the fruits of imagination

Tempests and teapots

For reasons I can't fathom, a stir has begun over a post over at fellow agency bloggers Wieden +Kennedy London.  It was a post about the global Nokia pitch they're currently involved in.  A few weeks back Neil Christie, the MD and most regular contributor to their blog, posted on the client pitch briefing in Finland.  It was a straightforward post - he mentioned the other agencies present (which has already been reported in the press), how lunch was, and made a few comments about it being a good briefing.  It was neither their best nor worst post, just an update on some interesting goings-on and a little peek behind the scenes.  It was entirely in keeping with the general transparency of their agency, and didn't reveal anything that sounded proprietary or secretive.

But today there's an article about it in AdWeek, which quotes several people from other agencies in the pitch, and random selection of agency executives with no connection to the story.  All are fairly negative about W+K's post (the client hasn't offered comment).  And I'm flummoxed as to what the fuss is about.

We've occasionally blogged about pitch stuff, and even solicited help from you for pitches.  But just to be safe we've avoided mentioning specifics about the client or the assignment while it's still going on.  So I'm not sure we'd have gone quite as far as W+K chose to.  But that said, I really can't see what they've done that's objectionable.  I mean, honestly, it's no Subway pitch video.

I have to say W+K's got a fantastic blog. They set a good example for openness and transparency - one of the best facets of that agency - and I hope they don't change that because of something silly like this.

Agency survival

Alain Thys over at FutureLab posts a great piece today on seven rules for agency survival. It's well-written, thought-provoking, and essential reading for anyone in the agency world.

The preamble

In creative presentations, I feel sometimes that our preamble set-up bit goes on too long.  Or as the work is presented, we over-explain everything, rushing to fill in any silence when people just need time to process what they're seeing (I'm particularly guilty of that one).  We used to have a client say "don't give me any of your planning/client service explanations - in the real world there isn't any."

Which is true. But, you know, it would be funny if there were.

via Diablog

What agencies can learn from the Family Guy

Anyone who is involved in the creative process should really read this.  The rest of the blog's quite good too.

Spoofing the pitch

Spoofing ad agency goings-on seems to be fertile ground recently.  We make easy targets, so it's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.  But hey, I guess it beats working on actual client stuff. 

Here's another video that's doing the rounds.  It was done by Cliff Freeman last summer but recently resurfaced.  The target this time is the new business pitch.  It funny.  Me laugh.

Via Gareth and Lee.

Fees, brains, and sounds

A few more articles from the last few days that are worth the read:

1. Advertising Age on agencies experimenting with different compensation models, because fees and commission make less and less sense.  This is something I've been interested in for a while, so I'm glad to see agencies starting to try new things, like licensing fees and royalties for ideas, or revenue sharing.  Of course it's the small independent agencies that are leading the way.  It's a bit harder for a big public company to start messing with its revenue streams, so we'll have to wait until things are really broken.
2. Time Magazine has a piece on brain science and marketing which is better than most mainstream media pieces on the subject.  There's no new information if you follow this stuff regularly, but it's a good primer for those who don't.
   
3. On a lighter note, the Guardian mentions a scientific study of the world's worst sounds.  The NY Times blog has a good follow-up.  In case you're wondering, the worst sound is someone vomiting.  The second is microphone feedback.  The third is many babies crying (although personally, I can vouch that one is no picnic either).
   

Strawberry blog

Hooray, another agency blogging.  And one I eagerly look forward to reading, at that: check out StrawberryFrog's new blog, Viva La Revolucion.

Originally noticed by Dino

Truth in media

In the style of those brilliant "Truth in advertising" short films done for the Marketing Awards 7 or 8 years ago, this new "Truth in media" video is doing the rounds right now.  Hilarious and bang-on.

"I have a great idea for an ad"

We all have had the moment.  You're at a party, a wedding, or an event, and you mention to someone that you work in marketing/advertising.  And they say: "hey, I have a great idea for an ad!"  And we all usually roll our eyes, brace ourselves for their horrible idea, and feel quietly smug.  After all, they don't know what they're talking about.  They don't know anything about making ads.  They think just because they've seen lots of ads that they could make one.  They don't know how complex and difficult it actually is.

But here's the thing: now we're all doing that.  People at agencies all over the place are saying "I have a great idea for a viral campaign" or "I have a great idea for using social media," but how many of us actually have done it and know what we're talking about?  I'm always surprised how few agencies are blogging, or posting on Flickr and YouTube, or using any social media themselves.  We all think that just because we've read about it or seen it done a few times that we could do it.  And that's not the case.  It's a whole new grammar, a whole new philosophy, and it takes a while to learn and understand.  We've been blogging for a while now and I feel like I'm still learning.

Think about it this way: would you trust an agency who recommended a TV ad if no one there had ever made one before?  So next time you hear someone recommend blogging, or posting on YouTube, or doing something in Second Life, ask if they've ever done it themselves.  Let's all try not to be the person at the party who goes around saying "I have a great idea for an ad!"

It'll never be your kid

I've been talking with a friend of mine, Paul Kron, who has run businesses on both the agency and client side, about the difference between the two experiences.  One of his comments really struck me.

We can sometimes be cavalier in agencies.  Because communication is all we do, we think that we're more invested in it than our clients, who also have to think about lots of other stuff like packaging and pricing and distribution.  But in Paul's experience, he's found that it's the other way around: clients are actually more invested in advertising than the agencies are.  I'll just quote his explanation why, because it's brilliant, and a bit humbling.

As an agency you churn through dozens of advertising projects a week. Some are great, some are not. Some will drive results and some will fail.
As a client, you own one product or business and you have one crack at launching it, or relaunching it with new blue crystals in it. Your personal success is tied to moving more of that product. Your promotion, your bonus, your future is all tied up with succeeding in moving that product.
I liken it to having a kid. As a client you're like a parent. You fuss and hope and dream and plan and will do anything to ensure the success of your wee one. At the Agency you are like teachers or child care workers. You may know kids better than a parent, but you have a dozen of them running around in your class all day and none of them is really yours no matter how much you like them.