Right-Half Chow

Just call us, or don't...?

New spot for Centraal Beheer, a different twist than the classic films but it probably works just the same. You could say that it doesn't convey the right message (as in: you get in trouble, we'll help you out) but that really doesn't matter. It reeks of creative team's wet dreams though, but that shouldn't be a bad thing...

Feldwick supports the Gorilla

Not literally, but this fantastic presentation is probably the bast case I ever heard for the Cadbury beast. And as it stands, the case is probably helped by it's absence, as every discussion about the intellectual meaning of the gorilla immediately demeans the idea and it's impact. 

In short: Stop talking about emotion in advertising and start putting some in there...

Paul argues that the 'message-model' we currently use to develop communication ideas should is faulty. First of all because experiments have taught us that people almost never make decisions based on rational equations. Sure, we may use a lot of post-rationalization, and we can come up with explanations about our behaviour towards brands but the real dealclencher is often some kind of 'instinct' or gut feel.

Things like these probably feature heavily in every agency's presentation these days (I have the 'emotion leads to action while reason leads to conclusions' slide ;-) but how come we have such a hard time letting go when it comes to really changing the way we look at and develop advertising ideas? Feldwicks answer (but get your lazy butt over there because there is so much more to read):

Let me start with the first question. I think it appeals because it fits a general cultural myth in our society of rational man, that we make better decisions as a result of conscious thought. Now interestingly that turns out frequently not to be the case, but it's something that we rather like to believe.

It also fits very well into rational organisations where order, analysis and control are always assumed to be the best ways of getting things done. It makes it easy for us to have a process for creating ads which resembles the division of labour on a production line. So we have the strategy, and then we have the idea and then we have the execution and so on. And I think we also like it because it positions the ad business as a bunch of honest salesmen. Rosser Reeves liked to boast that 'there are no hidden persuaders, advertising works openly in the bare and pittiless sunlight.' And in fact this image of the adman as the salesman tells us a lot about where the message myth originated from.

He then goes on to use the theories of Paul Watzlawick to formulate a potential answer. There's a great idea in there about the difference between analogue and digital here (digital being more explicit and clear, not the digital 'do you want to be my friend I'll send you a sheep' kind we know right now).

During the worst days when I started out as a planner I sometimes felt that it was all kind of a scam and that our contribution to advertising didn't reall matter in the end: it was just the guy who stole the best jokes and who could tell them with the most charm who won.  Whether the joke was irrelevant or really told something about the brand did not really matter.

In hindsight that might not have been that far from the truth, apart from the fact that it is not that negative and uncontrollable. As soon as you drop the 'what does this have to say' line and you start talking about 'what do people need to feel or think about as a result of our actions' you get another discussion.

But then it's never that easy, because we always feel the need to substantiate any emotion we put in our ideas, and you're back to square one. And we are all convinced it needed to be single minded and direct as well, which doesn't really help the case.

All the more important the preliminary analysis becomes: what is the real problem we are trying to solve here? What emotions and associations already exist for this brand, and how might they be changed or turned in a more favourable way?

And again: this proves that a solitary planner cannot come up with the goods, you need a strong creative reflection to create the necessary feedback loops to make this process work. Not whiny 'just tell me what we need to say' teams but people who think about the effect they have on their audience and the way they can steer this through various channels. 

And one of the best things about the article: monkeys are funny and make for effective advertising.

Quit in style

What is it about 'going out with a bang' that makes this so alluring. As I was looking at Quit In Style I went back on a search for older lottery spots that do just this... This is one of the first I remember hearing about:

And then there was the 'Mulder' ad from Saatchi Amsterdam (even though it's not technically happening at the workspace), crappy version though, can't seem to find anything better on YouTube:

It does say something about the way we relate to our jobs and it's tried and tested fodder for creatives:

The Finger from Gomez on Vimeo.