May 20, 2005
time for creativity
Everyone's talking about the emerging role of design in business. It's suddenly become glaringly obvious (to most of us) that you can't package the same old stuff in a "cheaper box" or a "different color" and expect the products to fly off the shelves. The "customer experience" has taken flight as a concept that is important to every single individual involved in developing business strategy. Companies like Apple are having "I told you so" moments every day as they get more and more blog links, articles and word-of-mouth kudos for the elegance and sophistication they put behind the design of their products and several other companies have found another dimension beyond just brand recognition and a good distribution and marketing model - but creating connections with people through products that are flat-out cool.
And it's not that good engineering, good marketing, good distribution aren't important anymore. It's just that without the insights that go into creating a remarkable product, a "lovemark" as Kevin Roberts put it, you can get by in the short-term but you will achieve only minimal success. As I read all of this "new age business talk" about Purple Cow's, "Lovemarks", the "Attention Economy" and the "Age of Design" I'm blown away by how natural all of the concepts seem.
- Don't create the marketing until you've created the product.
- You can't just kill people with ads and expect them to "get it" and love, or even like your product... you have to make something they will love.
- Designing a new product does not begin and end in the Engineering department.
- Create something that your loyal customers want to tell everyone about.
- Putting 12 people in a cold room with flourescent lighting in a chair at a conference table where they know there are people on the other side of a piece of glass watching their every move is a terrible way to see how what you've created will impact their lives.
I could go on and on, but they all seem so logical. I read Jennifer Reingold's Q+A with A.G. Lafley of P&G and hear about how he has created a revolution inside the company known for branding by doing one simple thing - requiring them to focus back on the products themselves and making them more remarkable through design and I ask myself... "How could the biggest brand company in the world not know that? Why is that such groundbreaking news?"
I laughed out loud on BART this morning when I read Reingold's interview with Claudia Kotchka where Kotchka talks about what would have happened to "Altoids" if P&G were to buy that product. (Actually, first I laughed out loud at her description of Altoids - "the scent of peppermint oil wafts ouf the box... the nostalgic typeface... the satisfyingly crinkly liner paper... even the hand-made mints." Clearly, I'm not in Altoids' "early adopter" group because I never really felt they created a revolution in mints. Sure, they're curiously strong... but I didn't have an orgasmic reaction to the liner paper inside... but it's about the 3rd time I've heard Altoids described as such... so I relent). She characterized their old design approach in this way, "We're gonna cost save on this tin. We're gonna get rid of this stupid paper - it's serving no functional purpose" and then she picks up a cheap plastic box with boring beige mints inside of it that taste just as good but are much cheaper to make.
And I realize, that's what happened. Somewhere along the line, we got so industrialized that the ultimate goal in business was to find the balance point where the product that you may have spent years creating becomes a commodity that is completely indistinguishable from the next guy's, but is much cheaper to make, or sold in more stores.
I guess the idea here was that people didn't really care much for "who made it" or "what it looks like" as long as it was waiting for them where they expected to see it, more visible to them than the other 20 variations of the same thing, and they could afford it.
So American cars (like Ford which some could argue were a "lovemark" before Kevin Roberts was a twinkle in his daddy's eye) - a symbol of freedom and the ability to "go wherever you want to go today" became faster, cheaper and smaller... and things break all the time. So you can go wherever you want to go but you might not be able to enjoy the ride because the motor in the radio antenna stopped going up and down and your back-right speaker is cracked - and why? Because they found someone that could make that little motor for $1 cheaper per piece and increase their profit to the point that they could price someone else on that model of car or pay for some more advertising. But if you're like me, you'll never buy another American car again.
To the point that today, very few owners of American cars really "love" their car (truck owners, but that's a completely different type of person - and those cars are actually "designed" for the customer). Plenty of people choose a particular American brand, maybe because their dad drove one, or because they could unload their old trade-in and get a better deal than they could on a Volkswagen... but not because American cars are superior... and now look at them. Over the years, American cars have fallen from grace. They either have absolutely no personality whatsoever - and are designed to be "rental cars" or they have poorly executed "features" that don't work like they are supposed to and break down long before they should. And someone at Ford or GM would probably tell you that they made more money by doing so... that somehow this approach has been better for business.
But American car manufacturers did something right, you can't call them a bad... but you can't call them amazing either. They aim for th e middle and they own it... they might not have lots of recurring customers (except rental car companies) but they have lots of revenue... and in that world, design does not have to take a front seat. If you are trying to sell something once, you don't have to have a remarkable product... you just need a remarkable sales pitch.
What would happen if American car companies stopped cutting corners in their designs? Hopefully some of their cars would just disappear forever. The remaining ones would be redesigned and cost more and their distribution system might feel it for a while... but when people bought one of their cars and had a great, lasting experience... they'd buy another one. Maybe not as soon as Ford or GM would like, but they would because they would feel that their investment had been rewarded. Road trips would be enhanced with air conditioning that still works. Automatic windows that roll down and up. Door panels on their cars that don't rattle when you go over bumps. They'd be like BMWs, VWs and Toyotas, Macintosh computers and I guess even Altoids and people wouldn't mind spending more money. Short term profits might shrink and they might have to slim their operations down a bit... but we'd create healthier companies, better products, and a happier society.
I guess in the end, that's the point of my rant on design. The implications of the design age are much larger than just the impact they'll have on business. In fact, I suspect that it won't change as much as all of us Fast Company, Purple Cow, Lovemark lovers would like. I don't think we're going to witness the downfall of the production line, or the "cheaper alternative to the same thing" but the markets are shifting and the big company with average products will have to share the market with the little guy with remarkable products.
Ultimately, I think it's our analysis of them that will change with our new society. People want more. Not more products, more satisfaction with the products they have. They want to believe in what they spend their money on... that they are respected and appreciated for spending it and that it fits their individual need and "design" or rather "creative thinking" should be a part of the development of that product from day one.
I know I'm talking in circles... so I'll go back and revise this entry later so that it's a little more coherent. Right now I'm just enjoying having a place to blab.
Posted by Andrew Spencer at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)
May 17, 2005
"How media and creative can come together"
Another good article from Advertising Age, May 16, page 35.
This article was put together using pieces of a speech by Jack Klues, CEO of Publicis' Starcom Media Vest Group. My current employer does both creative and planning so I can see both sides of this coin. I'll come back and comment on this later, these are just my favorite points from the article.
How media and creative can come together
"I've got a few ideas about how media agencies and creative agencies - our teams - might better come together. You are welcome to debate them, but I ask you to hear them"
1. Advertising is not a Production Line
"It's true that great advertising starts with a brilliant idea" but ideas aren't restricted by geography. They can come from anywhere."
"The ability to conceive a great idea isn't limited to someone who has the words "creative", "copy" or "art" in their title."
"Let's abandon the assembly-line-worker mentality" and replace it with a championship-sports-team approach.
2. Stop Arguing Over Who Owns Planning
"Understanding the consumer is more than one full-time job."
"To get the absolute best, most actionable insights, media agencies and creative agencies must, at minimum, stop purely talking brand speak and find ways to make insights deliver valuable and tangible returns"
3. Broaden Our Concept of Creative
"In a world increasingly populated by TiVo, broadband, multiple screens in multiple places, we have to be brilliant craftsmen and women across every viable platform. Many agency models are still built off of reels, storyboards and TV ads that can be spun into other formats and retrofit into another media."
"Many of the best creatives argue, 'I know how to do a good online ad.' And they do. Brilliantly. But we have to improve the cycle time and price tag required to get the most relevant message in front of the consumer."
4. "POWERFUL" Creative Needed
"It is our job to be contact experts across all forms of media."
"It's incumbent upon us to move beyond the traditional touch points... The 'where' world is increasingly about events and sponsorship, experiential points of contact with consumers. It is about word of mouth, embedded content, complementary content and branded entertainment. We have to know how to buy and sell experience."
"Powerful experiences require powerful creative"
5. Our Clients Want to be Closer to Us
"Perhaps we need to re-engineer the role of the account director. Think about it. Several major events have changed the agency model in the past few years. Media spun off. Digital took off. And advertising started being replaced by communications planning. Still, I don't know if we ever evaluated all of the agency roles to see what might need re-engineering"
Posted by Andrew Spencer at 01:35 PM | Comments (0)
pay for performance?
My friend Amy from JWT's Mature Market Group sent me a great article from the May 16 issue of Ad Age. "If you want big ideas from your agency, tie pay to performance." (page 34, author: Jonah Bloom)
With all of the ways to track the performance of your advertising, I was not surprised to read this article. If the media can follow a pay for performance model, then agencies that create ideas that are then executed through media should be thinking about their pricing structures as well. While it may freak some people out, the fact that Jonah finished his article by saying "that kind of compensation system would turn agencies into what marketers need them to be: growth consultants" makes me feel like this is something that the "idea community" should embrace.
He makes some good points, saying that the current system of agencies creating estimates based on the amount of hours it takes to complete a project makes the agency more of a vendor than a partner. Agencies that become relegated to the "vendor" category often feel like their creativity has been marginalized. I've never thought of any of the agencies I've worked at as a vendor, but I've seen agencies position themselves that way to win business... and I've also been in situations where the only way to get approval on a project was to reduce our creative time in the estimate and hope to make our money on the delivery side.
In that model, everyone suffers. If a marketer only paid the agency for the successful advertising, everyone would win... agencies that are not truly creative would not survive (maybe that's why everyone's scared of this), we could all take more risks with our work and express some of our more creative ideas. Think about it, clients don't often choose the "edgy" campaign. They can't, because even when it feels like the better idea they've got too much on the line to take a risk - and they opt for the "safer campaign." So the agency ends up being held responsible for putting out the "safe" campaign with a big price-tag on it (a recipe for disaster)... and guess what happens when the safe campaign doesn't drive up sales, or generate more leads? As Bloom said "Imagine if the CMO, instead of telling his board that they are investing millions in the possibility of an uptick in a fluffy metric such as unaided recall or likability, told them that the focus is to increase market cap or sales, and that the agency would forgo payment in the case of failure."
According to Mr. Bloom's article, some U.S. agencies are following this model now and the AAAA and ANA have seen proposals to "transition from the current standards they recommend for fee compensation to a new structure of genuine partnerships."
Sounds like a great idea to me. I'd be willing to put my ideas on the line against my competition and not my rate card, any day of the week. If my ideas don't work, I'd better find another business. But that's why I got in this business, because I believe in my ideas. Now this isn't saying that you don't pay the agency anything at all. Of course there's an investment that should be shared equally when it comes to developing an idea and putting in all of the work to executing the idea. But I believe that if the agency shouldered more of the responsibility for the time it takes to develop the ideas, then the agency would produce more inspired work.
In this new "attention economy" the consumer is the client - they decide when and what messages they will tune into. It's changing the way information is delivered, which in turn changes how and where advertising is used, so no reason the way it's created and paid for shouldn't follow suit.
According to Bloom, the proposal made by Andy Berlin to the 4A's also gives the agency ongoing rights to the work, rather than that intellectual property being owned by the client. Funny, but I think that within the agency community, even though the .PSDs, the radio spots and video footage may belong to the client, the idea has always belonged to the agency. "Think Different" will be Chiat Day's idea forever, no matter who has the CD with all of the files on it. That being said, they put a spin on it by adding that perhaps the agency could be paid by some type of "royalty agreement" for the ongoing support work it takes to keep the idea alive.
Definitely interesting stuff, especially for an idea-guy like me.
Posted by Andrew Spencer at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)
May 06, 2005
Time to start using this thing....
Well, here it is. My new blog. As I write this, I'm looking at Fast Company's May 2005 "Change or Die" issue, reading about Heather Hamilton's blog which discusses things on job hunting, the recruiting industry and hiring in Redmond, Washington.
Blogs like hers have inspired me to create a place where all of the things I learn about online Marketing can be shared. From the book "Lovemarks" that I just read, to Seth Godin's "The Purple Cow", there's definitely a revolution underway when it comes to Marketing, and the technology of the Internet is leading the way.
Funny that most of what I'm hearing about Marketing, and most of what I've been feeling for a few years is that it's not actually the technology that's making the Internet such a viable medium, but the people. Oxymoronic, I know, but it's people's desire for truth that has allowed Web marketing to soar in popularity... to the point that it's completely shifted the way in which you market yourself, especially if you want to be viewed as innovative... and unless you're Tide or Coors Beer, you need to be viewed as innovative and doing something to change or enhance people's lives with your product(s) or you need to move on.
People have too much access to information for advertising/marketing to lie to them. Those days are over, now you must build trusting relationships with your audience, that are based on transparency, honesty and belief in what you do/make.
If you are in a business where it behooves you to get the word out to people about it, I hope that my site will serve as a valuable resource along the way.
Posted by Andrew Spencer at 05:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Where are the inspired, creative workplaces?
"Consulting guru Peter Drucker has being saying this for decades: Money is a necessity but not a sufficient condition to attract and retain motivated employees. People work for paychecks and benefits, but really perform at peak efficiency when the quality of work is ideal, creativity is encouraged and relationships at work are positive."
This is the closing statement of an excellent article I just read by Scott Goodson, called "Tear down that cubicle" which provided some excellent insights on the value of a positive workplace.
He began the article like this: "So there I was, four weeks on the job as CEO of StrawberryFrog USA, walking along Madison Avenue, when I was reminded of a quote by Studs Terkel.
Terkel wrote: 'Work is about a daily search for meaning as well as daily bread; for recognition as well as cash; for astonishment rather than torpor; in short for a sort of life, rather than a Monday-to-Friday sort of dying.'"
This personal statement really resonated with me, I know so many people that go to work depressed and leave feeling like another piece of their soul has been chipped away. So many people that are looking for "something" more out of what they do. I know I definitely have been in this category at one time or another in my career. You know, that point where your cat could run the company better than the CEO does because so many talented people are being wasted, which leads to the "grass is greener over at ________" syndrome. But more and more, I'm realizing that there's more people around me, in the cubicles close enough to hear me typing away on my keyboard right now, that are just as passionate about what they do and about making a change to bring more focus, more creativity and more fun into what they spend the majority of every day doing: working.
If I don't bring my own inspiration and creativity to the workplace, then I'm no better than anyone else and not only will my current job continue to bore me to death, but my next job will be the same.
Scott Goodson also said this: "An enlightened environment is also an effective business model. Companies with positive employee attitudes tend to show positive financial outcomes. In a Gallup study, organizations with a 'satisfied' work force had 27 percent higher profits than those with an 'unhappy' one. Staff turnover is lower in small businesses, largely because of flatter management structures, better communication and greater staff input. Work provides a source of identity and a social outlet."
Hmmm.... have an identity, have fun, be more creative, and make more money... sounds like a good idea.
Posted by Andrew Spencer at 01:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack