That Gormandizer Man

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.

One Step Beyond

Spurred on by this tweet, I thought I'd jot down a few things I think are good pointers to either a) Get into Planning; or b) Be a better Planner.

(I think I've written similar articles in the past, but can't be bothered to see if this contradicts them to be honest...)

Anyway, all of them can be categorised: One Step Beyond.
And in keeping with the music metaphor, I've offered 7 opinions - one for every inch of vinyl.

1) One Step Beyond experiencing
It's imperative for all of us that we know what's going on in the industry and we have a decent grasp of who is saying what, when, and why.
But, don't just experience activity and watch ads. Watch other people as they experience them. You see, it's one thing to see what's going on, but it's quite another observing how that thing impacts on society. So next time you go past a billboard, don't just look at it, look at others looking at it. Next time you see a trend on Twitter, don't just look at the thing people are sharing, look at the profiles of the people sharing.

2) One Step Beyond admiration
We all see work we think is good. It might be great strategically, great creatively, or it might be in the perfect media channels. Well, if you're someone trying to get into Planning or if you're a Planner looking to speak to a new business client, you need to do more than admire work. If you see work you think is good, think about how you could make it better and let the relevant people know.
If you want to work for that agency, find some of their work and show them how you'd make it better - creatively or strategically. If you want to work with that brand, find some of their activity and show them how you'd like to improve it.

3) One Step Beyond reading
As this post exemplifies, we're not backwards in coming forwards as an industry. We're all chomping at the bit to share our opinion - be it on blogs or in traditional media. Well, if you see a viewpoint you agree or disagree with, pen a response with your reasoning why. Even if you don't send it this is a great exercise that helps you build up skills of forming arguments and using evidence to support your case. We're in an age where we can find and converse with people across the globe instantly. The internet has truly democratised communications between people, and whether they like it or not, you can probably find the email address of the person you want to share your opinion with.

4) One Step Beyond geography
As I just touched on, everything around us is instant and accessible. That means we can talk with people, learn from people, and challenge people wherever they are on earth. I find that truly exciting. I can read the press anywhere on earth, and respond to the relevant person instantly. And that doesn't have to be an email. It could be a face to face chat on Skype, by sharing images on Instagram or by having a conversation in public on a blog. Bored of reading the same old stuff? Pick a country and look at their press, look at what's going on in their world and learn something new.

5) One Step Beyond brands
A good client knows their brand inside out. A good Planner can either better that knowledge, or they can provide essential objectivity. You see, I think a lot of clients inevitably become Brand Blind. This is a term I've originated myself, but I think it's true. They spend about twelve hours a day, about six days a week inside that brand, surrounded by that brand and consumed by that brand. They notice it more in daily life, they talk about it, and they know and understand the machinations which drive it internally. Well, unfortunately for them, most people on earth have either never heard of their brand, or don't give a shit about their brand. In my mind a good Planner should provide that objectivity, and should think beyond the brand and think about where, how and why that brand sits in society as a whole. In the daily life of people. Of culture. Of societies. Don't think outwards from the brand, think outwards from society.

6) One Step Beyond silos
Traditional agency models are broken. Modern agency models are broken.
The world is moving so quick that the success of any business model is dictated by the inherent flexibility it has at its core. Mr Perkin would call this agile.
Within any system or model are silos. They might be explicit or implicit, but there are silos. Traditionally the Planner's silo was to dig around to find the insight, then inspire the creatives to come up with a big idea. I think that's only part of the Planner's role, and those boundaries should be flexible. If you've written the proposition to inspire a creative idea, have a think about some creative ideas yourself. If you've got an idea you want to sell into a client, start planting the seeds with the Account Team so they can lay the foundations with the client for you. Don't just sit in the Planning Department, have your head in other departments too.

7) One Step Beyond work
Planning doesn't stop at 6pm, and it doesn't stop in the office. Planning is a way of life, a way of living and a viewpoint on the world. In my mind, anything you espouse in the office should be carried into your private life too.
The cliché of being interested and interesting, unfortunately is true. (I just hate clichés OK?)
So for me it's all about travel, writing and exploring. I always want to learn more. I always want to do things I haven't done before. I always want to be excited about a place, a thing, an experience. I want to travel every inch of this beautiful world of ours. I want to get every thought in my head on paper, either in words, in charts, or in pictures. I want to explore everything from music to film; from food to beer; from people to isolation. It's all out there, and we can touch it whenever we want.

To misquote Samuel Johnson, "When a Planner is tired of going One Step Beyond, he is tired of life."

A simple business made unnecessarily complicated

I penned a letter to Campaign last week and to my surprise it got printed. I thought I might as well put it here too, as at the very least it'll mean I've put something on my blog for the first time in ages...

I think they might have amended it slightly, but this is the version I sent them:

--

Dear Editor,

I noticed a theme between two articles in your November 11th edition. On page 18 Jonathan Fowles wondered whether most agencies understood what Comms Planning is when they sell it to clients, and on page 24 Richard Alford shared his recent experiences of agencies selling 'vacuous, cod-philosophical' manifestos and mantras to clients.

I've had experience of agencies doing both of the above during my career thus far and they're both self-serving, short-term and ultimately do more to widen the agency/ client relationship in the longer term.

The two items above are exemplified by two of my pet hates:

1) Selling complexity instead of simplicity.
The agency role is generally a simple requirement: sell more stuff; find more people to sell stuff to; make my brand look good to certain people etc. Yet as an industry some seem intent on overcomplicating this simple equation for their own short-term gain. I have had first hand experience of this in the past and something a friend was told by a superior springs to mind: "Use big words and drop in the odd word which confuses the client. It makes us look good." This was an internationally networked agency with global clients.
We must never forget our role as agencies is to simplify our client’s business challenges and provide them a communications strategy which answers those business challenges.
Simplicity from complexity. Not vice versa.

2) Jumping on the bandwagon.
Whether it's a new media channel, a new technology or new terminology it seems there's no shame in jumping in there as quick as possible and getting it on the agency creds with no-one questioning the relevancy to consumer or its consistency to other communications.
Andrew Cracknell nailed this last week at the Yahoo! Provoke Summit when he stated: "There is a fixation of doing what can be done instead of doing what should be done."
Asking WHY before asking HOW is essential.

These aren't solely the issues of agencies however, and clients have to take some responsibility for the situation. Some clients like to pass the confusion onto their superiors to confuse them into the belief of progression, and clients too want the new shiny thing on their CV even if there’s no real business reason for it.

Only by simplifying (and not complicating) and by asking why (before how) will we reach a point where longer-term relationships are forged with clients which ultimately add real value to all involved and deliver engaging and relevant communications to consumers. That’s the aim of all of us here at nexus|h and it’s something I’m personally passionate about.

The answer isn't Amazing or Safe. It's Best.

There have been, are, and always will be movements in our industry.

Movements that are generally started by one person, amplified by another and then grasped by all and sundry. In essence it's the industry Planning the industry much the same way we try and Plan some of our campaigns for mass consumption: Give the message to a thought leader; let them share it with a chosen few; watch it amplify.

A perfect example is the current "Let's make stuff instead of talk about stuff."
Loads of people are saying it, loads of agencies are saying it and it's now part of the everyday parlance for a strategist, Planner or creative in an agency.

Loosely affiliated to this, I believe, is the whole 'Be Amazing' thought that is all pervasive. Where every brief is an opportunity to do Amazing things. Encouraging the client to make risky decisions instead of defaulting to the 'Safe' standard we know it'll be easier for them to sell in internally.

We all want to sell 'Amazing' because Amazing is where we do something new. Something that breaks boundaries, uses new technologies, sets new levels and gives the client and the agency a whole host of self-PR opportunities.

As the opposite to this, we're told to resist the 'Safe' - the Safe which gives us a traditional print ads (with NO QR-CODE SHOCKA!), use of traditional media, and maybe amplified through a simple Social Media promotion. As strategists and Planners we're told this is boring. We won't win any awards for that, surely... will we?

Well I think both of those approaches are totally self-serving and are there for the ultimate gain of the individual client or the agency.

I believe in the Best. Whatever that Best may be.

That Best may well be a new technology to use, an innovative and high-barrier to entry Social Media mechanic. But equally that Best may be a traditional print ad in The Times with a simple Call to Action to a freephone number.

You see, it's really simple: It's all about the business aims of the client and the success criteria attached to them. Don't think about the creative answers until you've well and truly got stuck into this fundamental question and agreed how to answer it.

One valid answer is Amazing; but another equally valid answer is Safe.
Whatever the aims are and whatever leads to Best.
But having a predetermined answer of Amazing (or Safe) is fundamentally wrong.