Unbelievable!

Funny, all my life I've listened to my Mom complain about movies, commercials or TV shows for their lack of believability. Granted, she is way too literal--like when watching a magic show and complaining that there's really no way anyone could endure the blades in the box while being cut in half.

"It's a trick mom...you know that, right?"

Or her disdain as to how the Harlem Globetrotters can really win all the time. Those poor Nationals...

"Never mind Mom..."

So I guess it's no surprise that over time I find myself falling prone to some similar levels of criticism, especially regarding commercials.

For instance, this morning I saw a Folgers spot where a long-gone prodigal son arrives at his home's doorstep way early in the morning, greeted by his all too admiring sister. She's been waiting up all night for him, but he reminds her, "It's a long way from Africa..." Hmmm. Never mind me wondering why he was there to begin but if I were coming home from a long trip and world adventure I'd sort of expect my family to pick me up at the airport, right? But not in this commercial. Mom and Dad  suddenly smell the Folgers in their pot and say, "He's here!" Nice parents. Make the son get his own way home AND make the coffee. Sort of a hard to believe situation made up just to smell the coffee.

Or what about the constantly running Chase ad where the former Victoria Secrets model, married to Joe Schmo, announces herself proudly, regaled in a beautiful dress. Hubby then goes into fantasy-land about all the things they could do with their points--obviously inspired by his wife's beauty. She keeps reminding him they can't use their points. Hmmm. Sure they can. But no...turns out wifey spent them all on that dress. Which means it cost a ton given his dreams were a cruise or boating, etc. $$$! Now, call me crazy, but if my wife used up that many points without discussing it with me first I would probably blow a slight gasket, regardless of how stunning she looked in it. And in discussing this with friends it's kind of universal...not very believable.

Okay, it's just TV, I know. All the Kay commercials aren't very believable either. Or the surprise Lexus in the driveway to the unsuspecting spouse. Or the BK break-in to McDonald's for the egg McMuffin secret recipe. (But at least that's funny and works on a whole other level.)

I guess my point is, without getting to the level my Mom is at, I find commercials that have to work really hard at setting up scenarios that none of would ever find ourselves in feels disingenuous. Slightly annoying if not a tad offensive. And they certainly disrupt the moment when doubting...

I've had to spend a considerable amount of my career reminding clients to avoid being so literal and over thinking every detail so I understand what fine line exists between creative liberties and reality. But a lot of what I am seeing lately just crosses the line into the 'contrived'. And obviously contrived. Even worse.

I think it's wise to consider some real-world human behavior in anything a company produces. And while not wanting to kibosh creativity, I would advise some reality sprinkled in for good measure. Like my hero Leo Burnett always promoted, "the believable, the fresh, and the memorable".

That's all I'm asking for.

Now...how unbelievable is that CBS campaign to gift a pap smear for Christmas? That's another post altogether.

Cheers.

Stephen

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Cheer up...it's the holidays!

Just for the fun of it.

http://justforthebellofit.icrossing.com/

Smile. And be happy this season.

Happy holidays all!

Stephen

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Tis the season to be...BRUTAL?

This time each year, merry creatives begin celebrating a long-standing holiday tradition, revered nearly as religiously as, well…those other holidays. It’s known as “Ho-Ho-Ho, Bash the Other Agency’s Holiday Cards”. How cheery and exciting. Almost as exciting as poking fun at the Bill Cosby-like holiday sweaters dorks wear, ridiculing the endless fruit cake metaphors, enduring bad gift ideas ads, mash-ups of redneck songs about reindeer's and grandma's, and watching one more 'kissy' jewelry commercial. Almost.

What can be better than waiting with anticipation for the first agency to take the plunge and tip their hand early enough to reap generous donations of criticism?

This year I believe Publicis got first dibs on the abuse by releasing their Black Eyed Peas overdub video. By the comments on YouTube, this season appears to have no recession in ‘creative’r-than-thou’ gifts of harshness. Wow, makes me want to “Bah Humbug” the next person I see. Gets me right in the mood…

Okay, I’m a creative and I love great work as much as the next creative. And I have no shyness in stating what I believe to be great work, or not…but really…does the brutality level of bashing need to be so high? And does everyone who posts a jab qualify to criticize by having produced a better piece of work? That should be the price of entry. No complaints unless you can put up something superior.

So come on all…let’s remember the reason for the season of holiday creative efforts. To spread some cheer. Not douse the tree with gasoline and set it ablaze. (Frankly, that’s how all the negativity feels to me.) So back off, please. Show some grace and good will. Cut everyone some slack and let’s all be one big happy family of creatives this holiday. After all, Thanksgiving is when families are supposed to fight—so remember what time of year it is.

Stephen

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Word Worth remembering

"Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." Teddy Roosevelt

Nice.

Stephen

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Cancer sucks. Having it sucks worse.

I recently lost a friend I had only recently met. A man I wish I'd known better, and longer. His name was David. He was a Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois--a very well respected authority on nutrition. He succumbed to Pancreatic Cancer less than two years after being diagnosed. 

Pancreatic Cancer is rarely survivable--the average lifespan after diagnosis is 5 years. Obviously that means some live longer but far too many die sooner. It is the 4th leading cause of death by cancer although it it one of the least diagnosed. To give some perspective--breast cancer is diagnosed on average, per year, at around 190,000 cases. Pancreatic cancer is diagnosed, per year, at around 40,000 cases. Yet both are within a few thousand of each other in the number of deaths per year. It's also one of the least funded types of cancer research.

Bottom line, being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is like being handed a death sentence--to most. It's rare but deadly. Only recently has it been getting attention, due to celebrity cases like Patrick Swayze, Ruth Ginsburg, Steve Jobs, and more. But it affects so many more who aren't 'famous'--like my friend David.

He's just one guy who died way too soon from a disease little understood and hardly attended to in scale compared to other cancer types. 

We can do better. David shouldn't have died so soon, and so young.

I want you to remember David. For who he was, why he died, and how he fought. He was here. He did 'good' in his life and worked hard to help others. He built a family and a career. He did good for the community. He catapulted many a talented student to success by his mentoring and care. Proof: His grad students all came back and held a recognition party for him weeks before he passed. As I said, I didn't know him long enough or well enough, although I wish I had. But in speaking to him on the phone, and emailing back and forth, I knew he was like so many others on this journey--a good person, a man of hope and dreams, fighting heroically yet to live.

I emailed David right before Thanksgiving to see how his last doctor visit went. He replied only days before his passing to tell me that he was going on hospice and had little expectations on getting to 2010. I took it for granted that he was holding on well enough, given his email style and words. I was stunned to find out only days after that he had lost his battle.

He left us too soon. As do all diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer. 

Pancreatic Cancer is a thief. An insidious disease that takes people in their prime and robs them of time to fight for life.

This holiday season, if you're thinking of a cause to donate to--to give back some of the blessings you've received, please consider giving to http://www.pancan.org/section_donate/donate_now.php

David would thank you.

In his memory, I thank you.

Stephen

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Slight rant about apologies

For years I've come across folks who did something they felt bad enough about to apologize for but then always cited their rationale. Like, "I'm sorry I yelled at you...but you made me so mad." Or, "Sorry for what I said...but what you said made me say that." Maybe, "My bad for jumping to conclusions...BUT I just thought you meant something different and offensive, without getting the facts blah blah blah."

It always irritated me greatlywhen someone would apologize and then basically take it away with an attempt at justification.

I never knew what that was called until last night's outburst during Obama's speech--where the Congressman shouted, "You lie!" Today's press said, "He apologized quickly and without equivocation."

Without equivocation eh? Interesting. Nice to see an apology unattached.

I'm sorry if this post just came out of the blue...BUT the news made me want to. : )

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

A great ad...So

So, yesterday I blasted the A1 campaign. I saw an A1 ad again last night and it convinced me even more--it sucks. It's just a highly produced gimmick...cheap wordplay. Amateurish.

Now, walking to the train after work yesterday, I saw a huge wall-painted ad for Starbucks. Simple text ad reading; "At Starbucks, if you're not happy with your coffee we'll remake it. If still not happy, then you're not at a Starbucks."

Nicely done!

What this ad does is play on an inherent truth--commitment to a good cup of coffee AND the fact Starbucks has built their reputation on good coffee and customer service. That's how Starbucks has ended up on every corner. Instead of resorting to some cheap word play, they played into some inherent drama and used clever words to state a simple, and arguably true, concept. In addition to being a good message, it was written to be enjoyable.

That's good advertising.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

LAME-O Ads

A1 is running a pun-dependent concept right now called, "A1 makes _____ sing. Each spot goes a very long way to set the gimmick up. To date I've seen one about Meatloaf (the singer), one about Burger King, and another I can't recall (never a good sign). All I remember is how cheesy they are and how much I hate them and how dependent they are on a lame joke with no legs (ad-speak for a one trick ad).

I will admit I thought the Meatloaf reference was a mildly amusing ad but when I began seeing the others I realized it's an attempt at a campaign using that one construct. First, the ads are borrowed interest--trying to take something unrelated to steak sauce and making it work. Borrowed interest is risky and rarely works. Better to leverage the inherent drama of a product and go from there. Second, the ads are highly produced set-ups to deliver that one end line. My reaction, every time, is, "Geesh...wasn't worth the wait."

Matter of fact...they're not even worth writing about.

The end.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Words of wisdom

Random thoughts:

Why is it that we generally feel good about a person with ideals but then think negatively about a person deemed idealistic? After all, isn't an idealist just someone championing their ideals? It's good to hold to a high standard. So why do we knock a person and chide them for being an idealist? I admire people who strive for perfection.

That said though, did you know perfection is an imperfect goal? You can never reach it you can only strive for it. Just when you are about to reach it the target moves. But striving is still good, in my opinion.

Per my last post: Edison was likely an idealist or he would've yielded to the pragmatism of the day and thought of better ways to use all those kerosene lamps. And Ford was probably an idealist when he bucked (sorry for the pun) the standard mode of transportation--the horse and buggy--so many had invested in. So, weren't these gents idealists? Men with ideals and the guts to go against the tide and try something new?

Someone commented about 'total cost of ownership' being a deciding factor, per that same post. I thought about that a lot and concluded that a tech person's idea of TCO contrasts the marketing person's idea of ROI. Is TCO valid if what is owned might limit a greater ROI? In other words, if held to that paradigm can bigger and more profitable ideas emerge? Again--the Edison analogy. Had he been consumed with TCO would he have thought of an even bigger source of profit? And value to the consumer?

Enough on that, for now.

More:

If you don't step up and swing big you'll never hit one out of the park. I just read that Jim Thome surpassed Reggie Jackson on the all time home run list. But he's also nailed 3rd all time in strikeouts. Most remember Jim and Mr. October as valiant sluggers. But any other guy with that many strikeouts would be ridiculed. The point is, he and most sluggers know that nothing will go out of the park if not swung at--and swung hard/big. The same goes for what we do in interactive marketing. If we don't think big we'll never have brand moving ideas. And if we don't put everything into our play we won't see a good idea live. I've heard it said that the best way to increase your success is fail more often. I like that. It urges one to dare to go beyond the expected and put it all out there. Sure, there's a fine line between the slugger and the slap hitter but one never goes big without going big.

I'm always appalled by the argument that one should hold back since the last few ideas didn't fly. And I am unafraid to keep pitching new business even if I didn't win the last big effort. If I quit now I will be giving up. How's that for a Yogi'ism?

Another: If you don't believe in yourself how can you expect anyone else to?

How about this?: Why is it when championing one viewpoint several automatically think it excludes another? Like when I say dare to do something different folks counter with, "So you're saying we should abandon the logic of the present?" Or if I say let's take the business in a new direction they say, "So you're saying we should fire all of our existing clients...?" Huh? It always puzzles me--that way of thinking. So if I am an idealist I am not a realist? If I am inspired I am not pragmatic? I believe Edison was an idealist driven by pragmatism--he knew there might be a better way and had the guts to go for it.

Remember, yin yang and duality is an acceptable, and often good, position.

Overall these follow a pattern of belief that all the naysayers, the self-titled devil's advocates, the realists and pragmatists have an agenda to simply play it safe. It's more comfortable to sit back and criticize than it is to expose one's self to criticism for trying.

Think big. Do bigger.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Social driven by anti-social trends?

Seeing the Best Buy 'vending machine' at the airport reminded me of the ongoing trend towards self-service. It began back with the self-pump at gas stations (yes, I am old enough to remember when an attendant would fill the tank). Fast forward and it now includes ATM's that take deposits, airline kiosks for self check-in, automated customer service call centers, Zappos (buying shoes without trying them on first?), the return of the vendo-matic for fast food, McD's touch screen order stations, on and on. Self service does offer efficiencies and it certainly promises that old customer want called 'control', but it also further separates human from human.

Good or bad? (That's a different post.)

I find it interesting that as interactions become less person-to-person the web is seeing a continued surge in social connections and expressions. Could it be that humans still crave personal interactions but prefer the anonymity and feeling of control when the nuances of real life, and live, interactions are removed? For instance, is Twitter popular in part because one can express an opinion and feel secure that any opposition can simply be ignored? It's very one way at it's core. In real live conversations there's always the risk of differences heating up. Could it be that Facebook is hugely popular because one can 'control' one's persona? It certainly is an environment where one can manage what others know about you. That's a far cry from the reality of people knowing you and your business transparently.

Another track--I recently read that 'geeks' are the most social online. Because they can now present themselves as they'd like to be seen vs. as they really are. Personally, I doubt that geeks are the driving force behind social--as the majority of users seem to be highly social people bent on widening their circles of voice, influence, and knowledge. However it does ring true--the part about presenting one's self as they'd like to be seen vs. how one really is.

This drives my two main curiosities; 1) Are social mediums popular because they fill a void left by decreasing live human-to-human interactions? 2) Are social mediums popular because people cherish the feeling of control minus the dynamics of face-to-face contact?

I'm sure there are more reasons. Regardless, it does make for an interesting study--to understand how one dynamic effects another. And in this case, the possibility that as real life social interactions become more automated, virtual ones become more desirable.

That and the fact I have a feeling digital spaces are popular simply because one can be anything they want whenever they want. And that digital offers the advantage of a lot more control over the interactions.

Now, I need to do some banking online, text some friends, post some preferred pictures to Facebook, make a few intelligent tweets regarding smart thoughts I've picked up elsewhere, and then do some shopping (online so I don't have to deal with any mindless banter at the cash register).

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Great Quote

I've seen this said in many ways but this one does it ever so simply.

"Build awesome things that people will use and enjoy." Noah Brier, The Barbarian Group

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

My official position = "Whatever Works Best!"

I worked for a moderately famous CD once who liked to say, "Better work works better."

I've held to that standard my entire career and I believe it has served me well. And now, I find myself thinking about it even more. And evolving it to "Best works best".

Or, "Whatever Works Best!"

The reason why that rings true now more than ever is because of the pressure to build to systems, to frameworks, out-of-the box solutions, on and on. Everyone from the CEO down, client-side and internal, pushes for adhering to what's already in place. Rightly so in many cases given so many CTO's went out pre-recession and bought into expensive platforms before knowing what exactly would be best for their customers. (Slight vent...)

But past decisions are no guarantee of future success.

For example--I've heard this so many times, "We bought ATG so you have to build in personalization!" But when asked if they want to support implicit or explicit personalization they simply look at me with blank stares. Then when pushed as to where the business rules will come from to support the decisioning logic they simply get irritated. BTW--they really get mad then when you ask if customers want or will benefit from some form of personalization. I'm just sayin...

I understand how decisions are made but I also understand their implications. Questions still need asking.

My point is, regardless of the efficacy of decisions made, we're in a precarious state where all too often the cart is driving the horse (as my Dad used to quip). Too many decisions are being driven by personal agendas (whatever the motivation) rather than what's right for the customer and their branded interactions.

Time out: I can hear the voices of the devil's advocates (and they do work for the devil) saying, "Yeah, but we have to work within the client's parameters, you can't be so idealistic, blah blah blah...on and on."

Look, I'm experienced enough, and enough of a realist, to know all the complexities and stakeholder's circumstances and those are to be taken into consideration. BUT--and it's a big BUT--if it comes down to doing what's best for the customer or doing what's most palatable for the client I will always step forward and declare, "Do what's right for the little man, not just The Man". I will always recommend taking an agnostic look at the technology and a zealous look at the branded interaction.

So, 'Whatever Works Best!' is the best recommendation--always.

One last for instance: I recently had a conversation where we were thinking through whether to use WordPress for a project vs. a custom build. One part of the conversation was around missed opportunity--if we used WordPress would we be missing an opportunity to do something new and remarkable that showcases our design chops? Upon further thought I concluded, in my mind, that the issue wasn't WordPress vs. custom design or not but what would best support and deliver the right experience AND meet the business objectives? If WordPress has everything necessary to deliver on the concept then by all means. But we shouldn't be force fitting ideas into a platform or constraining an experience just to fit a pre-existing condition.

Ugh--the voices are at it again, "If your client has BroadVision are you going to tell them to scrap it? (The big 'Gotcha!")

For you black and white folks who think when I say one thing it automatically excludes another slow down. That's not what I am saying. Even though I would love to.

I am saying that all great ideas for moving a brand forward begin with looking at all the angles--even challenging conventions, thinking without restraint, and championing ideas over technology. Actionable insights should drive concepting and an idea should drive the solution. I don't think Edison would have invented the light bulb if he'd held to the fact that America had warehouses full of candles and kerosene. Or Ford would've changed transportation if he'd been satisfied with the fact horses were all the rage. Dare to think beyond the parameters given.

Bottom line, don't be rude and ignore the client's reality but be responsible to the end customer and all will be good for the client, their business, and brand.

Better work does work better.

Thanks ex-boss for that enduring nugget of inspiration.

BTW--vote to further this discussion at SXSW. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/index/interactive/q:icrossing

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

RIFF'ing

Let me share a pet peeve: It's when a creative says, "MY idea is..."

The backstory to that is seeing so many instances where creatives, and others not called creatives, seem unhappy unless the idea is "theirs" in full. Meaning they don't want others to add to it, change it, critique it, etc. I've seen so many folks put their idea out there and get great feedback but then totally ignore it and come back with a new idea entirely theirs. As a CD it's driven me nuts to see a talent come back with an entirely new direction rather than eveolve the one shown prior and "directed".

Consider improv theatrics: One is taught to build on, or play off of, another's direction. If each actor simply went their own new way it would result in a fragmented, likely nonsensical, piece of work. Instead, the good ones know how to take their peer's direction and run with it--exploring it, growing it, all for the good of the end result.

Creative in our niche is no different.

RIFF is a term used in improv, music or otherwise, to suggest "adding to" or "playing off of" another direction.

As it relates to us, it means brainstorming in a way that is additive vs. shooting down ideas or pursuing one's individual direction. My experience is the best ideas are the product of intense collaboration. Contrary to popular TV, great ideas are seldom the shower epiphany but the result of a lot of grueling back and forth. In the end, it shouldn't be about who had the idea but that the idea was had.

Great experienced creatives know that the best ideas are usually nameless. And ownership isn't important. The best ideas are a combination of a lot of ideas that evolve to greatness.

My recommendation: Learn to feel really good about working with talent better than yourself and learn to celebrate thoughts from everywhere. Being good in this business is as much about recognizing great ideas as it is inventing them.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

The Shack

Anyone notice the ongoing campaign from Radio Shack? Where they appear to be transitioning from Radio Shack to The Shack? Whether by name or identity, it's a move that is likely right for the times and for evolving their brand. Personally, I've always been amazed that they are still around. I always knew them as a sort of a geek shop--you could find spare parts for just about anything electronic. I know they've come a long way in product lines and inventory but they still carry an old perception. And to the younger set I am sure the brand is confusing.

So the move to drop "Radio" from their moniker is probably a good one. And they appear to be doing it the right way--introducing the new before dropping the old. It's a classic transition strategy.

It's nice to see a brand recognizing the need to move gently. It seems so many companies just throw out a new name or positioning without any regard for the nature of humans to resist uncertainty (new). It's also a good nod to their inherent brand equity--a nod to what made them what they are while also promising a new direction.

Now, while I like the strategy and actually like the creative of the campaign, I do pity them with being burdened with the remaining name "The Shack". If that indeed becomes their only name over time, how much will they have to invest in always explaining what the Shack is and sells? It's not exactly a name one would pick if starting a new competitor to Best Buy, or to fill the void of Circuit City.

But they do deserve creds for doing the change the right way--with respect for the customers.

Now if only I can erase the song "Love Shack" from my mind every time I see the name...

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Some shameless self promotion

My apologies for reverting to badgering...but it's for a cause. A conversation around hanging on to ideation. Hanging on to the belief that powerful ideas drive success for brands. Pushing for aspiring to greater things and challenging conventions.

So please vote to make this conversation happen.

http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/3991

"Vote, and vote often."

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Formula painters

Over the years I've noticed many painters basically paint the same thing over and over again--just varying the angles, poses, etc. Some sell quite nicely--as if the artist made a successful painting and then simply worked to recreate it over and over again. I am sure that's good commerce but is it art?

I won't attempt to put that question to rest here but I will say, for me, it's not the work of an artist if it's not evolving. I know I admire the artists who over time reinvent themselves and their work on an ongoing basis. Sure, style exists--it's good to be able to be identifiably unique. But to just repeat one's self seems like a sell out.

Now, I know first hand the pressures of art and those who profit off of it (gallery owners, collectors, publishers, etc.) and how they would like an artist to keep producing what has sold before. I can't tell you how many of them have told me to paint more like this other artist, or do more of that one thing they liked, or to paint in a more popular medium. That certainly discourages ongoing exploration and experimentation.

Every true artist walks a path of constant examination of self, work, and value. And that makes the art evolve. Just like the great musicians try new things with each CD (to many exec's distaste) artists keep pushing themselves to push their work.

So when I see an artist whose work now looks nearly identical to their work 10 years ago, or even a year ago, I disappointingly categorize them as a formula painter. Those who I can spot (due to a distinct style) yet be excited because of something refreshing I call an artist.

I want to be an artist.

Posted via email from Stephen Thompson Western Art

New Post of an Old Post

http://greatfinds.icrossing.com/

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Web vs. the real world, an example

Interesting happening for me this past week. The lovely web vs. the real world.

I have been on the road a lot and was called suddenly to Cleveland. In making my rush plans I inadvertently bought a rental on Hotwire for the wrong date. Naturally, when I showed up, National didn't have my reservation. So I inquired as to the availability and price of a car and they replied that all they had left were minivans--and at $145.00 a day. I'm enough of a math wiz to know I could cab it to the client and back for less so I said no thanks.

But get this. I went back online to Hotwire right there in the lobby and found a car for $58.00 a day. I paid for it and guess who the rental company was? Yeah, National.

I stepped back up to the counter and sheepishly asked them to look again. You should've seen the looks on their faces. They were either busted for trying to price gouge me or they were as mystified as I how their prices and availability showed differently online, via Hotwire.

So, price gouging?
Simply online not connected to offline?
Quota for minivans not met?

Just made me wonder why companies would prefer to sell dirt cheap online than help out a person with a fair price in person.

Anyway, I got an awesome 'executive car' (Chrysler C)--not a minivan. Although in retrospect I may have enjoyed the minivan more. : )