Thin Planning

I was judging some awards yesterday and it really struck me how many entries seemed to be pictures of a problem that someone (probably a client) had identified. Taken in the round, there seem to be relatively few agencies trying to get under the skin of the problem, of the consumer and make a creative leap. Instead they're relying on a bit of data planning or segmentation to mechanise their way to a solution. Of course, this means planning has to be too thinly spread across the industry. Most agencies have a planner, but it has to be a token gesture, on this evidence. I beleive Nike once specified thier agencies sent a planner and a designer to briefings - the 'creative team'. Perhaps the industry needs to realise that it needs planners at breadth and depth if it's going to make work more interesting (and award winning), and thereby make the industry look better, and prevent the brain drain to other sectors like banking.

A chance discovery

We chanced upon this at Stowe yesterday. It appears that Andy Goldsworthy has written his name in found things from the woods. It was utterly sursprising and charming. Serendipitous. Even if it had been created by a 6th form art student from the school or Andy himself, it possessed great creativity and charm. I think Alan Bennett said once that the beautiful thing about TV was the possibility of discovery. How many ads would do something so humble as place themselves in a media backwater to be stumbled upon by chance? And then be so creatively charming that they make the viewers' day altogether brighter and uplifted? We call ourselves a creative industry - and surprise and delight should be in the domain of creativity, not sales promotion.

Keep it complicated, stupid

I'm probably the last planner in the world to discover John Maeda's site about the Laws of Simplicity. Their reductionism is an exercise in elegant simlicity in itself. His tenth law summarises planning rather well, I think: Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful. I sometimes use a quote by Picasso to describe a planning function - about seeing like a child. In other ways, recognising the complex but trying to keep things simple.

Clients and account management seem to love this stuff. Having someone in the agency dedicated to making life simple is something worth paying money for.

But, the problem is, would you rather stare at a uniform 41% grey sky or a dramatic sunset? Would you rather look at a plain white wall, or a Vermeer? Why is running in a maze fun? Or as Russell says, "no one comes out of the cinema saying that movie was really clear."

So, is it just the job of creatives to make the simple (i.e. the brief, with all it's simplified meaning) complicated again? And by complicated I mean interesting and worthwhile and rich. Where does planning end and creativity begin - what's that transition point between the simplicity and the complexity? And are we in danger of over-simplifying the role of planning?

Flickr fun stuff

First off, Planning Eye has just accepted its 100th member, a planner from Kyoto (hope you don't mind me grabbing the image, Akiyo?). This isn't just a place to grab images for presentations, or to give insight into other places, but is starting to become an exchange of ideas and networking. I only know 18 of these folks personally, and a few more by 'e-' so I think it's terrific everyone's found it and joined in. Onwards and upwards

Secondly, someone found a copy of the creative brief image posted there some time ago. Apparently it's the only creative brief on Flickr found with the search term 'creative brief' - does that make it a Flickr-whack? Have we invented a new form of playtime?

MACN BACN

So BACN is the new new thing. As of last weekend it is the term to describe emails that you want to read, just not yet. This might have interesting implications for creative agencies - can they create email programmes that store themselves in a BACN BANK (BANC?) until you're ready to read them? Can they be tagged by the user or the brand to stop going into spam filters? Can we create BACN PACKETS of user-chosen content that waits patiently to be read at the right place and right time (distributed content?) or time-expires? And are branded (opted-in) emails by definition BACN not 'spam'?

Mumblecore

I read an article in the NY Sunday Times about Mumblecore. This is a new film movement (I guess only in America at the moment) that relies on naturalistic, low-budget production and often improvised dialogue. It's apparently a defining genre for today's 20-somethings. So will Hollywood or Madison Ave find it first? Will it translate to the UK? And, maybe interestingly, why on earth would a traditional ad agency be any better at making mumblecore ads than say a 20-something video-literate blogger? Perhaps this is another example of how traditional classifications and definitions of agency specialisation are going to erode. And another question mark over how agencies resource.

What's in a word?

So integration is what we do, but it's a dirty word. Intermediaries and clients don't like it as it implies a lack of specialisation, yet I don't think I've delivered a campaign in just one channel since about 1996. But blended seems to be a word that's popping up more and more. Blended implies an agency skill in mixing specialisations together around an idea. The ability to blend channels, messages, resources becomes a core competancy, whereas integration is the lowest common denominator? It's only a word change, but maybe that's how memes take hold.

Is blending, then, a core planning task? Are planners well placed to be the agency's internal mixologists? Maybe. If planners are also responsible for finding the strategic idea and turning that into a platform for creative, is it too much power to cede to planning to have them be the people who blend the resources available?

Greatness

I have to make a short client presentation on Greatness. An open brief. Someone is going to talk about how greatness coems from mistakes, and someone is going to talk about Picasso. So I have to find an angle and I thought fearlessness would be nice. There does seem to be a general lack of bravery in marketing - perhaps brand managers don't care enough, are just lazy, or maybe terrified of unmoderated public opinion on social networks? I don't know but that should get a reaction, at least. But look at people who achieve greatness. They don't care about public opinion - they pursue an idea (or dream or goal), and behave fearlessly in their pursuit of it. I could talk about Alexander the Great (note, not Alexander the Sure, or Alexander the Well-Researched), Michaelangelo, or even Steve Jobs (which is cliched, but an accessible analogy to marketing).

More learning from Architecture?

More from TED. This time Joshua Prince-Ramus talking about the Seattle Public Library (pic from OZinOH on Flickr). I haven't been to Seattle since this opened, but used to stay right next door while it was being built. He makes an elegant deconstruction of the purpose of libraries, before reconstructing the information. They then use the data reconstruction as the literal inspiration for the design. Sort of like semiotics meets Ed Tufte, and their offspring becomes the creative platform. Must try it sometime.

Things that just work

IF!PSFK are running a little commentary about the Tilley Hat today. I happen to have one of these hats as a legacy of a safari a couple of years back. I'll probably never wear the thing again but it is a good thing. Piers' point is the genius of Tilley is in the word of mouth the brand inspires - there's a secret little envelope of 'brag tags' - stories and testimonials - hidden in the secret label pocket, for you to pass on, or add to. However, I think there's something more about Tilley. They just work. They do exactly what you want , do it well, and are thoroughly thought-through. They are conceived (planning) designed (creative) and engineered (production) superbly. Next time we're asked to create a word of mouth or buzz campaign, it's worth asking if the product is good as a Tilley. And that our ideas are as interesting.

Sorry, a while since I posted. Big pitch. You know how it is.

I was listening to Thom Mayne on Ted Talks. I seem to have this recurring theme of planning and architecture. I suppose it's the mix of science and creativity, but it feels like I should know more about how strategy works in an architectural practice. Thom talks about the process of 'negotiation' - of understanding and reconciling different positions and influences. Planners do this all the time but I'm not sure they have a process, more an intuition they then prove out. Anyone know any strategists in architecture?

Ad free and wierdly beautiful

BoingBoing posts about an outdoor ad ban in Sao Paulo. There's a flickr set too.
The frames for the posters, and their urban setting is more redolent of the US than the Cromwell Road but I find the effect curiously interesting - blue sky or buildings behind are framed by the ironwork.
I confess to usually going on summer vacation to a place where there is a town planning ban on advertising hoardings and it does make for a more pleasant visual landscape.

Kurt Vonnegut

My favourite writer just passed away. He had some rules for writing short stories that might be useful for writing presentations, or copy, perhaps.

1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.

2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.

3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.

4. Every sentence must do one of two things -- reveal character or advance the action.

5. Start as close to the end as possible.

6. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them -- in order that the reader may see what they are made of.

7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.

8. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.

Art department redux

I vaguely recall Creative Departments were called Art Departments once. In these days where ideas can come from anywhere, even planning, and given we're all creative really, perhaps there really isn't any specialness being called the Creative Dept. Some time ago I wrote about renaissance agencies - truly integrated, visionary, energetic and scalar. Crispin Porter talk about advertising rebranding to the Media Arts. So, surely an Art Dept would be more respectful and descriptive of that department's role in the creative process?

Other Planning Types?

A question really. I've noticed on Planning Eye that we have 75 planners but 2 or 3 folks are urban planners. I think that's quite interesting as their role is probably fairly similar to an ad planner - understanding or predicting a person's behaviour or perceptions when presented with an 'environment'. Maybe closer to digital planning.
I wonder what other industries have planners? Architects? Artists? And what their scope of work looks like? What tools do they use? If you're one, get in touch?
Perhaps it would be cool to have a planners-of-the-world unite wiki or something. Maybe a meta-coffee-morning?

Planning types

Is blogging killing planning? this is the post from IF! today.

We were at last night's industry prizefight in which two heavyweights of the plannersphere sparred without either managing a knockout blow.

The debate, sparked by this now infamous post, raged over the motion that blogging was killing planning. In the 'yes' corner was Grey London's John Lowery, wearing what can only be described as an outrageous jacket. In the 'no' corner was John Grant, founder of St Luke's and wearing his qual research shirt with 'Yes, No, Maybe' plastered over it.

John Lowery kicked off the debate with a well put together speech. The central tenet of his argument being that whilst planning blogs spewed out ideas and idle pontification they lacked the intellectual and statistical rigor that the discipline requires. He also argued that many planners, particularly the more junior were likely to fall into the trap of introspection.

John Grant's argument wasn't a direct answer to Lowery's, Instead he argued that there was no way of measuring the effect of such a new medium on the discipline of planning. Grant also pointed out that the 'advertising' industry was doing itself no favours by attacking a medium that threatened it very own existence.

Once the opening salvos had passed the debate moved into a more ideological territory which harked back to the dawn of planning; on the one side those who believed that numbers were the key to good planning, whilst the other argued that great creative ideas could be honed for target audiences in focus groups. Whilst Lowery represented inspiration coming from solid data, Grant argued that clients needed something to push them beyond this: ideas that took their brand further.

Does this go to a deeper root - a generational one? Are younger, newer planners of the idea-first variety, and older ones from the 'let's start with the Nielsen' camp? It's certainly my impression, which is why I like generalists - planners who can come at things from both paths. And that's because client cultures vary and seem to gravitate towards different planning approaches (or more accurately, sometimes planners have to find a way to get traction). John Grant won.

Corporate Silliness

from: new york, ny to: Dublin, Ireland - Google Maps
Without making every brand look like Innocent, wouldn't it be nice if marketers - and their agencies - just had more fun with their products, services or websites? Wouldn't it be nice if they realised a bit of silliness makes everything a little bit more human and interesting. BoingBoing point out that Google Maps suggest you swim the Atlantic to get from New York to Europe. Lovely. Would take about a month, apparently.

Dear Campaign

Thought I'd send this to Campaign letters in response to their article on DDB integrating its planning department.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love DDB planning. I hope it's not patronising to say that there are at least 2 planners there I'd hire tomorrow if I could. But it does amuse me when Campaign announced the radical reorgaisation of a big blue chip network agency planning department. Obviously, it's nice to see planning at the centre of integration. But there are many smaller, more agile and independent agencies who have been doing interesting things for ages, without the fanfare.

At Chemistry, we have spent 3 years hiring planners with core skills in direct, digital, brand and advertising, and they learn (through training, direction and, frankly, just working together) the skills of the other. The result is a blended, ideas-centric, solution-neutral planning function that punches well above its weight in client reputation surveys.

So, maybe we are entering a new era of integrated planning. Or maybe what I'm really railing at is Campaign's epiphany, or apparent limited interest of what's going on outside the top 10. But I blow a raspberry at the networks who are just now getting it. And welcome the competition of course.

Screen collision

Hearing Kevin Roberts talk last night about his new book, it's interesting that he's trying to own the idea that we're moving to a screen-based media culture - smaller screens, more pervasive screens, etc. Frankly, every half decent planning or media presentation since the inception of the colour mobile phone screen, the ipod and the gameboy have said the same thing. So no props to Kevin for originality then.

However I think there's an impending collision between ad agencies and direct/digital agencies about who is best placed to create content for these screens. Maybe you could factor videogame developers like EA, and even users themselves, into the mix as non-tradtional competition. Do direct agencies have the confidence and skills to create compelling film-based ideas across multiple screen platforms? Do ad agencies understand how intimate and personal these channels are to people? Who will win?

co-creation at the crossroads

A lot of agencies are turning their backs on co-creation. Frankly, their belief is that they can do a better job of creating compelling communications, more artfully produced, than consumers can. They have a pretty good point. As Leo Burnett once said, “the most beautiful thing in the world is a good ad”.

However, consumers are pesky. They have time and the tools to interact with, mash-up, or plain butcher your content, whether you like it or not. They have access to channels that rival TV networks for reach and impact. And I suspect their favourite targets are either those toe-curlingly awful, so-bad-they-re-dreadful, content. Or the best ideas and artfully produced stuff that captures their imagination, or belongs to their kind of brand.

And marketers go and get in the way too. Low volume production techniques, long-tail niches and easy e-commerce make it simple to tailor or customise your very own product. Mini boast that not 2 cars in 100,000 are alike. So there’s real content creation going on with the actual stuff we’re selling and it seems wise and right to be aware that it’s all happening and to try and influence it all for the better. I like one current analogy for planning, which could easily be extended to the whole of communications agencies – brand gardeners. In this world, we’re looking to tend and nurture the loose associations and audiences that are attracted to brands and their content (just do a Flickr search for Baileys and see how many dog pictures you get). We want to help the brand branch off into wild and interesting new spaces, to keep it interesting and organic. And we need to help our customers do some of that for us. Brands only exist in the minds of their customers. Fruitstock only exists because real people (and lots of them) go there. So the more we enable peoples’ willing participation, the better the brand’s health, interestingness, and the richer the brand’s world of communication will be.

Of course, they’re going to cotton on pretty soon and want to start getting paid for it. Fancy a salary cut, anyone?

Valentines special

For valentines day we stepped on the Free Hugs bandwagon. It seemed sort of right, given the name of the agency, and a lot of our material features pictures of people hugging things. I think this is some of Nathan's best work. I know about the orginal free hugs film, but didn't realise there's quite a global meme behind it already. Nathan got around 50 hugs, and quite a few people pulled out at the last minute. So there must be some deep seated need for people to connect in the real world. Second Life is doomed?

50

Very happy that we've just signed up the 50th (and 51st) member of Planning Eye. It's the Flickr group for planners around the world to share (steal / borrow) photos of stuff they find interesting. Use the shots in presentations, CV's, or just to show off.

UPDATE: we're up to 54 members now - I think we're mentioned on the Plannersphere wiki, which is excellent. And Hioakie had a great idea for a challenge. We're taking shots of Street Technology as there seems to be more of it about. For one client, we're looking at something like the CPB Mini stuff where there's an RFID in your keyfob which triggers personalised billboard messages when you drive past.

More on maps

I predicted more maps this year in comms. And I'm also struck how many of our campaigns (especially web-based) have games in them now - it guess they are a short cut to stickiness and interaction.

Here's a mash-up from Intel: Mars Sucks. I don't know whether the zap the office first, or what.

A bit chuffed

Apparently, the Wall Street Journal wanted some thoughts about my blog post about Loopt in my 2007 predictions. In a nutshell, here's what I think: Loopt seems to be at the intersection of a number of trends, which makes it interesting. A lot of the work we’re doing now is digital and we’re always looking at new platforms for communications and creativity, and I think 2007 is going to be a big year for mobile marketing. It’s map-based and I think maps are an increasingly popular and natural interface to data in communications. It’s very web 2.5 in the sense it’s a service that’s always on you. It seems like a natural extension of the increase in mobile IM. And brands are looking constantly for way to create and engage with communities of relevant and like-minded people. Practically every campaign we devise has a social networking component to it. For instance, we can reach audiences comparable to TV through MySpace. Loopt is interesting because it promotes social networking on the users’ terms – its their buddy lists, not ours – and therefore the communities are genuine and real. The challenge is to use services like Loopt in a way that makes sense for our clients’ brands, and for these communities. Also, the really important bit about a successful communication is whether it is timely and relevant, and if people can do something with it, so much the better. Services like Loopt could potentially be great platforms for the delivery of a branded communication with some sort of local geographical fulfilment – perhaps rewarding groups of friends with an offer in a store or coffee shop.

999

barbican taxi.JPG
Originally uploaded by alt.planning.

I'm very excited. I have 999 views on my Flickr page. The fake tilt shifted image of the inside of Tate Modern has 413 of them. Unbelievable. I guess it shows the power of (1) tagging and (2) being in the right group

Visual interpretations

All you need is a picture.
Or, in planning, a flying wedge diagram.
In case you're bored with my flying wedges, or occassional triangles, I'm going to pep everything up with visualisation ideas from Visual-Literacy.org.
Lovely - a periodic table of techniques and a whole yearful of planning charts.

I've been tagged, and I'm actually secretly quite touched. Thanks Luca. I think the rule is that I have to tell you 5 things you don't know about me, and tag 5 others. This reminds me of a little exercise we sometimes use in brainstorms - 2 truths and a lie. Although I'll try not to lie.

I also like the idea of putting everything in lists. I ought to have made a resolution to write all my entries and presentations in lists of ten.

Anyhow, 5 things.

1. I used to travel A LOT. Like 120 times a year. I miss it, I really do.
2. I have a pathological hatred of uniforms and most of the people who wear them (I used to have to wear a suit)
3. The best ad ever was for the Homeless Association of New York, with homeless people singing lines to New York New York. I wanted to cry.
4. I think I have IED - Intermittent Explosive Disorder. It's sort of a trendy new thing to justify flying off the handle. Rudeness, injustice and people who don't think for themselves get my dander up.
5. I hardly ever watch TV and have no idea who the soap characters are or know anything about popular culture, like which band is sleeping with which supermodel. Which is probably a terrible admission by a planner, but I just don't care about it.

That was hard, actually, as I try to be as superficial as possible (is that no 6?).

And I hereby pass the baton to:

Richard. Polymathic colleague who takes nice pictures.
Russell, who I knew before he became famous.
John, for his help and thoughts and ideas.
Nathan, who knows about digital stuff. Go on, ask him.
Bogdana, who flies the flag in Romania.

Hello 2007

It seems a really popular thing to do, to share your predictions for the year, if you're a planner.

I used to send an email at the beginning of the January term to clients and agency folks. This year it's in the form of a presentation with lots of interesting pictures, and on the blog.

In true fashion, I'll do it as a list of ten. Actually thirteen - how's that for value-add - things.

1. Video becomes all pervasive. We'll use it more at work, at home, on our sites - and it won't all have to be made by Ridley Scott. Good enough will be OK.

2. YouTube will commercialise, spawning all sorts of new ad units and formats. These will blur the distinction even more between brand and direct advertising.

3. With YouTube commercialised and $67bn ad revenue in play, agencies will wonder what just happened. Who will be able to cope, adapt, react quicker? Will they be agencies who insist on making things simple, or agencies who are good at navigating the complex?

4. One reaction from tradtional advertisers will be the true emergence of admovies. I've blogged about this before, but things like Lucky Star, or BMW Films in terrestrial TV breaks will appear.

5. In the increasingly complicated media and creative landscape, target audiences are dead. You don't know who's being attracted most to your content - or your brand's loose associations. A brand manager's job has to become more open and about managing those loose associations in an interesting way. NOT boring people to death by trying to micro-manage everything to a tightly defined brand onion or whatnot.

6. I think we'll all end up scoffing at the agencies and brands and people that flooded into Second Life, and Twitter, and all thise memes. They are just ideas that seem like worth exploring for a while before the novelty wears off. I think we'll see useful services like Loopt gain traction though.

7. I love maps. they are intuitive and human interfaces for data. I think we're going to see more Flickr mashups, like Nokia's, and things like Platial or Bugaboo turn into a mass creative and online platform. We'll see maps everywhere in communications as they are a great bridge between the digital and physical worlds.

8. Greg Nugent talked at the Battle of Big Thinking about the environment becoming marketing's problem. That makes it the agency's problem. We'll need environmentally-aware campaign platform, messages, ideas. Less and less paper-based stuff, and allow consumers to tell us when we've got it wrong.

9. Web 2.5 will emerge. This has two key dimensions. It's the always-on-you web - in terms of services and devices. And it's the mediated, filtered web - still social and democratic like 2.0 but with content leaders improving the value of what we find. Big role for agencies and brands there.

10. We'll see more and more co-creators want to get paid, in real money, for their contribution. If we get paid for designing ads, won't they?

11. There are more devices coming onto the market that enable mobile IM. There is a new generation of mobile users coming on-stream, the IM generation. I think we'll see mobile IM hit the big time. Which will create a whole new interesting platform for branded interaction.

12. I suspect the iPhone will be vapourware. I suspect people will come to realise DRM music and video is the spawn of the devil. As a consequence, Apple will wobble this year. I hate to say it and I hope it doesn't happen, as I love Apple to bits, but I think it will.

13. Finally, I think the new gen consoles are going to create some sort of paradigm shift. Not just through more social gaming (via the web or in the same room, like using a Wii), but they are a fantastic new advertising content platform. Sure, we'll need to be careful how to create and deploy such communications, but advertising through and FOR these consoles will start to emerge.

Anyway, there we go. The beauty of having this stuff on a blog is, hopefully, you'll tell me what you think, and we'll see how I do by the end of the year.

HNY.

Anti-proposition propositions?

Robert Heath's digest of his new research indicates that emotion and creativity are way more important than message. Ivan Pollard spoke at the Battle of Big Thinking about how the message is just 7% of the received communication - which would seem to mean the planners role is now about planning the context for delivery, rather than the channel or proposition. And I wonder what the creative brief would look like, in a world where the proposition is an afterthought, or a secondary consideration?

Spam

I used to work in an agency called Still Price Court Twivy D'Souza. At one point we could have had a spin off called Cronk D'Aguillar Guz Jaffray Squibb.

Pretty wild but nothing to the sheer wonder of spam email names. They should all have their names on the door. Careful P Mutton, Goalie H Pinter, Helmine Knaack. They're genius advertising names. Update 5/1/07: Seems like I'm not alone.

On a serious note, Richard mentioned a report recently that 91% of all email traffic is spam. Is it time to stop corporate email? A controversial view, I expect, but 91%?