Originality then relevancy, in that order

As I write this, there's a bit of a discussion going on over at Twitter (as tends to happen) about the new Skittles site. For future posterity here's a screengrab because I'm not sure how long it's going to be around for.

 
(To take a line from Mr. Terrett:"There's the site. Just up there. Interesting, isn't it?")

You see, what they've done is popped a little layer over other sites that mention them. Notably Twitter and Wikipedia. It means that when anyone mentions 'Skittles' in Twitter, it appears in the background.

Now, the point of this post isn't to critique that site as such. It's more of a discussion around two basic schools of thought:

1. Think of an idea and apply it to your brand;
2. Have your brand and apply it to an idea.

Or, expressed in a rush with a pen:

 
(Yes, yes... I know the shading on the 'X' is wrong. I was rushing, OK? And I know ImprovEverywhere aren't really a brand as such - that's why i put those little marks around them...)

Think of an idea and apply it to your brand
This is the most exciting of the two. You've more chance of something truly original and groundbreaking happening. You think about the problem, and you try and express your thoughts in a way that is suitable to the brand. This is difficult, and it will take time, deep thinking, lots of reading and probably some kind of 'eureka!' moment. Whilst the two are obviously inextricably linked, I'd say: Ideas first, brand second. Possibly not what the client wants to hear, but they won't kick up a fuss when you win awards, their buzz rating goes through the roof and everyone is talking about a drumming gorilla with wiggly eyebrows on an airport truck. Hopefully...

Have your brand and apply it to an idea
I'd say this is the one we see more often. Look around for inspiration, evolve it, change it, make it relevant to your brand. Or, as some others have done: Look around for inspiration, whack your brand logo on it, bishbashbosh thankyouverymuch client, where's our fee? Now, this second route shouldn't be discounted. We are all inspired by a plethora of things in different ways, and we (consciously and sub-consciously) express these inspirations every time we write a brief and produce creative. What I will say about this route, though, is that context and relevancy are key. If you're back-fitting your brand into an idea that already exists, then there has to be a good reason and it has to be a good fit. If not, it's simply a Copy/ Paste job.

You see, I reckon the Skittles thing is an example of a poor number two. It's not an original idea at all, as some of us have said. Modernista may have something to say about that. And, worse than that, it's not even really relevant. Loads of other brands could have produced something very very similar and they'd be just as relevant as Skittles. For that reason, I reckon Skittles is in the worst position possible on my radar:

• Good Position to be in #1: Impress me with something truly original and engaging.
• Good Position to be in #2: Impress me with something that is inspired by other stuff, but is relevant to your brand.
• Good Position to be in #3: Annoy the hell out of me. I may not like it, but I'm talking about it and I remember it.
• Bad Position to be in: Do something that I really couldn't give a toss about. It's neither here nor there. It's a non-campaign. You've spent the budget, but the campaign is beige. MOR. You're the Coldplay of the Advertising/ Marketing world.

So, the long and short of it? Be brave and think deeply, or you'll be Coldplay. Skittles are well and truly signed up to a big label, playing at the O2 and holding lighters aloft.

Comments

[james]

"be brave and think deeply, or you'll be coldplay." yes, definitely.