do work, filmmakers to talk, taking the real beauty strat to a more abstract level)

3) community outreach (perhaps like a state that takes care of it's citizens [yeah it's going back to industrial age practice of job for life, but now it's about quality for life]; how many brand consumers can't afford their healthcare? why are not all the brands pooling resources to come up with something. loyalty = 2way street)

I believe that brands should put their faith in the hands of consumers. it's like that exercise where you fall backwards and hope somebody catches you. now brands expect to be caught, but don't catch.

Nothing wrong with making money, nothing wrong with making mistakes.

We talk about brands behaving more human or treating consumers more humane. So why not than see how we can make brands as vulnerable as possible so that a) they are seen as one of "us", b) they can change people's minds and actions because they will do like brands/companies.

So perhaps I was a bit black and white about the rome analogy, but I stick by my Uplifting vs Valuable categorization. either you make me feel good, or help me be better/do good while offering me good enough product I don't have to think to much about.

By putting yourselve out there you will see if you are good enough. The goose /currency = people. Pete was right. And like oil, we are abusing it untill there will be no more.

How many people will say with pride: I work at....? That is another the role of marketing. Making sure that the consumers, who happen to work for them, feel proud. kingdom for meaning!

Hope it makes sense

branding at the speed of law

You've probably read, seen or heard about this. It's the reality of business today. Shit can hit the fan. But what peakes my interest is the fact that it's a losing reality for most brands. Why?

The legal department.

The aim of the game back in the day was to protect image. And when it comes to that game, most major companies are well equiped. cease and desist, halting actions.

Only nobody told them the citizens are playing a different game. A bit like cops and robbers, Batman and the Joker.



It's about being able to talk the fluid fast paced, truth based talk. How may companies are structured in such a way that they know the exact margins of communication, so that they can act without concern and stay in conversation?

So riddle me this agencies:

When it comes to briefing or presenting strat + concepts, how many are concerned with the facilitation of an ongoing dialogue from a legal structure p.o.v.?

For so many intergrated agencies it seems that ad/marketing and p.r. are still seen as silo's and not letters that, read out loud, form the word experience.

Yet if you do not set yourselves up to learn real time, you are just setting yourselve up to fail. And just thinking about the initial setup whereby courting controversy (which in turn can ignite passionate followers and fierce detractors; the bedrock of branding against beige) is in some cases a viable way to go, is not enough. It's always about the next move.

Asking yourselve questions like: what if we don't create followers, but just piss people of ? What is our Time to Reponse ?

As a client I would very much appreciate the fact that my ad team has legal experts on board who played a role in the overal strategy and have paved the way for advertising and pr to flow into one another. Creativity is reading and knowing the fineprint. And this is not a plea for further focus group testing, this is simply asking companies and agencies to level the playingfield for themselves so that they are not hijacked.

For as long as a brand does not truly belong to it's consumers (in every sense of the way) companies have to think about how to become as agile as citizens. Or at least know what game they are in and the rules that apply.

brand lessons from Ralph Waldo Emerson

Make yourself necessary to somebody. Do not make life hard to any.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.

The only way to have a friend is to be one.

The world belongs to the energetic.

A man of genius is privileged only as far as he is genius. His dullness is as insupportable as any other dullness.

Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think.

Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.

What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.

He who is in love is wise and is becoming wiser, sees newly every time he looks at the object beloved, drawing from it with his eyes and his mind those virtues which it possesses.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

some more thoughts on strategy, agencies and the industry

some thoughts on strategy and agencies

The agencies that will survive/thrive in the (near) future will be structured as the BDA’s (big dumb agencies) of today. They will be international conglomerates that do full service work and help the client grow successfully into profitable companies. Jusqu'ici tout va bien.

Ideology and recruitment
The main difference will be the following. The agencies will limit themselves to the clients they will assist. Some get it, some don’t. Those who do will get help. What that it is, we all know. It is not just bottom line, not just the lowest common denominator, not just satisfying the boss above you, not being non involved with the business, because you have no vested interest in the success or failure.

It’s a state of mind, a inner manifesto, based on part naïveté, part reckless ambition, part idealism, part stubborn feeling that there is a better way of doing things (this a personal view of the world, I admit, but go look at the people/things you admire and you will see these elements surface).

The problem with the agency of tomorrow is, the same as the discussion about the role of advertising in general in the future. It’s always from the angle of service. Submissively catering to the needs of the client. That has to change or everything else is just dryfucking.

Agencies need to choose clients, better yet not choose clients. It is neither the execution, nor the work nor the strategy; the fight is in alignment of worldviews and the destruction of institutionalizing effects. We want to have successful families with sound values that can grow and evolve, not one night stands.

For better or for worse we will need to demand from our clients that they state a point view publicly that is ours. The talk need to be about fundamental, not instrumental reasons for doing stuff/going about stuff. Middle or wing is detail work. But we have to demand a show of colour. It’s not about one word, brand energy or any tactical proprietary tool/system. It’s about ideology.

Matchmaking
Business strategy will be more replaced by the achievement of audacious non business goals across multiple types of business (since you will have blue and red business in tech, food, logistics, non profit) and regions, religions that need to be achieved via business funds (think providing every kid in Tanzania with an education till the age of 16 instead of 12, or new technologies or what not). Multinational clients cram local territory, yet still function as silos when it comes to solving problems within the territory they operate in.

It’s the role of the agency of the future to pick businesses that fit a certain mould, connect them with local consultants from the agency, who will help the business grow and keep focus on the grander ideological goals. To spot business opportunities with other likeminded business to achieve growth.

Forget media neutral, transmedia, matchmaking is our business. Once again, fundamentals, not instuments. Instead of servicing one client we shift to becoming middlemen that connect those who can do more without us than with us interfering. That means design, movie producers, farmers, whoever can help solve the problem and advance the business towards the non-business goals.

to be continued


NH

vision of the future

the view from a far is sometimes sharper

Derren Brown is a mentalist. His book about the trade is quite a spell binding (boom tish!) read.

Among the many gems, he discusses the fact that it is easier for him to play his tricks on those who watch him the closest. He flipped the old saying "for every action there is an equal reaction" by stating that for every bit of concentration in one part of the brain and on one part of his act, there is a loss of concentration in another part of the brain and on another part of his act.

This simple insight allows him to play with people. With great ease.

However, the people he as a magician fears most are the once who don't give him their full attention, those who glimpse out of the corner of their eyes to see what it is he is doing. No pressure is there on them to follow. They are not paying attention to a single part, but just glance to see the entire act. And then spot the cheat quite easy.

Sometimes we as admen to can get so deep into research/work or as a brand in our products, that we just see parts and are being played without even knowing it.

So remember to cultivate blank slates. Be it in your agency, or those that don't fit into the target group you do focusgroups with.

Those with no pressure to come up with anything, that have no stake in your brand. Have them glance your work, brand or thinking. Forget territorial pissing and be suprised to learn a lot.

P.S. over on his blog Northern makes an very good case for blank slates in your own life. Go and read.

the power of words

Watching a regional football derby yesterday it struck me: these players were more ferocious, more physical, more inclined to play rough, to do whatever it took to win that derby not because of what the derby meant to both teams. It was because of what the word derby means. period.


It is this implicitness, the context of the word that these players understood. The reff understood, the crowd understood. Derby = hard play, full of fouls, at breakneck pace. More was allowed, because of the frame it was presented in.


Briefing is one of those words that lately has frustrated me. If say the agency we work with gives feedback about the briefing they received it somehow always revolves around questions of format, channel choice, pay off. It seems that the auto pilot kicks in whenever they hear the word briefing, and it takes them back to when they learned about it in school. Briefing = ......


Words. Context. We often glance over it, but once you get down to the nitty gritty of it, it is powerfull. Especially when the implicit meaning is understood but not articulated. When the illusion of civility is upheld or explicitly removed.



They can grant us room to grow or close our way of thinking down.


Exploring vs Drilling for oil


Immigrant vs illigal Alien


Words dictacte so much of the space we can, allow ourselves to take, and can help us articulate the reasons behind actions not explicitly mentioned, that a dictionary is this marketeers new friend. Perhaps obvious to some, but important enough to me to repeat.

world community grid

via mr Maschmeyer

great example of building on existing relationships

what if...rapid response via existing means

this idea got me thinking.

There are printshops, shops for t-shirts and the shops like Kinko's. These shops have an infrastructure in place to produce. 

What if you created a UN server? this server would kickstart when great disasters happen. 

From this server you, as a shop, could download prints. On this server as a designer, artist, you could upload stuff to be printed. all for charity. What you do is three things: 

1) make use of existing worldwide distribution to facilitate a charity/money scheme.

2) you could kickstart an extra money revenue, by having a online/televised fashion show, with limited editions. Like you could have a Paris limited edition done by some designer, and have an London Hirst limited edition.

3) make use of existing desire to have t shirt with great motifs on them, and or the need to have something haning from the wall.

a tentative first step in a new thought direction for me. So any and all feedback is welcome

digital planning: a case for running after we learn how to walk

Over on sunshine's blog there is interesting debate going on. Should digital planning be separate and be the domain of digital planners or should it be a tool in the box of planners? Period.

After having some lunch, I have come to the following conclusion. Yes and No.

It's time we (?) learned a lesson from the restaurant industry. Chefs are in many ways a great inspiration for me as they are the ultimate advertising men. They have to do the planning and the creative execution all in one. Plus making sure that they do it on a budget , like good Account Handlers(well most have to), and advancing the craft further. All the while they never lose sight of the strategic anker of their proffession: serving up great food that customers want to eat.

That's the trick. Serving up food that people wanna eat. Some do it via the classical French Cuisine, some do fusion cooking.

Another small trick is that the majority of the Chefs with 1 or more Michelin star have been trained in the classic French cuisine, the basis of modern cooking, at some point or another in their career. Some have chosen to move on to do different styles and explore different cuisines, some have choses to perfect it. But the root understanding and appreciation of the craft is there.

So why not have digital agencies. there could well be a market for it. That is not the real question.

One could argue that Nike did the right thing by not having Wieden do all the Nike+ stuff. Their strength is with emotional stuff in print and telly (bit of a generalisation, but for arguments sake, let's play along). You don't go to a restaurant to eat tapas with your coq au vine? why should you demand McDonald style service from your agency but that's a client problem and a post for another time.

The question is: Do planners understand the root of their craft, the consumer and what drives him? If they do, well than there is no reason why they should not serve up their food in a digital form. If their is not, well than it's time to re-evaluate the relevancy. For if you can not meet the never changing demand for consumer insight (but taken to a new medium) you should go back to school.

P.S. what if there was a Cordon Blue with a "Classis Cycle" for planning? I'd sign up. Just like mr King's book should be read by all.

Strawberries in January pt 3: the way forward: enhancing relationships, not creating totaly new ones

I realized there was no need to create new forms; all I had to do was design the relationship between a human, an object, and what is around the two. That realization gave me a big relief.

For example, if a client asked me “Please design a chair” while sitting in a good chair, I might go so far as to say, “Why? You’re already sitting in a nice one!” That’s almost it. People think that design is about making new things, creating new stimulations. But what about the good relationships that already exist? Why abandon all that and make things all over again? If there is already a relationship with a chair that is 95 percent good, then all that has to be done is to adjust the remaining 5 percent to suit the current needs. The client might persist and say “No, no, I want you to design it, Mr. Fukasawa.” But what I’m trying to say is that the important thing is how much design you can do with the remaining 5 percent of what has been 95 percent completed, how you can make the best out of the design that has already been developed and improved, and make your design along with what’s already there, instead of just throwing everything out and starting from scratch. Of course, to design that 5 percent is not as easy as it sounds because you have to further improve what’s already a great design.

Naoto Fukasawa

what if...we changed the budget

So here is one from real life actually that got shot down.

One of my targets, in my official capacity, for next year is to help Sales increase revenue (somehow it seems that's always a target). So to achieve that here is what I proposed.

Cut the target and budget meetings down from once a month to once every three months.

See most of our sales managers know at the beginning of a month whether they will achieve their targets. So when they know it's gonna be negative, they go on defense. cutting costs to reach margin targets, squeeze old clients for more and go on sales driven binges by offering everything at lower prices. This then only wrecks havoc on the revenue side, because if you have a bad month you go to the same clients a s always and dump the price even more. It's a cycle.

But what if you knew you had two months to make up you current negative? This would allow you to use a month, that is "lost" anyways to go on offence and take chances with new business. It would free up sales manager to be more proactive and the trickle down would be positive instead of fearfull.

Yes this is all just a theory, but never put to practice it remains that.

Back to the drawingboard.