Bags for life

 

You know when you’re in town, or in the supermarket, or at bingo, you know anywhere with a high quantity of old women, you see them with their big carrier bags. They’ve got strong handles, the sort of bag you will actually exchange money for, they’ve got patterns and pictures on them, and emblazoned across them is the motto of the biddies that carry them: BAG FOR LIFE.  I can't help but think to myself "You certainly are, love. You certainly are."

The scariest product demo ever

Anyone seen that advert for Senokot constipation cure? It's essentially a demo ad, but it is an incredibly scary one that has me crossing every part of my body that I'll never get constipated. There’s a woman with a big handbag and it goes “imagine this bag is your stomach, over the day it’s getting full of food” and so on, and this woman’s carrying around this big handbag full of food and other crap representing her constipated stomach.

And then it goes on to advertise the magical cure they’re selling and that you’ll be free of constipation: seems straight forward so far. The thing is, to demonstrate how it works, the woman gets the bag, the bag that’s full to the brim with food, and tips it upside down into the bin! 

Imagine that was your stomach! WHUMP! There ya go! All your fucking stomach contents BANG, straight out of your arse. You better be near a toilet when you take these tablets cause you’re gonna lose a fucking kidney! I couldn’t believe it. I’d rather be a big bag full of food than have the entire contents of my stomach leave my body in under a second. Fuck that!

Creativity today

I love the internet. I've spent so much time on the internet that after a lifetime of perfect vision I have rather prematurely started to need glasses to see properly. Admittedly I'm not too cut up about it because I now look more like a planner than I used to, and have seriously increased gravitas, particularly when I remove them as I unleash a powerful insight. Or at least that's how it looks when I practise in front of the mirror.

Where I was going with this whole internet thing, though, is that it is seriously hindering creativity in the advertising industry. Not through any fault of its own, mostly because some lacklustre creatives are using it for ideas, instead of actually having their own. What used to be an exercise of cracking a brief to bring a brand alive has now turned into an exercise of finding the best way to crowbar that cool thing they saw on the internet into their upcoming campaign.

Yes, stealing off the internet is the new in thing! It's fast, it's exciting and it's a piece of fucking piss. Thankfully, the majority of the unwashed masses don't spend so much time online and they haven't seen the latest viral, cool video or funny image that has been sent around, so when you present it to them as an ad campaign they'll happily lap it up and think whoever created it must be a fucking genius. For the geekier among us, who have reached the end of the internet several times, it is painful to watch and painful to hear people talking about. It's mostly bad because when someone is harping on about an obvious internet steal, there's really no way to answer truthfully without coming across as a cock:

"Yeah, but they stole the idea off the internet"

"I saw that online 3 years ago"

"Do you not go online?!"

And so on and so forth.

Now, I present to you my 3 worst offenders for internet thievery:

At number 3, it's Berocca:

 

Which is a direct steal from this song by OK Go, which became much more of a hit online than it ever was in the charts, due entirely to its superbly awesome video:

There are a few reasons why this one is quite so painful: the first being simply that it's so obviously a rip, down to the number of treadmills and the moves they are doing. At least if you're going to steal an idea try and make it your own, this ad is more like a cover-version than a tribute. If they'd used the OK Go music it might not have seemed so cheeky, and would instead have been a little nod of the cap. Actually, who am I kidding, that'd still be fucking rude. 

The second thing is that it really doesn't have anything to do with the product - You on a good day? What the fuck has that got to do with twatting around on a few treadmills in the middle of the street? That's not me on a good day! On a good day I sit around the flat in my pants drinking beer and watching Red Dwarf repeats on Dave. If I found myself in a busy square, wearing a suit and skiing on a treadmill in front of bewildered onlookers I would consider myself to be having a very bad day!

Next on my list of outright thievery is Saatchi & Saatchi's much loved T-Mobile advert where they had the extremely original idea of doing a flash mob, because someone heard that flash mobs were really cool (about 5 years ago). 

I have to admit, I love the execution - they did a really good job of executing a truly unoriginal idea - because it is a well done flash mob, it's funny, it took people by surprise, and it created a lot of buzz for the agency and the brand. Apparently, it also worked incredibly well as an advert, and the weekend after it ran T-Mobile enjoyed the most visits to their stores they'd ever had on a Saturday.

What I do not love, though, is that they clearly just had an idea they really wanted to do and so they crowbarred it into the brand's current campaign as awkwardly as possible just so they could justify doing it. The brand's current slogan is of course "Life's for sharing" which apparently ties into this flash mob because some people there were filming it on their mobiles, phoning their friends and sending texts to talk about it. Apparently.

They weren't sharing life, they were probably ringing their boss to apologise that they'd be late for their meeting because a bunch of muppets were blocking the way to the platform and they'd missed their train! Yes, life is for sharing, and apparently really old ideas that took off on the internet are for sharing, though whether or not they'll be sharing any of the credit is even more questionable than the idea that none of the "members of the public" on their phones were stooges.

And third on my list has to be this BBC6 advert:

Really cool, eh? But not quite as cool as the original, which was not only better executed, but also had that little thing that originals tend to have that elevates them above copies: Originality

"6 music...Get an earful"...An earful of what? Guilt? Unoriginality? Chlamydia? Should a youth radio station not be trying to be original, fresh and exciting instead of copying something they found on the internet and doing a half arsed job of it. 

Now, I've singled these 3 out but there are countless others out there and I'm worried that it's becoming far too much of a trend among younger creatives (or maybe they're older and lazier, but it seems more likely that it'll be the young internetty types). It seems far too many are seeing cool, funny, original, innovative ideas on the internet and instead of thinking "wow, I wish I could do something as cool as that, I'm going to try really hard to be that creative" they think "I bet no one at the office has seen this yet, and the client definitely won't have. They'll think I'm well fucking creative if I present this to them." 

STOP IT!! YOU'RE NOT FUCKING CREATIVE!! IF YOU ARE COPYING AN IDEA YOU SAW ON THE INTERNET YOU ARE A FRAUD AND YOUR PARENTS WOULD BE SPINNING IN THEIR GRAVES IF THEY KNEW. IF YOUR PARENTS AREN'T DEAD THEY WOULD DIE OF SHAME IF THEY WERE EVER TO FIND OUT!

Thankfully none of the creatives I work with have felt the need to steal creative ideas off the internet yet, because they are all very talented and original thinkers. Also, if they even so much as try to present an idea from the internet to me, I will publicly depants them as the unoriginal bastards they would be. They wouldn't stand a chance, because I've seen so much of the internet that I was bored enough to actually sit here and write some more internet so that I would have something else to read next time I go on the internet. 

Edit: Just watching TV and I saw another rip of the original living graffiti: this one REALLY has nothing to do with it, they obviously just wanted to use the cool idea for something - ANYTHING. These thieves know no bounds.

Unileverage

Giant umbrella company, and all round enormous conglomerate Unilever is to start putting its logo in adverts for its products, which until now have lived completely separate  lives.  http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/884449/Unilever-debut-logo-consumer-ads-March/989BD06090ABCD5E84FC9234B1061C03/

I have blogged previously about Unilever and a disparity in its communications from its sub-brands. See the post "Unilever Hypocrisy" to read about how one savvy consumer connected the line between Dove - real beauty - and Lynx - real sexy ladies gyrating for you with a single spray of deodorant. 

This previous incident wasn't really an incident at all, because although Dove and Lynx are owned by the same parent company they are completely separate brands, run by completely different chains of command and with the Unilever logo appearing only on the packaging, there was really no Unilever brand to speak of, nor to be damaged. To 99% of the public, the Unilever logo was (and still is) something of a mystery. It's something that appears on the back of a lot of their products but it has no real meaning.

Now, adding it to television advertising (presumably to be followed by print, outdoor and in-store media) will start to create a brand. Unilever will start to represent something, and the previously innocuous logo that hid shyly at the back of the pack will be standing proudly forward with something to say. 

Unilever's reasoning is that their research shows that if a consumer already buys products from them, they are more likely to buy another product if they know it is by the same company. What I think they've neglected to think about is that while people who regularly buy Uncle Ben's rice may be more open to buying Uncle Ben's sauces, the same logic doesn't necessarily apply one tier higher up in the branding hierarchy.

• Is a lover of Skittles more likely to buy Sheeba for his cat if he knows they're both owned by Masterfoods?

• Is a guy who always shaves with Gillette going to be more open to buying Ariel detergent if he knows they're both owned by Procter and Gamble?
  

The answer, surely, is a resounding no. So why do Unilever think that slapping a logo in their adverts is going to increase brand loyalty and turn Dove users into PG Tips drinkers (incidentally, I think Procter and Gamble should buy the PG Tips brand and rebrand them P&G Tips).

All they're going to do is open themselves up to a level of transparency that they aren't used to, and they'll open the doors for a thousand more connections being made between their brands that aren't so friendly. 

• Got a laundry brand talking about environmental friendliness, but also own a battery company doing nothing to prevent millions of disposable batteries being sent to landfill each year?

• Own the leading ice cream brand AND the leading diet food brand? 

• Do you have one brand telling women they're beautiful as they are and another telling them to slap more make-up on?

You bet your arse the big 3 companies do, which is exactly why they ought to keep their mouths shut if they don't want to unleash the wrath of the savvy shopper. Just to pick one example of terrible crossovers in the brand portfolio - how exactly does Unilever think it's going to look when people make connections between Pot Noodle and Weight Watchers. On the one hand you have "the slag of all snacks" and on the other you've got "who ate all the snacks?".

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I think in the age of the internet and the savvy shopper, with power more firmly in the hands of consumers than ever before, Unilever may be opening up a huge can of worms and causing itself far more trouble than it's worth. Now is not the time to connect all your brands that have vastly different messages, and it certainly isn't a time to bring the messages of your brands closer together to fit snugly under one corporate umbrella. 

Now is the time to strengthen the brands you already have, to make them stand more firmly for what they stand for than ever before. Denigrating their strength by highlighting an overarching hypocrisy and lack of consistency seems like a very bad idea indeed.

 

Loving the brands you work on

Lately I've found myself becoming somewhat evangelical about brands that 6 months ago I didn't give a shit about. I find myself almost getting into fights to defend brands that a year ago I'd never heard of. I find myself buying extra products from a brand to help them make it through the credit crunch, when before I wouldn't have used their products if they were free.

What is wrong with me?! I'm sorry to say that I'm starting to come down with a case of something that it's all too easy to catch in this industry (though most consumers seem to be immune to it). No, it's not Hepatitis C...I'm starting to become infatuated with the brands I'm working on. 

Just as a student falls madly in love with the MILFy P.E teacher who doesn't wear a bra, or like housemates who drunkenly pass out of the "Friend Zone", familiarity can lead to love. As a planner you become intimately acquainted with the brands you work on (unlike the AMs who become intimately acquainted with the clients). You see their strengths, their weaknesses (stop me before I say "opportunities" and "threats") and you see their inner beauty. 

Advertising can be a persona that hides the real nature of the brand. Much like Nelson Muntz from the Simpsons puts on a tough guy act, when deep down he's just a nice kid who likes watching soap operas with his mum and misses his dad. As a planner you see behind the persona, in fact you help to create the persona, but often clients force you to hide the brand's true nature, its true beauty, because they want you to talk about their new initiative, how they're better value than brand X because although they're twice the price they last 3 times as long, and so on and so forth.

The sad thing is that for some brands this means they've lost control of their own reputation. There are many great things to be said about them, things that would make the public love them, but years of indifference, silence, or talking about the wrong thing entirely, has signed away their reputation for consumers and competitors to do with as they see fit. 

If consumers knew my brands how I know them, they'd love and trust them as much as I do. For all that the brands and advertising gurus talk about "transparency" in advertising, we've got a hell of a long way to go before some brands step into the light and shine because of what they really are.

(And then there are brands that are 100% turds rolled in glitter, but that's another story...)

How to get work experience in advertising

Following this incredibly good guide on writing a CV for your first advertising job penned by my better half - Copybot -  I thought I'd elaborate a little, first of all with a guide on how to get work experience, later to be followed by how to get into Account Planning specifically. 

N.B. This is a guide on how to get work experience in Account Management or Planning, the route for Creatives is very different.

So, if you want to get some work experience, the first thing you need to do is start sending out begging letters to as many agencies as you can think of. I applied to dozens, heard back from about 15, and was actually given experience at 6, so be prepared for a lot of rejection as well as a whole lot of nothing from the agencies that can't be bothered to reject you.

Your first port of call the IPA website where you can find a list of agencies, google them to find their contact details. Importantly, you should also put in the extra effort to find someone to address it to - either the head of the department you want to get into, or the head of Human Resources. If these names aren't on the agency's own website visit Brand Republic and do some searching (but make sure the article is recent, and not about them getting made redundant!)

Post your begging letter to them, don't bottle it and just send an email. The average head of department will receive somewhere in the region of 1000 emails a week, but only 4 or 5 letters and a couple if industry magazines in the post. Even though it may seem a little antiquated (especially if you're applying to a digital agency) it is a very simple way to be noticed and not lost amongst all the spam.

Of course, like a street begger, your begging letter has to be good. Just as I always find myself more likely to give money to a busker or a Big Issue seller, than a begger who just lies there in a drunken stupor with a Starbucks cup clasped in his one remaining hand, you're more likely to get work experience if you put the effort in.

Here is the letter I wrote to people, and how I stood out: 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 reasons why giving me work experience is better than traditional slave labour

1.    By using traditional slave labour you are required to feed, clothe and even house your workers. Not only will I work for no money but I will wear my own clothes (mostly), manage my own nutritional needs (keeping all 3 major food groups covered – beans, toast and cereal) and sleep in my own house (rented, of course).

2.    Slaves take no interest in the work they’re doing (I’d go as far as saying they don’t want to work in advertising at all!) I take great interest in the advertising world: above the line, below the line and online. As a daily reader of advertising blogs and an IPA newsletter subscriber I am very in tune with the advertising world and the wider world. Slaves never keep up with current affairs.

3.    When keeping slaves you’re always looking over your shoulder, trying to keep the government off your back (imperialist scum). Not only is giving me work experience 100% legal, but you’ll never have to apologise for it. In fact, you’ll come out looking saintly for helping a struggling graduate get a leg up on the career ladder.

4.    Slaves have no ambition or drive. It has been my life goal for many years to work in advertising. I will work incredibly hard for you just to get a taste of the industry and to make myself a great candidate for your agency.

5.    Slaves have no sense of humour! Not only will I work hard for you but I’ll try my best to keep you entertained too. A member of the comedy society at university and regular performer of stand up comedy, I am outgoing, hardworking, inquisitive and perfect for the industry. Also, I make a mean cup of tea.

Don’t flog yourself making this decision: slavery has never been so easy! Give me a call (how many slaves can say that?) I’ll work so hard for you that by the end of our time together you won’t want to give me my freedom!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter worked incredibly well, and was cited as the reason I was given a chance every time I was called in for an interview.

Here's my checklist for writing a good begging letter:

• Be keen - there are hundreds of people vying for every work experience place in an agency. If you want to be the person they pick you have to make it damn clear that this means the most to you and you're going to work your arse off for them.

• Be open and honest about what you're after - don't tip-toe around the issue, be confident and assertive about the fact that you want a job in advertising and you want work experience to make you the best possible candidate for the industry.

• Be as funny and entertaining as you can - not always easy, but I believe everyone has a bit of humour in them, just try not to be annoying.

• Be yourself - this one is as old as the hills but it's so important. If, for instance, someone sent my letter as their own, they would soon be found out at interview because it wouldn't fit with their personality at all

• Be willing to work for free! If you're expecting to get paid, think again. As much as it sucks, there's hundreds of people who would take your place for free. Some would probably even pay the agency, if the option existed (note to self: propose idea to HR department and demand 50% of the money).

Follow Copybot's guide for your CV and throw in a well written covering letter to the effect of "Dear Important Person, please find attached a letter explaining exactly why you should give me some work experience, yours sincerely Desperate Graduate"  and you're ready to seal those envelopes.

My god's harder than your god

Love it or loathe it, religion is just one of those facts of life like mildew and premature ejaculation. The same goes for Atheism, Humanism, Science, Fact, Reason, Evidence and a whole bunch of other crazy ideas that people use to fill their sad, lonely, godless lives.

With the recent Atheist adverts causing such a metaphorical storm (only god - or Blackberry - could cause an ACTUAL storm) I thought it might be pertinent to write a post about their effect on the world, the religious, and the heathens. After seeing today that no less than 3 Christian groups have launched their own responses to the Atheist campaign, I felt it was not only pertinent, but extra-pertinent, with added pertness, to post about it today.

So, the recipe for disaster goes like this:

• Step 1: Religious groups have been advertising for years, with messaging ranging from the positive, such as "And Jesus said I am the lamb of god, so enjoy me with a bit of mint sauce: Gordon 3:15" to the negative, such as "And the lord said that if you don't believe in him he will be very upset: Annoyed from Manchester 3:16".

• Step 2: Many years later a group of like-minded Atheists think it might be nice if they had some representation in the world of advertising by spreading their own message. An online campaign starts and thousands donate their own money, which soon turns into an enormous fund for financing the creation and running of the ads. They all like the idea of someone actually putting out advertising stating that their isn't a god at all, but in the end they bottle it and decide to put in the word "probably" so that they don't upset too many people.

• Step 4: MASSIVE CONTROVERSY AND OUTRAGE ENSUES!

• Step 5: Atheists around the world have a good laugh at the amount of offence caused by Atheists spreading their (actually very positive) message, despite the fact that religious groups have been doing so for years. One man even complained to the ASA on the grounds that "they have no proof to back up their claim" meaning one poor soul (probably an intern, if my early industry experience is anything to go by) is tasked with the job of determining whether or not there is in fact a god. The fact that religious groups have been allowed to advertise despite not having an ounce of proof between them (for proof denies faith, and without faith god is nothing) never occurred to this fellow, and presumably if the ASA had enforced a ban on the Atheist ads, they would've had to ban all religious communications.
  

• Step 6: Three separate Christian groups release their own ads hitting back at the Atheist campaign. One of them even uses the same art direction and parodies the copy to prove their point.

• Step 7: Hilarity ensues.

Yes, you read it correctly. So secure are they in their faith that they've felt threatened enough by the Atheist adverts to release their own messages to combat them. Perhaps there has been a sudden rise in people thinking for themselves, which has caused them to panic and realise the need to fight back.

Here is one:






As you can see, it offers compelling proof for the existence of god - that is, once upon a time someone wrote in a book that to say (not even with your mouth, but with your circulatory system) that there is no god, that makes you a fool. Not convinced? What about if it parodied the Atheist ad and said:

"There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."


I don't know why, but I find it very difficult to read that without hearing the voice of a small child stamping its feet saying "Nuh-uh, IS TOO a god!". I'm struggling to understand why they felt the need to put these adverts out as a response to the Atheist campaign, and the parody/mocking nature of it certainly doesn't seem very Christian.

The best way, in my opinion, to analyse this is to look at it in terms of brands. In the red corner you have the Atheist brand. In the blue corner you have the Christianity brand. So let's take a closer look at these brands and try to figure out what is really going on here.

The Atheist brand is undoubtedly a challenger brand. They have lower sales, they're newer on the scene, and the only way they're going to gain any market share is to target younger consumers who are yet to make their mind up about which brand they prefer, OR to convert consumers from another brand to their product. The way they've gone about this is by attacking not only the leading brand, but all of their competitors. Competitor brands to Atheism all use the RTB(IG) - Reason To Believe (In God) that you can only enjoy your life and enjoy eternal salvation if you are to buy their brand. As challenger brands are wont to do, Atheism has turned the industry on its head and given an entirely new RTB, which is that you can enjoy your life without having to worship an almighty deity who not only watches you masturbate, but tuts and wags his finger at you while you do it (there's nothing worse than a disapproving pervert).

Christianity on the other hand is the leading brand. It was essentially the first in the market, and has led ever since - other brands are slowly beginning to steal bits of market in the UK, but these are mostly through new customers (immigrants) rather than through any sort of conversion.

And now for a very geeky, but surprisingly accurate analogy: Christianity is Microsoft, and Atheism is Apple. What Christianity would like is very similar to Microsoft's goal, but instead of a PC on every desk, it's a god in everyone's heart. Christianity is the dad at the disco, it is stuffy, old and boring and when you really make it think about the answer to something it breaks down and gives you the blue screen of death. Atheism is younger, sexier and it shares your belief of thinking different(ly) (or in Atheism's case - for yourself).

Apple launched a campaign poking fun at Microsoft, presenting "I'm a mac" vs. "I'm a PC" with fairly accurate personifications of these computers. Microsoft being unoriginal, old-fashioned and not even slightly down with the kids, decided the best course of action would be to respond with parody ads and launch their own "I'm a PC" campaign. I know when I've taken an analogy too far, and I'm getting very close, but there are some definite parallels here:

Apple & Atheism - challenger brands that launch campaigns poking fun at the old-fashioned ways and beliefs of the market leader, encouraging people to think different(ly).

Microsoft and Christianity - market leaders who are very hurt by having fun poked at them, and don't know how to take a good joke, launching parody ads as a way of hitting back at these young upstarts, and failing miserably to connect with real people in the process.


See you in hell, everyone.

Value 2010

It seems that the moment I stopped updating this blog the economy took a nosedive with no apparent respite in sight. I have, therefore, taken the difficult decision to revive it for the good of the country, if not the world.  

Yes, Planbot is back for the greater good. It's revival has nothing to do at all with the meteoric rise of my better half's blog - Copybot - (she came up with both the name Copybot and Planbot - credit where it's due, but then she is the creative one). No sir, I have absolutely not re-started blogging because I'm jealous of all her traffic. Shut up! 

Anyway, as I was saying, the economy has clearly gone to shit and I'm sure we're all painfully aware of it. As a planner I feel that I am doubly aware of it, because not only do I hear about it non-stop as a person, but at work I am bombarded by it. It seems every brief I write these days has to have a value "insight" crowbarred in, otherwise the client will panic that we're going to talk about something other than value in (and I hate this phrase more than you can imagine) "the current climate". 

What particularly bothers me about having to write strategies to speak to consumers in "the current climate" is that middle word - current. Me and my fellow planners are writing briefs for products that won't hit the market until 2010 and beyond - arguably "the future climate". Yet our insights and our strategies are being garnered, written and tested now in what is undoubtedly a very different situation.

 It is generally agreed that we are likely to still be deep in recession come 2010, so one could argue that value messaging will still be relevant, and to a certain extent it probably will be. However, I think it's fairly safe to say that with every brand panicking and desperately trying to ram their value down the public's throats, that by 2010 we are all going to be utterly sick of this type of message.  

And so work is being tested with consumers of 2009 who are still quite happy to see a value message and will happily tick all the right boxes and say that they feel it's entirely relevant to them and they're now more likely to buy Brand A. But surely, if we've learned anything from Britain’s Biggest Discounter, it's that you should stick to what you know, talk about what you're good at and why you're ACTUALLY relevant to your customers, not bend over backwards to be all things to all people regardless of their financial situation. Come 2010 when this work actually goes live, I think it's going to be a very different story: value messaging will have reached saturation and the public will be crying out for something more creative, more relevant to them and for more genuinely altruistic action from brands. 

Only time will tell, but of course now that Planbot is back we can safely assume that the economy will be back on track by the end of the week. You're welcome.