Adios amigos!

These two fantastic Georgian buildings have been my home for the last four years, at least professionally. Trust me, if I lived here I'd be out on my Sunseeker, not writing this post.

This is my final week at work and in a weird way I'm going to miss the place. But most of all I'm going to miss the the friends I've made and the great people I've worked with.

I'm also going to miss Toby the Rabbit, who seems to have a thing for Louis Mountbatten. Although I haven't seen him for a couple of weeks. I hope he is OK whilst I'm gone.

See you guys. It's been emotional!

Planning on the margins

Image via

In my opinion one of the best traits any planner can have is the ability to understand people from all walks of life and really see, sense and feel things from their point of view. And when I say understand I don't just mean being able to describe their TGI definition. You need to have a real empathy and respect for them, irrespective of your preconceptions or what the data might tell you. It is always possible to find something endearing in any audience if you look hard and objectively enough.

Ironically our industry, despite employing interesting people, are generally from the same margin of society. And for people supposedly so open minded it's surprising how easily judgments are made. I'm blogging about this because of a free project we are working on for a local drugs working group that highlighted a really interesting transition in people's attitudes and behaviours towards an audience having spent time with them.

Under our guidance we have given this brief to all our junior members of the agency to answer. After giving them an outline brief there was the usual snap judgements about the lives and motivations of drug users and addicts. It was all very middle class and quite disappointing frankly. So in order to get them over this, open their minds and put them in a slightly uncomfortable position we set up a series of groups consisting of ex-addicts, drug workers and counsellors. It was up to the guys to ask some questions and get some real insight into the lives of drug users. After an uncomfortable start they began probing and developing some interesting relationships. I'd go as far as saying friendships. So good in fact they even went out for some drinks with them afterwards to probably ask more 'informal' questions.

By the end of the session there was a complete turnaround in how they viewed a group of people who are arguably in a completely different part of society, with vastly different life experiences. Not only did they have a real empathy for them, they developed a real enthusiasm for the cause. Well done guys, I can't wait to see the work.

Brand America

An unnamed friend, from an unnamed agency, working on a huge, unnamed American account sent me through a brief directly from his client last week. And I kid you not, in the little box titled 'why should people believe what you're saying?' they put the following in capital letters. Just in case you didn't hear them of course.

'BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICAN!'

I'm hoping this was intended to be a joke and they weren't being serious, but some how after watching things like this as well last week, probably not. Here's one for the fight fans. Go on Ricky, shut him up!!

Activists for the liberation from seagulls

Image via

I'm a bit of a sucker for anything related to group dynamics and problem solving, particularly when it comes to a good old fashioned agency ding dong about processes and politics. To the annoyance of my colleagues no doubt, I'm somewhat of an idealist. I believe there should be way more collaboration, more productive conversations with smaller groups than long, pointless meetings with all and sundry.

I also get angry with pessimists, idea killers and micro managers. They are the antithesis of the kind of people you need in an agency to get ideas off the ground. In my opinion these people should realise their skills might be better suited elsewhere, like perhaps a bank, or better still a factory.

I like to refer to these people as Seagulls. They fly in to meetings squawking away without any idea of what's going on and then proceed to shit all over everything. Undoubtedly this will be repeated everyday up until there is nothing left in the team or the idea. They will then blame everybody apart from themselves and simply fly off and shit somewhere else. There's at least one of these in your agency, admit it? You avoid inviting them to meetings at all costs, or you refrain from putting yourself forward to work on certain accounts. They sap the life and enjoyment out of everything and turn the process of creation into a stressful and frustrating job, that just needs doing. That's why I find this idea of coliberation refreshing.

I try my best not to get caught up in all the politics, but occasionally it's inevitable, particularly as a planner. It might just be me, but I think the 'planning department' is often treated a bit like Switzerland. You're seen to be this kind of objective mediator between feuding nations. I believe we would all like to think of ourselves as liberators as opposed mediators and coliberation is a much more productive term than collaboration when it comes to agency group dynamics.

Life outside London

I just want to make a few things clear before I get into this post. Which has been inspired by the very good Adgrads. First of all I do believe that the majority of the best brands, agencies and people, are as a rule, generally based in London - I'm certainly not disputing that. I also encourage anyone who is looking to break into the industry to start in London if you can.

But it's not the be all and end all and it’s not for everyone. I did my one-year placement in London and loved it. I too applied to a lot of agencies in London after graduating, without much success. The couple that I did manage to pull off were paying less per year than my final total student debt. So as much as I would of liked to have taken them, it was a financial impossibility. It would have actually cost me money to work there.

I think this is quite a big issue for the industry, I’m not sure that the pay off of working in a creative environment outweighs the lower starting salaries anymore. Agencies will also be left with a workforce from one social class. Which to me doesn’t make for the most interesting environment.

As a result I decided to stick around my hometown and find the best agency I could. I managed to get an account exec position and I haven't looked back since. Four years on I'm now a planner working across our entire group of agencies, working on everything from digital, PR, TV, to recruitment marketing. I certainly moved through the agency a hell of a lot faster than I would of in London. You could call this ‘Big fishes in small ponds’, and there is an element of truth in that, but I would just call it less competitive. You need to remember that that there is a lot of crap in London as well. With anything big and shiny, it will attract the good, the bad and the ugly.

There are some downsides I have to admit. Not everyone has the same enthusiasm as you in agencies outside London (I refuse to call it a regional agency), which can be really frustrating, but there are some very good, ambitious people here and some great brands willing to spend money with us. It is just a smaller propensity than in London.

You would also be surprised with how many people do the London thing and then move out to bring up young families in more pleasant surroundings. All our senior positions are full of people who have worked in huge London agencies, so you do learn from good people. I think it’s a myth that agencies outside London aren’t as capable, although you do have to do a bit of searching. As an example we were the only UK agency to win a Cyber Lion at Cannes last year. Not too bad.

My advice is if you can get in to London great, but if not don’t give up, it’s not for everyone and you can find some great agencies outside London if you put your mind to it. London is a tough place to start an agency career and for some it will be financially impossible to do so. So cut your teeth outside, fly through the ranks and then make the move. Just get yourself in somewhere that has good opportunities.

Not only that, if you are lucky like me you might find a place where you can go for a run in complete peace and quiet before work here


Or attempt to stand on a board after work here

AAAA - The culture of creativity

This is one of the best vids I've seen for a long time. Sir Ken Robinson, at the AAAA Conference, gives one of the most entertaining and inspiring speeches on creativity I've ever heard. I can't claim to have found it, Mark posted it last month. I'm surprised I've only just come across it. It's so good I had to post it on here.

Not only is it good, it made me really think about my time at school and in particular one important moment. At the time it didn't seem like such a life changing decision but looking back now I reckon it's the reason why I now work on a PC rather than a Mac. When I took my options at high school I had to choose between Art or P.E. In fact there was a group of 'creative' or 'enjoyable' subjects that you were only allowed to pick one of. My school simply wouldn't allow you to do more than one. I've know idea if this is the norm? I loved both and I reckon I was pretty good at them as well but I decided to take P.E, mostly due to the influence of my careers advisor and my Dad.

I ended up taking English, Psychology and Sport Science at A-levels, before going on to do a Marketing communications degree at Uni. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sad about it, I'm more than happy doing what I do. It just proves a few of Sir Ken's points:

1 - Creativity should have the same status as literacy
2 - We shouldn't be so afraid of making mistakes. If we're not prepared to be wrong we won't come up with anything original
3 - People don't grow into creativity we grow out of it, or get educated out of it

Planning agencies

Following up on this from PSFK, is this great presentation by Zeus Jones. Which I came across at Adam's great blog - thanks for the timely find.

Now I wouldn't say this is the model that will change things over night, but it's the thing that is exciting me the most at the moment.

Change the world?

The 'advertising' world perhaps? The old theories and the agency flab definitely. Get doing it absofriggingloutley! This is well worth watching if you can make the time. It has a nice mix of hatred for 'BDAs' (George Parker of Adscam), idealistic thinking about marketers being the saviour of the world (Steve Stainaker of Hub Culture), a perspective from an agency that really does do things differently (Johnny Vulkan of Anomaly) and a touch of 'cut through the crap' realism (Russell Davies of OIA).



First of all I don't believe that marketers could or should be contemplating changing the world. By all means go and work for a charity or a pressure group. Use your skills for something different with a higher purpose, but don't forget what clients pay us for if you work in an agency. I do believe every business should be socially responsible, but unless it's relevant and a central part of the brand, then we shouldn't be doing it just because it's fashionable, or because it allows us to feel better at dinner parties. I'd hate to see every agency and brand from soap to cars being cause related and purpose driven. As Russell says: 'leave changing the world up to revolutionaries and governments'.

Unless it's authentic, which is easier said than done, just concentrate on doing things better. I've said it before, it's not about 'BDAs' vs digital agencies it is just about tearing up the rule book and doing the right things, not just 'differently'. And despite the often gloomy outlook there are a lot of cracking agencies and people doing just that.

The second point from this is about cutting out the rubbish and deconstructing what it is we actually do. There isn't a Holy Grail that will make our lives simpler as much as we would like one. It will vary from agency to agency and discipline to discipline. We shouldn't be so hell bent on pigeon holing the industry. Terms such as advertising, marketing and brands have become meaningless. They are just used to generalise what we do so we don't really have to explain it, or god forbid go into more detail and risk being exposed as money grabbing charlatans. If you want to read a great book on how strange concepts and beliefs supplant rational thinking over time, then this is a great place to start.

I personally really love Anomaly's ethos. I can't for the life of me work out how they get clients to work within their fee structure, but they do, so fair play to them. But being in the business business just makes sense. It sums it up perfectly to me. Anomaly feels like independent, fluid, problem solvers that actually create stuff that's useful for businesses. I know it sounds quite vague, but that is the point, it is free to do what is right. I think it's the clearest way of describing the kind of agency that clients will find more and more attractive.

What's your planning style?

I've only just come across this, but Leland posted this a while ago about the taxonomy of planners. Thanks to Adam for flagging it on the Plannersphere. I find stuff like this really interesting and I was particularly intrigued to see how I might fair doing the Myers-Briggs test. The Myers-Briggs test is used by Mckinsey to assess the cognitive processes of candidates.

According to Leland's description my hunch would be I'm somewhere in between 'emotional' and 'relationship acumen.' So after a brief search on zee veb, I managed to find this very rough version of a Carl Jung and Isabel Myers-Briggs personality test.

I came out, so to speak, as a ENFP

Strength of the preferences %
Extroverted 56
Intuitive 75
Feeling 25
Perceiving 11

This means I'm apparently...

- Moderately expressed extrovert
- Distinctively expressed intuitive personality
- Moderately expressed feeling personality
- Slightly expressed perceiving personality

I think it's actually scarily accurate. I agree that I am all of the amazing things it says I am ; ) It categorises me as a Champion Idealist. Which after reading makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. This part being my favourite:

'This type is found in only about 3 percent of the general population (the top 3 or the bottom 3 I wonder?), but they have great influence because of their extraordinary impact on others. Champions are inclined to go everywhere and look into everything that has to do with the advance of good and the retreat of evil in the world. They can't bear to miss out on what is going on around them; they must experience, first hand, all the significant social events that affect our lives. And then they are eager to relate the stories they've uncovered, hoping to disclose the "truth" of people and issues, and to advocate causes.'

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.

I've got a PR problem

Don’t get me wrong, I'm fond of PR and I have a lot of respect for people in the industry - I have to. Other than the fact that my other half works in it; it's also where I started my career. I would go as far as saying PR is a good place to start if you want to be a planner - although probably not something that will stand out on your CV to a prospective employer.

There are several reasons why it's good. You develop an eye for a story, you hone your writing skills, you do you own research, you have to come up with your own strategy without the help of a planning department, you're under pressure to come up with your own ideas without the help of a creative, you have to do you own media plans and you also have to actually role your sleeves up and implement all of this. Lee has written a good post on this before but I think it goes further than just being a good journalist.

So why do I have an issue with PR? (I'm excluding public affairs, CSR and lobbying from this as they're completely different disciplines in my opinion) It's essentially the reason why I got frustrated and moved in to planning. Out of all the marketing disciplines people in PR, more often than not, tend to be the ones with the least knowledge of brand strategy and are way behind others in terms of innovation.

Although this isn’t a great yardstick for measuring how innovative a profession is, you will be hard pressed to find many PR blogs out there that talk about anything other than how the Interweb is affecting the industry. No shit Sherlock!

Many proposals I see regarding the use of online are pretty staid. So despite the rhetoric I don’t believe that PR is the best discipline to manage your brand online just yet. Many, but not all are just using the same rules as they adhere to offline. They’ll tell me that any brand worth its salt should be on Myspace with no explanation as to how they would use it or why it’s even relevant. They will treat bloggers exactly the same as they would treat journalists, people just waiting to hear about a products wonderful new features and competitive price point. They will claim to be able to create buzz and influence opinion directly in forums with obviously no experience, as they are unfamiliar with the terms ‘advertising scum’ and ‘flaming’.

I get bored of the same tired old tactics, that are just that - a bunch of tactics, wheeled out for every client with no real strategy supporting them. You normally get a celebrity (that you will have no chance of actually using or they only have a very tenuous link to the brand). There will probably be a survey, a competition and maybe even an event thrown in. It’s not the tactics being used as such that annoys me, it’s more the thought that goes into the ideas. I very rarely see the same creative and strategic thinking that you get from people in other disciplines.

Some PR professionals are also great at using a number of power word and phrases that obviously proves they get it. My favourites being:

“We’re an agency that gets results”. Phew, good job we didn’t use that agency that doesn’t get results.

“As an agency we pride ourselves on effectiveness”. You mean you have a press cuttings service.

“We know how to manage your brand online”. Then how come when I asked if you use Instant Messenger did you say is that a good courier service? (This didn’t happen, but I thought it made this long rant a bit funnier).

“Here are our key messages….” No, they are the brand’s key messages, you’re just reading them back to me.

Then there are the same objectives on absolutely every proposal with no expansion as to what this means for the communications:

1. To raise awareness
2. To change perception
3. To deliver ROI

Of what, why and how? Ohhh, refer to the strategy you say. I’m sorry all I can see is a load of tactics and for your information, I don’t think Mr Motivator is a good idea. I’m sure he hasn’t been on TV for at least 15 years.

I do genuinely think PR has a major role to play in a brand’s communications mix and I’m not suggesting everyone in PR is incompetent, I just think the ones I’ve personally experienced recently are giving it a bad name.

I don’t think PR will ever have the position at the head of the table unless they can think more strategically and ensure it isn’t separate, second, or even non-existent to the idea they propose. They must understand how to use emerging media and not just that it’s out there. And finally I would like to see better, smarter, more involving ideas. Perhaps the pressure from clients to get column inches rather than a share of people’s conversations stops them from doing all of this, I don’t know? One thing is for sure, it is about having more than a little black book full of journo’s numbers.

Interesting 2007

I'm actually gutted I couldn't make it to Russel's Interesting 2007, so this isn't intended to take the piss, but I can't help thinking of this Monty Python sketch.

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.

London launch 2012 brand

I'm not quite sure what to make of this effort by Wolff Ollins. When I first saw it I thought it was a bit 'down with the kids' and perhaps they've tried too hard to relate with the yoof.

According to London 2012: "the new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible reflecting a brand savvy world where people, especially young people, no longer relate to static logos but respond to a dynamic brand that works with new technology and across traditional and new media networks.

The design brief was for an emblem that represented the four key 'brand pillars' of access, participation, stimulation and inspiration, culminating in the brand vision of 'Everyone’s Games'". Nice to see the usual brand jargon in there in order to justify the £400K fee. When I first saw it I said to myself, wow, you can really feel those 'brand pillars' jumping out at you. You can read the full release here.

After seeing the promotional video it does get a touch better, but I'm convinced there are some young designers out there that could have done a much better job. In the true spirit of London 2012 I would rather have seen the best young talent competing with each other to come up with something that was truly reflective of that generation. At the moment it's a bit twee and too top down. The promo video feels a bit like a kids TV programme and is likely to be even more out of date in 5 years time. Despite all this I do hope it grows on me and they manage to use it imaginatively. Fingers crossed it doesn't make us look like the numpties of the world.

I'm sure the £400k involved more than just designing the logo (at least I hope so). I would love to find out the rationale and how they got there before I make a judgement, but people are already caning it online in less than 24 hours of it being lanuched.

Re-creating the logo in under 8mins


London 2012 logo as Maggie from the Simpsons

A visit from Tony Hart

Just for a bit of fun and to celebrate the creativity in us all, everyone in the agency were invited to exhibit their own personal art and photographic creations in the bar last week. To round things off the legend Tony Hart came in to judge the work and spend the afternoon trying to explain to people why the pictures they sent in didn't make it on to 'The Gallery'. Tony was on TV for about 50 years and so I think pretty much everyone in the agency grew up watching him on various programmes that included Vision On, Take Hart and Hart Beat. Tony's not in the greatest health, but he still has an obvious passion for the arts. Thanks Tony for a great day.

Me and Tony


and just in case you have forgotten...

The Hart Beat theme tune - "Left Bank", by Wayne Hill


The amazing adventures of Morph


Take Hart

Dial up the crazy

I managed to get my backside to the D&AD President's Lecture the other night for the interview with Dan Wieden and David Kennedy. I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I knew it was going to be good, but perhaps a bit warm and fluffy. Thankfully I was pleasantly surprised. It had about the right mix of history and insight into the modern day agency.

Apart from W+K's work, the main highlights for me were...

Their huge enthusiasm is infectious and was always over an above just doing advertising. The pair opened with a comment along the lines of hating advertising and having to work. At the end when asked what they were most proud of, it wasn't in fact the agency, it was the initiatives they have started since retiring, such as encouraging creativity with inner city kids. Very inspirational.

They were really down to earth. It was a bit of a boys done good story, without having to compromise on the way up. Starting up in Oregon when the majority of agencies were in NY or LA probably seemed crazy at the time, but they still managed to attract the great brands. It really highlighted that anyone, from anywhere can be creative, albeit in different ways. Their commitment to maintaining independence and creating a culture that was stimulating and genuinely full of interesting people was admirable. From boxers to sex line operators for example.

The final highlight for me was the absence of this single minded vision. It was more about doing lots of little things around the agency that seems to create this fantastically creative and seemingly enjoyable environment.

Actually there is one more. Tony Davidson had to deal with a tricky question on whether or not they copied a short film by two Swiss artists for their Honda cog ad. Tony's argument, which I happen to agree with, is that there isn't anything left in the world that is truly original. The two Swiss artists were probably also inspired by something else they had seen or experienced. It is essentially about absorbing culture and being aware of what is out there. Once you have that inspiration it is about making it better and adding something different to the original idea. Tony has commented on this before: "Advertising references culture and always has done. Part of our job is to be aware of what is going on in society. There is a difference between copying and being inspired by."

We're all individuals

My last post got me thinking again about the old 'we're all individuals' rhetoric. This is something that probably the bitter part of me associates with the thing that got on my wick when I was looking for my first job in planning. I appreciate agencies want a diverse group of interesting individuals and I myself enjoy working with them, but I think it has gone a bit too far - it all feels a bit elitist and a touch on the tedious side at times. Richard Huntingdon posted this over at Adliterate a while ago which pretty much covers some of this debate. First of all I don't believe groups of people, who in actual fact have very similar backgrounds are as interesting as they could be if you mixed them up with people who have different backgrounds and experiences.

Looking back at my life at a 'new' University, my housemates, who are still some of my closest friends had such different backgrounds - it certainly made life there much more interesting both academically and socially. Living with the son of a working class builder who supported QPR, a public school boy who kind of followed Aston Villa (probably because of Prince William) but was more of an egg chaser and finally another public school boy, who as well as being an annoying Gooner, was Jewish and the son of a London cabbie. I'm pretty much a middle class (Brighton fan) with my Dad being a hardworking sales manager for a greetings card company and my step mum a nurse. That may all seem pretty average and stereotypical but when you put them all together that is where you find the conflicts, the enemies and the enthusiasm that many people such as John Grant and Russel Davies often talk about.

My second and final point relates to some peoples attitudes towards 'uninteresting' people and why they shouldn't work in the indusutry even though they slogged their guts out from the age of 18, got in thousands of pounds worth of debt only to discover that their careers advisor should have told them to do Zoology if they wanted to work in advertising. To give you an example this is the sort of small minded opinion that makes me ashamed of the industry at times. Taken from a coment on Richard's post, Asi says: "I've never met anyone with a 'degree' in marketing or advertising who was remotely interesting". This is all he had to say, very interesting really isn't it? It's is a very old fashioned and archaic attitude that really is an attempt to make themselves feel better.

For some reason people think that if you do a degree and yes it is a degree, you aren't interested in anything else. I have always believed in John Locke's theory on ideas. Locke states that ideas come from both knowledge and experience. The point is that people's knowledge and experiences are different, therefore shouldn't the industry do its best to find a a good mix rather than finding 'individuals' that aren't actually that individual. When we recruit people we don't have any guidlines such as how interesting is this person, or how nice, our aim is to recruit a mix of people from a variety of backgrounds and so far it has served us well. It doesn't have to be so black and white all the time. The interesting part is the grey bit in the middle.