Clients. Let’s be honest. Sometimes they’re not the sharpest.

Two related sites that are well worth a visit:

First, read this. It’s easily the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks and something we all wish we’d done. It’s a brilliant email exchange between a designer (David Thorne) and a client. Featuring pie charts and quite a lot of swearing. (It’s possibly apocryphal, but it’s certainly funny.)

Then visit this site dedicated to more of the same. Snippets of client idiocy.  Including these two fine examples:

“Can you re-upload the photos on my site? I think they are fading from so many people clicking on them.”

A few years ago, after we finished presenting a design to a client, he removed his shoes, plopped his stocking feet up on the desk and said, “As you can see, you didn’t knock my socks off.”

The clue’s in the name – clientsfromhell.tumblr.com

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Speech Therapy

Not many music recommendations in recent times.  But here’s an album I’ve been enjoying for a couple of months. Speech Debelle’s, Speech Therapy.

To pretty much everyone’s surprise, this won the Mercury Prize in September.

It’s also the perfect support for my argument that good hip-hop is really just folk music without the sandals.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

A very bad ad telling us how very bad gay marriage is. Very badly.

Here’s what happens when a group of hetero-fundamendalists, the National Organisation for Marriage, attempt to use the medium of advertising to convince the world that gay marriage is a bad thing.  In the same way that a storm is a bad thing. And that what we have here is a storm of gay marriage. Making it quite possibly the worst thing ever.

And here’s what happens when the significantly more amusing, attractive and celebrity-rich National Organisation for Man Lady Marriage responds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYEDzOVsxA&feature=related

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

What media people can learn from taxi drivers

I flew back from Sydney last night. I spent a little bit of time enjoying the hospitality of the Qantas Club before my flight. And by hospitality I mean Campari.

I also enjoyed the in-flight service (and by service I mean Gordon’s) before having a nice little sleep. Which meant that by the time I got into a cab in Auckland I was a little…vague. Which may be reflected in this observation.

Because on the journey home I came to the conclusion that there’s a remarkable similarity between the media business and the taxi business. Here goes:

Everyone thinks they can do your job because it’s actually not very hard.

People pretty much begrudge what taxi drivers do. Most people know how to drive, so at a basic level believe they could do the job.

It’s the same for media people. Most people read, watch, browse and listen, so at a basic level believe they could do your job.

The answer is never right.

If a cab driver takes you to your destination via the most obvious route, they haven’t added any value. But if they take you via an unexpected route, they’re taking a risky option that you suspect will probably cost you more and take longer than the conventional route. You sit in the back of the cab suspicious that the other option would probably have been better.

It’s the same for media people. If a media person recommends the most obvious solution, they haven’t added any value, or, more damningly, thought innovatively. But if a media person chooses an unexpected media vehicle, they’re taking a chance on a risky option that you suspect will cost more and be less effective than the conventional choice. Either way, there’s always the sense that you might have done something else and that the other option might have been better.

Technology and costs are your problem.

People believe they should really only be paying for the driver’s time. I bet you do it. You take a 20-minute trip to the airport. It costs you $65. You think ‘that’s outrageous, that’s nearly $200 an hour he’s making’. Only he’s not. He’s running a car, paying for petrol, a GPS, a mobile eftpos machine and probably plenty more besides. But people don’t see why they should pay for that, because he needs them to do his job, so they’re his responsibility.

It’s the same for media people. Agencies pay significant amounts for research, training, premises etc, but clients don’t see why this is their issue (partly, in my view, because we keep telling them that people are our only asset). They pay for those people to work on their behalf. What we are required to provide those people so that they can do their job is our problem.

You should be able to anticipate problems before they happen.

If you’re a taxi driver you’re supposed to be able to anticipate when there are likely to be traffic problems. Two car collision outside a school on Remuera Rd at 3.06pm? You should have seen that coming. You are also supposed to know an alternative route that no one else is aware of that will allow these problems to be avoided. If you can’t anticipate these problems you have a passenger in the back unhappy because you’re obviously not very good at your job.

It’s the same with anticipating media problems. Banner for an oil company served on the same page as an article about irreversible environmental damage caused by excessive mineral exploration? You should have seen that coming. Two ads with very similar blue backgrounds on opposing pages of the Saturday paper? You should have seen that one, too. Because if you can’t anticipate these problems you are obviously not very good at your job.

What it says on the meter isn’t what it costs.

When you finish a taxi journey, what it says on the meter isn’t what it costs. There are things called ‘Extras’. That’s a word that immediately gets you offside. Extra? To what? And why? Then there are the surcharges and the service fees and it all just seems complicated and somehow underhand. It doesn’t matter whether the total cost is reasonable, it’s messy and carries the unmistakable whiff of rip-off.

It’s the same for media agencies. Commissions are awful. So are levies and monitoring charges. The simple outcome is that clients aren’t sure what they’re paying for. And clients don’t like that.

So then I got to thinking that if we are similar to taxi drivers, what might we be able to learn from them?

Be the best Taxi Driver you can.

There are some people who just want to be good at what they do. They take pride in the job and all that goes with it. While they very probably would like to be doing something else, you’d never know. While lots of media people broadly like what they do, they often wish they were doing something a bit cooler – a more senior job, a more interesting client or task – and you can tell.

It’s seldom the driving. It’s knowing when to shut up.

Most taxi drivers are adequate drivers (though we’ve all had the horror experience). It’s what goes around the driving that matters. Some passengers like to talk. Some like to listen. Some like silence. Clients are like that, too.

A clean taxi is good. A taxi with an in-seat DVD is bad.

A clean taxi suggests pride in one’s work and respect for one’s passengers. A clean boardroom and the offer of a glass of water do the same. A taxi with an in-seat DVD suggests an indulgent driver and fares that are probably too high. A retractable 52” flat screen and a tray of almond croissants do the same.

Confidence goes a long way.

I don’t like being asked which way I think we should go. But I don’t mind being told which way the driver thinks is best, and asked whether I agree.  My sense is that most clients feel the same way.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Marketing nonsense celebrated in the Bully Awards

The AdContrarian is one of my favourite sites. He (being Bob Hoffman) reserves a particular kind of hatred for the vacuous and meaningless marketing-speak that curses our industry. He has instituted the Bully Awards for Achievement in Advertising and Marketing Bullshit. It’s great stuff.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Another mildly amusing word

Asnide

Pretty much anything in brackets on this blog.

Take another look. At Remuera?

I live in Remuera.  Have done, on and off, for years.  I publicly struggle with this.  I work in advertising. So does my wife. We have two children. They wear blazers to school.  I would ideally drive a Jag. I’d be happiest when driving it to the golf course.  I’d be happier still if I were wearing a blazer. I couldn’t be more Remuera.

So as a resident I feel I’m allowed to comment on this billboard. It’s how Remuera has just begun promoting itself. Auckland is being encouraged to ‘Take Another Look” at Remuera.

I have one basic problem with it.

If the thrust of the campaign is encouraging people to look again at Remuera, doesn’t that imply that Remuera has somehow changed, that it’s different to what you might have believed?  But the visual is about as strikingly Remuera as it’s possible to get.  Ask the majority of people what they associate with Remuera and you’ll pretty quickly arrive at grey hair, weak cappuccino and pashminas. The only way this image could look more Remuera would be a set of secateurs on the table. (Though actually what it most looks like to me is a breakout session from an Aryan Genealogy Conference.)

Which, given that it looks exactly like people imagine Remuera to be, pretty much undermines the promise of something worth taking another look at, doesn’t it?

Which is all rather unkind, but does illustrate a serious point.  It’s the kind of advertising that results from well-intentioned, wishful thinking.

At a basic level I think there are a lot of brands that know exactly what they are.  But what they are is not particularly fashionable, stylish, or cool, and they have a misplaced craving to be those things.

So those brands produce advertising that betrays them.

They pretend to be something they’re not when there is actually much to be gained from focusing on what they already are.

Which is a conversation I find myself having a lot with clients.  They have an understandable desire to stretch, to want to be different. But this is at odds with the reality, because their ambition precedes their action.  So they use advertising as a way of dressing up, of pretending to be something they’ve not yet become.

Or, as in this case, inviting people to take another look at something that hasn’t actually changed.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

More mildly amusing words

A couple of new additions to the ongoing series of mildly amusing words created by adding, subtracting or changing a letter in an existing word.

Asstrology

Just describes astrology, really.

Ejaculatte (courtesy of Ben Rose)

I don’t think we really want to try and define that one.

The Gingerbread Man dissected. There are Gummi Bears and Balloon Dogs, too.

I love these. Anatomical illustrations of inanimate objects.  Pleasingly subversive and just the right kind of dark.

Illustrations by Jason Freeny available here. He does Christmas Cards, too.

Virgin Blue, Fool’s Gold and the Woods’ Principle

Most people will now have heard about Virgin Blue’s email problems. On Friday Virgin sent an email advising recipients that they had been upgraded to Gold Frequent Flyer status. Unfortunately the email was sent to the entire customer database, the vast majority of whom hadn’t actually been upgraded to Gold status.  Which meant Virgin Blue then had to send an email to everyone apologising for the error and advising that they hadn’t actually been upgraded.

Gold announcement

Gold retraction

Which was mildly annoying to those who fleetingly joined the Gold ranks, really unfortunate for the Virgin Blue team involved and genuinely depressing for those who have watched the response of the self-righteous, self-appointed, social-media jury.

It was an unfortunate and genuine mistake on Virgin’s part.  It was corrected quickly.  I doubt enough time lapsed for anyone to do anything significant in the belief they had become a Gold member (three hours passed between the two emails I received). Perhaps Virgin could have been more fulsome in its apology. And maybe describing it as an IT error might have sounded a little like the old “technical error” excuse that implies ‘it’s really not our fault’.

But I think the broader response is definitely the more interesting issue.

The first comments after Mumbrella covered the story were these:

Amy commented – I got this! And was soo excited. Totally let down when the next email arrived. I think they should have to honour these. If it was a competition then they’d be liable so why not now?

BD followed with - I agree with Amy — on my blog, I’ve even floated the idea of a class action. The very least they could do is give us all a free Lounge pass for onetime use so we can briefly enjoy what they promised was ours.

This was balanced by a more considered response, of which this response was typical:

Steph said – I think this is the perfect portrayal of the greedy people consumerism has made many. I am sure in all of your own lines of work you have experienced error and perhaps even been at fault? This was a simple technical error and as mentioned above – you didn’t earn the gold status, you had nothing ‘taken away from you’ so therefore you are not entitled to it. Move forward…

There are three points I find interesting here:

You are judged by your category

There’s no doubt that in the last few years the airline category has set reasonably low standards for customer service – cancelled flights, unhelpful call centres, dracononian booking regulations, exorbitant excess baggage charges etc etc.  Many would suggest that only airlines rival telcos and banks in delivering a consistently disappointing customer experience.

But not, in my experience, Virgin Blue.  It’s a relatively new player. It’s added a healthy competition to the market.  It’s been a bit cheeky and poked fun at the lumbering competition. It’s done what it promised to do, and made its way into countless agency ‘brands we admire’ presentations as a result.

But now Virgin’s made a mistake it’s being judged based on the disappointments of the category, not the previous behaviour of Virgin Blue.

Social Media lacks a safety valve

I bet there are a whole lot of people feeling a little foolish about how worked up they got over this. Like Amy and BD above. The people who immediately began talking about class actions, boycotts, liability and compensation.  The people who couldn’t see the genuineness of the mistake in their haste to find culprits (and clutch at personal benefit).

Which highlights the risk of Social Media. How many opinions were shared that people now wish they could recant? How many people were caught up in the groundswell, mounting the nearest high horse to express their outrage at this egregious behaviour?

There’s real danger in both immediacy and habit.  Social Media present us with this wonderful opportunity to share opinion about pretty much anything quickly and widely.  Which sometimes isn’t great when that opinion is hastily formed.

People are also very used to sharing opinions about pretty much everything. We’re in the habit of doing it a dozen times a day. The risk is that we’re losing the distinction between our thoughts on a movie and proposing class actions.  We’re in the habit of saying what we think, less inclined to think about what we say.

Because with Social Media there’s no safety valve of time, no in-built delay.  As you think it you can say it, and a lot of people, and brands, are exposing themselves.

Which is why I think it’s to Virgin Blue’s credit that it hasn’t overreacted.  It’s apologised – via email, via its website – and for the moment that seems to be it. A sensible, measured response.

Now comes the opportunity

So now what does Virgin Blue do?  As a brand it has a reputation for being honest and not taking itself too seriously.  Now feels like the perfect time for both.

Virgin Blue has the opportunity to use the category to its advantage.  Because having said earlier that its mistake was judged based on people’s expectations of the category, so too will its response be.

When it launched, Virgin Blue created space between it and the competition.  But it’s a challenge to maintain that distance. Over time the gap naturally closes – your competitors get better (often by very specifically following your example, copying your innovations) and almost inevitably you become distracted, less focused and, almost inevitably, less good.

Let’s call it the Woods’ Principle, so named for Tiger.  When he arrived on the scene he set a new benchmark for performance, based, in large part, on discipline and fitness. And others watched, learned and closed the gap. But he’s since re-opened the gap a couple more times. What I think’s interesting is that it’s often been injury that’s been the impetus for him taking another leap forward.  He gets hurt and has something to recover from.  The injury forces a response and it reminds him of what he wants to be. Injury is a powerful catalyst.

The Woods’ Principle applied to Marketing would simply say that a brand often benefits from a problem, simply because problems force a brand to focus in a way that consistent success doesn’t.   Problems are a powerful catalyst. They present another opportunity to demonstrate what makes the brand different from the category.

Which suggests that this problem could be great for Virgin Blue.  The competition had been closing the gap. This problem gives it a focus and a chance to reassert itself, to remind itself of what it wants to be. This problem could be the catalyst for proving again why Virgin Blue’s different.

To subscribe to this blog, please click here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.