August, 2009

advertising / strategy — 8 Comments
26
Aug 09

Return to the dark side

Market-Research-Chart

Is this permitted under the Geneva Convention?

Got quite a few comments and emails about the previous “dark side” post. Gee, and I thought I had the silliest story about focus groups. To clarify: my problem really isn’t with testing, it’s with the institutionalization of testing. The big tech companies tend to burn research into the process, which means that no work goes unmolested. More agile companies either apply research on a case-by-case basis or rely on the judgment of the agency/client team instead. Brazen, I know. But line up the work and see whose creative is better.

In some corporate cultures, the marketing people simply can’t get a campaign blessed by superiors unless it’s already been blessed by research. This is done to ensure that the creative delivers the message, and to ensure that “bad work” never runs. In my opinion, the latter is not only subjective, it’s extremely defensive. It indicates a core belief that mistakes are forever, and that smooth sailing is more important than shooting for greatness.

Here’s a shocker: throughout some of Apple’s more successful years, we never tested a single print or TV ad. I’ll deny it if you ever repeat this, but we did air a few clunkers along the way. Amazingly, the company did not go under, customers did not mutiny and no foreign countries invaded as a result. We simply pulled the ad that didn’t work and ran one that might do better. That’s because we had a client who believed that the more zealously you guard against failure, the more likely you’ll achieve it.

advertising / creative / strategy — 12 Comments
21
Aug 09

Driven to drink

Today’s topic has nothing to do with technology. It’s about marketing, plain and simple. Here’s a video that’s simple — but light years from plain. It’s from Johnnie Walker, and if you haven’t seen it already, you must carve out six minutes of your day for it. I’m completely jealous of this spot and humbled by the power of it. Unassuming, authentic, seductive, cool, gorgeous, stick your own adjective here. To me it’s just more proof (as if we needed any) that a simple idea is the most powerful force in marketing.

Of course once I’m past all that, the ad guy in me immediately starts wondering “how the hell did they pull this off?” Had it been dirtied by any obvious production trickery, it wouldn’t be half as effective. But every detail is perfect: the writing (beyond magnificent), casting, acting, timing, music, production values — it meshes together so seamlessly, the wonder of it almost goes over your head. Almost. Bottom line on this one: I’m not a drinker, but after I saw this video I felt like going out and buying a bottle of Johnnie Walker. I ain’t kiddin’. This stuff any good?

Update 8/23 11:55am: a big thanks to Perry Schaffer for supplying the credits. This is the work of BBH London — and Justin Moore now becomes my god of writing.

Update 9/1 2:38pm: found this interview with director Jamie Rafn. Fascinatin’.

advertising / strategy — 7 Comments
20
Aug 09

Tales from the dark side: testing

That guy on the left? He thinks your ad could use a little pep at frame 22.

Uh oh, that guy on the left has an issue with Frame 16

With all that gushy love stuff in my last post, I feel a need to dredge up some painful memories to make up for it. This is what I call “fair and balanced.” So today’s topic will be that longtime nemesis of creativity: testing. We should start by grudgingly accepting that testing is just a fact of life with certain clients. However, one thing we should never accept — grudgingly or otherwise — is the misuse of testing. This not only kills great work and depresses people, it’s a horrific waste of money.

To make your blood run cold, I have a favorite example. (Kindly relive your own nightmares by adding your comments for the amusement of all.) Not sure if it’s still the case, but for a long time Intel had a large in-house group that specialized in this dark business. Their mission was to unrelentingly test around the world to make doubly-triply sure that Intel’s advertising convinced everyone and offended no one. Creative ideas were tested no less than three times: at the concept stage (to determine which ads to run), after production (so we could tweak before going public) and after the ads had already run (so we could tweak again and/or gain “learnings”). If you’re a fan of the Rack or other instruments of torture, you will especially enjoy the way they went at it with a 30-second TV spot. After viewing, individuals would be shown a series of 30 frames — one for each second of the commercial. They were asked if they could recall each frame, and in this way all 30 frames were rated on their effectiveness. Never mind that some of these frames were transitional and not exactly high points of the story. The research group would present a voluminous report, complete with suggested “improvements.” After all, we couldn’t have a spot in which the test audience was under-thrilled by the 4th, 12th and 21st frames. It was at this time that the creative team would jump to its feet to explain what most children pick up after their first viewing of Dumbo: a good movie has peaks and valleys, and the peaks don’t feel very peaky without the valleys. Intel seemed to be of the mind that if they were spending a million bucks, they should really get their money’s worth — out of every frame. Granted, a commercial does need to get noticed, but if I were an advertiser I’d be a little more concerned about what happens after the last frame. Like what kind of impression did the viewer walk away with?

The way different companies use or don’t use testing is a rich, rich topic that will likely come up often here. I’ll bet there are some really uplifting stories out there as well as excruciating ones, because (thankfully) smartness has a way of winning in the end. I’d love to hear which companies are doing it right and wrong.

advertising / creative / strategy — 8 Comments
14
Aug 09

Getting inspired by … Intel?

Intel goes creative with the Rock Star

Who sprinkled the creative fairy dust on Intel?

To be honest, I’d long given up hope that we’d ever speak the words Intel and creative in the same sentence. Intel has a track record of spending serious money on some of the world’s most dubious creative work, which is then processed and tested beyond imagination. After the embarrassing “lap dancing” campaign, the we-can-be-cool-too “multiplicity” campaign and processors singing hi-ho as they leave the factory — I wouldn’t have bet on Intel to be the scene of any creative renaissance. However, I think we have a moral duty to praise those who deserve praising, no matter how grievous their past offenses. There’s a lot to praise in Intel’s current Sponsors of Tomorrow effort. The Rock Star video (see it here) is a great idea that could easily have been made silly in production (and would have been, under a previous regime), but was obviously shepherded by some super-talented people. The concept of Sponsors has the wit and intelligence that a global power deserves. The campaign is much bigger than this video, including another great spot called Oops and an assortment of pieces for print and web. It’s all really well thought out and executed.

Intel’s new work launched back in May, which makes this review a bit tardy. But this blog is only three days old, so you have to be nice to me. The creative is the work of Venables Bell & Partners in SF, and they should be terrifically proud. I know many who have attempted to slay the Intel beast, rarely with more than limited success. Heck, I was one of them. Additional kudos go to those inside Intel who were able to push this work through, as their organization has never been structured to give great creative work more than lip service. One telling sign that something amazing is happening here is what they have done with the famous Intel “Bong” at the end of the Rock Star and Oops spots. From experience, I can tell you that this element is beyond untouchable. Even unspoken thoughts to modify it have in the past been punishable by death. Yet Venables has succeeded in presenting the Bong sung by a chorus of Intel humans on-screen. It feels like we’re witnessing the birth of a whole new Intel. It’s fantastic. There is more stuff on the Intel site beyond the video, and most is nicely written. Of course the website is a bit spotty — the business side remains dreary, some of the messaging is still rooted in the Intel of old, and the Intel product badges remain as mortifying as ever.

Zooming up to the highest level, it’s important to appreciate what work like this does for a company like Intel. For the first time in eons, people will not only understand what Intel does, they will simply think: “I like these guys.” That’s how you build an emotional bond with your customers. And that’s something Intel hasn’t done in ages.

naming / technology — 5 Comments
12
Aug 09

Shield your eyes!

On the up side, it will probably survive the coming war

Sorry, did you say this was from Acer? Or Amana?

I believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe you have the right to love the things you love. Even if the computer you love is suspiciously reminiscent of your granddad’s old Pontiac. Here we have the new Acer Aspire G Predator. (You naming enthusiasts will want to refer to it by its proper moniker: Model ASG7710-A41.) Caption contest, anyone?

Okay, so I know what you’re thinking. Ken, you elitist pig. How dare you inflict your so-called design aesthetic upon the rest of us. Good point, good point. I’m just bad that way. I realize full well that I’m not the target 17-year-old gamer. But I’m sorry, some of these things just give me a really good chuckle. Hats off to Acer: a company that strives to deliver a ton of great design — literally — in every computer they make.

naming — 9 Comments
11
Aug 09

The not-so-simple art of naming

3GS? 3G S? 3G-box-S? Make up your mind!

3GS? 3G S? 3G-box-S? Make up your mind!

You’d think that by now, most companies would understand that it’s a consumer’s world, and being normal folk, we like things clean and simple — starting with the names of the products we buy. I will be the first to admit that it is getting better. Slowly. Now we have Pre, Slingbox, even Zune (though it hurts to utter the word) that give us a name we can hang onto. But then there’s always the Samsung HT-BD7200 to bring us back down to earth (no kidding, it was one of the “best in show” at CES this year). And every so often, a company that really knows better gets caught up in its own nomenclature. Just so you don’t think I’m an unrelenting Apple apologist, take a look at what they’ve done with the new iPhone 3GS. Or is it the iPhone 3G S. Or the iPhone 3G S-in-a-box. Hard to tell even by reading Apple’s own website. See Exhibit A above: they can’t even get it straight between headline and copy.

What surprised me about this is that Apple normally employs terrific common sense about such things. When the super-thin iPod nano radically changed to the “fat” iPod nano a couple of years ago, the new name was: iPod nano. And when it dramatically changed form yet again last year, the new name was: iPod nano. Apple has always believed it’s kind of like buying a car. Every year, Audi makes a different A4, but it’s always called the Audi A4. We’re all smart enough to figure out that when we go to the showroom, we’ll get the newest model. This logic does fly in the face of some stone-etched laws of retailing, but Apple has never cared much for those laws. Of course there are times when the new product has a distinguishing feature that really sets it apart or would add some great value if it were to appear in the name — like iPod touch. That’s nice and easy. So why the S on top of the 3G? Apple says it stands for “speed” — which, strangely, has not been a big part of the advertising, and I doubt that more than a small handful of people will ever make the connection. But I suspect people would get it in a nanosecond if it were called it the iPhone video — since that feature opens up an incredibly huge new world to iPhone users. Somehow, I think we’d all have quickly “gotten it” if Apple told me that the newest iPhone was also the fastest. And we wouldn’t be left to decipher meaningless letters and numbers in a decidedly non-Apple way.

You might say I’m splitting hairs here. And I certainly am, in the sense that when your product is white-hot and the industry’s #1 object of lust, it’s hardly an issue. But principles are principles, and even the master of product naming can stumble from time to time. Fortunately, it’s easy to forgive a company that does so much cool and smart stuff, which only goes to prove the power of a great brand. You get a hell of a lot more leeway as long as you keep making us happy.

advertising / strategy — 13 Comments
10
Aug 09

Apple reveals its deep, dark secret

Apple's Jonathan Ive and one of his many children

Apple's Jonathan Ive and one of his many children

Apple’s chief designer Jonathan Ive recently made a public appearance in London with the rector of the Royal College of Art. Jony, as most know, is responsible for Apple’s amazing design aesthetic, from iMac to iPod to iPhone. It was with great interest that I read the coverage of Jony’s chat, because he touches on the reasons why Apple is Apple, and by inference, why no other company is Apple. Asked what any executive could do to copy Apple’s success, Ives’ response was: “Don’t.” He went on to explain that every company needs its own raison d’etre, and that this should drive the actions of every employee from the C-suite down. That’s when he also delivered what I think is his most brilliant insight: “Apple’s goal isn’t to make money. Our goal is to design and develop and bring to market good products. We trust that as a consequence of that, we’ll make some money. But we’re really clear what our goals are.”

Damn, I love that. I have a feeling that many out there don’t believe for a second that Apple’s goal isn’t to make money. Having worked intimately with those guys for many years, I can tell you that they absolutely do want to make money, but as Jony says, this is not their goal. Make no mistake: this is a giant, flashing-neon, ultra-critical difference between Apple and most other technology companies. Apple fundamentally believes that you don’t aim for money, you aim for excellence — and money is the result. I’m sure this is just way too idealistic for some, because the real world can’t possibly work this way. Thankfully, Apple is proof that it does. Or at least that it can.

Now let’s get back to Jony’s comment that other companies shouldn’t copy Apple. I’ll agree that every company needs its own vision, but a lot of what Apple does is a blueprint for success for any company. And there’s nothing wrong with copying that. In fact, Apple has practically published a how-to manual for over-achievement: never stop innovating, worship good design, never compromise on quality, make long-term investments in the brand and keep things simple — not just the products, but the marketing as well. Many companies set out with the same values, but are easily sidetracked by money issues, timing issues, marketing issues and idiot issues. At Apple, they will sacrifice investments already made, blow up schedules, kill their #1 products, do whatever it takes to make a better product. They understand that in the end, they will only succeed if they “do the right thing.”

In operating this way, Apple makes it clear what’s wrong with most technology companies. They want Apple’s success, but are unwilling to commit their every resource to it. They play lip service to caring about design by building a beautiful shell around a product that just sucks inside. They demand of their ad agencies a campaign that creates “a buzz like iPhone,” without understanding that Apple’s “overnight success” came only after years of being true to their core belief. As much as I love Apple, I really hope that other companies will wake up to this. I’ll buy cool stuff from anyone. What I don’t get is why, when Apple’s means of success is so visible, other technology companies don’t seem to pick it up.

strategy — 4 Comments
10
Aug 09

Microsoft & Yahoo: A bigger Also-Ran

30soft1.600There seems to be an even split of opinions on whether the Microsoft/ Yahoo agreement is a good thing or a non-thing. I put my vote firmly on the non side. Two reasons. The first is that guy on the right in this photo. He’s a windbag. I believe that when the history of his company is written, Ballmer will be known as the guy who captained the ship to exciting new depths. I honestly can’t understand why the shareholders have been so patient. The second reason is simple common sense.

People flock to innovative companies with products that raise the bar by an order of magnitude. They don’t jump ship from something they are actively loving unless the thing they love becomes less lovable — which Google shows no signs of doing. Can we be sure Google won’t somehow screw up one day and let MicroHoo in the door? Of course not. But if you look at what Google is and what they’re doing, that doesn’t seem to be a likely scenario. These guys are excruciatingly smart, open to new ideas, eager to invent and evolve. All things that Microsoft is having a tough time doing. So as a combined force, the new search powerhouse will own 28% of the market while Google cruises along with a seemingly impregnable 65%. If I were looking at those odds and comparing the two horses prepping for the race, I know where I’d put my money.

Remember, people love to be on the side of a winner, as long as the winner makes them feel happy. Google, like Apple, makes people really, really happy. They continue to attract the brainiest, most creative thinkers, they continue to devote themselves to innovation. They truly understand what we want. So they are about as likely to lose a significant share of market to MicroHoo as iPod is to lose more than 12 customers to Zune.

observatory — 15 Comments
9
Aug 09

Launch Day

rocket_2Hello and thank you for showing up. This blog is something that’s been on my to-do list for eons and I can procrastinate no longer. If you don’t know me already, a quick introduction: I’m Ken Segall, technology and advertising enthusiast. For over 20 years, I’ve been involved in advertising, product naming and strategy for some of your most loved (and maybe most loathed) companies — including Apple, IBM, Dell and Intel. (I get into a lot more detail at my website, if you’re interested). I must say, I am continually amazed how often history repeats itself — and how often history is ignored. Some of my journeys in advertising have been exhilarating beyond expectation, others were so horrifying you may have to cover your ears. I’ve spent my professional life working across the table from people as brilliant as Steve Jobs and as deluded as… well, I’ll fill in those blanks a little later.

When I hire creative people, my first priority has always been to find out if a person even likes technology. I mean, if the conversation goes that way at a party, do you excuse yourself to get another drink or do you actually get a charge out of talking about it? Just think of this blog as a party where your host keeps babbling about technology and marketing. You can always excuse yourself to visit a blog that serves better refreshments – but I hope you’ll stay and offer up your own opinions.

I’m eager to talk about the successes and failures not only in the marketing of technology, but in the technology itself. These days, we’re all responsible for what the technology companies are creating. We vote every day with our wallets and words. No topic is off limits, and I do hope we can stir up a little trouble here. Stay tuned…