Leo Burnett - Cultural Fuel

Today I received a suggestion for a site on Facebook. I do not speak french and it is from Voyages-sncf.com an internet travel agency, a subsidiary of the French SNCF and Expedia. Fortunatly everyone will understand the goal of the campaign.

The realisation follows directly the “Human Kind” Philosophy from Leo Burnett. They started with human behavior: arriving  and departing from a train station. The Human Brand Purpose: Traveling with SNCF should be kept in memory. And finally create an act, which influence the human behavior. Let’s see, but there are more funny videos.

“Bienvenue, au revoir by voyages-sncf” a summary of all clips.

Or watch all full lenght movie clips on their campaign website.

And the well not so good executed Facebook Page.

If you’re not familiar with our Philosophy: Humand Kind in about 5 minutes.

Source: wikipedia

Tweet This Post

A while back I wrote about Barry Schwartz and his “Paradox of choice”. Sheena Iyengar now takes a multi-cultural view on this. In some comparative studies, she shows how the American dogma of choice, i.e. the belief that having many options is good, isn’t all it is cracked up to be. Not just abroad, but even in the US.

First she presents results about social context of choice, i.e. how the results of choosing can be different depending on if it is an individual choice or not. Then she explains difference in perceptions of what is actually a choice and what isn’t and then uses a very heart-wrenching example how far the belief in the choice dogma can affect people who have to make tough decisions.

I believe what we can learn from this that choice, just like everything else, can become a paralytic when it is turned into a dogma. When choice has an individual or collective purpose it can be catalyst.

Tweet This Post

Recently, I’ve come across some articles about the ad industry having a sort of midlife-crisis. This is an interesting notion, as this would premise that advertising as such has a natural life that has to come to an end at some point. And after so many people already having screamed “Advertising is dead,” I am now confused it isn’t. It’s just a mid-life crisis? Folks, get our vital signs right! Also, to follow the metaphor, what exactly is the proverbial “Porsche” in Advertising’s “mid-life crisis”?

Joking aside, just 2 weeks ago Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung painted a critical picture of the industry and mentioned that ad professionals have hard time reinventing themselves and their business model.

Just like a balding 45 year old in a track-suit with disposable income looking for a souped-up convertible to feel better about himself, advertising lacks purpose.

Today, I read Warren Berger’s take on the Bogusky situation “Maybe the Midlife Crisis Isn’t Bogusky’s?“.  Being American and a bit less cynical that his German counterpart, and using the crisis as an opportunity, Warren states that agency professionals (just like Bogusky, but without the massive payout) have been looking for deeper social meaning and context for their work ever since digital technologies have put public opinion (and advertising itself) in the hands of the people. But more interestingly, Berger also makes some nice observations that in fact remind us what the real story is:

The second part of the story suggests to me that some client companies are perhaps still a bit thin-skinned when it comes to having any kind of candid discussion about serious issues. Which in turn suggests that these companies are living in the past — in a pre-social networking era when they could actually still control the public debate.

Ok. To anyone working in an ad agency, this is a pretty shared (even though somewhat of a subjective) sentiment; still, thanks for saying it on Adweek, Warren! And, by the way, this answers my previous question of what the “Porsche” is in the “advertising mid-life crisis”: Affording yourself the irresponsible, ineffective and inefficient luxury of lolly-gagging around when it comes to changing your business model, dragging your heels on changing your creative product and pretending you still live in a brand era. However, I would say this is still true for clients and agencies alike. Dependency on short-term quarterly planning, lack of deeply thought-out foresight and interupted implementation of long-term vision apparently makes it hard to think about a more efficient, unsexy hybrid car when you can still afford the 911. You won’t be able to afford the gas in a couple of years, but hey, »Après nous le déluge«.

Hence, Warren continues to point out that the ad agency’s deliverables should change: product design, launching community initiatives, revising corporate policies, etc.

Or, as we would tell our clients: We want to help you doing things, instead of just saying things. Things that create value exchange, not messaging.

For that to happen though, the role and creative product of agencies have to change. And right now, it’s a a bit of a chicken or egg problem: a) Agency leaders have to really put their money where their mouth is, and enable their shops to actually deliver a creative product that does things with people and instead of milking a defunct business model of creating messages, while b) clients have to become more confident in matters of understanding true human behavior and consequently need to start paying their agency partners for creating purpose-driven initiatives that create a qualitative difference in people’s lives. Result of this catch-22: if agencies don’t offer it, clients can’t buy it. If clients don’t buy it, agencies can’t build those competencies.

So instead of wondering what’s first, chicken or egg, all parties should focus on the chick everyone has been talking about hatching: people-driven brands that have a human purpose, not a promise. Experiences that are authentic, not tagged-on target-audience sentiments that muddy a brand’s expression more than enable a true value exchange. If both clients and agencies came together on this simple observation, Warren’s finishing paragraph would actually not be that utopian:

It might even allow the ad agency to claim some of the moral high ground as it plays a greater role in guiding companies to do the right thing — not just for themselves, but also for the world at large. Is that an overly ambitious and idealistic vision of the future of ad agencies? Maybe. But hey, when you’re having a midlife crisis, you’re allowed to dream big.

Damn right you are. It’s what you signed up for.

In fact, there are enough examples of behavior-based and purpose-driven brands out there that show it’s not utopian to steer clear of a type of cookie-cutter advertising that is either crass exhibitionsm or bland commercialism or teary-eyed sentimentalism, but rather enable human behavior in a way that works for brands and people alike.

Tweet This Post

We are often asked whether or not a Global Brand should have just one presence on Global social media platforms. For instance, should there just be one Facebook page for your company?

Facebook prefers to have global brands only have one presence, and says that multiple presences fracture brands, and there are clear benefits to having one central presence -

• Larger numbers of fan/followers and comments – which can showcase the popularity, breadth and power of global brands
• Brand Temperature - a place where the ‘Global Pulse’ of the brand can be felt
• Consistent messaging – which is more easily centrally managed
• Efficiency and scale – in that fewer, more central teams are required for development and management of assets – which can allow smaller markets to get cheaper access to better content than if they had to create it just for their market.

And bear in mind that local promotions and communications can still be done, using market-based status updates and custom tabs that allow for users to select their market and get local content – making the page “Glocal”.

Many brands, however do not choose to implement a global page, but instead (or IN ADDITION TO) use local or market-restricted pages due to complexities like

• Operations - the challenge of planning and executing across markets can be one of the biggest hurdles companies face in creation and management of global platforms, due to the organization needed to corral Brand managers across markets into a unified strategy and editorial calendar.  Along with a strong central agency, some specialist partners can help with planning and implementation.
• Moderation – who will remove offensive posts and users who abuse the page or page visitors?  Moderation guidelines must be set centrally, but we recommend use of local or regionalized community management to ensure that fluent language speakers can catch nuance and hidden needs.
• Escalation – the community management action is generally well equipped to handle escalation, but many markets do not have a Consumer Affairs group ready to be the recipients of complaints or issues from this new channel.
• Legal/policy restrictions – legal variances exist for how companies must treat User Generated Content, and these policies and restrictions are still an emerging area for legal – standards are not fixed yet.
• Product availability – users may be upset when made aware of variances in products by market.  If you have starkly differentiated product lines (Diet Coke versus Coke) or consumer segments (your product fans versus your F1 team fans, moms versus kids), a unified presence may not make sense.
• Relevant content - Good old-fashioned local relevance can be a big factor.  Including language concerns, and if local promotions are a large focus of the page, you may still have some markets not served by global promotions, which can create unhappy users.  Again, a custom tab can help in this case.

Starbucks, for example, has a global site, but offers redirects to international local sites for increased relevance.  Adidas offers a local customization page on their global page, but you can also find Adidas Running, Basketball, and other specialty sites as well.  The oft-discussed Coke maintains one main, fan-powered site, and local market sites do not appear to take advantage of any centrally built applications.

Twitter also presents challenges since localization depends on users turning on location settings or a full profile - a rarity on that platform.  But that will be covered in another post!

Tweet This Post

Stretching the idea that your average person is gunning for an endorsement deal from their products and services - Shortbord launches today!

It has good integration with Twitter and Facebook (but who doesn’t?) but I’m not sure that the people who do these kinds of things for money are really the right people to represent brands.  How many times would you read the status updates of someone who was more interested in getting paid for their endorsement than connecting with you?  For how long would they remain your friend?

For Cause Marketing, I think it has potential, simply because the updates are less annoying and interruptive, but Brands should remember that in order to get good ‘friends’ online you have to _act_ like a good friend.

via Thrillist

Tweet This Post

Our colleagues in Portugal had a great idea for Amnesty: Why not make a social network where people can watch Tyrants, Dictators and other scum? Simple, cheap and and effective.

Tyrannybook.com launched and immediately was down because of the response of so many liking the idea. Hopefully the site has been moved to a more powerful server by now.

Tweet This Post

I just read an interesting article from Augustine Fou over at ClickZ about Digital being at the root of modern advertising, and it seemed to resonate with some discussions we had been having in the Frankfurt office over the last few years.

The point is not that everything begins and ends with a website/banner/facebook page, but rather the cultural impact made by the rise of all our digital options for living.  And it’s not that people live their lives online, but rather that people use digital ‘properties’ to do so much STUFF in their lives, even when they don’t think they’re ‘online’.  You use digital technology when you pay for gas with a card.  You use digital when you check the movie times on your phone.  You use digital when you Google the actors in a TV program you’re watching. You use digital when you watch a screen in a store while you wait to check out.  Your TV is as digital as most computers are.  It’s kind of everywhere, and you relate to it and use it, even if you’re not actively searching for information about a product or service.  Ultimately, there is more and more human behavior that is linked, or tracked, or enabled by digital properties. And due to the Request/Receive nature of digital properties, this behavior can be leveraged to understand needs and desires.

The value of this information about behavior (digital breadcrumbs left in our modern world) can’t be overemphasized.  Integrating digital at the core of marketing activities allows for unprecedented analysis of data related to how people interact with digital properties, making the case for more efficient and effective work, especially when it is designed from the beginning to take advantage of human insights and behavior.

I’m not sure I buy that Digital is the center, but I prefer to think of it as a key element of the modern human landscape, rather than a channel, for sure.

Via: Stephane Grunenwald @sgrunenwald on Twitter

Tweet This Post

A colleague just forwarded me a great online tool from Dr. BJ Fogg from Stanford about the different ways that behavior can change - expressing the subtle but important ways that change is approached - whether it is new behavior, the duration of a familiar behavior or the cessation of a behavior.

Interesting stuff, and useful for building strategies that can affect behavior through the understanding of exactly what you’re trying to accomplish.  We typically include lots of information about the behaviors we are trying to impact, but this grid assists in clarifying the comparison of the change in context of other behaviors.

Via Kristin A. Hayward

Tweet This Post

Most of you have probably seen the recent Steve Jobs presentation which included a few minutes on their planned iAds platform. (watch it here, starts at 44:00).

Now, apart from this being a pretty cool thing for everyone involved who wants to make ad money (marketers, developers, agencies) there are three things which come to mind:

1. Do conventional online ads experiences really deliver no emotion and won’t iPhone ads have the same problems with click through?

Okay, first off all, unlike Steve says, I believe there have been many examples of emotional ad experiences in online ads. The real question, though, has always been: are they all relevant in the user’s context? As always, people hate being interrupted in what they are doing when they go to an online portal. So how will this be different on iPhones?

Sure, click-throughs will improve because there is now a seamless transition in the app to ad and back to app. However, let’s not muddy the issue: this is just fixing a problem apps have while online portals really don’t so much (You can easily go back to the portal from an ad). Still, the human behavior of not wanting to interrupted in my task flow by advertising will probably stay the same. And apart from the fact that you always have your phone with you and it’s location-aware, it’s not like iPhones ads (and the examples he showed) are much more interactive or interesting than stuff you used to get on a Microsite anno 2000. This is solely a function of how creative the brand or their agency wants to make their app (or in old days, microsite) experience.

I think Steve just pulled the “more emotional” trick to make iAds look more interesting to brand managers, who are driven by the notion that Advertising has to be emotional and creative. Also, he is attaching this promise to an amazing track record in creating new platforms for brands to which no brand manager can say no, especially because there is a lot of frustration in the online marketer community on online metrics and really understanding what to do. So, if he can make his community happy through delivery of a simple to use platform,  he will make a lot of money. (see point 3).

2. Do people really not use search on iPhones when they really want to find something?

There is no doubt that when you have a content and subject matter related need that is covered by one of your apps, the chances are high you are going to use Yelp, Qype and the like to “search”. For that to be true though, those apps have to be highly embedded into your lifestyle. How many apps do you have on your iPhone that you don’t even use? On my iPhone it’s 80% of my apps I don’t regularly use. It’s like this: you liked the idea of them, downloaded them but you haven’t made part of your daily behavior. So, yes, for apps you use regularly use this works well. But for free apps (mainly games) getting people to branded content is still just advertising (see point 1).

So I really don’t know how that argument even helps with Steve’s case. I doubt people who search stuff in a topic area that is not embedded in their lifestyle that will first try to find a matching app in the Appstore, make the purchase decision, evaluate the app and then use it to search.  Therefore, for everything else people will use Google Maps on the go. Rest assured, we are going to do some UX research to check this out.

And to be absolutely blunt: aren’t apps just like web portals and iAds just like online advertising? Think about it. When you go to your few favorite news, sports, and topic of interest portals it’s like your few favorite often used apps on the iPhone. And Ads? Well, there’s ads that try to interrupt on those portals you go to. And now, they will be everywhere on the iPhone. Brilliant. Advertising has paid the livelyhood of all mediums so far:  print magazines, radio stations, tv stations, and online portals. In the future it will pay for app development.

Only difference is: this channel is owned only by Apple, the way to create for the channel is owned by Apple, the delivery and distribution platform is owned by Apple, and guess what? The media agency is Apple (see point 3). Well done.

3. Only 60% revenue goes to the application owner?

Imagine you had to pay 40% to your media agency for letting you use their media buying, and imagine that this media agency doesn’t actually have to do anything for you because you will still need to actually still do the stategy, creative and program the frigging ad. Wow. Granted, iPhones users right now still represent are very interesting and affluent target audience. But still, 40% percent?? If anyone can pull this off, it’s Steve Jobs.

So yeah, old wine in new skins, where the new skin is a single platform business and license to print money. Genius.

Tweet This Post

In their article Does Social Media Change Your Agency Relationships? I think the author missed the point.

The article (but more specifically several comments to the article) opines that marketers might need to bring aspects of social media marketing in-house because the agency’s role is to ’spin a marketing message’.

Really?  How old-fashioned is that?  Is this the 50’s?  Is this Mad Men?

I’d agree that the emergence of social media changes relationships, but to say it’s about whether or not your Advertising Agency is involved is to miss the larger change.  Wouldn’t we have to agree as an industry that social media has changed how COMPANIES can/should/must operate?  Not just Agencies, not just Brand Marketers, not just Customer Care and not just PR folks. Ultimately, the smartest marketers and agencies understand that Social is not a channel or even just a strategy, but a reality about how humans live their lives, and sometimes that reality includes Brands. That’s not to say that Brands have to participate in conversations - they don’t.  But realistically the conversation may happen with or without the Brand being a part of it, and therefore a chance missed to make a connection that is fundamentally different from a TV spot.  Social conversation is building relationships and co-creating with consumers, and, for better or worse, it’s a central experience for consumers now.

Brands need more than a strategy and process for what they want to do in Social.  They need partners to bring their values and benefits to life in the space, and processes built by students of Human Behavior to monitor, moderate, and participate in ways that grow and deepen relationships that people have with the Brands that they love.

But don’t get me wrong - the Brand Marketer (or the agency for that matter) that thinks they don’t have to change as well is in for a long, tough road.  In order for successful engagement to be built, the processes of vetting, judging, guiding and responding require commitment and organizational change from both sides of the Marketer-Agency relationship. For one thing, the old model of “take a few weeks to nail the statement and then we’ll run it by legal” doesn’t work when you have to react in real-time.  For another, the demands of an active community can seem like a new call center just opened up for Customer Service folks - it’s always on and they have a lot of questions!

I see it as 5 steps, with mostly shared activities:

1.  Agency(s) and Brand set the strategy, including input from all concerned parties like PR, Consumer Affairs Brand and Senior Management.

2.  The right channel, tools and voice(s) are chosen for each aspect to be participated in, and content creation loops are realized. Smart partner selection rounds out this step.

3.  Guidelines are set that push for flawless execution through whatever delivery channels.

4.  Metrics are implemented to ensure responsible and efficient use of resources (proving out the business case for the investment).

5.  Partners are leveraged to keep up with new opportunities, changes and innovations as they emerge.

The strain on Marketer’s organizations to deal with Social Media is enough without telling them to go it alone.  Why not share the load with your partners?

Tweet This Post