• BDW | SXSW 2012 Recap

    March 21st, 2012 / Comments (0)

    Among the thousands who made the mecca to SXSW this year, so too did the grad students from Boulder Digital Works. Here's how they felt when they returned.

    SXSW has turned into a marketing shit show — full of distractions and gimmicks to get you to use, try, or buy a product enough so they can claim to be the “breakout success” of SX. Well, I didn’t see any of those this time around. To me the emerging phenomenon is a cultural one — our steady shift into the Sharing Economy, a place where access trumps ownership.

    I had the fortune of a front row seat in a panel titled “The AirBnB of Everything: The Growth of P2P Markets,” which went quickly from introductions to a full break down of how to build a P2P marketplace. That’s because the always-energetic ‘Start Up’ crowd had packed the room and we were eager to get a hold of any and all insight into what makes P2P markets click. This market is poised for success because it empowers the consumer, merges seamlessly with your online social presence, and helps build community. It’s not changing what you consume, it’s changing how you consume, and that’s pretty powerful.

    -Erik Dreyer, @erikatlarge

    What I took away from my sophomore SXSW:
    1. Three free pairs of sunglasses
    2. Respect for two rooted brands stealing spotlights (i.e. American Express + Nike)
    3. Pleasant reminders that industry idols are occasionally humble humans
    4. Newfound fondness for David Carr
    5. General panel disenchantment
    6. Tempered FOMO

    What it demanded in return:
    1. My non-free sunglasses
    2. My American Express

    -Steve Dolan, @stvdln

    Every choir enjoys a good preaching to, and for this digital advocate, Robbie Whiting’s session ‘We Made This, and It’s Not an Ad’ was a forceful affirmation of the need for a smarter, geekier approach to advertising.

    Whiting’s presentation showcased exciting examples of what occurs at the crossroads of advertising and product development – when ad agencies become production houses. Perhaps most enlightening, however, was not the work from some of the most progressive agencies around, but rather, the enthusiastic responses and interesting questions from audience members not previously in the “choir.”

    -James Quon, @jumboinc

    SXSW was an incredible experience: the panels and speakers were interesting and inspiring, the mixers and parties were jovial and exciting, and the food was delicious and addicting.

    The city of Austin, TX was awesome, especially once the weather cleared up, and those Texans showed me great hospitality, kindness, and warmth. THANK YOU!

    -Kit Hennessey, @kithennessey

    In Austin, I was spit out of an airplane expecting the unexpected. As I tumbled down the rabbit hole, soaking wet at the beginning (it rained a lot), I was bombarded with introductions to the "new" trends, all suffixed with "ify" and "ly."

    If I wasn't witnessing Kobiachi break the world record in eating grilled cheese, I was stumbling into conversations with some of my favorite people in the industry, or admiring the homeless who were swimming in the flood of free food and clothes. My SXSW takeaway was learning more about the numerous players in the tech game, despite their poor presentation skills.

    -Benton Rochester, @im_Benton

    There have been few times in my life where I have been surrounded with consistently excellent content provided by equally excellent speakers. However, there have been even fewer times in my life that I have been defeated by bars. SXSW provided me with those opportunities not just a few times, but everyday, and unfortunately for my liver, every night.

    At SXSW Interactive there were too many open discussions, too many open bars, and too many networking opportunities. But hey, those are my favorite kind of problems.

    Regarding next year’s SXSW, I must quote a greater man and simply say, "I'll be back."

    -Kevin Zengel, @kevinzengel

    With everyone vying for attention, your idea has to be truly unique, original and practical for it to stand a chance. No matter who you are or how loud you speak, only the great ideas stand a chance once SXSW is over.

    -Dan Nelson, @danimalnelson

    As a first timer this year at SXSW I am 110% positive I’ll be back next year. Never before have I been to a place where so many people were eager and open to talking about who they are and what kind of work they’re doing. I didn’t attend a single panel, but instead, traveled around the city going to coffee shops, lunches, and parties interacting and making connections.

    Some of the individuals I had the opportunity of meeting work at Modus Operandi, B-Reel, TAXI, Bitorrent, Short List, W+K, and AKQA. Having the advantage of personally knowing the people you’re sending your resume to when your looking for a career can go a long way.

    -Matt O'Donnell, @odog

    I arrived in Austin, Texas not knowing what to expect. Having spoken to many SXSW veterans I was prepared for a week of mingling, drinking, and panels, and that's exactly what I got. Overall, the experience was like non-other. I met with people in all strata of the digital world and ate and drank like a king.

    I would describe the event as a congruence of people interested in many of the same things, looking to the future of media, and out to have a good time. 2012 will definitely not be my last visit to SXSW.

    -Lee Riley, @leerileydesigns

    As a result of my love for all things involving both digital and physical realms, I absolutely loved the Frog kickoff party. They were using Arduino and Flash to connect two Lightcycles to screens for each player and a larger screen for the audience to view. While that was my favorite event, they also had life-size robot boxing powered by Xbox Kinect.

    Being an avid gamer and never having the opportunity to enjoy any sort of conference or convention, ScreenBurn was a lot of fun for me. I was able to check out around 10 video games - give or take - that have not yet been released. I was also able to demo a $7,000 PC gaming setup with 3 monitors covering my entire peripheral. I even picked up some killer art.

    -Micheal Ladt, @MichaelLadt

    The sound bite from my six-day stay came as I nestled into my seat in the middle row on my flight home. I glanced out the window, then to the woman’s computer perched on the tray table beside me. On the screen was a quote: Stop trying to create the next Twitter and start becoming the first you.

    As a SXSW first-timer, I was wowed by the incredible amount of brainpower camping out around Austin. New apps like Highlight, Vibop 2.0, and Maaii mean smart peeps somewhere are putting their heads together to build useful platforms.

    The icing on the cake, though, was the Jane McGonigals, whose creation SuperBetter uses science and gamification to help folks heal from a variety of psychological and physiological ailments. Or, the Al Gores and Sean Parkers, encouraging crowds to employ technology to “OccupyDemocracy.” Or, the Amber Cases, working to ensure technology becomes invisible and serves humanity (and not the other way around).

    Ultimately, smart people don’t just make apps. They make a difference.

    -Dave Laskarzewski, @70percentcool

    Baratunde Thurston, Director of Digital for The Onion, hilariously discussed the role of technology and satire in transforming the world around us. Programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report – though they appear playful on the surface – effectively use comedy to cut directly to the emotional core of very non-comedic issues. And it’s not just in the U.S. that people are using satire to address political and social issues. Thanks to the growing accessibility of technology around the globe, independent political satire programs in highly censored countries such as China, Nigeria and Venezuela have become increasingly popular online. In the end, Thurston said, “change is constant.” So, when government institutions and corporations fail to lead sensibly, it’s these “sacred clowns” that remain.

    -Nathan Igdaloff, @igdaloff

    Despite Pinterest taking the award for "Breakout Digital Trend," it kept a relatively low profile at this year's SXSWi. No Pinterest flash mob. No Pinterest shot girls. No free grilled cheese sandwiches with the Pinterest logo emblazoned upon the bread. The one widely publicized Pinterest event — an interview with co-founder and CEO Ben Silbermann — was actually a late edition to the jam-packed schedule of speakers and events.

    Since our startup is chomping at the bit for Pinterest to release their much-awaited API, you can bet I was first in line. Not literally — I barely got a seat. Of all the talks I sat (sometimes slept) through, this one was by far the most attended. And I knew I was sitting amongst eager ears — entrepreneurs like myself waiting to capitalize on this new social phenomenon.

    -Lindsey Jones, @lindseyejones

    A perfect example of the random wonderfulness that is SXSW occurred on an overcast afternoon in the GroupMe tent across from the convention center. By downloading the GroupMe app in person or showing that you had it downloaded on your phone, one was allowed access to free grilled cheese and beer until supplies ran out. Fantastic.

    The afternoon took a turn for the incredible when we were informed that Takeru Kobayashi, an international competitive eating champion, would be attempting a grilled cheese challenge no less than 5 feet from where we were standing. Moments later we stood cheering in disbelief as 13 grilled cheese sandwiches disappeared in 60 seconds and a new world record was set. Photos and videos from the event could not be shared fast enough via text, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and whatever else we could think of.

    Was the event inspirational? Possibly for some. Life-changing? No. Adrenaline-pumping? Surely. Memorable? Absolutely.

    -Michael Lanning, @mrlanning

    I wonder if I've missed the boat on SXSW. Don't get me wrong, it’s a blast, but the parasites of tech are starting to swarm. This alcohol-fueled party felt more like a swag fest than progressive endeavor.

    The panels were interesting, but I couldn't help but feel I'd gain more by checking my Google Reader, so I could actually have a chance to reflect on perspectives rather than being immediately distracted by free gear.

    -Davis Godbout, @dmgodbout

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • How To Outrun The Inevitable - Robert Campbell

    February 21st, 2012 / Comments (0)

    There are a lot of agencies out there.

    In China alone, there’s said to be tens of thousands.

    TENS OF THOUSANDS!!!

    However amongst all those – not in China, but generally – there’s a few that have a ‘global’ name.

    Traditionally, they fall into 2 camps:

    Those who are living off their legacy and those creating it.

    Yes, that’s harsh – and there’s a whole host of reasons for it – but that’s pretty much how it feels.

    Of course, these two states are in a constant state of motion … one good campaign can lift an agency from the past to the present and vice versa … however the agencies that tend to have the greatest momentum are the ones that seemingly are continuously creating their legacy rather than riding on their past.

    Now in no way am I suggesting an agency purposefully ‘takes a back seat’ – there are many reasons why that can happen – however the point of this post is that as much as there are many agencies out there who are grabbing a bunch of the headlines right now, there’s 2 that are seemingly always at the forefront of commercial creativity.

    BBH and W+K

    Now without doubt there are some fundamental differences between the 2 companies – some good, some not so good – however the thing I find fascinating are their commonalities, of which a number of them, I believe, have directly enabled them to succeed while others have fallen.

    I should point out that what I’m about to write is my perception.

    The fact is I’ve never worked at BBH and while I know many of the guys there very well – I am still basing my views on observation and here-say.

    And as for W+K. Well while I have had the pleasure of meeting Dan and his senior management team, we’ve not really talked about this sort of thing … most of the time I’m getting bollocked for something.

    But that aside, here are 5 things that have made these agencies so creatively influential for so long.

    1. Consistent Management.

    The guys who run both these agencies have been at these agencies a long time.

    Better yet, they are the people who founded these agencies – so they have a vested interest in maintaining the culture of the place rather than just go after the profit, regardless of the implication.

    That said, they are constantly introducing new people into positions of influence and power.

    Younger people. Talented people.

    People who bring new perspectives and thinking to the table so while the principals of the company will stay the same, the expression of it is at the forefront of the times.

    2. Control, Not Controlled.

    In short, when you own your company rather than a holding company with masses of shareholders, you can control how your company grows and where your company goes.

    Basically, control means you can focus on the longer-term, bigger play rather than purely focusing on hitting the next quarterly target.

    It’s probably the best ad for communism you could have, ha.

    3. A Willingness To Fail.

    Both agencies try stuff.

    Better yet, the want to try stuff.

    There is a reluctance to rest on their laurels.

    This isn’t just because they believe to stick with what you know is the surest way to future failure, but because they are adventurous by nature and they believe great things happen from experimentation, even if on first impressions, the result is not quite what they hoped.

    They also put their money where their mouth is.

    They don’t expect clients to fund their adventures into the unknown, they’ll pay for it … be it in the activities they do or the people they hire.

    For both, failure is NOT trying stuff.

    4. Culture, Not Function

    When I first joined W+K, people talked about it’s unique culture.

    To be honest, I’ve heard this sort of thing before and almost always it’s turned into a crock of shit … because the culture that was there was because of the people in the place rather than the company.

    But in W+K and BBH’s case, I believe it’s true.

    Sure, the people that work there enhance and develop that culture, but there’s a strong philosophical view that permeates every element of both companies.

    It’s not about the press releases or the credentials deck … it’s about their standards … their expectations … their beliefs.

    They actively encourage trying new things … exploring new approaches … not going for the lowest-common-denominator or the category convention … standing up for what they believe in …

    In short, it’s about filling their company with interesting and creative people who share their beliefs [even if they express it in radically different ways], rather than simply those who can perform a specific job function at the lowest price.

    5. Involvement, Not Observation.

    Northern wrote a blog post recently where he said he was convinced the reason older, senior people lose their dynamism and originality is because no one challenges them and they don’t get in enough situations to be told something they don’t know.

    Very true.

    However one thing I really like about W+K is that while the senior guys are ridiculously talented and smart and experienced … they welcome opinion, debate and challenge. From everyone. Literally everyone.

    I remember the first time I met Dan and John and had an ‘out of body experience’ where I saw myself telling, arguably 2 of the most respected ad guys in history a bunch of stuff I think we should be doing.

    OK, so Dan said, “you’re fired” … but he listened and that’s more than many would do.

    The other thing is they are all deeply involved in what’s going on.

    Not in the sense of dictating outcomes or decisions, but being part of the chaos – contributing, listening, exploring.

    Sure that doesn’t happen on every single piece of business on every single campaign, but you’d be amazed how knowledgable about what’s going on. Seriously, you just need 2 minutes in the company of Dan or John or Dave etc and you know that they are absolutely bursting with dynamism and originality, even though by the protocol adopted by many agencies, they should be put out to pasture by now.

    Why are they like this?

    Because they still care. I honestly think it’s that simple.

    They still want to learn. They still want to do stuff. They still want to push boundaries.

    It’s fantastic and I honestly believe that one of the reasons this is the case is because they seek out people they regard as talented and interesting … people who can push them … their colleagues … their clients … and their agency to a different place.

    Not being scared of change or youth or provocation shows people who are very confident with who they are … which for all the ego and posturing that goes on in this industry, is very rare indeed.

    Of course you might think this is all bollocks … and maybe it is, however I can tell you from my time at W+K and my relationship with BBH that I see all this time and time again.

    Sure it’s not always perfect, sure there have been some bad mistakes – but that aside – the fact they have been at the forefront of mass market commercial creativity means they must be doing something right … something few other companies have been able to pull off over 30 odd years which is why I honestly believe these are things we could all benefit from following or learning – whether we work in a company or want to start our own.

    Making money is not hard.

    Being the creative industry darling for a moment in time, is not out of the reach for all.

    However making money while sticking to your principals and being an acknowledged leader in [effective] creativity for 3 decades is, and that’s why W+K and BBH stand out from the crowd.

    While both agencies shun propriety processes in favour of being judged by what they do [rather than what they say they do] … the reality is you can’t ignore how their principals, philosophies and approach have directly contributed and impacted to the work that so many of us [general public, not just adland] hold in the highest esteem.

    Saying “it’s all about the work”, might make a nice headline that people can gravitate to, but a great creative legacy starts way before the brief lands on the table.

    ----------

    By Robert Campbell, W+K's Asia Regional Head of Planning. Reposted with permission. Read the original blog post here (and don't miss the delicious comments.)

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • Time Out

    February 10th, 2012 / Comments (0)

    Every day we see on the news how our economy, our country, and our species, globally, is slipping. We think globally and act locally. We adopt charities in Africa. We occupy Wall Street. We lift up the common man, worry for the middle and lower classes. And above all, we love resenting, and hating, the rich. Then we rush together for the Super Bowl to celebrate the most ostentatious display of wealth, insensitivity and celebrity idolatry imaginable. To me, the most glaring contradiction is nothing new to sports and media, just more obnoxious in these times -- having a major car manufacturer give a brand new sports car to the multimillionaire who was just crowned a bigger multi-millionaire. While Detroit is running commercials during the same game that acknowledges, in words and pictures, the Super Real World of joblessness, foreclosures and suffering families in fallen cities, they follow up by giving a brand new sports car to the least needy person in the world. And we scream and cheer. (What?) Even Eli didn't care. Did you hear in the audio track, "Oh Eli, wait! You might want the keys!" Guess how many families could use the car Eli already forgot he had?

    But this year's crowning irony were the two words at the end of Madonna's millenia-spanning spend-a-thon of enormous casts of dancers, soldiers, and cheerleaders jumping across moving sets of chariots, grandstands and marching Roman armies, navigating multiple stage transformations and the additional counter-celebrity who joined her. At the end, they present the phrase, "World Peace." (WHAT?) If the Super Bowl was just the yearly ritual of rabid football fans who were loyal, captivated students of the games, I would have no problem with deserving football junkies spending whatever they want to express a love of the game, their passion, the moment. But it's not a football event, it's a yearly American reaffirmation that no matter what we say in our self-righteous blogs, our political discussions, and twitter feeds to CNN, we really do love our celebrities, we do love that they are rich, we love mega-productions of epic scale, and we all secretly feel that if we raise a beer to the screen and scream that one day a year, even if we don't know a touchdown from a home run, we count too; I am a part of this bombastic show too; I am in the midstream of what matters most today; I'm part of what my world is obsessing about right now. I can always return to my more-aware, more sophisticated, more critical self tomorrow, and remember that I hate suffering, and therefore the evil money empires that enable it. But first, I want to find out how they got those monkeys into those suits! That was awesome!

    ---
    Tom Townsend is co-founder and Chief Creative Officer of Rodgers Townsend, a DDB Company located in St. Louis. Previously, he was Senior Vice President/Group Creative Director at DMB&B.

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • Trends of 2012: Solitude

    January 24th, 2012 / Comments (0)

    The “always on” culture that has abruptly emerged as the new norm is here to stay for some time. A recent piece from The New York Times demonstratively stated, “Solitude is out of fashion,” elaborating with analysis of the trending open-space work environments and team-based strategies. This contemporary approach is counter to extensive research touting the benefits of privacy in creative thinking. This culture has been fiercely fueled by the (my) millennial generation and has gained significant acceptance by baby boomers. We have grown up in an age of digital collaboration; now we’re applying these same tendencies to the office place despite making ourselves susceptible to real-life distractions.

    We all know the natural, yet rude, tendency to prioritize instant information from our smartphones over the people actually in the room. This was never more evident to me than Christmas this year. I never thought I would see the day my parents were playing Words with Friends before me. I certainly didn’t expect they would become addicted to the game instantaneously. Prior to this, my mom was notorious for leaving her cell phone in the bottom of her purse - for days on end. To her, it was a device to make calls; not for her to be alert for incoming calls. It’s becoming ever-apparent those days are over and never to be seen again. She’s texting, emailing, playing games, reading books, and verifying bets with my father through Google.

    Despite the added convenience at our fingertips, it can become overwhelming – like a menu at The Cheesecake Factory. Thus, people are increasingly more than willing to pay a premium for solitude – the ability to escape the constant draining buzz. Trend Watching explains,

    This isn’t about consumers rejecting everything that brought them to the city, but about a temporary breather. Remember, no trend applies all of the time. People will forever crave the excitement and choice available in cities; yet still want to escape for a moment.

    In 2011 some brands were ahead of the curve in offering a moment of solace to their consumers. These early adopters compete in industries where such services are appreciated due to the high stress in their corresponding environments. Some examples:

    • In July 2011, Telia, a Swedish telecom provider, launched a free app that enabled customers to disable internet for set period of time at home. They also set up internet-free zones in several public locations across Sweden. (Trendwatching.com)

    • In September 2011, at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport, Sleepbox launched a small self-contained cabin designed to give users a quiet place to get some rest. (Trendwatching.com)

    • From July to September 2011, the Marriott Renaissance Pittsburgh Hotel offered “Zen and the Art of Detox” – a weekend package that obliged visitors to surrender any digital devices when checking-in. Also, rooms were stocked with books instead of televisions. (Trendwatching.com)

    Brands that, by virtue of their product or service, must compete in a mentally fatiguing space, can embrace the opportunity by providing a counter experience like the examples above. However, most brands do not need to provide such overt forms of relief; they can bake it in to the actual product. Pandora Radio is an example of a highly appreciated, passive user interface. Listeners have one less thing to think about as the stream is designed to anticipate their tastes. Pinterest, with an extremely intuitive user experience and strong social integration, provides a similar release. The mindless nature of pinning offers a pleasurable distraction from daily stressors.

    Facebook, in the short term, offers a similar mental release. In fact, thirty-year psychology veteran, Susan Weinschenk, found that the brain releases dopamine upon receiving notifications of Facebook updates or status changes. In contrast, Facebook has become an eclectic badge of social currency - check-in’s, relationships, flattering pictures, and job title changes; thus truly adding up to social noise. As we become desensitized to social updates we look for other sources of immediate reward like Twitter, Reddit, and sites like Wimp and YouTube.

    At the agency I work for, we have a former Buddhist monk who spent six years on a silent sabbatical in Burma. You read that right…he didn’t speak for six years. He trains employees to practice mindfulness and stress-relieving routines they can implement on a daily basis. In one session, he explained that humans are naturally hard-wired to respond in a “fight or flight” manner. This was an essential tool for survival when humans first roamed the earth. Despite our evolution over time, we still react in a similar manner to alerts, texts, emails, calls, green lights, our significant other calling our name, and so on. We’ve been conditioned to believe that an immediate response is expected, and a delayed response has become an indication of a lower priority. In this new social norm we’ve set ourselves up to strive, long-term, toward solitude…or pay a lofty price to have it right here, right now, between our 2:00 and 2:45 meetings. Regardless, this will be something to watch in 2012 – an opportunity to make your brand the hero.

    As an account manager in Boulder, Dorsey has worked on global and national campaigns for brands like Microsoft and Groupon. Read more of his posts where he blogs at And this....

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • None Of Us Is As Dumb As All Of Us

    November 21st, 2011 / Comments (1)

    I “borrowed” that from one of those Demotivator posters. If you’re wondering why someone with my cynical outlook on life needs a demotivation poster, just remember that sad sacks love to wallow in misery. And oh, how I love the wallowing. It’s a great site for realizing just how fucked up so much of the business world is; and this comes from someone who worked in an office full of the original motivational posters that make you want to hang yourself with Roseanne Barr’s thong.

    So enough of the horseshit intro; what’s this rant all about?

    One word…opinions.

    It was inspired by the recent lump of festering shit designed for Colorado Springs, an abhorrence that slid out of the puckered anus of local “design” firm Stone Mantel (sounds like something cold that supports crap from Goodwill…hmm, the irony).

    When I first saw it on The Denver Egotist I thought it was a joke. Nice one! Even worse than the Fort Collins travesty, but there’s no way this malodorous boil is real. Good old Egotist, always one for larks and japes and…

    …oh. Shit.

    I wasn’t exactly expecting Pentagram quality, but this thing looks like the kind of rotten puke you see in student books; the stuff that means you have to break it to the hopeful brat that they’re better off flipping burgers than polluting the world with their lack of design skills.

    Actually, it’s worse. And that’s because it reeks of design by committee.

    This is one of the biggest problems I see with the advertising, marketing and design industries. And it’s also prevalent in movies (oh god, the shite movies we now have to endure), music, product design and almost everything else that we encounter on a daily basis. You can see the hands of wannabe artists, designers and writers everywhere, who sit behind a desk crunching numbers for most of the day. But when they get to review work, they get to show just how damned talented they really are.

    Design by committee is rife in advertising and design, but could never exist in some professions. Here’s a quick example. Imagine a surgeon performing an operation, only he’s joined by a bunch of other people, including: his boss; a surgeon who hates his guts; an intern; the secretary; the girl from accounting who he’s been fucking at night; and the mailroom guy.

    Just as the surgeon is about to make his first incision, there’s immediate opposition.

    Asshole surgeon: “Whooah, is that the best place to cut? We need to discuss this at length. And that scalpel is all wrong.”

    Intern: “We should probably have coffee and look at these charts I pulled on the best place to make first incisions. It includes new data from focus groups.”

    Secretary: “Do we even need to cut him at all? That seems harsh, perhaps we can massage the failing liver back to health and burn some incense.”

    Account girl: “Statistically, we shouldn’t even go near this cut. The legal team says it could open us up to lawsuits, and that means more expenditure. We should probably go somewhere private, together, and talk this over.”

    Mailroom guy: “Cut him now! Big cut! Let’s see blood!”

    Boss: “I say we make a small cut in a different area, one less likely to cause visual trauma, remove a small part of the liver, put a small part of the new liver in there, sew him up and then put this all on the back burner while we wait for the results to come in. Let’s see how he performs.”

    Surgeon: “OK…making incision.”

    Asshole surgeon: “Hey, we need to talk about the shape of the incision, the depth and so many other factors. We should take this offline and run the numbers.”

    You get the picture. It’s ridiculous to think of it in those terms, but it’s exactly what happens in advertising and design. And it’s not too much of a stretch to consider the client and their product as a patient in need of medical assistance.

    Their brand is dying, their sales are on life support, they need a solution, and quickly. But opinions are allowed to grow and flourish from all sides. Everyone’s thoughts matter. Even people who have never created an ad, or wrote copy, are allowed to directly influence the copy and art direction.

    “How about this headline?”

    “Oh, yes Julia I like that. But maybe not so bold, and let’s add a call to action in there along with Justin’s idea about combining those two headlines from the other campaign.”

    “Brilliant! Let’s get a focus group together for even more opinions!”

    Clients, account managers, planners, they all have their place. But they rarely stay in it. Creative territory, and to some extent the strategic side of the business, seem to be fair game to everyone else. If a creative, like an art director, asked to see the fiscal projections for the next quarter, and supplied a spreadsheet with numbers that he or she liked, there would be hell to pay. But anyone, and I mean anyone, has a valid opinion when it comes to the business we’re trained in.

    Oh sure, it’s sometimes disguised as self-deprecating verbiage, but you can see straight through that. How many times have you heard these gems:

    “Look, I’m no copywriter but have you tried something like…”

    “I’m not a designer, but I’m thinking we could try this color…”

    “You’ll figure out how to make this much better, but what about…”

    Before you know it, your sketch pad is filled with “suggestions” from the clients and your own management team, and you have to bite what’s left of your tongue, go back to your corner of the office and turn something great into something mediocre. And then repeat the process a few dozen times until everyone can agree that they don’t hate it.

    It’s the equivalent of taking a car into the shop with a leaking engine, and picking up a completely jalopy with a new paint job after 3 months and $100k in expenses.

    So, how do we solve this?

    It’s solvable, but it requires an incredible amount of discipline and trust from both the client and the agency.

    First, the client must have one decision-maker. ONE. And that person must be in the loop from the start. That doesn’t mean the CEO, it means one person responsible for signing off on the finished project. That means the CEO and the board has to go with that person’s decision. Like I say, trust. But really, if one retarded monkey had sat down with crayons and designed The Springs logo, and another retarded monkey signed off on it, would it be any worse than the one the fucking committee agreed to?

    It also means that the agency must get a very specific creative brief, signed off on by the main decision-maker. And it means the agency must put its foot down when the client asks for god-awful changes. To put it bluntly, fuck them. They don’t know what they’re doing; if they did they wouldn’t need an agency. Steve Jobs said that he refused to test the iPad before it went to market. He knew people don’t know what they want and it would score badly. So he took the “fuck you” path and released it. It’s now the most popular tablet by a large margin.

    Jobs also had to put his own money into the infamous 1984 commercial. The committee hated it. He loved it. And we all know how that turned out.

    The agency must also put a limit on brainstorms between all kinds of people. A team is great, but I honestly believe three’s a crowd. Bernbach wanted the art director and copywriter to work together to formulate ideas. It worked great. I don’t ever seen great work coming from brainstorms with five or six people in the room. Too many cooks. Too many opinions. Ideas get left on the table because one person in the room isn’t keen. Other ideas get pushed because the group likes them. Generally, when we think in large groups, we play safe and the tepid ideas rise to the top. There are notable exceptions (Pixar), but not many.

    If we want less of this Colorado Springs crap, we all need to start putting our own houses in order. Solid direction, one main decision-maker, small teams and no more of these big group brainstorms. Try it. You’ll save time, money and the sanity of the talented people around you.

    Felix Unger is a site contributor, ranter and curmudgeon for The Denver Egotist. He’s been in the ad game a long time, but he’s still young enough to know he doesn’t know everything. If he uses the f-bomb from time-to-time, forgive him. Sometimes, when you're ranting, no other word will do. In his spare time, he does not torture small animals. He has been known, on occasion, to drink alcohol by the gallon. Do as he says, not as he does.

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • ARE WE ALL BREAKING THE FIRST RULE OF ADVERTISING?

    November 3rd, 2011 / Comments (1)

    As I sat drinking chamomile tea on the highest peak of Mount Kanchenjunga, with only a few goats and some hardened dung for company, I got to thinking.

    Man, I am really…fucking…bored.

    So I am back from my crusty hiatus, which was designed to calm me the fuck down. And I have to say, I still have a lot of problems with the current state of advertising. Too many, in fact, to list in this one post; so consider this the return, for now, of your unfriendly neighborhood adman.

    (Oh, and if that was an incorrect use of the semi-colon, try and remember that I really don’t give a shit. Jesus, chamomile tea isn’t all it’s cracked up to be).

    Anyway, here’s what I’m starting to see, and it’s spreading like an STD in a Bangkok whorehouse. We’re treating our audience(s) like complete morons.

    One of the biggest rules of advertising, some say the first rule, is that you should never underestimate the customer. Don’t speak down to them. Don’t think they won’t get it. Don’t assume that you’re smart and they’re dumb (even though, sometimes, it’s true).

    And yet, like a strange echo of Mike Judge’s seminal movie, “Idiocracy,” we’re creating (and re-creating) the advertising equivalent of “Ow, My Balls.”

    Take a look at some of the ads that have graced our airwaves, billboards and magazines recently. It’s moving beyond the territory of bizarre, challenging and surreal, and it’s now just fucking inane. I know Dave Trott has said that it’s more important to be 'noticed and irrelevant' than 'relevant and unnoticed,' but holy fuck this is going too far.

    Let’s start with JC Penney. The basic message behind this one is “hey old guys, you hate ads, but take a look at these crappy clothes and you can see some tits and ass at the same time! Boner time, it’s Phoebe Cates from the 1980s! Takes you back, right?!”

    It’s not only insulting to the intelligence of the most sexually-repressed, alcohol-drenched, brain-dead jock, it’s also confusing as fuck. Take one semi-naked chick from an 80s movie (Phoebe Cates is almost 50 for Christ’s sake), mix it with some bland clothes that even Ned Flanders would think twice about, and then target men who shop at JC Penney.

    They may as well have come out and said “Hey old fella, like naked chicks? Buy these clothes!”

    JC stands for Jesus Christ by the way. As in “Jesus Christ, how’d you manage to piss off women and men at the same time and not sell any more product?”

    What’s worse is the script. It starts out with the mother of all straw man arguments:

    “JC Penney understands that you don’t like advertising for clothes. Who does?”

    Really? I’d say ads for clothes are usually more entertaining than ads for most other products or services. Levis, Victoria’s Secret, Nike, they usually grab your attention in a way that’s not a teeth-itching Progressive Insurance commercial. Are people really complaining about this? Well, let’s assume they are. The pointless frontman continues:

    “Tell you what, though. If you look at these smart fashion choices from Van Heusen, we’re gonna show you this…”

    Cut to the infamous Phoebe Cates pool shot.

    “…that way, everyone wins.”

    Oh how wrong you are. By the way, “smart fashion choices” sounds about as hip and cool as, well, JC Penney. And we close with “JC Penney, it is seriously hot in here.”

    The stench from that line would gag a maggot.

    Want another example?

    How about this one for Old Spice?

    Let me wait a second while I let the murmurs and grumblings die down. “Did he just say Old Spice?” I did indeed. Because as much as I enjoyed, and loved, the initial spots and the bizarreness of the Terry Crews follow-ups, they at least had a thread that tied them to the product. The man your man could smell like? Yes. Odor-blocking as powerful as me? Yes. But Ray Lewis saying he needs Old Spice Swagger to be an athlete, and it’s “like a fantasy but real,” well, now the creatives are just taking the piss.

    Here’s another campaign that bugs the living shit out of me. Diesel has always been known for some pretty obscure ad campaigns. It’s more permissible with fashion as you’re trying to build a brand that people want to wear, and be associated with, so there’s a lot of wiggle room here. But the “Be Stupid” campaign?

    We are now celebrating low IQs? “Hey fucktard, show your tits to a security camera, and do it in a pair of $200 jeans made by starving kids earning 18 cents a day.”

    Maybe that’s what they mean. "Oy, dipshit. Yeah, you! Be stupid, spend all of your cash on our jeans. Awesome bro! Or dudette!"

    Other ads show a “cool dude” with his head stuck in a mailbox, or some vapid tart in a bikini snapping a photo of her snatch while a lion gets ready to make a meal of another clueless fashion model. It looks like being cool means you’re a fucking idiot. Oh a risk taker, sure. But a moronic one.

    I could go on, but why give further attention to any more of this horseshit? We’re all consumers as well as advertisers. Is this how we view ourselves? Are we avid viewers of The Jersey Fucking Shore? Would we buy a pair of Diesel jeans because it’s cool to have the common sense of a house plant? Would we buy Old Spice because “umm, de funny ad wiv de big man on de big bird made me laugh in my belly momma,” or are we just a little smarter than that?

    If this is the level we’re playing down to, we’ve only got ourselves to blame. We wonder why people don’t read copy any more, or want to know more about the product, and then we proudly throw this vomit out there. Sometimes, it wins awards. Wrangler jeans for We Are Animals. Need I say more?

    Let’s all raise the IQ of our advertising. We don’t have to use 14-syllable words, but we also don’t need to aim everything at the lowest common denominator. Let's steer this ship in the right direction.

    OK, it’s time for my shot of Thorazine. But I’ll be back when it wears off.

    Felix Unger is a site contributor, ranter and curmudgeon for The Denver Egotist. He’s been in the ad game a long time, but he’s still young enough to know he doesn’t know everything. If he uses the f-bomb from time-to-time, forgive him. Sometimes, when you're ranting, no other word will do. In his spare time, he does not torture small animals. He has been known, on occasion, to drink alcohol by the gallon. Do as he says, not as he does.

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • You and Your Meaningless Career in Advertising

    September 21st, 2011 / Comments (0)

    If you ask a random sample of advertising people what would make their lives more fulfilling, a good chunk of them will say the following: “I wish I had a more meaningful outlet for applying my creativity.” It’s a predictable answer, but a telling one, and an even more predictable side effect of a career devoted to consumerism.

    But despite ad folk’s general commiseration over the shortage of meaning in our day to day lives, only a handful of us are actively devoting a portion of our creative guts to the general betterment of mankind. Lately I’ve been wondering about this, because with so much apparent interest in making the world a better place, the number of people really doing it doesn’t seem to add up. What’s holding us back?

    It’s not a lack of problems, that’s for sure. No one spending 80 percent of their day on a computer can hide from the subpar-ness of some choices we made in the last 100 years, and fresh side effects of these decisions surface daily. But as our definition of ‘social bad’ continues to broaden, it’s curious to note that the definition of ‘social good’ is stubbornly refusing to keep up, with its everyday interpretation more or less hitting a hard wall at helping malnourished kiddos in remote Kenya find water, food or medicine.

    There’s a weird battle that pops up when attempting to modernize this definition, one that‘s potentially at the root of why so many of us swiftly abandon our inclination to get involved. It’s a competition of causes; a man made measure of what, exactly, counts as making a difference. I’m not sure what the point of the debate is, but I'm convinced that its core holds nothing better than a crappy sense of self-righteousness, born from finding the most CNN-ready crime against humanity and claiming that problem as your own. No more hunger by by 2020? Sure, that counts. Rounding up all your credit card purchases to give to charity? Eh, that’s not social good. That’s white guilt.

    Besides the obvious silliness of turning the social good space into yet another ego battle, the bummer is that this “problem elitism” is polarizing enough to turn 'normal' people off from getting involved. Not to mention the real bummer, which translates to a major loss in the amount of good stuff getting done, period. After all, if there’s a barrier to entry for saving the world, how can we possibly maximize the earth-redeeming potential for all skill sets, including (and perhaps especially) creative ones?

    I’m sure there’s more reasons why ad people are only wading in the world of meaningful things. But in effort to debunk at least one of those reasons, I've gotta clear the air about this one in particular: Social good is not a world owned by saints and martyrs, nor is it defined by the scale of the problem you’re hoping to solve. Social good is everybody's, and it happens each time we do something a little better, a little greener, and a little more considerately than the people before us.

    It has to be. Because the truth is, we’re long past the point where problems are confined to third world countries. Most of our most pressing, more localized issues aren’t things that can be solved by a team of lawyers specializing in social justice, they’re just things our forefathers did wrong the first time. It’s almost fair to call them White People Problems, because we’re certainly responsible for their existence.

    So what is fair cause for white guilt? Definitely not a hesitancy to relocate to Africa. But if you’re staying mum while your print production team repeatedly selects toxic processes and materials over greener ones, well, maybe you should speak up. If your client’s seeking new packaging but you’re not strongly recommending biodegradable options, maybe you should start researching those alternatives. If something of local significance has been bringing up some questions for you, maybe you should write an open letter, blow it up, and wheat paste it on your garage door. If you're not doing those things and you're whining about your meaningless existence in advertising, well, maybe you should shut the fuck up.

    Yes we’re running out of water. Yes we’re running out of clean air. But you know what else a lot of people suspect we’re running out of? Creativity. And that’s exactly what we need to rethink what’s broken. So get off your butt. Drop the guilt, grab a White Person Problem and start using a fraction of what you’ve got - anything you’ve got - to make it go away. That’s all it takes. And if the 'social good' people give you hell for helping from the comfort of your air conditioned office - just tell them it's social good enough. And maybe ask what the hell they're doing back in the US. Slackers.

    Carmel Hagen is a communication and experience designer at COMMON, a creative community for rapidly prototyping social change.

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • Write Better Voiceovers

    September 14th, 2011 / Comments (0)

    Videos come in all shapes and sizes. Some happen to be exactly 30 seconds long and formatted for a television screen. Occasionally these 30-second videos have voiceovers. Here are some things to keep in mind when you write them.

    Write both sides of the script: TV scripts are written with visual instructions on the lefthand side of the page and the dialogue, voiceover or music direction on the right. Write that way from the start. Both sides. Simultaneously. It'll prevent you from writing your voiceover as a paragraph of body copy. And it'll get you thinking about how sight and sound can complement each other, allowing you to communicate more in less time. Screenplay format is ok, too. But it drives me crazy when I see a voiceover laid out like it's a chunk of copy.

    Cast before you write: Pick a favorite actor. Someone with a distinct vocal pattern. (Morgan Freeman, Matthew McConaughey, Cameron Diaz, Edward Norton and Kris Kristofferson have all been inspirational for me. Al Pacino might be too unique.) Then write your voiceover. Let the actor's voice echo in your head as you write. This exercise will make sure your script is written to be heard instead of read. And it'll make your tone cohesive and interesting.

    Transcribe other people's scripts: I was told that as a boy, David Mamet recorded his parents' dinner conversations and then transcribed them so he could see the way everyday conversation looked on a page. It's a mess. People interrupt each other, repeat themselves, and never speak in complete sentences. Try it. If you don't feel like eavesdropping on a conversation, go find your favorite spot on YouTube and transcribe it. You'll be amazed how sparse and odd it looks.

    Read your voiceover out loud: Act it out. Don't just mutter it to yourself under your breath while staring at your monitor. Read it boldly. This will ensure your flow is perfect. And it will also ensure that on recording day, you have a clear idea of how the talent should read your script.

    Read books: Two of the most famous spots of all time, Surfer and America , have voiceovers derived from literature. More than radio, more than copy, more than headlines or websites, a voiceover is a copywriter's chance to dream big. To write something that will make people's lives better. Go do it.

    This piece is cross-posted from Matt Ingwalson's blog.

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • Dear Graphic and Web Designers, Please Understand that There Are Greater Opportunities Available to You

    July 12th, 2011 / Comments (0)

    You have an inherent need to solve problems, visually and conceptually. There is enormous value in this, but you may be misplacing your talents.

    The internet, at this time in history, is the greatest client assignment of all time. The Western world is porting itself over to the web in mind and deed and is looking to make itself comfortable and productive. It’s every person in the world, connected to every other person in the world, and no one fully understands how to make best use of this new reality because no one has seen anything like it before. The internet wants to hire you to build stuff for it because its trying to figure out what it can do. It’s offering you a blank check and asking you to come up with something fascinating and useful that it can embrace en masse, to the benefit of everyone.

    Your press checks are bullshit
    Your personal logo is bullshit
    Your employer is bullshit
    Your studio is bullshit

    The market is handing you steak and you’re choosing the gristle. The market is handing you gold bullion and you’re taking the nickel.

    As a designer, you enjoy building things for other people’s use. Your value is determined by the degree to which you can empathize with groups of people around a given topic. Historically, this relationship has required a large(r) company to act as mediator for the emotional mass-transaction. Companies provide you with an audience inasmuch as they have customers, and that’s enough for you because you just want to design stuff that solves stuff.

    The internet kills all middlemen.

    You now have direct access to the raw vein of popular attention. The pixels you’re pushing have a higher exchange rate than you’re giving yourself credit for*. No hounding client payroll, no selling other people’s stuff, no building other people’s wealth, no nephew’s cousins stepping in with the authority to change everything you’ve been working on.

    If You Build It, They Will Come and Try It; and if you are keen enough to identify the opportunities that are being laid out before you by technology, then there is challenge and fulfillment and success to be had.

    I run Svpply.com. I am its Designer. I used to design logos and now I design for the internet. Svpply is building a service which will redefine major components of the retail industry. Our team is figuring out how to do this together because no one has ever done anything like it before. No class of people has ever been offered an opportunity like the one you and I are being offered right now.

    If this kind of opportunity sounds even slightly interesting to you, then you should join a startup. You don’t have to know more than that. The jobs are all out there waiting for you. They’re secure and fun and they pay competitively. If the thought of building something amazing for lots of people is interesting to you, You Should Join a Startup**.

    You can find jobs at startups here, here, here and here. You should also just start sending your work to startups that you like. All of them are hiring or thinking about hiring.

    If you have questions about this, feel free to hit me up. Additionally, I know someone specifically looking to fund good designers with good ideas, so let me know if you’d like an introduction.

    - - -

    *The ability to design effectively for so many people at the stroke of a key is a skill and talent which will have its own title and pay grade. There are only going to be more and more small companies launching for the web. Many of them will need consultation on how to create and communicate with massive audiences and communities. As a designer this is all in your domain.

    **I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t start your own company. I just think that for a lot of designers, from what I’ve seen, this is jumping the gun. Unless you have a friend who is an engineer, it is going to be difficult for you to find someone of quality to build something for you, the professional landscape for those people is just too competitive right now for much of that. But I guarantee you’ll develop relationships with engineers if you go work at a startup, and from working relationships good conversations brew and companies are born.

    - - -

    This piece is cross-posted from Ben Pieratt's blog.

    Bookmark/Search this post with

  • If You Work in Advertising, But All You Make is ‘Advertising’, You’re Doing it Wrong.

    June 27th, 2011 / Comments (2)

    The ad industry is quickly evolving into a new industry. It will be one that won’t offer only the limited menu of services that’s attributed to it today. I’m not sure if this new industry should even be called advertising anymore, as the term itself can be an albatross to innovation. But whatever the name is, it’ll be even more exciting and productive than in its current incarnation.

    When the 4th Amendment Wear brand was invented, I didn’t realize at the time that it would teach me such an important lesson about where we’re headed. It helped me crystallize my thoughts on how our industry needs to fundamentally shift the way it operates in order for it to survive. Originally, it was created as a political art statement to challenge what many saw as an invasion of US citizen’s constitutionally-protected rights to privacy. Then, working together with art director and designer Matt Ryan, we developed products that launched a brand within weeks, reaching millions of people and quickly selling thousands of dollars worth of merchandise. Recently, it was honored with a Tomorrow Award, as well as ADC Global’s Inaugural Designism award.

    As CEO of my own strategic brand consultancy, Timmovations, I know first-hand just how laborious the process of developing a brand can be. But the new media landscape requires that we become capable of doing so quickly, if we expect to be able to meet time-sensitive opportunities.

    It’s one thing to create an ad. It’s a whole other beast to invent new technology, create products using that technology, tap into social media, and orchestrate a marketing campaign to reach millions. Then, to sell tens of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, in a less than a month, with a small initial investment, with a small team of just two people to make everything happen – opens your eyes to what’s wrong with the current setup at many agencies. Because the big lesson of 4th Amendment Wear wasn’t how to launch a clothing brand. It was how it can inspire our industry to reshape its own internal organizations to react to events just as fast and be just as nimble.

    ‘Advertising’ has become pigeonholed. Even among those of us working in advertising, what we do is often defined by 30-second TV spots and double-page spreads with some sort of digital thingamajig thrown in for good measure. But anything we’re already making is then automatically ‘traditional.’ So creating ideas that live beyond those traditional routes is quickly becoming a mandatory skill that we all need to develop. Fast. ‘Fast’ is the future of how this industry needs to work.

    The typical ad agency/client relationship model is an antique. We need to reinvent it.

    While much of 4th Amendment Wear’s success can be attributed to the brand being in the right place at the right time, the truth is, all brands need to be. It also shows how we, the creative talent, can evolve – from making the ads that sell the products, to making the products that become the ads. So, I hope it inspires more creatives (and agencies) to take advantage of the quickly democratizing production systems around us and the unprecedented access to media channels.

    You don’t always need millions of dollars worth of production and media spend for a brand’s message to spread. While I’m not discounting the importance of strategic branding, which I am very familiar with, it’s the system of executing the campaigns that communicates those messages that needs to be rebuilt from the ground-up.

    Today, all you need are great ideas. Yes, it’s a cliche. But can you think of a time when it’s ever been more true? The future belongs to those with the best ideas. Not to the agencies, not to the media platforms or technologies, nor (which is the most popular saying now) even to the audience. Because those with the best ideas will always out-think and outmaneuver them.

    That’s what we do. It’s just our business.

    If a brand spends an enormous budget on campaigns that seem to fade into the background, I’d suggest giving it to more nimble teams and adaptable agencies. With the right system in place, for the cost of one ‘globally integrated, high-production value, slightly-positive-focus group-approved’ campaign, those teams will create ten times the number of quality initiatives for your brand that could possibly light and catch fire. Then, go ahead and raise your budget back up, and you’ll make even more. That’s how you can destroy competition that still works within an antique model.

    If you take your brand to one of the world’s best agencies, think about what you’d rather have them create…

    • One, carefully-honed, thoroughly-researched piece of wallpaper, approved by every layer of your organization, over the course of a year, that the world then may or may not ignore?

    • Or ten ‘at-bats’ that start little fires that can be closely monitored and fanned into flames? The world might ignore one or two, but you still have a tenfold chance they’ll actually pay attention to what you want to say. To me, it’s pretty clear.

    There’s value, efficiency – and an entire future – in being nimble.

    With access to technology, you can now leverage nimble talent against massive organizations in a way challenger brands never could. A great idea could earn its own media. And great ideas that do exactly that should be what you’re paying for.

    Don’t outspend – out-think. The only way you’ll do that is by allowing the talent in your agencies to respond much quicker than they are able to, or allowed to, right now. Those agencies also need to learn how to be nimble by creating and perfecting the systems that allow their clients to react as fast. Because in today’s media, responding to a socially relevant conversation 2-4 weeks after the fact is almost always too late. Sometimes, a day is just too late.

    If you’re a client briefing your agency on a campaign a year (or, typically, years) in advance, you’re just working in another world. How many opportunities to react to the social conversation will happen in that one year? Your brand is missing chances of free, earned media. And your competition can change drastically in that year. The entire landscape can change in a month. The category could be challenged by the end of the week.

    Remember the RAZR phone?

    If not, look it up on your smart-phone’s web browser and you’ll understand what I mean.

    A lot of what was taught in MBA programs ten years ago is being untaught by disruptive outsiders today. In the current system of typical agency/client development and approval processes, agencies and clients will most likely miss out on more and more opportunities to respond quickly and to profit. And that’s some of us, will have our own eyes open – watching when to strategically embed our own client’s brands – or even our own brands – into the conversations that your system has made you miss.

    As a client or agency, you need to realize the resources that you have at hand, right now, and make the process more efficient. Advertising isn’t dying. As the business evolves, the talent will simply evolve with it. Your brand can either leverage those talents, or you can wait until production becomes so democratized and so easily accessed, that they go on to create their own challenger brands that may, one day, take yours down.

    Of course, that’s not necessarily what we do right now.

    But soon enough, it may just be our business.

    Tim Geoghegan is a freelance Creative Director and strategic brand consultant with over 10 years of integrated global experience. Previously, he was Associate Creative Director at CP+B in Boulder and Creative Director of the ZAG brand IP-invention subsidiary at BBH, NY. You can follow him on twitter at @timogeo or contact him at timmovations@gmail.com. This piece is cross-posted from Tim Geoghegan's blog.

    Bookmark/Search this post with