That Gormandizer Man

Boring 2010

I spoke at the inaugural Boring conferenceon Saturday.
I thought it was great fun. A great example of how people can pull together on Social Media sites for a common cause.

My understanding of how it cam about was that James Ward heard that Russell Davies wasn't going to do an Interesting talk this year so tweeted that he'd like to do one called Boring.

As is the way with things like this - people replied to him... me included... which led to this:

And the rest, as they say, is history.

So anyway, it happened on Saturday. There's a really good post here by Lucytelling you what happened over the whole day. I can't write a post as nice as that so I'm not going to try.

The other speakers were great and ranged from a milk taste test to a talk about car park roofs; from musical keyboard experiments with masking tape to what it was like growing up in an orthodox Jewish household.

As I mentioned here, I thought the talks could be split into two: 1) Talks that were about things that could be boring but were turned into something really interesting by the speaker, and; 2) Talks about genuinely boring things delivered in a very funny way. The writer from the Independent didn't understand this I don't think and wrote a pretty ill-informed article in my opinion.

So what did I talk about?

I used the time to speak about my 20 Beers Around the World idea. It's something that I've been talking about for a while but for various reasons it hasn't been going as quickly as it could be. For a while this concerned me but to be honest I like the idea of the project evolving and taking months and years to complete instead of days and weeks. I think it'll be really interesting at the end to refer to earlier posts to see how things have evolved.

I asked Jonathan to record a short video for me for the conference and that was the first thing I showed the audience:

Then I explained what the project is about. In a nutshell - I was sat in my flat alone one night supping a beer and realised how bloody boring I can be sometimes. Why don't I chat to others a little more?

Usually at this point I'd get up and do a presentation but I didn't really want to do that. I knew most people would do that during the day, and I do it everyday at work, so I thought I'd play a short video that explained the project a bit. It's only a few minutes long and you can see it here:

It went down pretty well ,and I sat down and enjoyed the other speakers.

So, if there's anyone you know that can help me please point them toward the site and ask them to get in touch.

Really being boring

So I'm very lucky and I think I'm going to be speaking at Boring 2010.

[It's very difficult to articulate thoughts about the day as I inevitably say that I think it'll be interesting. And I think it will. But I also hope it's boring. Very boring.]

That's because I think boring things are interesting.
Thats because I'm a Planner.
That's because to be a Planner you should find most things interesting.

So there you go. The room is probably going to be full of marketing type people who will be entertained by most of things on offer. So if they find it interesting, are they the wrong target market?
No idea.

Anyway, on with the point of the post.

What should I talk about?

I have a few ideas and whenever I mention them to friends they always say the same thing: "Oh... they sound pretty interesting." Which in most circumstances, is a good response. But not in this one.
So i think I might open it up a bit.
I might. I might not.

Below are a few of the ideas I've had on what to talk about.
I'll probably decide the night before with a single malt helping me choose which is the 'best' - although I don't know what 'best' means in this context...

Idea 1: Things you think are interesting on holiday, but most definitely aren't.
The snap of the local monkeys running on rocks? The video of the local bloke weaving a basket? Who cares, frankly? Yet we've all got them. Join me on a visual journey of the most boring moments from my travels.

Idea 2: Explaining 'boring' using marketing diagrams.
We marketers love diagrams. Be it brand houses, onions, pyramids or Venns. By using a range of marketing tools (and maybe quoting the same old people everyone else quotes) I'll explain why everything, in its natural conclusion, is really bloody boring.

Idea 3: The places around the world I've run, and the things I've noticed.
When I travel I usually take my running kit. I sometimes map where I run. I'll take you on a virtual run around places like Seattle, Vancouver, San Francisco and Northumberland. You'll hear the stories! You'll smell the sweat! You'll be bored to tears.

Idea 4: Things people say with accents that I like.
I love accents. We all have them. I love it when certain people with certain accents say certain words. Really makes me chuckle. This will be a sample of those people making me laugh while you sit there, bored out of your brains.

Idea 5: Things I do instead of writing my novel.
Like every egotistical advertising type, I think I'm a novelist. I'm in the process of writing a novel at the moment... about advertising and capitalism obviously. I love working on it. Except I'm always more interested in other things. From washing up to straightening the cable on my iPod shuffle... you'll be bored to the back teeth listening to them all.

Idea 6: Something else.
I'm sure a few wee drams of Yamazaki 12 year old will help me think anything is boring.

Let me know if there's anything you'd really like to hear me talk about... and I'll make sure I don't do that one.

Hopefully see some of you on the 11th? Say hello if you're there.

Trading Up

So I'm pretty lucky, really.

I've managed to have my salary increase pretty steadily since I've been working.
In 1999 I started my first job and I was earning £12,500 as a graphic designer/ multimedia designer. I've been working since (beside one small bout of unemployment a couple of years ago) and my salary has moved along with me and reflected by growing experience and skill set.
No different to everyone out there I suspect. (If you're still earning the same salary you where 11 years ago I'd love to know - that's a post in itself.)

I'm not the kind of person that is extravagant with money... at least on the things lots of other people seem to spend their disposable cash on. I don't spend loads on fashion, I don't have a car, I don't have any kids, I don't own a property (so I don't spend money on furniture, decorating and new crockery) and I don't go out for £200 nights out to superclubs. (Bloody hell... I'm not as boring as I sound I promise.)

So where does my disposable cash go?

Well, I like to travel. So I spend a lot of money on flights and hotels. But, besides that it's tricky to actually say where my money goes.

I was thinking about this at the weekend and I realised something.

There's the old adage that you'll always spend what you earn, and it's certainly true for me. But is that because I spend more money more often on the same things, or because I do things the same amount but in a more expensive way?

In short - have I traded up with quality or quantity? Or a little bit of both?

(Ignore the heading there - that's from a different chat on the other page)

You see, in the past I could afford to do what I like to do (a few beers, a simple meal) a couple of times a week. I'm lucky enough now to be able to do that most nights of the week if I so choose. So I've chosen quantity - I do the same kind of thing more often.

I go to a pub which isn't the cheapest one in the area. I could go to a Wetherspoons every night if I wanted but I don't. I also eat in restaurants quite often. We're not talking Claridge's here, but we're not talking a greasy spoon either.
So I've also chosen quality - but quality that's not prohibitively expensive.

So I think I'm in the two sections to the right of that Venn diagram. The right hand side and the centre.

But what about the left hand circle? What about doing more expensive stuff less frequently? Stuff that is prohibitively expensive. So much so that I can only afford to do it once a week or so?

Let's do some crude sums. Let's say my normal week at the moment costs me £200. That'll cover a few beers, a few cheap meals and little bits and bobs here and there.

Right - now let's say that instead of spending that on 3 or 4 evenings out I have one night a week where I spend £200. It'd be completely different to a normal night out for me.

Maybe I'd eat in a Michelin starred restaurant, get a cab there and back and have a nightcap in a private bar. (This is probably the lifestyle most people lead in our industry...)

Well, I'm gonna do it and give it a go. I'm going to have a normal week, document what I've spent my money on and try to track my 'happiness' - if that's possible. I'm then going to have a 'new' week where I stay in 5 or 6 nights, then have a premium night out and see how they differ.

I suspect the answer is obvious. There's a reason I live as I do - because I like to do it. But I also suspect doing something different will make a lovely change.

What I'm also going to do is track the brands I come into contact with. Which brands sit where in the Venn diagram above? Which will I experience on my normal nights? On my premium night? Which will I see in both? I'm going to look at their sector, tone of voice, their design and price points.

I think it'll be quite interesting.

What agencies can learn from Crimewatch UK

My name is Mark and I'm addicted to Crimewatch UK.
It's not information I usually volunteer to a people at a party, but I think there are some learnings for agencies if they care to sit down and watch Crimewatch.

Crimewatch lives and dies by its results
On every edition of Crimewatch they have an update on previous results. Beyond that, they even have an update 45 minutes after the programme has aired. Pretty bold that when you think of it. How many agencies share their results that quickly, that regularly?
And it's bound by a simple equation. If it doesn't prove its worth it won't be kept on TV.
Some agencies wouldn't do this for a couple of reasons: 1) They don't add value to their clients business on a regular basis; 2) They don't track results effectively.
Agency learning: If you can't constantly prove your worth, your client will wonder every day if you're still adding value.

Crimewatch has had the same challenges as Planning
Crimewatch was launched in 1984. At first, there was a lot of suspicion of it from police forces. They didn't want to take part in the glorification of crime for the sake of TV ratings. When it became apparent Crimewatch could genuinely add value to the police, it was embraced and has gone from strength to strength.
Planning came about in the late 1960s. At first the ad industry didn't really know what Planning was and how it could add value to its output. Some were skeptical - some still are - about the value that Planning can add to the output of an agency. However, some of the most successful agencies are now the ones that think about problems in unique ways, and the Planning sector seems to be picking up greatly.
Agency learning: Planning adds value, and if you get rid of Planning during a recession, you'll eventually realise your output will suffer. (Seen the stories in the industry rags recently about there being little magic around?)


Crimewatch is embracing new media channels
When it launched in 1984, Crimewatch had one media channel - TV.
Now it's embracing digital as it's the perfect channel for it. It's quick to update, dynamic and perfect for multimedia content. You can see previous cases online, engage with Crimewatch online and see how older cases have been solved online.
Like any brand with a decent media budget, they will still have TV at their heart of their comms (to reach lots of people) but they've done a great job in building from that and amplifying their content digitally.
Agency learning: Use relevant media channels for the job in hand, not the best media channels to maximise profits.

Crimewatch speaks to its audience in the perfect TOV
Crime isn't a nice thing. Whether it's a purse grab on a pensioner, an arson or a murder - it's not very nice. When talking about crime there's a very fine balance needed between being too sensationalist (and thus not being taken seriously by the police - the client) and being too factual (and thus being too boring for the audience - the target consumers).
Crimewatch gets this balance spot on.
They give enough facts to get the buy-in from the police and they have an art direction that gets buy-in from people watching. This leaves them with a happy client and a target audience that are engaged.
Agency learning: Find the balance. Don't produce average work just to please the client, and don't do amazing work the client doesn't want. It'll end in tears.

Crimewatch is truly co-creative
Without the audience participating in numerous ways, Crimewatch would fail. Whether it's witnesses or people calling in, engaging with the target audience is key to its success.
There is a lot of talk in the industry about new business models at the moment. Lots of people talking about engaging with target consumers more often and having target consumers working collaboratively with agencies. A lot of it is just talk. They're saying that to get press and they'll revert to a typical agency model because the people at the top don't want their power to be questioned by mere mortals. Some, however, may be brave enough to do it.
Agency learning: Having the target audience at the heart of your proposition can only be a good thing. If it means getting rid of relics, get rid of them. The world is changing and they're not.

Don't have nightmares. Do sleep well.

The evolution of calling someone

I had a random thought the other day. (Nothing new there).

How has our interaction with a telephone evolved over the years?

So I though I'd draw it up:

1) Rotate an arm, get someone to unplug and plug stuff in.
So you'd be there. You wouldn't have any numbers on your telephone. And it didn't have any power. So you'd grab the metal arm, spin it around for a second, and be automatically connected to one of these lovelies:

 

They would ask you where you would like the call routed to. Not an individual's name, but a town name and number. They would then unplug a cable from one hole and plug it into another hole.

"Hello?"

2) A spinny circular telephone
How technology brings democratization and efficiency!

Next up was this bad boy:

 

By using this I could negate the use of an operator (if I knew the number of the person I was trying to call). I pop my finger into a hole and spin it around. Wait a second for it to get back into place, then spin it again. Quite nice really. Unless you wanted to call 999 (emergency services in the UK) as this took ages. Ring the number, and you're there...

"Hello?"

3) Press some big buttons, far in.
Wheels are good, but buttons are cool. And quicker.

This one was simple. Get your number and press a button. You could physically feel when the button was far enough down to make the connection. An audible click too.

Press some numbers - more and more were being used now as more people had a telephone - and you're away...

"Hello?"

4) Pressing small buttons, a little way in.
This was on two fronts: mobile and fixed.

It seems people didn't like buttons that had to be pressed in about 8 inches, so a more subtle button was devised. This was partly because switches had evolved a lot and a huge mechanism wasn't needed any more.

Remember this one? (My first mobile phone, this one...)

As well as requiring less effort to activate the button, the button itself was much smaller. And the letters on the buttons started taking on more use with the introduction of text messages. So you were pressing the smaller, easier buttons a lot more often. They had to make them comfortable for that reason alone. A nice smooth contact, not a mechanistic clunky one.

"Hello?"

5) "Call. Paul. Hadfield. Paul. PauL. PAUL. Hadf... forget it."
Voice recognition. Not a favourite of mine, but loved by a yuppie.

No fingers at all needed. Which means you didn't need the physical phone near your face. This was when hands-free kits were introduced. Setup your phone to remember a sound which activates a call. However, don't record in your posh voice and then try and voice activate in your normal voice...

"Hello?"

6) Sweep, tap, tap.
Touchscreens. Look great. Lots of opportunities but very delicate.

Very little pressure needed. And with the potential to use multiple fingers, swipe, tap and hold all there you have a veritable smorgasbord of opportunities to draw silly shapes.

On the iPhone you sweep across, then tap a few times. That's all pretty boring.

Why hasn't someone devised an app where you have to draw a funny shape to call someone? Sure tapping is easier, but it's not much fun is it?

Words in songs

So the other day I decided on a bit of impromptu unscientific research. Isn't that what us planners are all about? Thinking about things, and doing them? Maybe to pull up some surprising results?

So, I randomly selected 3 songs in a few different areas thus:

And I then nabbed the lyrics and whacked them into wordle - you know, just for fun. These are the results:

The results: As you'd expect. Bands seem to name their songs after a key lyric or theme. Nothing surprising at all. None the less interesting for that, mind...

Obligatory new job post

Social Editorial

(Just tweeted this but wanted to chuck it up here for future reference.)

Has anyone else noticed how often people are linking to old news on the BBC website?

The two stories that those tweets link to are from 2005 and 2008 respectively. The top one involves a hungry woman, the second one is about a typo on a sign:

(I took this screengrab half an hour or so ago)

Indeed if you look at the frequency of sharing of these stories here and here, you'll see they're becoming very popular again - as I guess they were at the time.

I find this very interesting. You see, in the past, to find out old news like this you'd have to go to a local library or the British Library. Newspapers and TV news only carried current news. Now, these news organisations are not only carrying current news, they're archiving old news and allowing us instant access to it.

Their editorial teams may still be organising the news in the order they deem fit, but the readers are influencing which news is becoming more popular.

In essence, they're telling us what to consume, but we're finding what we want regardless of what they tell us is the most important.

It's Social Editorial.

Past: Editorial decides order of news + Old news not easily obtainable by public = Importance of news decided by editor.

Now: Editorial decides order of news + All news archived = People choose most important news.

Interestingly, this only seems to be the BBC website - the Times and Guardian look as you'd expect - most recent news being the most consumed:

Kind of/ Sort of

There's something I read on Russell Davies' blog a while back which encapsulated something I'd been thinking about for a while but couldn't find the correct words to explain.

Here he talks about how the word 'literally' has taken on a different meaning in the English language. It's something me and friends laugh about all the time, and our tipping point was when Ray Mears said his hands "literally on fire" when he woke up one morning when carving a birch bark canoe.

I use the word a lot myself, but I hope that some people see the sarcasm intended by it...

A similar trait for me is when people raise the inflection of their voice at the end of a statement.

Traditionally raising the inflection is a signifier of a question, and I think the reason a lot of people do this is because they're not confident enough to make a statement without seeking some agreement from others within the group. It can also be used as a way of seeking understanding at the end of every sentence.

(And it seems I'm not the only one that gets slightly annoyed by it.)

Well, I think there's a (relatively) new kid on the block. You see, I think some people kind of make statements a lot without sort of being confident enough to do it without adding caveats.

Kind of, and Sort of. Two things that, if you listen for them, crop up hundreds of times a day.

I've noticed this in professional circles a lot. Whether it be a creative review, a client meeting, a pitch or people giving presentations at conferences - people use these words, rely on them in some cases, all the time.

Why do they do this? Well, similarly to above I think there are two main reasons.

1) I think people think on their feet a lot, and make a statement before their argument is fully formulated. I like this, and I do it a lot. 

I like it because when you talk loosely about stuff, without pinning it down to definite specifics, you can inspire someone else to come up with something similar but different. So I use the words in this sense in creative reviews, for example. It's a good way to talk loosely about things. But, you can't do it when you need to give a definitive answer...

2) I think people don't want to put their heads on the block. By using 'kind of' and 'sort of' in this sense, they're not making any definitive statements, they're explaining some loose ideas. All the time. And sometimes you need to be definitive.

When I studied architecture I used to have crits. I'd pin up all my work, and anyone could come along and ask me a specific question about any part of my designs and I'd have to have an answer. That was great practice for being under pressure in public situations, and it was also very good for being able to grasp some relevant reasoning from the back of the brain quickly. Sometimes this reasoning wasn't 100% fully tested, so I had to caveat it... sometimes with an inflection on the voice, sometimes with honesty ("I'd have to confirm when I've got more time, but I think...") or I'd use 'kind of' or 'sort of' to explain my thinking in a loose manner that was neither incorrect but (with hindsight) probably didn't nail the answer. I was using it because I wasn't being confident enough with my answer.

I think in the marketing and advertising industries in particular, there's a real reluctance for people to want to put their balls on the table and make a definitive statement.

And this isn't just agency-side. Clients too need to make definitive decisions and live or die by them like agencies need to. There are a lot of clients that don't want to make key decisions - they will brief them into the agency and let them make the key decisions. If you ask an agency to do lots of things because you don't really know specifically what you want, then you'll get something back that hasn't had many decisions made, or the wrong decisions made.

Put a 'kind of' brief in; get a 'kind of' answer out.
Put a confident, concise brief in; get a good, relevant answer out.

So next time you're in a meeting with a few people, listen how many times they caveat their thoughts. It's a lot more than you think. I know I use 'kind of' and 'sort of' sometimes when I don't want to make a definitive statement - and I'm going to try and stop it.

Train ticket confusion

It's been a while since I had a service-related rant on here. That's probably because I've mellowed a lot recently, but also because I've been well looked after by the brands I've invested my time and money into.

National Rail and TfL are the brands have the fame of having ended that.

This is a train ticket I bought from a machine at Tunbridge Wells train station yesterday:

I used a ticket machine to buy it because there was no-one in the ticket office on the side I was at. There were people checking tickets, but no-one selling them.

As I was going to Farringdon, I pressed the button labeled: Farringdon Underground. Now, to me, this means I get to Farringdon using the underground, thought no more about it and put the ticket in my pocket. The ticket cost me about an extra £4 on top of a single train journey so I presumed that was for a tube journey.

I get to Cannon Street (the destination of the train) and try to jump on the Circle Line to Farringdon. When I put the ticket through the gates to get onto the underground, it beeps and I get the familiar 'Please Seek Assistance' red message. Thinking the ticket had bent in my pocket, I go to a guard nearby. He looks at my ticket...

"You can't use the underground with this ticket, mate."
"Eh? No underground? But the ticket is for Farringdon Underground."
"Yeah but it says here 'no underground' - see?"
"Oh yeah. I didn't notice that... but why is the destination 'Farringdon Underground' then?"
"Maybe you should have got the direct train there and not used the underground."
"There is no direct train."
"What about Thameslink trains?"
"Well there is one, but the National Rail Enquiries site told me to get the underground. There was a half hour wait to change trains."
"Erm..."
"It's not a problem, but can you see how confusing this is? If it's confusing me - and I've lived in London for a long time and speak English as a first language - then surely it'll confuse tourists?"
"Yeah I guess so... erm... want me to let you through the gates?"
"Will I be able to get out at Farringdon?"
"Your ticket won't work so you'll have to speak to the people there."
"I'll have to go through this again?"
"Yeah."
"No thanks - I'll pay again and use my Oyster."

So that's the story: A ticket that says 'Farringdon Underground' means you can't use the underground. Confusing eh? Whatever happened to explaining things in a simple manner?