A story is a thing that can get passed around. Everyone talks about story-telling as being what works and what's needed. The writer, the construction of a great story. That is what drives us to engage. We know when a great campaign gets to us. It morphs, it becomes a part of our lives. That is what a brand is. It remains with us even when the product isn't there. So why is it that the advertising industry is so slow at getting at it. Sure there are some remarkable exceptions and I am from the industry and I was once very proud of that. Once.
Lamentable was the word - the overriding opinion in the room. I was listening intently to a group (of various ages) talk about brands and advertising - what works (what doesn't) - but very interestingly talking about how stupid the marketers must think we are. Marketers still justify that their sales are directly because of their ads. Even in the face of strong arguments against that fact. A stupidly large proportion of the mush that I see passing off as marketing and communication has zero story, zero content, zero interest and zero value. Not bad huh?
The word lamentable struck me because it contains an acronym I've used a lot over the years – LMT - Lazy Media Thinking. That got me going and I scribbled away - Lazy And Mediocre Effort Nevertheless Translates As Bullshit Literally Everywhere. Sorry!
A bad idea is a bad idea. We've all experienced the derision. The rapid clicking past a pop-up - another dis-believable piece of marketing nonsense. It is still a bad idea. It succeeds in creating a groundswell of anti-attraction and eventually hate mail, even to the less sophisticated. Why are these blunt instruments getting bought by clients and who are the villains still peddling this crap!
Actually I don't care really. I believe the advertising industry will either die or change beyond all recognition and that that will be the best thing. More opportunity as a result.
It will mean a return to smaller teams in their own niche or boutique businesses doing quality work. Much more creative work done with care and precision. Much good stuff is being done already. The fact is to get traction and work well in the current media world is to be far more smart. More creativity. The art of it all now needs to get matched by the science and physics of it all and sadly the advertising industry is at best 5% creative and 95% administrative and financial and accounting. The second part of that equation is most definitely and rapidly redefining the word overhead.
Clients now know this too.
“We’re very good at organising and collecting data now – one thing we’re not good at yet is re-presenting and humanising data, turning it into narratives and stories” - Tom Uglow, Creative Director - Google and YouTube – Europe.
I have written a bunch on this recently but when I find someone who has written what I feel better than me then why not give the guy the credit. I like what Tom says. He observes what's going down a lot like I do. I don't know him. He doesn't know me. Therefore what follows is at least a micro-zeitgeist.
Tom is the European Creative director not just of Google but also You Tube. I find it very hard to watch You Tube actually. I'm not an avid or habitual watcher of video on-line. Photographs definitely. Video's have to come highly recommended or I can skip easily. I think it's a speed of processing thing and perception of quality thing. Tom sums it neatly -
"Online is such a fragmented way of watching anything - infinitely more distracted - and more flighty - actively consuming but entirely fickle, not attentive to arcs, or detail or narrative. On Demand - where I carve out time and stop and actively watch. I'm looking for story, script and immersion, but not production quality. I actively want to watch a programme and I am committed to it."
100%! It certainly isn't true for everyone - but increasingly it's becoming true for many more people every day. I think as I get older I'm becoming less set in more things. I rarely watch TV but want the times I do to be very high quality and more of a special thing. A big movie, a match, a seriously high-production documentary. Mainstream entertainment on TV leaves me nauseous.
And my new mentor Tom's viewpoint? -
"On TV - where I (rarely anymore) sit and let the TV wash over me. It's passive. Time passes really fast. I'm not engaged nor am I proactively changing the channel. I could comfortably consume QI til I die. On DVD - I am attentive to the narrative, atmosphere and nuance. But in my slippers and a hoodie. On the big screen - I am completely committed, I have physically visited a theatre and am attentive to intimate detail, I will follow complex story-lines, loops and twists and I will analyse and contrast."
Because he is a 'someone' from Google, Tom is all about the little ads that are like granular and seemingly disconnected parts. But they are so not disconnected. Again I agree with him that this is now the way all marketers should think. But many may be too lazy to put in the energy or creativity required to pull off what this means. This is why they will need to change or die.
This used to be hyped up (dressed up) as one-to-one marketing, back in the day. A perfect idea spoiled by hijackers and the usual and predictable bandwagon. Whatever. Nowadays we have a million channels and creative tools, platforms or ways to surround the 'one' and communicate with 'one'. Treat them like an idiot at your peril. Although that's how it will feel in the main and in the short-term. This new media is all about attention to detail.
Tom again -
"I don't come from an advertising background, and the other day a prospective copywriter was patiently, (and somewhat patronisingly) explaining to me how a creative team is made of two, not three, and certainly not one, and how a copywriter and a creative should go off into a room and come up with a range of ideas backed up by visuals and copy, and then the artwork would be created from these concepts across a range of media.
Once I came round I suggested that an advertisement is like a phone call. It's an interaction where you receive some information. A phone call is just little packets of data. So why can't an advertising campaign be broken into little packets of data.
In fact better yet why can't the information be broken down into little bits (like the internet) and then shared around by, well, the internet. Like an idea. And then the next part of that is that the bits should really be the information, not an association, or implication, or a complete abstraction (e.g. Coke = Happiness. Really? wtf? it's a brown fizzy drink.)"
Making an idea into something that is (and evokes) the brand when the product isn't there is the holy crucible! But think about that. This is not straightforward. It requires society, and all your peers, trusting and knowing the thing – your product - like we know what milk does.
Tom -
"To me a good advertising campaign is one that *is* the product, and the message. The famous Word-of-Mouth does this, but rarely does it involve your colleague standing on the table and insisting (every 15 minutes) just how much you have to go see True Grit, starring thingy, by those guys, the ones who did Fargo. It's fucking awesome. Advertising should involve small, reasonable, undemanding, unthreatening and often very brief moments in which a small amount of directly relevant information is shared, preferably in a way that is useful, timely, personal, fun and contextually relevant."
I left the Advertising Industry 15 years ago because I felt that all those around, in the sales-cycle and in our creative process - at the agency and at the client just didn't get this or if they did, they lacked the power of orchestration to be able to execute it. With some notable exceptions many still don't. It involves real energy, detail, planning and courage and that all done within earshot of the majority of people who won't agree with the approach in the first place.
Did I say tough? This stuff requires thinking. It requires skill and it requires creativity by the real definition of the word. Final word goes to Tom!
"I suggested that all campaigns should start by breaking what they want down to those pieces of information, understanding them, and then working out what they would look like in a map, or a wiki, or in a game, or sponsored links, or a fortune cookie. or on twitter. And in a bigger way how the information would behave if you got to make a video, or a banner campaign, or a poster, or had to explain it to your mum, or to the woman next door, the one with the dogs.
And then finally how would you let that information go, how would you open-source it so that the world could take the idea and make it their own and your campaign would live for the next five years despite no media spend or new creative because people actually used that idea to break up and share their own information, maybe about something completely different.
And I suggested that when you think like that digital feels innate and obvious and easy. And that's what I think copywriters should do. It's about ways of seeing, not physics.
