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.
I'm disappointed for 2 reasons: firstly because I believe it's a genuinely good advert - it has a good mix of humour, intrigue and a little bit of shock, all blended together with a very clear message - using this mayonnaise is like having a New York Deli in your kitchen - it's a good ad and it'd be a shame to see it pulled. Secondly I'm disappointed in my country for being so ridiculously uptight that a 1 second kiss between two men is so utterly shocking that people absolutely have to run from their sofas to their phone and hit speed dial number 4 - the ASA. (Speed dial 1: Mum, Speed dial 2: The Proctologist (sometimes these people get their heads so far up their own arses they can't breathe), Speed Dial 3: Jesus).
179 complaints in a week, for less man-on-man action that you see in the pub on a thursday night. These people complaining seriously need to get out more and discover the country they're actually living in. Homosexuality exists, get used to it! I can't believe that over 1 person every single hour that this ad has been on has felt moved to complain to the ASA.
I've never seen an advert that has annoyed me so much I've felt the need to stand up from the sofa, let alone walk across the room, find a phone number for the ASA, phone them, stay on hold for a while, lodge my complaint and then go and have a wank about how great I am for making the world a better place. I don't know how these people can be bothered, personally.
What exactly are they trying to protect people from? THINK OF THE CHILDREN! What exactly will little Timmy or Janey do when they see these two men sharing a kiss in a situation where the NY Deli owner is quite obviously representing this man's wife? Are they going to go out thinking it's okay to kiss strange men who give you extra ham with their secret mayonnaise? Are young boys going to jump at the first man they see next time they go out and start engaging in homoerotic action because of this advert?
NO, of course they fucking aren't! The reaction that 99% of children will have is "hurrrr, gay!" and they'll think nothing more of it. And for the other 1% it might just open their eyes to the fact that homosexuality is, in fact, okay and shouldn't be something we pretend doesn't exist. Who knows.
All I can say is that it's a damn shame that a good advert is being complained about so much because so many people in this country are determined to pretend that gay people don't exist, that there is nothing going on in the world that wasn't strictly prescribed by the Old Testament.
Grow the fuck up and complain about something that actually matters, like I don't know, gun crime, knife crime, inflation, indigestion, the credit crunch, ladies that lunch, recession, depression and Roger Federer.
Lately I've found myself asking this question with startling regularity: on a basis that has gone far beyond daily, and is fast approaching hourly. I often wonder if it just me, if I am becoming more curmudgeonly (if indeed a 21 year old can be curmudgeonly) and perhaps I am merely a misanthropist. Quite possibly I am, but undoubtedly some of my grievances with my fellow man (and woman) are ones that would annoy some of the saintlier among us. So, in keeping with what this video describes as being a "New Media douchebag" here are a few things about other people that I simply cannot abide, handily broken up into easy to digest categories (I guess I did learn something from BBC Bitesize all those years ago).
The Preachy
I personally guarantee that if any of your friends partake in regular exercise, be it jogging, going to the gym, or swimming, you will know about it. Not one of your friends or colleagues is regularly exercising without your knowledge. The reason why? Because they've made damn sure that everyone knows how great, healthy and wonderful they are. No one works out in silence or shifts to a healthier diet without making everyone around them feel bad for not doing the same. "Wow, how many calories are in THAT?", "No thanks, I'm watching my intake" and "Is that organic?" are phrases bandied around with little thought for how it makes the fatter, lazier and slobbier among us feel. "I did 20k last night" or "Phew am I tired today, I've been in the gym every night this week" are the icing on the cake of narcissistic self indulgence that someone who doesn't especially care (such as myself) is forced to eat. I watched 4 episodes of Heroes in a row last night, but you don't hear me bragging about it!
Perhaps even more sickening than the Healthy Healthy Calorie Counters (in my experience they don't count their own calories, so much as those of everyone around them) are the So Green That I'm Definitely A Better Person Than You types. Or SGTIDABPTY for short. An annecdote perhaps will best illustrate this point: I know of a place of work where the workers were happily supplied with free bottles of fruit smoothies, and unsurprisingly morale was nice and high and everyone was enjoying the healthiness (and enjoying bragging about it even more) until one killjoy decided that it was environmentally unfriendly to have these smoothies because they came in plastic bottles, despite that fact that the bottles were all being recycled. What exactly this person expects workers to drink from, I don't know. Perhaps some sort of paper bottle, or maybe they should be mulching down a combination of parsnips and carrots to form a highly malleable material that, once placed in a kiln, provides a stylish and practical drinking vessel (the kiln is heated entirely by smugness and disapproval). It seems to me that we've created a brilliant and wonderful modern world full of choice, convenience and technology, yet some people are so intent on tearing that down and creating a better world for the future (if indeed any of their actions make a piddly bit of difference) that they're sacrificing their own happiness and living in a world of self-denial and guilt of near biblical proportions. Fine, if you want to deny yourself modern things, ease, convenience, plastic, electricity, air travel, cars, computers and all the other things that make our lives better then feel free to bugger off and live off the land somewhere else, but please please please stop forcing your self-flagellation on other people who are quite happy with the world as it is and unwilling to make themselves miserable to make the world a better place for future generations. Call me selfish but I'm not having any children so I don't particularly give one.
The downright rude As a regular traveller of the Northern Line I am perhaps one of the best placed people in the land to write truthfully about how rude people really can be. Nary a journey goes by that I don't find myself exasperatedly wondering "what the hell is wrong with people". Excluding the bad breathed, the leaners, the pole-hoggers, the pit thrusters, the gropers, the sneezers, the besuitcased, the beggars, the buskers, the drunks, the chavs, the ringtone DJs, the farters, the sharters, the unapologetic foot-standers, the hair-in-your-face-ers, the premature stander-uppers, the I'm so self-important that my luggage deserves this seat more than you do-ers, and the teenage mothers, and, oh, there's only me left on the train. Bliss. Except even if I was the only person on a train, standing right at the very end of a carriage with my face pressed firmly against the glass and my testicles squashed neatly between my thighs, someone would still get on the train and yell in a shrill australasian accent "CAN YOU MOVE DOWN PLEASE?!". No, dammit, I cannot move down because there is simply nowhere for me to go. Apparently the rule is that if someone has not entered one of your orifices with one or more of their appendages there is still room to move down inside the carraige.
That's more than enough venting for one post. I shall be updating later in the week and no doubt will be inspired to rage some more by the people I encounter on my travels. Come on, Human Race, do your worst.
A while back I commented on the Guinness ad that I thought was a massive waste of money. If you spend a massive amount of money on crazy grandiose adverts then you're setting yourself up for a serious spoofing (even if the idea was unoriginal like the Guinness one). This effort from Pot Noodle has done away with fictional Argentinian villages (where most Guinness drinkers reside, apparently!) and set it in a more familiar setting for its target market: a council estate! You can bet your trackie bottoms this didn't cost 10 million pounds.
It's a bit early but Happy St.Patrick's day everyone!
I'm a very creative person. I have lots of creative ideas, I spend a lot of time writing, and coming up with creative concepts. However, I have the dexterity and manual skills of a foetus. I cannot create anything with my hands, as my hands are very prone to destroying and breaking things. Recently it was my girlfriend's birthday and I baked her this cake. It's pretty shoddy looking but it tasted nice, and it's the best thing that I ever made with my hands, and I am very proud of it.
This article on Brand Republic outlines the fact that Unilever has been criticised for giving out mixed messages about women and the beauty industry. The YouTube video from the article (included below) is a parody of Unilever adverts spliced together to make a very interesting point. It is without doubt guilty of giving out mixed messages but how in the wrong is it?
I'll be the first to admit that this is funny. It's always nice to see people "socking it to" the big brands and picking them up on their hypocrisy and their dodgy dealings. The video makes a very interesting point - Unilever owns both the Lynx (or Axe depending on where you are) and Dove brands and both are giving out very different messages. One is campaigning for 'real beauty' and highlighting the dangers of the superficial beauty industry, whilst the other more or less objectifies women and promises you that a few sprays of a very cheap deodorant will have them stripping off and oiling themselves up quicker than you can say "pffft, like that'll ever happen". I'll let you figure out which is which.
Dove has very famously done very well by striking back at the beauty industry and telling women that they are beautiful however they look and that true beauty comes from within. The real genius is that they still managed to sell beauty products off the back of this. It's like a car advert telling you that driving is overrated and you should probably get the bus anyway. But, somehow it works and it has worked very very well and given the Dove (and in turn Unilever) brand a massive boost and a very clear brand image: one of a caring, benevolent company doing something genuinely different and selfless.
So how does that sit with the Lynx (I'm going to stop saying "or Axe" now because Axe is a stupid name and the idea of summoning women with "the axe effect" has always sounded rather frightening to me) brand? I'm going to try and break down some of the main points and have an argument with myself whilst talking authoritatively about it all. Then I'll try and make my mind up at the end (I'm still not sure where I sit on this one)
Lynx and Dove are totally separate brands targeting different demographics and as such the messages in their advertising do not have to run parallel and can indeed be quite contradictory of one another.
But they're owned by the same parent company, and therefore Unilever is endorsing two completely opposite messages about women, and as such should not be preaching about the negative effects of how women are portrayed by the beauty industry when its own adverts feature scantily clad women pole dancing.
That's a good point, but the adverts aren't made by the same agencies, so perhaps the agencies are ultimately responsible.
Unilever would have to approve the concepts and its marketing managers would be well aware of what was happening.
But each brand within Unilever will almost certainly have a different marketing manager
They should speak to each other a bit more, they need a water cooler!
That's a stupid point...wait are you writing all this down? You bastard!
So, in conclusion: I need help and so does Unilever. I think that it is unfortunate what has happened and it almost certainly isn't any one person's fault, but perhaps someone somewhere along the line should've pointed out that they were in fact being really contradictory and sending out mixed messages. The two brands are totally separate and they target different audiences so it is entirely understandable that they portray women in different ways: ways that will appeal to their target market. However, I do think that as they fall under the same umbrella that is Unilever they perhaps need to have a rethink and bring the company's thinking more in line or face more criticism.
It's definitely a difficult question, and I think to answer it properly I would need a much greater understanding of parent companies and corporate responsibility, but with the knowledge that I have of advertising, and the opinions that I have as a man on the street, I think that Unilever has done wrong, but unwittingly, and does not deserve to face any ramifications, but it does perhaps need to have a bit of a rethink about where it stands as a whole company, and how its own image is affected by the individual brands that it owns.
