That Gormandizer Man

The age of accountability

[For some reason this post has ended up like a Dave Trott story.]
[I think it's because I'm reading his excellent book as bedtime reading at the moment.] 

--
Lovely idea here:
http://www.trackyourbud.co.uk/

I think it's the work of Anomaly, with the help of a few others.

I'm not a fan of Budweiser as a product – as are lots of us beer geeks.
As a business too I'm not a huge fan.
(Its relentless pursuit of Budvar being just one reason.)
But this work is great.

Because it talks about provenance.
Because it introduces the brewing process to people who usually aren’t bothered.
Because it makes the product appealing.
Because it gives me an ‘in’ to a huge megabrand.
(Although I'd love a mobile app I could use if I'm in a pub.)
(An app that gives me social currency to discuss there and then with my friends.
 I think all brands and products should be doing this.
Being more transparent.
Letting people know where, how and why their products have been manufactured.
Giving them insights into the care they take.
The difference they make.
The people behind the huge corporations.

I mentioned this to a chap when I was studying my MA.
Dr. Charlie Clutterbuck.
He's not a marketing chap, he works in the environmental and ethical sectors.
He was a very nice chap and we chatted about brand and business ethics over a beer in Manchester.
I said I’d love to use the barcode scanners in supermarkets, to scan a product and get the history of it.
The human history of it.
Who packed it, where in the world it was packed, direct contact with the farmers.
So I could ask them how well they were being treated.
He said a big supermarket chain were looking into it.
That was seven years ago.

It is possible.
But it’s not happened yet.
Because some brands want to hide that contact.
Want to hide that story.
They don’t see the worth in opening it up.

If brands want to hide their stuff behind closed doors they’ve usually got something to hide.
If brands go public and open those doors it’s a start.
Even if they’re not perfect they’re staring a discussion.
Not covering stuff up.
(Although I’m sure they’ll be selective about what they share at least it's a start.)

This reminds me of the Second Interest Layer I discussed over here.
About how the story behind a product is as interesting as the product itself.
Sometimes more.
Like with a bottle of mass-produced beer.
Of how it can imbue and increase the sense of worth of a ubiquitous thing. 

This can work for lots of brands in lots of sectors.
We're already starting to see farmer's names on fruit and vegetables in supermarkets now.
(But I'd love to be able to email them, tweet them thanks for their delicious produce.)
Also, I once worked on a pitch for a big prestigious car brand.
One idea we had was to RFID the whole factory up.
When they've ordered their car, send them a DM piece with a unique URL.
Let people who have ordered a car see their very car being made.
See the care and attention that's going into it.
See where their money was going.
In the product they're given, but also in the craftsmanship they've bought into.
I still think that's a nice idea.
(But only for some brands and products.)

I also remember giving a presentation to a delegation of Nike Considered marketing people.
We said it's all well and good having one range of things on a business level that is better, and more transparent.
But we said they should instigate a 'one thing' rule on a product level instead.
Where they don't have a small percentage of their business that is better, more transparent.
But that they should have 'one thing' on every single product that is better, more transparent.
Maybe the laces on a pair of sneakers, or the lining on a jacket.
Maybe those one things could be recycled, traceable, transparent.
That way you're doing a little bit of good in every single thing.

Some brands will never open up.
And I think it’ll come back to bite them in the bum.
Because we live in a time of accountability.
Of legacy data.
Of things in the past being ultra-traceable.
Of digital things being ultra-traceable.
(Just ask Jeremy Hunt.)
In fact, how long until the Thought Police come knocking on some doors?

The brands that embrace transparency first will do well.
But the brands that do it best will do better.

What is Success?

A child constantly asking "Why?" is one of the most annoying things in the world. But that simplest of all questions is also one of the most important tools in the Planner's armoury. I'd specifically like to focus on one incidence of asking "Why?" in this post, and that's the fundamental question to ask your client or your Account Team every time a new piece of work is started: "Why are we doing this activity?"

The answer is usually to achieve something hard or soft.

Hard: To sell more stuff to more people; to sell more stuff to the same people.
Soft: To make more people see my brand; to make more people understand my brand; to make people talk about my brand.

And the fundamental question, the one simple thing every single Planner must always always ask at this critical stage (and remind everyone throughout the whole process) is:

What is Success?
Put simply, what criteria must this work achieve in order for the client's business, the client herself and the agency to all be happy with the result?

(Not-at-all-cheesy image courtesy of zaraki.kenpachi on Flickr)

In my experience I've usually found there are three kinds of success for every brief:

1) The explicit business and brand Success Criteria.
These are the business goals the activity is hoping to achieve. As stated above they are usually Hard and/ or Soft. Some take time to achieve and some have instant rewards.
Sometimes, these criteria need to be discussed, challenged and debated with the client as they can be contextual to the marketplace or to previous campaigns. It's at this point it's critical for an agency and a Planner to have some kind of understanding of whether the goals are feasible. It's also very important at this stage to debate HOW you're going to measure these criteria, and discuss who will pay for that measurement, but that's a post in itself.
(At some point in my past I was asked by a client to increase sales in a shrinking market during a recession, with a much smaller budget than the market norm, much less budget than the previous year and with no new product to supplement the range. At the same time our key competitors were spending much more, had a better product and were supplementing their range. It's at that point you need an honest discussion about the options you have available to you.)

2) The implicit business, brand and client Success Criteria.
Not to sound too clandestine, but these criteria may never be put onto the briefing form...
You see, these are the criteria the client may allude to when they brief the agency. There's also a role for really good Account Handlers at this stage who know their client as they can really help get under the skin of why they want to do this piece of activity. There's usually a very real reason why (see 1 above) but this is sometimes supplemented with what a client wants to get out of the activity. 
Does your client like 'firsts', or the new technology platform everyone is raving about, or do you know she has had an interview elsewhere with a view to moving on? Each of these gives you an opportunity to help them achieve their own career success criteria. And if you help them do that, you'll be in their good books and that's good for you and your agency.
BUT.
It's essential that any guidance at this level which impacts on the creative and strategic answers is absolutely fundamentally in line with the explicit business and brand success criteria. Failure to comply with that is failure of the project pure and simple. 

3) The agency Success Criteria.
An agency is a business and as such it has its own business success criteria, and when a relationship between an agency and client is a fruitful one it's because the businesses have mutual goals that allow them to work together for the good of each other. Again, these are hard and soft. Agencies like any other business have to make a profit so there's a simple success criteria right there: will this piece of work be profitable for us? And there are soft measures too. If you want to build the profile of the agency you need to work on projects that allow you to do that. Or if you want to attract the best creative talent (beyond salary) then you need to produce amazingly creative work. The same goes for Planners and effective work. So, from an agency point of view, there should always be the question of: "Why are we doing this work?" And as above, sometimes the results from that are immediate (profit), and sometimes they take time (portfolio work, a door-opener to bigger things).
BUT... to repeat myself above.
It's essential that any guidance at this level which impacts on the creative and strategic answers is absolutely fundamentally in line with the explicit business and brand success criteria. Failure to comply with that is failure of the project pure and simple.  

The Sweet Spot

The sweet spot for a long, fruitful and profitable (financially and emotionally) brand, client and agency relationship is that you can hit all three criteria on most pieces of work. That's to say you can achieve business goals, make the client look great and make the agency look great too as well as all making money.

But you'll rarely do any of that if you don't ask that very simple question at the outset, and refer to it when you're critiquing the strategy and creative ideas at every stage.

What is Success?

As with lots of good Planning practices, it's not complicated, but it's profoundly important.

Live and learn horizontally

I'm a horizontal person, and therefore I'm a horizontal planner.

You see, whether we like it or not we're born into a social position and throughout our life that social position changes and evolves as we do. If things don't go to plan sometimes we move to the left, and if things go well we move to the right. We may stay in the same place, but you can bet the things around us are evolving all the time.

And, if you look to the extremes, you'll see that if you work in an agency you're more likely to be further to the right. So let's look to those extremes. 

(This is me drinking craft beers in Seattle. Nice.)

I regularly drink craft beers in Shoreditch. Over the past few weeks I've visited several places around East London and in other parts of London where there is a great selection of craft beers and real ales. Some have their own barbecue oven and some make their own scotch eggs. When I visit these bars there are lots of people there. Most of them dress like me, speak like me and no doubt have a very similar job to me. They're all very brand conscious and genre-conscious - some seemingly having visited a shop in Hackney, pointed at a picture of a Williamsburg hipster on the wall and grunted "One of those"...

(This is Jeremy Kyle... probably just about to be really honest with someone).

On the other extreme, I watch Jeremy Kyle. And read the reader comments in the Daily Mail online regularly. And although it galls me to sometimes, I am interested in both. On Jeremy Kyle you don't see the people I rub shoulders with in my favourite bars. You don't see people like me. You see a different social class interested in different ways of life. They speak different, act different and although they are as brand conscious as those above, the brands they see as aspirational are slightly different. They too may have walked into a local clothes shop, spotted a picture of a celebrity falling out of a nightclub and pointed to the wall saying "One of those"...

(I've been provocatively stereotypical in the descriptions above, I know).

I don't live either life vertically (fully in one silo), as I prefer to touch on both (and everything in between) and live horizontally across lots of different social groups.

As planners we're the voice of the consumer, and whilst the consumer may be one of the stereotypes above there's a very simple statement I'm going to make: The people above are not representative of the population. They're not representative because they are the extremes. ('Extreme' is of course contextual and I could talk about people living in poverty as much as I could talk about billionaires).

So where am I going with this? Well, if you're a planner and you live any of these lifestyles vertically, you're missing out on a whole spectrum of learning.

(Thanks to @eaonp for tweeting this earlier)

As human beings, we like to surround ourselves with people we have an affinity to. If we have friends from different socio-economic backgrounds it can sometimes be really interesting and rewarding and it can sometimes cause tensions. (Another program I like watching is Come Dine With Me for that exact reason as you get to observe how human beings from different backgrounds cope with engaging with people outside their comfort zone).

So what I try to do every day of my life is to live across several silos, and learn from them all.

I go to craft beer bars and spend £4.95 for half an 11% Nigerian stout. I go to the social club with my dad in Hartlepool and speak to people who have never lived outside their hometown. I watch my dad and all his friends drink Carling whilst I drink bitter. I walk along Ridley Road market and rub shoulders with hipsters, cockneys and people from all over the world. I visit Shoreditch House and rub shoulders with people who live a completely different life to me. I stay in 5* hotels and I stay in budget hotels. I shop at independent butchers and I shop at Iceland. I visit Tokyo, the USA and India as well as Milton Keynes, Hartlepool and Brighton. I actively eat vegetarian meals regularly and also eat ribs too. I sometimes fly business class and I sometimes fly Ryanair. And in every single one of those experiences I observe what's going on around me.

If I only experienced one of the above disproportionately to the others (or any other kind of experience) then I'm not the kind of planner I'd like to be. This is because a key part of learning about people and society is to be that person.

There's only so much you can garner from focus groups and from TGI (and we can discuss their merits at all but that's a different question for a different time). In my opinion it's imperative you actually live as the people you are interested in. And a good start to doing that is to live horizontally a little across many different lifestyles. You shouldn't surround yourself with people like you any more than you should surround yourself with people not like you. Mix it up. Experience them all.

If you spend all day in an office surrounded by marketing types and then spend most of your free time in Shoreditch House you're deluding yourself if you think you are good at understanding people.

By living horizontally you'll be learning throughout every moment of your life, not simply when you're at work 'doing research' because every moment in life is research.

 

Turning a NO into a YES

Last night I visited LBi for a Creative Social evening entitled NO! It was good fun and the talks were varied - some more fun and others more useful.

I'm not going to write up the whole evening, but I'd like to focus on Becky Power's talk a little. (In truth the following is an amalgamation of a few of the talks, but using her talk as a template is useful).

Becky talked about the frustrations we all have when we think we have an amazing idea that is creative, compelling, relevant and will be successful... only for the client to say NO! She showed this video of one of her favourite campaigns:

Becky didn't work on the campaign but recently contacted the then client to find out some details of how the campaign came to life. The client said he hadn't bought it first time, but eventually did.

The client was also the chap that bought this:

So what made him change his mind with these pieces of work? What compelled him to buy these (relatively) risky campaigns? Crucially, how did the agency turn a NO into a YES?

He gave Becky some pointers on how an agency could do that. (These tips are never gospel and different people have different opinions so I've added my own little opinions too. The list below is not what Becky said - I've built on it).

 - A good idea is not enough -

Clients love good ideas, but 'good' is totally subjective so it's vital to prove why the work is right for the business challenge in hand, why it's right for the consumer and why it's distinctive in market. When you can prove it's right, then you can say it's good. (I touched on this a little here).

 - People present stuff that is completely buried in waffle - 

Being a Planner, I'm obviously keen to explain to a client why we're doing what we're doing, and to explain why it's right for the task in hand. So whilst it's vital to explain the stuff above, it's just as vital not to let it overshadow the creative idea. I am passionate about keeping things simple, but I'm ashamed to say I've been in pitches before where the client needed a natural break when we were presenting the strategy as it took so long. (I must say I didn't write that deck...) This simply isn't good enough and it's not needed. If that's the way your presentation is looking then you need to think of a different way of presenting.

 - The client is not an idiot -

The client probably knows more about their brand and business than you. They probably know more about their sector than you. They probably know more about how easy it will be to obtain internal buy-in for any specific idea. Think about how you broach these subjects and how you talk about them. Be humble. This is an interesting one to me, as one of the examples given was about not recounting the brief back to the client. (He/ she knows the brief as they wrote it!) I'm not sure about this, and I always find it useful to do this to keep the responses in context and on track. 

 - The client views their brand differently to you -

I found this interesting: "Clients view the brands as they'd like them to be, agencies view them as they are now." I think that's an interesting point and one I agree with to a certain degree. I do believe, however, that it's the role and obligation of the agency to put the client view of their brands into the context of the consumer more. The fact is they know their brand inside out and where it sits in the market. But one role I love to discuss is where that brand sits in the mindset and daily life of a person. Of you. Of me. Of the bloke you sat next to on the bus earlier. Because you can bet your life the bloke you sat next to on the bus doesn't care as much about your client's brand as your client thinks he does. (I call this client perspective Brand Blindness, and it's totally natural. Agency types are the same - when you spend so much time focusing on one thing it's easy to lose perspective on the bigger picture. So, sorry everyone, that Aurasma thing you did in Shoreditch that everyone was pinning on Pinterest? No-one outside of your bubble gives a shit - you're targeting people like you). 

[Edited after Becky put me right about something I got wrong!]

 - Build a relationship and establish trust -

This was the most compelling comment for me as it talks about longer term relationships and how building them benefits everyone. And although it may not please the GAD, this is about the client building relationships with people... creative people and strategic people. This allows for greater collaboration between agency and client and gives the client an insight into how the agency works. There's only so much that can happen if a client meets an Account Team member every time, and only meets creative and strategic thinkers when there's a key presentation. Apparently the 'Slag of all snacks' work up there only went through because the client had a good relationship with the creatives and he trusted their judgement. It's difficult to build that relationship when you rarely meet the client.

As I said, there isn't a magic formula for this, but I thought there was some interesting stuff in there. Thanks Becky.

Don't say you're good. Just be good.

I've started using a new blog writing app recently. It's called MarsEdit and it's very good.

I always get a buzz when I start using a new app. When the UX is well thought out in an app it makes using it not only painless but actually enjoyable.

I am currently using the 30 day free trial, and it eventually costs £27.99. In my mind that is not cheap for what it is. In fact, I'd be so bold as to say the product itself isn't worth that money.

(The notion of value for apps is a really interesting subject I think. With the proliferation of freeware, freemium, shareware and paid apps the whole market has been blown open. It's a far cry from when I owned my Amiga and all games were roughly the same price.)

Here are a couple of examples of improvements I would make to the product:

 - I'd improve the use of colour -

That's the list of blog topics in the main window, but you can't tell which have been posted and which are drafts.

What If... There was a simple colour coded system that showed me quickly which had been published and which were drafts on the server so I could negotiate them quicker and remind me of drafts I had yet to write.

- I'd use dynamic naming - 

When you're writing a post you can either save it locally as a draft ('Save as Draft') or you can save it remotely on your blog's server. As I use more than one mac I like to keep things in the cloud so I can access them across multiple machines. However, when you want to save as a draft remotely the 'Send to Blog' button remains the same. I have to check more than once that I am saving a draft and not actually publishing a post when it's half written. Plus, when you save your draft by clicking 'Send to Blog' it automatically closes the post.

What If... When I ticked the 'Draft' button (not pictured) the 'Send to Blog' button changed to 'Save to Server' - then I'd know I wasn't publishing it instantly, and it'd know I don't necessarily want the post closed - I may just be saving the latest changes.

So those are just two small improvements I'd make to the app, and due to those factors I don't think it's worth £27.99. And, I can probably get it online somewhere for free if I wanted to do a little searching to get around the charge and continue using the app.

But I think MarsEdit is worth every penny and I'm going to pay it.

And this is why.

When I started using the app I thought I would send the developers some feedback via Twitter:

And they responded quickly. (Read the following from the bottom up).

They answered my question quickly and they took the constructive feedback in a positive way. And their tone of voice is one of a company that is constantly improving, of wanting to improve their product.

The way companies operate, and their product/ service being at the heart of their proposition is something Katy and I were discussing a while back on Twitter:

We were discussing how lots of brands say they are something with large communications positionings, yet their core proposition - what they actually are as a product or service - is very different. Katy's very interested in this, and I am too.

And it's this business mantra, why a business does what it does, that is interesting. Because, as I said up there, great communications are nice but if they're so different from the reality of the product or service, people will be let down. (I discussed this when I recently traveled on a Virgin Holiday here.)

And, this is why I'm going to pay the £27.99 for MarsEdit. I'm going to pay it because whilst I feel their product may not be worth the price, their service is. Their service is adding enough value to warrant the cost.

They don't have huge budgets to put an ad on TV to convince me the product is worth the money. They aren't sponsoring a global sporting event to shove their logo under my nose at every opportunity. They aren't bombarding me with numerous emails talking about what turns them on that week. Because all of that is meaningless if the product/ service lets me down.

No, they aren't manufacturing any stories to provide a spurious strategy to engage with me. They're simply being good, being valuable and adding value through their service, and not through communications.

Their service is their communications.

It's a very simple thought, but one we should all revisit every time we work on a new campaign. A little question for all of us during every project:

"Is this campaign highlighting a great product/ service, or is it trying to create desire for an average product/ service?"

Giveashitability

There's been a huge shift in how brands communicate with people over recent years. Fundamentally we've moved from interrupting someone and shouting at them, to engaging with someone and giving them something entertaining or useful.

This isn't an insight, and I'm stating the obvious. But.

As the nature of communications has changed, and the way in which they are received by consumers is different to the past, it's worth revisiting a key question and how it is framed moving forward:

What makes a good idea?

Given society itself and the digital social ecosystem has evolved to embrace new technologies and ways of communicating, it's a question that needs constant reassessment, and if you're reading this post in the future you may want to disregard it as out of date.

In the past, the process of critiquing was agreeing to what degree an idea could interrupt and change the behaviour of a consumer, and for some media channels one could continue to argue the virtues of that. But not for all, and specifically Social Media.

And that's because of a very simple truth: people need to want to engage with something on Social Media, they're not forced to view it as they are with some traditional ATL media.

Giveashitability.

There's a simple test that I use when critiquing ideas (regardless of media channel) and I find it very useful.

Giveashitability. Does anyone care, and will anyone share?

(I'm not 100% sure when I first started using this terminology. A cursory glance of google shows me my friend Chungaiz blogged about it here and linked to the old digital arm of Engine (where I worked for a while). So maybe I picked it up there? There is also a blog post where my friend James uses it too so maybe I picked it up from him and the Engine thing is a coincidence? Regardless I am not claiming ownership, merely stating I use the term.)

It's a very simple test and one that requires honesty and objectivity, and clients and creatives sometimes don't like to hear it. But as a Planner it's our job to be the voice of the consumer. And be that voice we must. Objectively, not subjectively.

Will they care?

You see, when people are bombarded with branded messages (the cliché is about 3000 times a day) then there has to be something really clever to cut through to make them notice, and if you're really lucky to make a positive impact with them.

And the first part of that is really simple - does the audience give a shit about what you're showing them? If so, why?

It's key this question is thought about from the point of view of the target audience and with critical reasoning. Dave Trott makes a great argument for this in his book Creative Mischief:

(Thanks to my friend Gemma for pointing me toward this)

He talks about the difference between being objective and being subjective when critiquing creative ideas and introduces a simple model. Don't say "I like it...", but start all comments with "It'll work because" or "It won't work because" as it forces you to be the consumer (not yourself), and give critical reasoning for your statement - not just emotional subjective feedback.

If you do this, and you're honest and have a good old heated debate backed up with evidence then you're going in the right direction.

Will they share?

Once you've got past the stage and (hopefully) all agree that the right people will give a shit about the creative idea, then there's the question of sharing. Now, whilst not all briefs require an element of sharing, it's usually not something anyone will argue with as it amplifies any activity and adds an element of trust as it's usually your friends that share stuff with you. (Your trusted curators of Facebook or Twitter, for example.)

So, it's worth bearing this in mind when you're looking at ideas too. I referred to it as Distraction Bias when I was thinking about this the other day, as it's something you're putting out there to hope your friends see it. You want them to be distracted from what they're doing and engage with (and further share) the content you're sharing with them.

And again, that's not a science, but you must think about it from the point of view of the consumer, not from your point of view as a marketer.

A simple thing to try.

So next time you think you've got an idea, or you are critiquing an idea just have this simple question to hand, and think from the consumer's point of view. The Creative Director may not like all your feedback, but if you back it up with critical reasoning it'll be difficult for him or her to argue against it. This isn't a crusade against emotional ideas - far from it - it's just adding some objective thinking to the process.

And, remember, the fundamental reason for this is to interrogate an idea to give it the best possible chance of being successful when it's unleashed into the wild... that's what your Creative Director wants, it's what you want and crucially it's what your clients want.

 

Noam Chomsky on Social Media

I was skipping through the Guardian's G2 magazine yesterday and stumbled upon this article where Noam Chomsky is being interviewed by some supporters of the Occupy Movement.

This section really jumped out at me:

 

It struck me as a nice way to discuss the differences between using compelling and relevant content to engage with people via Social Media rather than the traditional route of shouting at them via ATL media.

The magic percentage of new

So I'm sat here in the office and someone's put Absolute Radio on. (Absolute used to be called Virgin Radio, but for the purposes of this post I'm going to refer to it as Absolute Radio, regardless of the period I'm referring to.)

I haven't listened to it for years. I mean, literally, years.

I used to listen to it all the time when I was studying. This was in the late 90s before streaming media and before it was easy to access music cheaply or freely. I had a stack of tapes and CDs, but if I wanted new music I had to borrow a CD from someone else. (Remember that - the thrill of your mate turning up with the tape you wanted?)

So, I listened to the radio a lot. And because I had a rubbish radio I couldn't get many stations.

So I listened to Absolute Radio loads. And loads. So much so I knew most of the songs. They play classic songs for about 90% of their playlist, with the other 10% being new releases.

And they haven't changed at all. Which means I'm getting about 90% of the same experience I had some fifteen years ago. There's only 10% new stuff coming on disrupting my enjoyment.

It's like a comfort blanket. Something I know. Something I'm familiar with. Something I recognise. An old friend.

But I'll only listen to it once in a while because after a while I get bored of the 90%. Because it becomes too familiar. Too predictable. One of those friends where you know how they'll act all the time.

And it got me thinking about brands and how there's probably a balance somewhere between comfort and new. About how brands need to be recognisable, familiar and a comfort blanket... but constantly peppering that comfort with little new things.

Because if they don't keep me interested by introducing me to new things, keeping me interested by evolving with me and society, then I'll get bored. And that's when I put 6 Music on.

And there isn't a magic formula for this.

I think 10% new isn't enough for me, it keeps me away and when I come back I only stay for a little while. But it is risky enough for my dad.

I think comms brands are doing a good job in this area. Because, when you're signed up to your tariff, they're all much of a muchness.

So whether it's o2 Priority, Vodafone VIP or Orange Wednesdays, they all know they need to keep evolving. They all know they need to add little elements of new. Little things to keep people interested. Otherwise their audience will take them for granted and switch their channel off.

Have a think about the brands you work on. Where are the elements of new? Where are the little things that evolve to keep your consumers happy?

How are you going to keep your consumers happy by being familiar and warm, but by keeping them interested at the same time? What percentage of new do you need to deliver?

The time is now for planning

I've been mulling over an article for a while, and finally penned it earlier this week. I've emailed it to Campaign, but presuming it won't get published I thought I'd drop it all here.

--

Planning is at a crossroads and needs to spearhead industry-wide changes to take advantage of upcoming economic growth argues Mark Hadfield, Head of Strategy at Nexus/H.

There’s a lot of chatter around at the moment about how the industry can move forward by learning from different sectors; a selection of IPA delegates visiting Silicon Valley and the new planning trend of ‘making instead of talking’ being two examples.
As a planner this fills me with optimism, as I’m all for branching out and learning new things from new sectors to benefit my day-to-day work and the clients I work for. After all, continuing to learn everyday is part of what makes me a planner isn’t it?
Within every great team there are great individuals; entrepreneurial individuals who give the rest of the team a platform from which to learn and challenge. This puts planning squarely at the heart of the modern agency: improving, learning, adapting and challenging in genuinely remarkable times and deviating from the norms set out by generations past.
But in 2012, some 40 odd years after the discipline was founded and in a global economy about to leave behind a significant period of stagnation, planning is at a crossroads and some key questions need to be asked so planning can build on this opportunity:

- Where will the next generation of planners come from?
- How can planners improve how they learn from other planners?
- How can agencies unleash the full potential of planners?

Learned and Taught
I have a theory that there are two kinds of planners: Taught planners and Learned planners.
Taught planners are traditionally spotted at university studying a human sciences course, and join a large network agency to learn their particular interpretation of planning.
Learned planners have spent part of their life working in another discipline and then make a switch over to planning. Their previous discipline may be unrelated to their new industry altogether but they bring with them unbridled enthusiasm, an essential naivety of the constraints of the industry and a new perspective on answering problems.
Like a footballer being taught ballet to increase balance, there are many positives to be learned from the latter approach but traditionally these people don't fit into the pigeonholes of the large networked agency.
It's important that the industry doesn't wait for Learned planners to fall into planning. The industry as a whole and each agency individually should have a team of scouts who scour the fields for interesting people ready to take a sideways jump into planning. We need to evolve beyond cherry-picking students of psychology and think laterally about where new planners can feasibly come from in order to remain relevant in the future and to approach clients business problems in evolved ways.

Planning partnerships are essential
As we’ve all noticed, we’re in a time when clients are expecting more for less. More results, more output and a quicker turnaround usually with less reward. Well, the agency of the future will need to move with even more agility and speed and to supplement this, continual evolution is absolutely essential.
Andrew Cracknell states in his excellent The Real Mad Men “clients have always been hyper paranoid about having their business with an agency that is simultaneously handling a company who could even remotely be considered a rival”, and I’m sure we’d all agree. But I’d argue agencies themselves are just as paranoid and this inhibits the learnings, and thus benefits, planners can bring to a clients business.
Agencies that have traditionally competed with each other should be encouraged to share ideas, and an open-source style of critical questioning is needed at all levels. It’s essential for the future of the planning discipline and the communications industry as a whole that we overcome our paranoia and start to share non-confidential, beneficial knowledge and information within our industry. Max Wright writing in Campaign a few years ago stated integration is a ‘way of working, no more no less’ within an agency. I totally agree but I’d like to take it one step further and I’d like that same integration to move between agencies. Instead of flying to Silicon Valley, we should all be opening our doors to learn from each other a little closer to home.
On top of this, meaningful collaborations with other disciplines outside of the industry would pay dividends - be it relationships with screenwriters, comedians, business analysts, actors or artists to further increase agility and to keep everyone away from those pigeon shaped holes.

Making mistakes is good
Cliché alert: Mistakes should not be feared. This is something I hear lots from people speaking at conferences, yet we’re still dominated by an awards industry that celebrates successes and not mistakes. With planning and creative teams eager to raise the bar and set new records at every opportunity mistakes should be expected and indeed, for the brave, praised.
For some agencies the question needs to shift from "How can we avoid mistakes?" to "How can our clients benefit from our mistakes?" because as we've seen over the previous eight years, the rulebook is changing at an alarming rate and more mistakes are being made every day. If the agency cannot adjust to this evolved way of thinking they will suffocate the free thinking a planner needs to succeed in the future.

Remaining focused on the opportunity
Andrew Cracknell said at a recent Yahoo! event “There is an urge to do what can be done, instead of doing what should be done" and this is something it’s essential we remember. What should be done is the undeniable role of the new planner and it’s a role that is growing with importance with every brief.
Now is the time for planners to unite and to work together to do what should be done. If we can improve how we find fresh thinking, how we work together and how we truly encourage the making of mistakes we can be the spine of our agencies moving forward. This puts us in prime position to use economic growth to fuel and evolve the importance of planning.

--

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Mark Hadfield is Head of Strategy at Nexus/H. He studied a degree in Architecture and an MA in Design Studies. He doesn’t share as much as he’d like, but he definitely makes mistakes.

From Rockstar to Spinal Tap

I've just been on holiday.
More than that, I've just been on holiday with Virgin Holidays.
And the reason I chose Virgin was twofold: 1) To accumulate some Virgin Frequent Flyer miles; 2) To experience the Virgin Rockstar Service.

The holiday I chose wasn't the cheapest in market. I paid the little extra as I've always had good experiences with Virgin Atlantic.

If you look at the page here, they explain what it's all about. In a nutshell, they say "We think you deserve better than to be huddled and herded, packed in and packed off. 'Cos if you can't act like an A-lister on your holiday, when can you?" and they explain the things you get:

v-room at Gatwick and Manchester
What they say:
"Flying from London Gatwick or Manchester?
Start your holiday in style with Virgin Holidays' very own airport lounge. With free food and soft drinks, children's play area, free internet access, big screen TV, the latest video games, table football and a fantastic view of the run way - this really is the perfect way to start your Virgin holiday!"
The reality:
I got a phonecall from a very friendly lady a couple of days before the trip. She outlined that because I was getting Rockstar Service I had access to the v-room, and as my flight was at noon, it'd be a perfect way to get breakfast and relax before the trip. I agreed.
Then she said it was an extra cost of £24 per person. With alcohol extra on top of that.
Rockstar or Spinal Tap?
Definitely Spinal Tap. Charging extra for something that is clearly marketed as a perk, and then charging extra on top of the extra for alcohol? Not rock and roll at all.

Concierge Service
What they say:
"This exclusive service puts you in touch with our resort reps before you even leave the UK, allowing you to ask questions, check out facts and purchase a complete range of excursion tickets from our experts on the ground."
The reality:
I had a missed call a couple of days before I left from the rep introducing herself. She sounded very nice. She left her email address so I emailed her and said I didn't want to book any excursions until I turned up... and that was kinda the end of it.
Rockstar or Spinal Tap?
Probably a bit of both. The rep sounded very nice and helpful, but it all just seemed like a blatant upselling procedure to me. To get yet more money out of me before I've even set foot on the plane never mind getting to the resort.

Check in - chill out in the caribbean
What they say:
"Check in Chill out allows you to check in for your flight home from the Caribbean without leaving the beach or bar, giving you a little extra time to enjoy your destination. This service is available at selected hotels in Barbados, Antigua, Tobago, Grenada and St Lucia. Check with your rep in resort if you aren't staying at one of the participating hotels as you may be able to use a location nearby."
The reality:
I wasn't at one of those resorts so it didn't apply to me. What was offered was entrance to Club Mobay - a VIP lounge at the airport. I was told by the Virgin rep that I'd probably have a couple of hours to wait at the airport, and not knowing how good the airport was I thought it was a good idea. That was an extra $30. As it was the most time I spent in the airport was queuing up to check in. Once I'd done that it was straight through security (the fast-track wasn't really needed) and into Departures... which was full of cafés, bars and shops. Easily enough to keep my attention for a couple of hours.
Rockstar or Spinal Tap:
Definitely one for the Tap. Club Mobay was very comfortable, but I just felt that once again I'd been upselled to instead of being helped.

Disconnection therapy
What they say:
"Disconnection Therapy is a straightforward way of cutting the ties with your work life before you leave for exotic, more exciting locations. The aim is to help you disconnect allowing a better mind set to re-coup, recharge your batteries and get the most out of your time on holiday."
The reality:
There's a bunch of videos for you to download here. That's it. Available to all. Nothing exclusive, and nothing compelling - I haven't even bothered to look at them.
Rockstar or Spinal Tap:
Spinal Tap for sure. This added extra may be free, but it's free to all - I don't have to book a holiday to see the content. And the videos certainly don't go up to 11...

And that's kinda it... that's what Rockstar Service entails.

So what am I saying?
Well, I'll make this very clear: I am not saying I had poor service with Virgin. My holiday was great and I was looked after as you'd expect from Virgin.
But that's my whole point: I wasn't looked after any differently to people who had just booked flights and booked their hotel separately.
And the problem, for me, is the proposition of Rockstar Service. The reality simply can't deliver the promise.

You see, I see the name Rockstar Service and I want a personal rider for my flight. I want priority boarding and alighting from the aircraft. I want the best room in the hotel (or at least a bottle of champagne waiting for me). I want to be picked up in a private vehicle and not a minibus.
I don't want to be the target of upselling at every opportunity. I don't want to be like everyone else. I want to walk around with a swagger because I'm a rockstar aren't I?

There are a few things Virgin could do immediately:
1) Give me priority boarding. That is zero cost, and makes me feel great from minute one.
2) Give me a glass of champagne when I board. When people ask why I get it and they don't, you get the opportunity to explain Virgin Holidays to potential customers.
3) Give me a private vehicle to and from the airport. Make me feel like a rockstar, not Chris de Burgh on an excursion with twenty other people.
4) Give me a bottle of champagne when I check into my room.
5) Give me free wi-fi, and not charge me $90 for a week of access... (yes, $90 a week).
6) ... just give me something interesting and Rockstar to talk about! I'm sat here writing about why I feel a bit let down when I should be posting stories and media of me feeling like a rock star!

It seems to me Virgin have tried to explain their differentiator and their agency have devised the Rockstar Service proposition. Well, I'm sorry to whoever came up with it, but it's simply not true. You may have created some nice communications (I've used them in creative meetings myself to talk about consistency and good tone of voice) but they're too far away from the reality. The simple fact is there wasn't one single thing on my trip that made me feel like a rockstar. There wasn't one single thing that Rockstar Service gave me that any other package holiday provider couldn't have given me.

And herein lies the lesson: It's all well and good having distinct comms, but they have to be relevant to the reality of the product of the service.

If the comms undersell the product or service, then the agency is at fault.
If the comms oversell the product or service, then the agency is at fault.

It's as simple as that.
If being aspirational is more important than being honest you're in trouble.