whizdumb

Chocolate rants are yummy

Jon Stewart becoming one of the most trusted men in America has certainly not been lost on the traditional news networks. They've been trying to figure out how to deal with it.  One outcome of this soul searching has been CNN's venture D.L. Hughley Breaks the News. For a news network like CNN it's kind of funny, but when you hold it up to a broader competitive set like the Daily Show or the Colbert Report it has its work cut out for it. The network's straight laced DNA comes through. How about this description of the show from the CNN website: "Sometimes you just have to throw up your hands and laugh at the news!" Well golly me, I can't wait to do some laughing!

Compare the show with the relatively new Chocolate News with David Alan Grier. I think his monologues alone are some of the best news comedy out there today. Each episode begins with a pull-no-punches rant, a racial talking-to that taps into a fundamental truth (with a few harmless stereotypes). Here's an example:

Chocolate NewsWednesdays 10:30pm / 9:30c

First Black President?

Joke of the Day
Stand-Up Comedy

Get Funny Ringtones
More Funny Videos

So naturally this gets me thinking. Why does so much of brand marketing have to be positive and aspirational and happy? Why can't more brands be more raw, truthful, even angry? Wouldn't we love them for it?

For some time planners have argued that the best kind of reactions to brand communication are those that polarize. That you should never aim for consensus around a brand. That universal liking is worse than a room half full of lovers, half haters. That in the end it's energy that counts.

I agree. That's why I'm guessing Chocolate News is not going to garner a giant following. For me that's all the better.

Rant on, D.A.G., rant on.

Violence and marketing

I heard a couple of really interesting stories recently about how violence works.  Specifically on what causes a tense situation to turn violent, and what is necessary to stop a violent act before it happens.

The first story was a podcast of the BBC Radio 4 show called Thinking Allowed.  It featured a fascinating interview with Randall Collins, an academic who wrote a book called Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory. From the podcast, here is the host explaining the gist of the professor's theory:

"It's the word micro that explains his interest.  He concentrates not on the personal, biological, family, social; but rather on the precise details of the situation in which violence occurs; he looks for the the contours of the precise situation which shape the emotions and acts of the individuals that step inside them; for example when he looks at an incident of violence, he'll be concentrating on patterns of surge or counter surge in the crowd, of the precise chain of events that precedes the attack upon a fallen policeman; the number of people actually involved in the violence and the number of non participants."

In other words, context really really matters when it comes to violent acts in a social setting. 

Then there was a This American Life story on a guy who works as a violence interrupter for a group called CeaseFire.  A group that is (perhaps unintentionally) leveraging the micro theory above to great effect.

Part of a classic planning contribution is to concentrate on things like the personal and the social; the factors that enable us to understand a person more deeply than, say, how many times a year they buy deodorant.  They provide an understanding of people as more than simply eyeballs (I really do cringe every time I hear a marketer refer to people with that word).  But what if, like understanding violence, all bets are off once a person enters the actual marketplace?

I guess the point is that it's important to have the background depth on people to relate with them, but ultimately such understanding has great potential to be meaningless wallpaper because context matters so much.

I'm not suggesting the world needs more in-store Paco Underhill type shopping research because I really don't think that would make things better. But I do think we can always do with more reminders that we're just not in the driver's seat.

Mental speed bumps

I've been in New York now for about three weeks.  Walking a ton, of course.  Amidst the pedestrian and vehicular chaos I've thought a bit about street level friction.  Friction between a person and their environment; an environment riddled with obstacles (objects, cars, buildings, posts) and concepts (noise, advertising, signs).

A recent article peeking into the world of traffic management (seemingly a dull endeavor) brought this to life brilliantly, showing how friction can be a good thing. Here's an excerpt.

Mental Speed Bumps

Slower traffic can make for a friendlier city. But slowing traffic can be done in harsh ways: Speed bumps, traffic circles and the intentional bottlenecks known as chokers are auto-hostile tactics that do little for pedestrians. Gentler measures include tweaking the timing of traffic signals, or using what David Engwicht, an Australian traffic expert, calls “mental speed bumps”— street-side social activities that slow drivers without their knowing the foot is on the brake.

A community project called Ninth Avenue Renaissance, for example, proposes the use of on-street parking spaces on Ninth Avenue in Manhattan for barbecues and the like, adding a dose of intrigue to the street scene that will lead motorists to become curious, and slow down. “New York has these sorts of mental speed bumps,” said Mr. Kent, of the Project for Public Spaces, “but we’ve slowly degraded them by designing a more and more frictionless city for fast walkers and fast drivers.” But street-level friction, he said, is actually good.

I'm curious to hear what a connections planner's reaction is to this metaphor.  What if connections planning was always done with this ethic in mind? 

How would creative approaches in crowded environments be different if the brief was about mental speed bumps?   

The Art of Idea Preservation

Awhile back I went to see Alex Bogusky speak as part of the launch of the New Denver Ad Club.  One thing that I found interesting was when he referenced the progression of the Truth vs. the Miller Lite campaigns. 

He encouraged tolerance in evolving a campaign over time.  Referring to a Miller client he said something to the effect of, "when a creative approach is not working perfectly to their liking, some feel the need to put a bullet in it, rather than learn from it and evolve the approach."

That thought came back to me today as I was perusing blogs on architecture.  In my wandering I found an interesting little flash video on a site dedicated to art of preservation, specifically an effort to save the 1960 Blue Cross building in Boston.  The group espouses the many creative ways the aging building can be preserved - rather than demolished.

Specifically, they pose some interesting What If questions about preserving buildings that can clearly apply to other things:

What if we considered the degrees of preservation between ALL and NOTHING?

What if we thought of preservation through the ideas of artist Gordon Matta-Clark?
What if we thought of preservation through the act of demolition?
What if we integrated a building into new development?
What if we expressed a buildings ideas and concepts through anatomical exhibition?
What if we re-inhabited a building by dissecting it?
What if we treated a building as public art?
What if we distribute remnants of a building to plazas and museums?
What if we move the building from its site?

Could we use degrees of preservation to educate?
Could we better heighten awareness of a building's original value in an altered state?
Could we increase the perceived value of design in the public consciousness?
Could we preserve our cultural heritage while embracing our future?

I think there's a lot we marketers can learn from architecture.  And maybe this can help open the doors for asymmetrical ways to rethink a flagging campaign, rather than running to the nearest phone to summon the wrecking ball.

Live the question

I just rediscovered a holiday card I received from Greenberg Brand Strategy late last year.  It has a nice quote that I thought I'd share. 

For those of us who are always asking questions this is a rather deep perspective on why we shouldn't stop:

"Try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books written in a foreign language.  Do not now look for the answers.  They cannot now be given to you because you could not live them.  It is a question of experiencing everything.  At present you need to live the question.  Perhaps you will gradually, without even noticing it, find yourself experiencing the answer, some distant day."

- Rainer Maria Rilke

Not exactly a quote I'll use in an ROI presentation but a good reminder nonetheless.

The deprivation strategy

With Whopper Freakout upon us I was thinking about its deprivation approach in contrast to the classic Got Milk campaign.

Jon Steel used deprivation as a tool to generate research conversation around a category that was taken for granted.   As we learned in Truth, Lies and Advertising the exploratory research at the front end of the campaign was the inspiration.

We imagine the research groups ablaze with stories of milkless woe, each respondent outdoing the other in their misery. 

A strategy was born. The creatives went with it and the rest is history - a history filled largely with big television ads in all their witty, brilliant and decadent glory.

I say decadent because when you compare them with CP+B's version of a deprivation strategy a few things emerge. 

Whopper Freakout is based on the same insight: you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone.  But where Got Milk was all about wrapping this in creative vignettes The Freakout is low budget, big idea.  It's human to the core.  We are at once identifying with, and laughing at, the people at the counter demanding their favorite sandwich. It doesn't require the imagined reality of fantasy scenarios or take us down a long narrative path.  It doesn't try to be a mini-movie; it's all documentary.

Back in the day Goodby could have hidden cameras somewhere to show people's behavior when denied milk (would have been much harder to do). But the context was different then and it would have been just weird.  But now we're so used to seeing people on videos it's second nature. 

Watching these two spots (is Freakout a spot? What should I call it, a video?) makes the Milk one seem so, well, it seems like such a commercial.  Brilliant, yes.  But it just seems like such an end to itself. A campaign only as good as its latest execution.  It takes you to creative imaginaryland.  But I watch Freakout and I just want to go down to BK and see (eat) what all the fuss is about.

And when I look at these two it seems to show how things are moving more towards a Google-like model of anticipate / act / adjust, rather than the long drawn out bowtie of research / insight / creative development. 

Milk: Deprivation is the brief, brought to life creatively.
BK: Deprivation is the idea, period.

The path from good thinking to idea seems to keep getting shorter. 

A clean vision

"We will be completely off paid media in three years."

- Eric Ryan, founder, Method

You've just got to love that this is coming from a household cleansers company. That is, a design company run by an ex-agency planner that happens to make cleansers for your home.

Goodbye 2007, Goodbye Planner 1.0

Time for the New Year post.  A tidy wrap-up of eight significant things for 2008.  I thought I'd avoid adding to the slew of top-10 ads of the year and the like.  Instead I'd like to focus on planning and where I see things going.

I've been a planner now for nearly a decade but this last year has seemed so different from previous years. I feel the role of the traditional agency planner is irreversibly altered.  Why?

1. Millennial talent
Like a lot of other fields, the influx of new talent is coming from Millennials - the twentysomethings who have been steeped in technology their whole lives.  And as planners, they are bringing the same sentiment to work everyday.  Their comfort with design and technology means they don't have to unlearn many bad habits; they haven't become jaded or beaten by spending years cranking out :30's.  They are people like Daniel, Courtney and Erin, among the new breed of planning voices.  They are curious, broadly talented, less inhibited, and they blog about it all. (Incidentally, I've never met Daniel, Courtney or Erin.  But isn't that just a greater testament to the changes afoot?)

If you'd like to read more check out Daniel's compilation of Advertising's Young Minds: The top 27 blogs of people under 27. 

2. Open-source exchange
This was truly the year of the planning blogs.  As I write this there are 138 planning blogs listed on Plannersphere and the list seems to be growing by the week.  Planners are melding open-source thinking with technology and it's making us all smarter.  And the open planner mentality is growing slowly but steadily.  I think the planner's approach to the web will move from simple sharing of ideas (blogging) to greater collaboration on problems and idea-strengthening (forums like plannersphere and Planning for Good). We're realizing that sharing wisdom and ideas - everything short of proprietary client knowledge - can only strengthen our discipline and ourselves.

3. Doing stuff
As a group we're damn good at chewing over things.  We provide context, analyze, research, ask big questions and so on.  But this year we took strides to connect differently.  Coffee Mornings grew around the world thanks to nudges by a slew of planners and likemind, which currently has over 40 coffee events attended by 2,000 people a month around the world (Anomaly pays for the coffee). 

And the guys over at Planning For Good started something truly wonderful by putting some structure around a simple idea: As long as planners are getting together over coffee and online, why not solve some problems at the same time?  The result has been fantastic with three high profile PFG assignments in the last 5 months and a year-end event with GOOD magazine.

4. Underwear-changing dialogue
While I only attended the Account Planning Conference last year, reading about the Polygamous Marriage and experiencing the dialogue at APG, it seems that the yearly gathering of planners has moved from navel-gazing to pants-wetting (as a result of both gleeful change and fear of being irrelevant). 

There is a sobering realization that the traditional planning-in-agency model is broken and new insight & strategy models are developing.

5. Outsourcing execution
A surgical separation of the ideators and the executors.  Lowe, Leo Burnett, Saatchi, McCann, Ogilvy and Grey are starting to do it by experimenting with places like The Department of Doing. 

Scott Goodson at Strawberry Frog has made a strong case for its importance, arguing that agencies can't define their true value until they decide what business they're in: the idea business or the execution business.   

The shift in outsourcing execution has implications for planning. Because when creatives don't have to spend 80% of their jobs executing ideas they can spend more time with planners exploring new ones.

6. New agency models
Emerging and established nontraditional shops like Naked, Anomaly, Zeus Jones, Space 150, Strawberry Frog, ITO Partnership, Poke, and Mother are redrawing the role of strategy and it's often at the center or blurred with creative as a source of value (we're starting to walk a similar path at Integer).

Perhaps even more dramatic is the fact that most of these shops simply expect creative thinking from planners and strategic thinking from creatives.  Therein lies their strength: They have internalized a way of working good thinking into their cultures instead of seeing it as an issue to be solved organizationally.

And the boundaries of planning and the agency continue to be explored as Leland and the folks at Collins are set to play with yet a new approach.

7. Changing role of research
Market research - long the tool of the planner - is entering a midlife crisis. Today's environment demands anticipation over measurement.  Nimbleness over norms.  It's not that planners don't get it; we do.  It's just become more important than ever for us to make the case that rigorous learning is different from the dreaded T-word: testing. 

Because in a climate that requires innovation it's no longer sufficient to talk to consumers to find answers.  The role of research is becoming more about knowing your consumers but not letting them lead you.  One emergent example that recognizes this is peep, an Anomaly backed research boutique.
 

8. The flatlining 'line'
The traditional agency caste system, separating those above and those below, is a dying concept.  DraftFCB is the most obvious example of a macro merger experiment, and R/GA's establishment of a retail offering to "bring dynamic interactive shopping to the retail environment" has certainly broken a few molds.  And the passion to erase the line is felt abroad too.

For the planner this obviously pushes things into interesting territories.  Do you focus your strengths to be a 'retail planner', an 'interactive strategist' or simply a strategic generalist?  Who knows for sure.  But what is certain is that the Planner 1.0 will be a dying breed. Because the landscape is all at once fracturing and coalescing into a lovely strategic swamp, and we all must learn to swim.  Or at least to float.

I couldn't be more excited about it all.

Rethinking the facility, part 2

Awhile ago after moderating some groups here in Denver I suggested that traditional qual research facilities have become the tender trap of research, that they stifle good conversations, and that we as planners should be a voice for breaking the mold.

Earlier this week I had lunch with some friends who are researchers and we talked about what a new type of facility could be like.  So as promised, here are some ideas for how we could make them better.  Note here that I'm assuming the research facility will stay part of the researcher's toolbox.  I personally prefer non-facility options (in-homes, etc.) but that's not what this post is about. 

So here are some ideas for a new breed of facility.

Nearly every idea to improve the facility is aimed at removing the many things that make people feel uncomfortable, ill at ease, distracted, scrutinized and exposed.  In other words, the kinds of things that stand between what people truly are thinking and feeling, and how easy they find it to have a conversation about it. 

Marriage of Content and Context
Most planners try to have conversations with people as close to where they interact with the category as possible.  Talking laundry detergent?  Let's do a load of laundry.  Books?  How about a bookstore.  Cars?  Let's take a spin.  Of course this is not always the most cost effective means of having conversations.  But what if the facility of the future was modeled more from the soundstage concept.  It could shape-shift its way to different contexts. A living room, a garage, a kitchen, a convenience store, and so on. 

Given the fact that a lot of urban locations are recruited to death, it makes sense to go on the fringes of major urban areas to get more 'mainstream' consumers.  This in turn allows for off the beaten path locations where it would be cheaper to buy the larger space needed to tinker with different contexts. 

Neutrality is Not Neutral
Most facilities have beige or white walls, working under the assumption that neutral colors keep people from being distracted or biased.  It operates under a scientific principle.  But the best conversations happen in warmer, more inspiring places.  That's why there is art on the walls in restaurants.  So the new facility would embrace art and color.

Arrival and Acclimation
When respondents arrive, they would be immediately offered a drink.  Only after they have been welcomed and given their drink are they asked to sign in.  When they enter the conversation room there is a place for them to hang their coat or purse.  This helps people feel they've arrived, they've checked their things at the door, rather than have their purse on their lap and their jacket on the chair the entire time.  Taking it a bit further, they could be encouraged to leave their shoes at the door too.  Given a nice set of slippers to wear during the conversation.

One of the signs of people feeling nervous among groups of strangers is that they don't know what to do with their hands.  They fold them, tuck them, generally fidget.  So in the conversation room there would be a basket full of 'fidget widgets'.  All would be encouraged to pick something and fiddle with it as much as they wish.  Tassles, rubber balls, trinkets, etc.  Not cheesy colorful toys but low-key tactile objects.

The Role of Food
Usually respondents wait in a room nearly identical to the waiting room in a doctor's office.  They nibble on chips and finger sandwiches.  Why not serve comfort food instead of junk food.  Lemonade, hot chocolate, soup, etc.

Taking the role of food one step further, why not have the entire group take place over a meal?  The facility could have a room exactly like a private room in a restaurant.  Like a place you'd go for the rehearsal dinner of a friend's wedding.  People get to know each other over food.  Remember Dinner for Five?

Enabling Creativity
Respondents would be offered a variety of tools to better express themselves.  Along a side wall would be computers where they could access images and websites to expand on their thoughts.  One whole wall would be nothing but whiteboard.  A separate area would be dedicated to crafts with a Color Me Mine feel.

Observation
The one-way mirror standard would have to be rethought.  There would be three ways to approach observation.  First, go stealth.  Small cameras in strategic locations.  Corners of the room.  In a painting, Mona Lisa style.  Imagine a chandelier above a dining table, outfitted with mics and cameras.  Second, go with the one-way mirror but make it a showpiece.  A creative and conspicuous frame above a table, serving more as a decorative mirror than an observation portal. 

The key with these approaches is that they in themselves become talk pieces.  The moderator can call out the James Bond-like chandelier, the strategically placed cameras.  They become parodies of themselves to the extent that they disarm people. 

Third, of course, is to break down the wall altogether.  Observers sit in the room in the corner.  A small lounge-like setting off to the side.  A bit distracting at first but they will eventually be ignored.  No laptops allowed, only notepads. Alternatively, we could take a cue from cooking schools that allow observers to watch the chef in action in a mirror in the ceiling. 

Identity and Website
The facility would not be called ABC Research or anything like that.  In fact it would never have the word research in the title.  It could be called The Den or The Conversation Room or hey, even George's Place.  Again, more like a lounge or bar and less researchy.  Staff would be feel more customer service than telemarketing.   

The facility would have a welcoming website with all the hallmarks of a company meant to gather groups of people who do interesting things.  People could opt in to link their myspace, facebook, etc. profiles to the facility's database, allowing for first-pass digital screening.  The site would also have bundled tools allowing for online collage, photo and video uploading, and other easy tools that facilitate pre-research homework.

Recontact
People often think of their best ideas when they leave the conversation. I know as a planner I've heard from facilities many times that so-and-so respondent had contacted them to give one last thought, one remaining idea that occurred to them the following evening.  To facilitate and encourage these epiphanies all respondents would be given a prepaid postcard to jot any ideas down and drop it in the mail. They could do this anonymously and creatively a la post secret.

Technology
For the research geeks in the back there could be text-recognition software built into the video recording so that a transcript is instantly made of the groups.  Also, a timecode display would be visible for observers to mark when they heard a key quote.  Editors in the back room would pull these clips on the fly and the observers would leave with a DVD of selected clips.

Seating
Again, taking a cue from a cooking school, elevated chairs around a large kitchen island could be one approach.  This cues a collaborative environment of creation.  Another arrangement for more personal topics could be a series of Fatboy adult beanbag chairs.  These bring people into an adolescent comfort zone without being overly childish.

Movement
As a moderator I've experienced many times a group that starts to fizzle out exactly at the time when we're reaching the crux of the subject.  Usually around 45 minutes into the conversation.  It's no wonder.  These people have been sitting at the same table with the same group of strangers for nearly an hour.  Why not get up and move around?  When you visit someone's house for dinner usually you hang out in one room for a drink and an appetizer then you mozy over to another place.  How about the same thing here.  The group could start in a lounge / living room then move to a kitchen or dining room environment. 

That's all I've got.

A few facilities out there have put a contemporary topspin on the traditional approach.  The Energy Annex, Pacific Research and Greenberg Studios come to mind.  But so far I've not seen anything that has really broken the mold. 

I'm curious to hear from other planners and researchers if you share the same angst as I do.  Would these ideas help?  Have you seen any facilities out there that are doing any of these things?

Coffee Mornings' first Planning For Good assignment

Did you ever think you could help a non-profit by drinking coffee with some friends?

This Friday's coffee is going to be a little different.  I've volunteered us help out a global group of planners trying to do good stuff for people who need it.  It's called Planning For Good and described as:

Account planners and their friends using their brains to help solve problems for causes and non-profits.

To date Planning For Good has, through its Facebook Group, tackled its first project: helping the New Orleans non-profit group Idea Village create a vibrant, entrepreneurial community through talent and collaboration and innovation.  See the first PFG presentation that resulted from that effort here.

Ed Cotton, the organizer of PFG recently sent this out to the group:

We are keen to get as many great ideas for non profits as possible and with time constraints we know it's often hard to participate.  So we want to make it easier. Here's how.

1, We want to create PFG city groups

2. Each city will have a leader who organizes coffee mornings - 30/40 minute brainstorms over a brief that happen once a month

3. The ideas generated are then sent in

It's a good way to meet people and do good at the same time.

So naturally I volunteered our coffee morning this Friday for just such an assignment.  And the brief came in today so we're going to tackle it Friday!

The assignment is about helping UNICEF in a late 2008 five-day push. 

So here's what I'm asking of you:

- Read the PFG brief for UNICEF 
- Come to Coffee this Friday with your strategy and creative hat on and start jabbering.  Hell, even if you haven't read the brief, come on by!
- You'll have done some good and had some good conversation doing it.

I'll coordinate any submissions / ideas that we create and will get it out to the PFG group.  It's a really quick deadline as all ideas need to be submitted four days later, 11/7.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

P.S. If you're feeling really frisky about it and want to get started before coffee, bring some of your ideas on the PFG Submission Form.