Meeting introductions, Tourette’s and the best name I’ve heard in ages

I was at a meeting the other day in which we were asked to introduce ourselves to the group. There were about ten of us, and we pretty much all knew each other, but I still got slightly nervous as my turn approached.  Why would that happen? I know who I am and where I work, so there’s not actually a lot that can go wrong.

I know some people have the fear that they might inexplicably say something offensive – just randomly say ‘penis’ or something in a temporary Tourette’s episode.  But my fear is that the person before me will have an accent and I’ll do that dreadful thing where you find yourself mimicking them.  Or that they’ll have a slightly amusing name and I won’t be able to disguise my smirk.

Which is what happened to me recently.  I swear this is true. I met a lovely German woman called Charlotte.  She was an older lady, had moved here many years earlier, and was known to everyone as Lotta.  Which is fine unless your surname is Beaver. How can you possibly respond in a seemly manner when introduced to someone whose name is Lotta Beaver?

Psychographic Profiles – Can you help?

I went to a research presentation the other day.  It shared the findings of a reasonably detailed qualitative exercise looking at refining a potential target audience for a new product launch.

There was nothing wrong with the research itself. It seemed pretty robust, gave a useful insight into the way in which people might use the product, and actually quite an interesting observation on an unexpected occasion for which the product might be relevant.

The bit that I found interesting/frustrating was the audience description.  It was summarised into a psychographic profile of the audience, detailing those key behavioural traits that distinguish them from the population at large. The researcher presented it with due enthusiasm, the client spoke about it as a valuable springboard for creative and media development, and the agencies (creative and media) looked at each other in a slightly bemused fashion.  It all kind of made sense, but there was just nothing meaningful in it.  They are the kind of descriptions that seem to mean something until you look at them a little more closely (much like the lyrics of Coldplay, the books of Deepak Chopra or interviews with Bono).  They are of the ‘enjoys foods from other countries’, ‘ family and career are both important’ and ‘enthusiastic about technology’ variety.  Which don’t really represent a springboard at all. They don’t tell you anything of substance, and they certainly don’t distinguish people in such a way that you feel you could write specifically for that audience. They’re so broadly true, so completely generic, as to be meaningless.

So I want to start a running list of useful psychographic descriptors, the things that actually describe a meaningful trait that brings a person to life.

I start with ‘men who wear Oakley sunglasses with a suit’.   And, “people who use the word ‘nifty’’

Any thoughts?

White guys rapping. In blazers. On a tennis court. Yes, this is exactly how I imagined my life might be.

It seems I may be the last person in the world to post this (according to YouTube at least 5 million got there before me). 

In case you’re wondering, I have noticed the resemblance, I do own the same blazer and polo shirt combo, and I can assure you that high tea in the parlour most certainly does, as indicated, make the ladies holler.  Beeatch.

Apparently media agency pitches are painful and time-consuming

An article in today’s Brand Republic highlights that clients find managing media pitches ‘painful’.

“More than three quarters of clients say that they find managing media agency pitches a ‘painful and time-consuming process’ but at the same time over 90% feel that it is more important than ever to get the most from the agencies they work with”.

The article is based on research conducted by Billets, a company specialising in media audits, and seems thoughtful and considered. But I got rather caught up in the first paragraph (above). There are a few observations that can be taken from this, none of which fill me with great heart.

It seems that for the majority of clients a pitch is considered the most effective means of getting the most from an agency, either, one assumes, because a pitch will deliver them an agency that can deliver more, or because a pitch is the most effective mechanism for extracting more value from an existing agency.

And it also seems that while more than 75% of clients believe it is a ‘painful and time-consuming process’ to conduct a pitch, they still believe it’s less painful and time-consuming than working with their existing agency to get the most from them.

This is slightly terrifying (as well as carrying unfortunate echoes of statistics related to divorce). Essentially, the vast majority of people would rather walk away from a relationship (agency or marriage) than work to improve it.

Why? Because they believe the failure is always the other party’s fault. And because they believe that someone else will understand them better, appreciate them more and work harder to make them happy.

Unfortunately that pretty accurately reflects my experience of clients, but, delightfully, not my experience of wives.

If Twitter was 100 people

twitter100_550

With thanks to informationisbeautiful.net (a great site, by the way), here’s the reality of Twitter.

Doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. Doesn’t mean it’s not interesting. Doesn’t mean it’s not part of the future. Just means it’s not the be all and end all.

Olafur Arnalds is very good

This is about the most relaxing thing I’ve ever watched or heard.  It’s like falling asleep in a basket of sponges.

Olafur Arnalds is from Mosfellsbær, near Reykjavík.  I want him to be a massive, angry looking guy, festooned with tattoos and piercings, ideally suffering from Tourette’s.  But I bet he’s not.

The thinking person’s bookshelf

Bookshelf

Love this speech-bubble bookshelf from Oscar Nunez. I want to buy one and use it as a frame.

Earning a place at the table

An interesting article in Ad Age from Jeff Goodby (courtesy of Martin & Michael at, appropriately, The Table).  It responds to Bob Garfield’s book ‘The Chaos Scenario’. I haven’t had the opportunity to read the book, but the Ad Age article seems to summarise its hypothesis pretty well – the advertising industry is dying, made irrelevant in a world of endlessly fragmenting media, unable to evolve as consumers, empowered by DVRs and liberated by the internet, control how (or indeed if) they engage with ‘advertising’.

Which actually sounds like a great world to me.

If there’s one thing that can fundamentally change our industry’s fortunes (and in the process significantly improve the quality of what we do) it’s the acceptance that we have to earn our place at the public’s table. The sooner we accept that we can’t buy an audience, but instead have to earn an audience the better.

The great challenge for the industry can be captured in one commonly asked question.

Right now, when we present a solution to a client the question is asked, ‘is this idea worth spending my company’s money on?’  We’ll know we have a future as an industry when the question becomes ‘is this idea worth someone spending time with?’

The new world that Bob Garfield describes is forcing this change. It requires us to stop thinking about what advertisers want to say, and instead think only of what consumers want to hear. Because only what delivers value to consumers should have currency.  What’s interesting, useful, inspiring and entertaining will completely override what’s simply there. ‘Exposure’ will be revealed for the meaningless, valueless concept it is.

Which makes this about the most exciting time to be involved in the industry.  Because we’ve always maintained that we want to be judged based on delivering something that people value. And hopefully, if Bob Garfield’s right, that time is now.

Skinni Popcorn

I’m coming to the uncomfortable realisation that whenever I sit down to write something at the moment it starts negatively.  And the last thing the industry needs is another negative voice, so, until the feeling passes, I’m going in search of positive things to pass on.

Like this – Skinni Popcorn. A great use for Twitter, bringing together all tweets relating to a specific movie, for a snapshot of the prevailing view.

images-2

A better mousetrap. And a tribute to M. Night Shyamalan.

This is a better mousetrap.  Not just better, unrecognisably better.   This is the Victor Mousetrap.

victor-mousetrap-2

This thing’s amazing. It lures the mouse in using bacon bits, before a series of three electrically-charged plates sense, then kill, the mouse. Once the mouse is dead, the ‘shock chamber’ rotates, depositing the mouse in a receptacle, out of sight of other mice that might succumb to bacon temptation but could be alerted to their impending demise by the sight of a recently expired friend.

I want M. Night Shyamalan to make a movie for mice based on the legend of this thing.

Unexplained, mice keep disappearing, their disappearance always preceded by the faint smell of bacon.  As the mouse population dwindles, one brave mouse, ostracised by the broader mouse community, a genetic freak, born with no sense of smell, represents the best chance of mouse survival.

Uniquely able to resist the bacon allure, he watches and waits. He watches the mice go in. And he waits, in vain, for the mice to come out.  He watches the man, the monster, who controls the bacon machine.  He stalks the man. He learns to sense what the man is doing, to ‘hear’ him think. He waits and he plots.  He knows what he must do.

He hears the man think. He tries to understand. He hears the man think of the woman he loves, the woman he courts, the woman he wants to make his wife. He hears the man think of her, of her fear of dirt, her fear of filth, of her fear of mice. He hears the man regard his own fear, the fear of rejection, the fear that this woman, the one, will learn that his house has been home to mice.  He hears the man think that all mice must die, must be purged, his house made clean so that she may be his.  The mouse knows what he must do. The mouse waits.

He hears the man come into the driveway. He hears him open the front door, he hears her, the man’s dream, come into the house, the clean, rodent-free house.  The mouse waits. He hears them sit down. He hears the wine pour, he hears the woman laugh, politely, as the man apologises for the state of the place. He hears the man lie, ‘I haven’t had time to clean’.  He hates the man.

He waits and he listens.  He hears the man think.  He sees the man watching the woman.  He sees the hope in the man’s eyes, he hears the longing in the man’s voice.

‘I’ve been wondering’, the man says, ‘whether you might like to…’. The mouse takes his opportunity.  He leaps onto the woman’s lap. She screams as she runs. ‘It’s a mouse’ she cries. ‘It’s a hideous mouse, it’s disgusting,’ she screams as the door slams behind her.

As the mouse also flees, the last thing he hears is the sound of the man’s heart breaking. And now the man, the monster, knows the pain of loss.

But how does the mouse hear? How can a mouse hear the thoughts of a man? Because this is the mouse.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.