The door to The Communications Room is open

I’ve been toying with the idea of inviting people to share this blog for a while. I had the rather stupid idea of a name for an agency after watching The Good Shepherd where the opening sequence starts with the CIA’s communications room.

It’s not that I’m a massive fan of the CIA, anything but, I just liked the concept of a bunch of clever people with different skills sitting in a room observing stuff, solving conflicts and making the world a better place. So I bought the URL and thought perhaps one day? Well that day isn’t quite here yet, but I thought it might make a nice blog in the meantime.

I’m a bit on the nervous side opening up this blog after all the effort getting it up and running, but I think it could be very interesting if I can find the right people. There’s a lot of planning, creative and media blogs out there, but not many that have a range of perspectives in one place. Therefore I’m looking for 3 or 4 people to start with. It’s open to anyone, although I’m thinking a creative, an account person, a media person and a technologist initially.

If you’re interested in contributing drop me an email with a short biog.

What can we learn from Duchamp?

Now I don’t know much about art. I’m interested in it, I appreciate it and I like what I like, but I don’t know what is good or bad. So apologies if this post screams of ignorance, but after reading this about Marcel Duchamp it got me thinking about the kind of art that those of us in communications are paid to produce and what we could learn from him. Duchamp had a really interesting perspective on art and it seems pretty relevant given the debate surrounding the future of planning, agencies and the general changes in modern marketing.

This post isn’t about commercial art versus art, or intended to suggest that visual art is dead. I simply found Duchamp’s perspective thought provoking. How’s that for sitting on the fence!

Whilst Duchamp eventually came to despise retinal art and the bourgeois, he started off by wanting to create a new kind of art that engaged the mind. Duchamp wondered if he could create works of art that were not conventionally works of art. This became known as conceptual art.

According to the Oxford English dictionary a concept is: “an idea of something formed mentally, combining all its characteristics or particulars.” This suggests to me that there are many different elements to the concept and not just visual and copy. Seems obvious and straightforward. So why the debate about who owns ideas?

In my agency, concepts are the things we review. No reason why it’s called this over creative it just is and always has been. I would argue that in a ‘traditional process’ quite often what is reviewed isn’t really a concept – at least not just yet. All the other ‘characteristics’ and ‘particulars’ haven’t been developed, such as the media for arguments sakes. It’s essentially just an idea at this stage. In other words a concept can’t be CREATED without varying perspectives and input.

Duchamp’s ‘Readymades’ are also something we can learn from. He purposefully aimed to break every rule in art in order to engage people’s minds in unpredictable ways so he could provoke the observer to participate and think rather than it just being aesthetic to the eye. And to top it off he believed in art that was free of pretence and artifice. He’s a clever bloke in my book.

However, probably one of the most interesting beliefs of Duchamp is that art occurs at the juncture of the artists’ intention and the observer’s response, ultimately making them a co-creator. If ever there is something that would unite people in agencies today and describe what we should all be striving for in communications this is it. Perhaps this is the art we should get more awards for?

A campaign for communications love

Why does everything in our industry have to be so black or white? You’re a planner, a creative, a media or an account person? You’re an ad agency, digital agency, media agency, PR or a communications agency? The future is bright? We're all going to die? Blah, blah, blah, boring, boring, boring.

I posted this yesterday in response to this and there seems to be loads of other posts recently such as this, this and this which the comments go on to argue who is essentially the best in 'advertising'. But I'm starting to get fed up with how insular, petty and finger pointing everything is getting - in the blogosphere at least. We all seem to be very good at talking about who has the right to do what and who deserves to be the most loved in the industry. Ahhh, helllloooo (insert camp hand gesture). What does the client want? Do they really give a rat's ass whether or not a creative, planner, account man or even a programmer came up with the bloody idea? If that is indeed what they think they buy from an agency anyway?

I'm worried that clients will just get sick of all the agency bollocks, inflated costs and go and bring it in house or hire consultants, creative communications thinkers or creative generalists, whatever you want to call them. Why shouldn't they if it's cheaper, quicker and arguably just as good? At least in their opinion, and to be honest that is what really matters? What's going to be left? All the thinking and even the doing will be done in house and agencies will be mere facilitators. You can see signs of it happening now. Don't quote me, but i'm sure Channel 4, ITV and Innocent have all brought disciplines in house if I recall. I've also just finished working on a pitch with a communications consultant that the client has hired to work with the agencies. He's been a nice guy, but it's a bit too prescriptive. The final outcome is essentially his idea - which has turned out OK, but not as good as it could have been if all disciplines could have collaborated and this isn't just my view.

I'm not suggesting that people like Russell and John would ever work with agencies in this way, but you can see it happening elsewhere. Why deal with the agency self appreciation society when you can work on your own interesting projects directly with brands? It's getting a bit, if you want something done, go and do it yourself. Do we really want to lose the best people to clients, irrespective of the discipline, because they can't get the job done? Is this really the world we want to live in? Then you find jobs like this going!

Again I'm probably being naive, drawing on my own short experiences and stating the obvious, but shouldn't we work in a way that allows us to simply get the job done and in my opinion enjoy doing it? I'm being petulant, but what do clients want/expect from agencies nowadays? Perhaps we should ask these questions rather than debating who deserves the crown of creative genius?

Planners as the new creatives?

Oooh errrr missus here’s a long one…

This was a great debate at PSFK and whilst I appreciate this is purposefully controversial, I'm not sure whether the argument is really about planners being the new creatives. Perhaps it's more about challenging egos in order to find the best way for agencies to come up with new ideas? In another PSFK presentation Iain Tait spoke about why digital is better than advertising. Iain made some great points about the industrious nature of the discipline, the ability to fail small etc, but again it seemed to be more about the mindset of the modern agency versus the traditional advertising agency structure. I just think that if you were given a blank cheque to start your own agency tomorrow, irrespective of whether or not it's in digital, you wouldn't use the 'traditional advertising' structure. It's not that it doesn't work, but it doesn't work as well as it could.

I was lucky enough to get my first job in planning when the discipline was introduced to the agency only three years ago. At the time I was an account manager (that in my opinion tried to do a bit of planning) and I constantly hassled the Director to let me have one of the jobs going in the new team. Thankfully he eventually gave in. But being partly responsible for introducing planning to an agency that has done without it for 25 years was the single most difficult thing I have ever been involved in professionally. The benefit of introducing planning meant we had the opportunity to collectively review and implement a new structure. To be part of this is an invaluable experience!

Now I'm talking from an ‘integrated’ and purely personal perspective here, but my main observation was that the old agency model didn't just hinder the strategy and ideas we came up with, it was massively inefficient and actually cost the agency more money. Something that isn't actually debated much. And in the words of Pierre Reverdy: “Creativity is to think more efficiently”. So forget who owns ideas, just come up with the best ones and do it as quickly as possible. And to be honest, the working environment and culture isn’t anywhere near as good as it is now.

So we started from scratch and changed the whole approach, which is still being improved. It's frustrating, but it's hard to change this overnight. We’re lucky because we are independent and a bit leaner. But for a huge agency the thought of changing things must be like trying to turn a huge tanker round with a chubby little steering wheel the size of a 50 pence piece. It’s probably easier just to start again in some respects than to try and change an established beast of an agency. I can’t begin to imagine how hard that would be.

These are my own personal observations from where we were to where we are now and maybe I'm just being naive and stating the obvious, but here I go any way. First of all in terms of the ideas produced, very rarely was media approached creatively. It wasn't even part of the process and was simply the vehicle to carry the copy and the visuals. I think the reason why planners are being seen as more creative is because they are becoming very good generalists in terms of the media that is out there. In my opinion media is one of, if not the most important discipline at the moment and should be treated as a creative skill in the same way copy and visuals are.

I also think the relationship between brands, people and communications is the most complicated it has ever been and the old model is too restrictive when it comes to solving problems. Some people in the industry believe that clients should pay for ideas as the strategies end up transcending the entire business and changing its direction and often its fortunes? Some people also feel that agencies need to be much more involved with clients at a more strategic, business level rather than engaging with them just on image or on a transactional basis. Isn't this then about being better at solving business problems rather than ad problems? So again solving business problems should surely be treated as a creative discipline like copy and visuals?

In the same way I don't believe creatives own the ideas, I don't believe that planners should own the strategy. However, if I asked you to tell me who the most creative people in the advertising industry were you would name numerous creatives and deservedly so. But if I asked you who the most creative people in business were today I personally think they would be more like a planner than they would a creative. My point is perhaps as an industry we often define what creative means based on our own reality rather than our clients needs. And perhaps this is why ‘planners as the new creatives’ makes sense? Perhaps clients want business ideas rather than ad ideas? Maybe imaginative strategies and media are exciting them more than the copy and the visuals? Or maybe clients can relate to a planner’s take on an idea better than they can a creatives? People talk a lot about planners being the voice of the consumer, which I agree with, but to me a planner is also a bit like being the client, but without the pressure and much more time and freedom to ask questions, be objective and be brave?

And breath….

Don't blame it on the creatives?

Adliterate is probably one of my favourite blogs. It's the one that stirs up the most debate in my opinion. Many of Richard's posts cover agency life, processes, organisational culture and topical industry issues. I think it's more relevant to the actual 'doing' than most other blogs, hence the reason so many people (and not just planners that blog), comment on his posts. There are some great blogs in the plannersphere full irreverence, divergent thinking, social observations and commentary, but if like me, every now and then something niggles you, or you get annoyed when you can't get something done, you will probably find the problem covered in here.

In Richard's own words, he aims to be deliberately provocative and there is some good natured, mostly intellectual banter going on. In the style of Vanilla Ice (or probably someone like him) check it out.

The post that has hit the biggest nerve with me of late is Richard’s ‘don’t blame it on the creatives’. The premise. Are creatives to be blamed for the problems in the industry? I do agree that perhaps too much blame is laid at their door and it is everyone’s responsibility to come up with better ways of working, but lets be honest. Some people, irrespective of their discipline, or the agency department in which the lift tells them they reside, will just never want to change.

Everyone will have his or her (this correction by Word has got me thinking about another observation, post to follow shortly) own view on the subject that will be developed by his or her own unique experiences. Nearly every agency will have its own position, objectives, culture, structure and influential characters and as a result the subject isn’t really that black and white. I just don’t think there is a definitive answer, I just know it needs to carry on moving forward.

However, this quote by Da Vinci pretty much sums it up for me: “There are three classes of people. Those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see”.

If you fall into the latter then you are the one giving people headaches, although it’s likely you will think you are in the former. So I don't know how you sort that one out? Perhaps we should all just all meet up somewhere in the middle.

Oh I do like to be beside the seaside

We are currently in the process of developing one of the Group's brands and as seasiders we had the inevitable conversation about how we might differ to London agencies? What does this mean for our clients? How could we show them the benefits of working with an agency outside London? Trips on a tractor, the smell of manure, you know, the sort of thing you would expect from an agency outside London. Any how, during this conversation someone bought up the name of the dead Cornish painter Alfred Wallis. Wallis, an ex fisherman, turned to painting at the age of 70 after his wife died.

Painting seascapes and St Ives, the area where he lived, Wallis developed a distinctive style that had a real sense of unrestrained creativity - almost endearingly child like. Wallis for example had no preconceptions of how the sea should look, he painted it just how he saw it in his head. Self taught Wallis would use anything he could get his hands on. The scarcity of paint and canvas meant Wallis would use old tins of boat paint and scraps of cardboard to create his work. Wallis' sense of perspective and proportion wasn't conventional and based solely on his own reality and memories of decades at sea.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story of this is yet, but it's interesting nonetheless. Perhaps that's enough. No worse or better than anything else. Just a different perspective and a different attitude.

New Blood

I went to the D&AD New Blood exhibition on Monday and I have to say I was massively impressed with a lot of the work on show. Pretty much every corner of the globe was represented by some seriously talented individuals. It will hopefully turn out to be a successful scouting trip for us, but we certainly expanded our little black book of freelance illustrators and designers. One of which has a fantastic blog. Well done Anton, hire him. At the very least it is a great opportunity to see what the next generation of creatives are thinking about.

The usual suspects such as Central Saint Martins and Miami Ad School continued to wow, but it was encouraging to see Institutions from all over the UK demonstrating a diverse range of work. The only disappointment I had was the lack of digital work exhibited, although my beloved BU put in a good show on that front. Good effort.

Impressive, most impressive

This post is an amalgamation of a number of things I’ve been thinking about recently. Mainly based on books such as Herd, Convergence Culture, The Perfect Pitch, Brand Innovation Manifesto and The Economics of Attention, as well as other thoughts such as marketing enthusiasm and interestingness. My feeble attempt of simplifying all of this is to describe it as impressiveness. This is a scale if you like. All brands should honestly ask themselves how much do we actually impress people?

Brands impressing people might seem like a simple concept but few do it. Why? Impressing people isn’t as easy as it used to be. If Darth Vader was a planner he might of said brands today can’t just be impressive; they need to be most impressive.



Here is a list of the things brands should think about in order to impress people

1.Ask yourself objectively, how much does your brand impress you? Stop treating people like they’re dumb. If you aren’t impressed by your brand then your customers will feel the same. Don’t be so complacent. Competitors, new entrants and even new business models are waiting in the wings to take your place.

2. Just be yourself. You’re human, your customers are human and the people your customers talk to are human. Get back in touch with what it is to be human or super social apes. What makes people angry? What makes them happy? What do they find interesting? What do they care about? What do they talk about? How do they interact with other people?

3. Don’t always hide behind research. If you can’t find a big problem then make one. Challenge conventions and define new markets. Create a new meaning in your sector, be a leader and have the confidence to be intuitive.

4. Be more than just an image, have substance and style. What does your brand believe in? What is your brand enthusiastic about? Do things that prove it? You don’t need big budgets to be impressive. So watch you back

5. To be consistent, is to be the same, the same as everyone else. Consistency might make people feel safe, but it doesn’t impress. Mix it up from time to time. Be complex, be random and be unexpected. God forbid, be immeasurable. Don’t tie yourself down to one way of doing things. The only thing it does is hold you back and makes you vulnerable. Before you know it a challenger brand will be impressing your customers and all because you wanted to be ‘consistent and on message’.

6.Make things happen, be fluid and be light on your feet. Find your entrepreneurial spirit? Step out from behind the comfort of your processes and your media and research budgets. Find out what is it that you need to do to impress people and go out and do it.

7. There’s a world out there, of media that is. Don’t just sit there worrying about the ‘future of the media landscape’ - change it or make it work for your brand. Do what enhances your brand, not what everyone else is doing. People are impressed when brands do things differently.

8.Use the media available to you to construct and tell a story – make it work harder. Create a more fulfilling experience. Experiment with media and occasionally trust your brand in the hands of others, even your customers. You never know, they might do a better job than your agency. That will save you a few quid and impress your boss.

9.Let go. People will talk about your brand and there is nothing you can do about. Just embrace it and encourage participation. If you have done number four properly then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. Should you? People will be impressed by brands with nothing to hide.