Enquiring minds

SKing001edit-773824

The recent release of Stephen King’s collected writings is brilliant and – this is lost on no-one – extremely prescient.

Many of the issues that face current communicators appear to have been tackled, in outline at least, by King 30 or more years ago. We may only be able to guess what his detailed thoughts would be on the issues which face marketers (advertisers in King’s terminology) today. Although, we can bet that they’d be clear, insightful and closely argued.

In the collection, each of King’s original papers is introduced by a modern day advertising thinker. In the most part, these introductions are excellent, refining and highlighting the best of the original pieces and explaining them in today’s terms; picking out nuance and explaining terms which may since have changed usage or meaning. Rory Sutherland’s introduction to ‘Advertising: Art or Science’ is particularly funny (including the observation that ‘[…] All creative people must submit their thinking for appraisal by more rational people […] but […] this does not apply the other way around’, and Jeremy Bullmore’s introduction to the entire book is – as usual –  captivating and insightful.

Somewhat ironically, however, it is two of King’s successors at JWT who provide the only unsatisfactory introductions. In critiquing ‘The Advertising Idea’, Rosemarie Ryan and Ty Montague (President and Creative Director of JWT New York), completely misappropriate the concept of stimulus and response to mean… interactive media and then tread a somewhat clumsy course back to the primacy of the ‘The Big Idea’. Talking about the same piece Tom Doctoroff (JWT’s North East Asia Director) does an even more cack-handed job of assuming what it is he’s trying to prove. Ending up once again with the concept that Big Ideas (or Engagement Ideas) must rule the day.

Doctroff writes:

[…] ‘Those of us who master the art of idea management will thrive. That’s why JWT Asia, we have introduced “Engagement Planning”, a conceptual framwork that builds on Stephen King’s traditional thinking while bringing it into alignment with the new reality of blogs and podcasts.’ … ‘Importantly, unless engagement ideas are properly articulated, we cannot extend them across relevant media, both traditional (television, radio, print, promotion, direct) and new (websites, micro-sites, blogs, mobiles etc). […] Engagement ideas also tame the potential of viral marketing by enabling marketers to mould the brand experience on their own terms’.

What nonsense. As Martin Sorrell once said: ‘If you’re hammer, everything starts to look a bit like a nail’. And so for big creative advertising agencies, ‘big ideas’ become the solution, no matter what the problem was. But in the quote above, surely this is precisely why ad agencies have sucked so badly at communicating in non-advertising ways. Meanwhile talented individuals like Hugh Macleod out-strategise major agencies by actually thinking about how to market to networks rather than treating these new forms of communication as just more bought media. I think we can safely assume King would have looked at blogs, youtube, whatever; would have tried to understand how they work and how they can be used commercially to influence consumer perception of brand (across the who sphere of those perceptions), rather than just extend ‘traditional’ thinking where it wasn’t wanted.

Doctoroff attempts to explain how they put this into practice, ‘To underline the need for the consumer’s involvement, we have relabelled the “advertising idea” an “engagement idea,” a concept that is “bigger” than any single execution but still “creative”.’ (his speech marks).

Amongst these ‘bigger’ ideas Doctoroff includes a line for Siemens mobile phones: ‘Intelligent phone for intelligent people’, and for sports shoes in China, ‘Forge yourself’ (are those even ideas?). An attempt, if I’ve ever seen one, to systematise the solution to any advertising problem, and once which leverages only ad agencies’ best asset: creative thinking.

Of course, this is not what Stephen King wrote at all. He talks about the role of ideas in amplifying the intensity of consumer response as part of a carefully planned advertising campaign. The first part of that process is identifying what the problem to be solved is.

King himself says: “The call for original advertising ideas is not just because we want to give creative people full and interesting lives. There are two sound commercial reasons for it… Intense response and Sophisticated consumers.”

‘Intense response’ means ‘involving the consumer’ (i.e. activating the consumers brain, not just pouring ideas into it). ‘Sophisticated consumers’ is talking about about the other media the audience is exposed to and their level of sophistication in deconstructing advertising and brands.

King is always analytical – not jumping from one example to the next but asking step by step – how does this advertising work, how can it be used commercially?

Even in the 70s and 80s, King looks not-at-all for a single one-size-fits all solution to advertisers’ problems, instead encouraging planners (the job function he invented) to be the guardians of effectiveness by any means, able to mine all available data, construct their own experiments and research, and set detail measurable targets for any work that is carried out.

Instead, if we listen to the wrong end of the advertising market, its all about these mystical big ideas and all we need to do (however hard it is) is come up with one. Surely this is exactly the sort of thinking that King would have hated.

And it’s exactly the sort of simple way of thinking which I think Russell Davies identifies here. It was always about communication before, so it’s still all about communication. And that’s how we end up with all these microsites – for example – that are ‘only seen in boardrooms and award ceremonies’.

That’s why we need ‘enquiring minds’ (alongside commercial minds and creative minds of the traditional advertising partnership). There is no cookie-cutter solution to communications problems, as much as agency managers, new business people, or creative directors would like their to be, whether inside the world of advertising or not.

(As a taster I’ve posted some of the best quotes here).

Planning planning

(or ‘towards a complete redefinition on the role of the brand strategist’)

Egypt_Nil

There’s a terrible joke or riddle I still remember from school: ‘What was the longest river in the world before the Nile was discovered?’. The answer, of course, is ‘the Nile’.

The launch of the landmark Stephen King retrospective on planning poses an similar question. What was King’s job (and Pollitt’s for that matter) before they invented planning. Presumably job titles like ‘head of planning’ were, at that point, unavailable.

The answer is different for the two men. King worked in JWT’s marketing department (which appeared to involve research and the setting of strategy – so broadly the same, although presumably very differently conducted), Pollitt was an account man who’d been put in charge of research.

And a bit like ‘Hitchhikers’ guide to the galaxy’ and the secret of life, the universe and everything, ever since their job was invented, planners have been  trying to work out what it means.

King, apparently lamented planning’s obsession with constantly trying to redefine its raison d’etre (as Jeremy Bullmore is supposed to have joked, it is a major irony that a profession that spends so much time looking for insight, still can’t explain itself), his own view seemed merely to be that planing was bringing science to the art of communication and persuasion. Famously he said the role spanned ‘grand strategist’ to ‘ad tweaker’.

So what’s the new planning? How do we start defining the role, the profession of the marketer / communicator / staff member who can drive business value through product and communication strategy nowadays.

Of course, if you speak to a planner, they’ll tell you that planning is the new planning. Indeed many of the leading lights of the new discussion (Russell Davies, Richard Huntingdon) and the most interesting and exciting thinking have come from this area. But that’s bound to happen, underlying truths about communication are indeed timeless, and the biggest and most insightful brains are the ones most likely to understand the changing face of the market (they’re the ones faced with the demise of the old paradigms)

But is ‘old planning’ the same as ‘new planning’? Hardly. We all see far too much ‘old’ thinking and approach being forced into the new discipline.

Perhaps marketers will lead the charge. Well again, there clearly are some marketers (like Godin) gearing up, but it’s certainly not most of them. What about designers? What about UEs? What about ‘Persuasion Architects’? Hell, what about cartoonists? That seems an equally rich vein at the moment.

So what are the axioms of this new group?

We take as our starting point that the adversarial unilateral relationship between brands and consumers is over. We understand that great, interesting products will succeed. The acknowledge that consumer insight must inform the product itself and not just it’s messaging or communications. We understand that the consumer will decide how they value goods and services.

Iain Tait’s somewhat tongue in cheek ‘why digital is better than advertising‘ speech at PSFK contained this gem (apologies for the transcription):

[in the traditional agencies, you find] structures that have been put in place  […] to make well-understood units of advertising, that’s why you have planners, creatives and TV producers. It’s not the same structures you need for technical and cultural innovation.

But like the pioneers that brought science to advertising through planning, we must look at how we do that more broadly in a world where we no longer ‘game’ communications; where we return to designing brands that matter in its deepest sense. It will have to be someone who understands people – from meeting them in all contexts, through observing them, through understanding the latest drivers in society and culture; someone who understands the tonnes of research we can now gather constantly; someone who understands user-experience across multiple media; who understand the truths of communication and persuasion, and the limits of a huge number of media.

But let’s not try and pretend that there is one group ready to simply take the crown. There is not.

The new new

Interesting to find out (although I always knew deep down) that black is the new black (according to Jon Leach).

Several people also seem to be pointing out that old is the new new in advertising – both in terms of the before and after of mass media which Amelia and Steve (and Seth Godin) have been talking about, and tonight a fantastic set of speeches and discussions around the Account Planning Group’s book launch of the collected articles of Stephen King (the inventor of planning, who died in 2006).

stephen_king_brand_planning 

All of the speakers kept coming back to the observation that many of King’s declarations from as far back as the 60s or 70s have a frightening similarity to the sorts of the things we are saying today, even down to the language including phrases such as ‘the changing nature of consumer attention means we must examine their relationship with the brand’. Indeed the book itself is subtitled ‘the timeless works of Stephen King’.

One thing really stuck in my mind. One of the panelists at the discussion at the end of the evening said that in the paper she was critiquing for the book (each paper has a summary by a modern day practitioner), Stephen King talks about the appropriateness of the title ‘account planner’.

It turns out the term was coined in a meeting on the basis that it was a cross between ‘account handler’ and ‘media planner’. King, apparently preferred the term ‘brand planner’ and had even suggested ‘brand designer’ as an alternative. Now there’s something that couldn’t be more relevant today.

(Sample of King’s work before the book comes out later this year).