What is marketer to do? And then it hit me (right after that ouzo at Christos ). Below you will find a way to, for me at least, bring talk back to a more fundamental level, from a marketer/client/creative point of view.

Social vs Civic axis (hattip @ markearls for this one): this gives us a simple way of understanding how to strategically position the campaign when looking at conventions in the market, competitors, and stuff happening in society. It also serves as a way to reality check clients as to the consequences of choices.

Social would be well, Old Spice/Cadburry/Budweiser stuff.

Civic would look like Levi’s Go Forth

Casual vs intense axis: gives us a way of thinking about of the ways to best interact with the target group, again based on the context of society, product, etc… (stolen from @eranium at Christos while talking about gaming)

Casual would look like the stuff that Live Strong did: all we want you to do is simple, low intensity/effort stuff that could make a great difference.

Heavy: Is of course the opposite of casual in terms of complexity, commitment (both from the company point of view as from the customer point of view). Think World of Warcraft vs MaffiaWars.

From commercial points of view, it makes you think more about the painpoints in the “customer experience” (fuck me I hate these kinds of words), how to perhaps pick up groups not your core, former customers who have not seen your product as still relevant.

By combining the various possibilities one can play with ways to answer the clients problem while making sure clients aren’t overreaching, or underselling the possibilities of the situation. And in the ideal situation all elements would play a part at some point, cause humans are never on or the other all the time.

As with all diagrams/briefs the above one is simple and incomplete. Nevertheless, it can serve as a good conversation starter and a way of looking at the market in a broader sense then just catergory, or going into digital vs analogue type conversations.

It struck me as some cliche rich folks tell. Turns out he was right. Kind of. I just could not see it. Blinded by the lights, as the song goes.

We see him party, spend money, carry bling and have all the girls.  All wish to be him. But..not the entire him. Just the guy on the red carpet. Sexy money.

Which brings me to…me…and you.

Sexy or money. Time to choose.

Going after the first could mean you will have some great experiences, read great stuff, end up discussing the future of businesses, even may mean you will advice companies, go to Cannes to collect some awards and party like rockstars.

Scoping it out, it may mean you get to go to TED to listen to great men of action, dance at presidential inaugurations, participate in celebrity telethons for humanitarian causes.

Going after money means the opposite. Accepting accolades, being sworn in, speaking at TED, being the face of a cause. Only after you have achieved something. Or failing without anybody ever noticing, or worse: failing in the public eye.

I guess most of us want sexy money. We humans are like that. But if we admit that, let’s admit something else: It is not going to happen, until we choose to be/get money first. To make things happen, earn that success. Until we go out and do shit.

So…there is this idea for a business. Getting more and more concrete. Operational progress is being made. Commercial success lurks around the corner. Might be good, might not.

Only one way to find out.

His life is turned upside down when a young MBA (played by Anna Kendrick) comes in and figures out that by doing the firing online and from one central location, the cost of business can be reduced by 85%. Clooney tries to convince her that this is not as clearcut as Kendrick thinks it is.

The contrast between Clooney and Kendrick serves as a nice backdrop for some practices we all know but sometimes need reminding of*:

Kiss ass vs Kick Ass Kiss a little to Kick alot, or not..there is no golden rule to start with just a result to end with.

Clooney is ambiguity. Kendrick certainty. She is the one with the demands and the firm beliefs about how the world should work. He is more comfortable with the idea of working with how the world is first to get the world to work how it could be.

This post flows from the previous post, but focusses more on the process of selling our services. Bells and whistles matter (to a certain extend of course, whether we care to admit or not). Awards, good offices, smart suits, leggy blonds, the truth, famous clients, solutions that make money (plain hard cold cash). They all matter.

Suppose you are a brand new manager from some FMCG company and you would know the truth about the way most of our solutions come into existence.

“Take in a load of information, letting this all simmer, working towards and hoping that what the brain comes up with will be something profitable and competitive. Because to tell you the truth, we really have only so much control over whether this will be a hit or not.”

You’d have to be walking in some pretty comfortable shoes to go “ok….appreciate the honesty and I acknowlegde that there are no garantuees, but let us proceed anyways”. Most clients are not like that from the start.

They need, and should be given, an appropriate shock/comfort ratio to transition from non (or not enough) participatory to participating (fully). The politics of business is perhaps to some shallow, but not to be underestimated or be ashamed of.

So unless you can always choose partners who, within their culture have embraced ambiguity (because they are owners of the business and have lived it themselves, or they know that conventional methods will not help them achieve their goal of topping the leader), remember that there is no shame in kissing a bit of ass every now and then.

Because given the right encouragement and results, most clients will grow with the agency and start to develop solutions that can bring out the full potential of a business.

So don’t sit in the corner sulking : “They don’t understand how it should be”. Show and prove in terms the client understands. Remember: a leader without followers is just a person walking alone.

*For arguments sake I leave the morality of working for/with a company that fires people for a living out of the equation. Same goes for the actual movie. No accounting for taste.

His life is turned upside down when a young MBA (always them MBA’s, played by Anna Kendrick) comes in and figures out that by doing the firing online and from one central location, the cost of business can be reduced by 85%. Clooney tries to convince her that this is not as clearcut as Kendrick thinks it is.

The contrast between Clooney and Kendrick serves as a nice backdrop for some practices we all know but sometimes need reminding of*:

Client vs Agency Client + Agency = Result
Kendrick comes in and tells Clooney, who has been at this job well over 15 year (and from the looks of it getting results), that there are better ways to do it. The subtext quite clearly being: “thank heaven you were smart enough to hire me, now get me some coffee and move out of the way while I apply the newest thinking to save the day”.

So he takes her out on the road. Trying to prove that she may know about the business, but does not know what the business is about.

The nuances about customers, the different ways they react (good and bad) and how these sitiations are always openings to create positive experiences. Of course this brings some sort of personal enlightment to Kendrick, but the point is one we could do well to remember as business people.

Yes the client has issues, otherwise we would not be needed. But most likely the client has been earning their living doing what they do, for a long time. Longer then we have earned ours by doing our work. Be humble and listen to clients, they may actually teach us a thing or two that will help us help them.

No need to grovel or to behave like the Beyonder. Work together, share the agenda and it might just benefit both.

*For arguments sake I leave the morality of working for/with a company that fires people for a living out of the equation. Same goes for the actual movie. No accounting for taste.

I have noticed something odd recently which, while discussing it with a few people, got me in some heated debates whether or not I was aware of how foolish what I was saying, made me look (thank Lord I have my looks, ha!)

Native Dutch (from Western/Dutch descent from a cultural point of view, thus excluding third/fourth gen from non West european descent) subliminal nationalism.

As is perhaps known, the largest political party (in the polling) is the populist party PVV, led by Geert Wilders. Yet the act of publicly acknowledging that you as a Dutch native (with the sterotypical label put on you by foreigners of tolerance) are sympathetic to these views is still (though declining) taboo.

Below a picture of a radio station advert on a billboard.

A radio station advertising with “100% NL”. Again as a statement, it means they play Dutch music. Yet against the backdrop of political and social unrest it gets interesting indeed.

Dutch speaking music has always been around, and popular. But it was never mainstream. Played on local and regional radio/tv and with performers playing in community centres, so to speak. But since around the rise of the late Fortuyn it has steadily become more mainstream.

From reality shows about singers to them being covered in the big dailys like the Telegraaf and filling football stadiums for days in a row, the liking of Dutch music seems to have taken on a subtext of more than entertainment.

Now of course chauvinism is not new, as with every world cup football every nation feels a surge of pride coming on, but this feels different, coming from a place of fear rather than joy.

And now this winter. Ice skating. The quintessential Dutch sport (We/they are regular world and Olympic champions in this sport).

Yet the sudden demand for ice skate rings is almost bigger than supply. This was before the weather made for natural ice and one could argue that after a decade of no natural ice we are all going out in drones to enjoy this rare opportunity.

Having visited several rings out of curiousity around the city I can not help but sense a sort of “fist bump” effect amongst the Native: we are the same, we are Dutch in a Holland that is “tanning” in its culture (though the argument can be made that Dutch culture never was pure to begin, but that is talking rationaly when, no pain felt is untrue in the world of the victim ).

Again the above radiostation may just have put a slogan thought up in a few seconds on a billboard, but in the conxtext of changing society, demographics and culture in Holland, I find it one of the more powerfull pieces of advertising I have seen in a while (even if it just one sentence, no more).

Now of course this is all speculative, but the point is not whether it is true or not. the point is, that we often (to often) look at we want (people to want), when we plan our actions.

Not enough at what keeps people from doing stuff we want or doing other stuff than we want, which (when looked at) could reveal a less pretty picture then we care to admit, far less rational behaviour then we (by now) should know and a reality often at odds with client views of their own customer, product, buying reason and company.

And in this there are many opportunities we miss to create positive (for I am not advocating fear mongering in output, merely in acknowledging it in more diverse research and development of strategy) powerfull ideas that drive both the needs of our clients and resonate within the context of the lives of their customers.

I was really struck by the rigidness of the views of the people i discussed this hypothesis with (the absence of evidence does not mean this is evidence of absence after all) and again reminded that if we are striving to create work that resonates in the real world we should start researching and thinking in 3D, wherever the evidence (or lack thereof) takes us.

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

Terry: You was my brother, Charley, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn’t have to take them dives for the short-end money.

Charlie: Oh I had some bets down for you. You saw some money.

Terry: You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.

tnx: george@cynic.com

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