John Drake

We Don't Change, We Constantly Refine

"Changing Behavior" is an enticing thing to say. Our clients say it. We say it. Everyone in our industry says it with extreme confidence. We say it because it sounds so profound yet so attainable. How many presentations have you attended where the phrase, "what we need to do here is change behavior..." appeared somewhere in the introduction?

But consumers like things the way they like things. And oftentimes this stems from childhood. Consider...:

The NPD Group just released its annual "Eating Patterns in America" report. Part of that report studied breakfasts served to children under six for the past 20 years. I got a kick out of the findings...

In the two-year period from March 2005 to February 2007, the top 5 breakfast foods served were:
1 Cold cereal
2 Glass of milk
3 Fruit juice
4 Eggs
5 Fruit

In the two-year period 20 years ago, from March 1985 to February 1987, they were:
1 Cold cereal
2 Glass of milk
3 Fruit juice
4 Toast
5 Eggs

The decline of toast and the rise of fruit is not what grabbed my attention. What grabbed my attention was what Harry Balzer, VP of NPD Group said about his survey: "Most of the foods eaten in this country are introduced to us by the age of five, and we spend the rest of our lives looking for variations of them." He went on to say:  "It proves that the driving force in our lives, more than anything else, is our past."

To me, this is a cautionary tale for anyone trying to steal share from another category. Take breakfast... Getting moms and children to switch from eating Life Cereal with a side of toast to drinking Nestlé Instant Breakfast may be a fool's errand. If you're not used to drinking a glass of milk in the morning, the best ad in the world probably isn't going to change your mind.

   
But as cereal eaters age, moving from Rice Krispies to Wheaties to Shredded Wheat to oatmeal is doable. At each stage we're choosing brands that reinforce our lifestyles, but we're not changing our core behavior. We either like cereal, or we don't. We take the time to cook in the morning, or we don't. It's that simple. 

The numbers always look amazing from across the canyon: marketers will say, "if we can just make everyone who does X realize that changing their behavior to Y will be better for them then we can increase sales exponentially!" That's a rational argument. When making our decisions rational is only half of the equation. Changing behavior is difficult. Refining our brand choices to reinforce our current lifestyle is where success lies.   

ad•ver•tise

At this week's creative conference in Los Angeles much was said about the future of creativity in our business. Adweek reports that Lee Clow stated an agency's product would no longer be defined as "advertising" but rather "media arts." This falls in line with what lots of agencies are saying these days, such as they don't develop ads anymore but rather "creative content." Some agencies today only talk about "ideas" and cast advertising as a bad word. Everyone is captivated by the new and the different.

This is all very intelligent thinking, and we need to constantly challenge the status quo. But I think it's all still "advertising." Consider the official definition of "advertise": "describe or draw attention to (a product, service or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance."

Some Reminders

The first advertising medium was word-of-mouth. Not much of a career for early ad execs. The earliest of entrepreneurs just had to make good kilts and swords and word would travel.

The second was outdoor--or, I guess wall art--found in ancient Egypt and classic Rome. This added art and writing, or in other words, creativity and concise messaging. A big leap.

Next in Western Civilization came newspaper and magazines. Now advertisers had to consider portability and audience targeting. Significant. 

Then came radio which added sound, music and passive exposure. Then came Television with motion, product demonstration and mass reach. Huge shifts in possibilities. Agencies created special departments just for these mediums.

And throughout all this, from 200 B.C. to 2002 A.D. we still, collectively, called it advertising.

But over the last five years agencies have been batting around terminology basically because of significant web technology and entertainment integration. Another set of dimensions with more dynamic layers of added complexity to learn. With each new media the proverbial water well keeps getting deeper and it's more difficult to see all that's possible. But I don't think that calls for new terminology.  At each evolutionary stage agencies had to adapt, lead, sell and inform.

Let's not try to over-inflate our sense of purpose in 2007. We haven't for thousands of years. We advertise. It's where art meets commerce. It always has been. Yes, the toolbox keeps growing, and we must work harder and longer to understand the possibilities for our clients. But, in my mind, it's all advertising. And that's great.

Should I Use MySpace or Facebook?

Every time you turn around, someone is comparing social networking sites: "Do you prefer MySpace or Facebook?"  "Say, which one should we be on, Facebook or MySpace?" They also come up all the time in meetings: "We could do a Facebook/MySpace page!," someone will say.

MySpace and Facebook...Facebook and MySpace. Einhorn and Finkel...Finkel and Einhorn.

I've had a MySpace account since early '06 and a Facebook page since May '07, so I've spent enough time on both to have an opinion. So, for collective debate, below are my thoughts on this ever-present issue.

First, I think the difference between the two is this: MySpace is for entertainment, Facebook is for connecting.

Now, Facebook is entertaining and you can connect with people on MySpace, but I'm a firm believer in that aforementioned difference.

MySpace Entertains

As the two sites grow, MySpace will look more toward entertainment. One of the most exciting things about it is MySpaceTV and the cool content that's arriving there. Take Quarterlife for instance--a new show that will be broken down into 30, 8 minute episodes, perfect for computer or iPod viewing.

With music, filmed entertainment, endless graphics and bulletins, MySpace is a collection of randomness. Fortune magazine recently called it a "Rock N Roll club," which I really like. It's designed to entertain, to have energy, to be unique. You can design a space that's completely your own, basically without limitations. And pages are like snowflakes, no two are alike, with each one reflecting the user's personal brand.

It's the most trafficked site in the US. In fact a recent study by compete.com said Americans spend 12% of total web time on MySpace. Oh, and half of its members are over 35.

Facebook Connects

By contrast, Facebook is a social utility that connects people on the web who know each other in real life or have a common interest in something. Every page basically looks the same. When I first joined Facebook, what I really enjoyed (and still do) were the discussion groups.

One such group to check out is the Ad Group. With 4,428 current members worldwide (when I joined there were 1,100) this group allows for the sharing of ads and thoughts. If you love advertising, it's really cool. And if you're ever looking for a job overseas, check it out. MySpace can't do this.

But the thing with Facebook is since they've opened it up to developers, it's getting kinda silly. Every time I log on now someone's "vampire" has bitten me or I get "hit" with a TV dinner. It's fun the first time but after a while that stuff gets ignored and feels kinda dumb.

Research says people use both sites. comScore reports that 65% of Facebook users also have a MySpace account. In one month MySpace gets about 108 million unique visitors worldwide and Facebook gets around 60 million.

So when should a marketer use one? And which one should be used?

First of all, be honest about something: if the company needs to be able to tie financial return on investment, stay away from social networking altogether. I don't see a way it can be done and if it could, I'm not sure the numbers would be favorable. But for those who believe in the value of social maven marketing and word of mouth...

Use MySpace if you have a brand personality device to infuse into pop culture which may or may not be around for the long term. What I mean is, no one wants to befriend Burger King or UPS. But having a friend who's the King or that guy with the pen in front of the white board is totally random. And Entertaining. Personalities like those add social value and provide grass roots support from social mavens. Just don't try to "connect" a bunch of people together around your brand on MySpace. That's a Facebook job.

On Facebook, create an environment of connectivity. If you're the Home Depot create a group where builders and DIY-ers can post questions and comment with one another. Maybe create an app that allows people to build a house on your page or decorate it with plants, wallpaper or a Hunter fan. Give people ways to connect. Just don't try to be entertaining. That's what happens on MySpace.

Learning from mcgarrybowen

If you were reading Adweek last week, perhaps you came across the news that Kraft Miracle Whip shifted creative duties to mcgarrybowen in NY. I say "perhaps" because I find that in my travels many people aren't very familiar with this shop yet. Which is odd to me. Mcgarry and team have quietly built a pretty amazing agency in less than five years.

First off, the work is solid: Entertaining, motivating and easy-to-understand.

Second, the mcgarrybowen client list is amazing. Consider: Verizon, Kraft, Disney, Marriott, Crayola, The Wall Street Journal, Reebok, Chevron and Chase. All gathered since 2002. And I don't recall them publicly losing anything either...

Our industry is filled with talented people trying to start and build great agencies. What can we learn from the success of mcgarrybowen???  Wait a while.

Most agencies are created by a couple of execs who have 15 or so years in the industry and then strike out on their own--usually out of frustration or because they have an opportunity with one large client. That isn't what happened with mcgarrybowen.

John McGarry retired from Young & Rubicam as Chairman/CEO and THEN started the agency. Stewart Owen, one of the other founders, was Vice Chairman of Landor before he joined John. And Gordon Bowen has, by my count, over thirty years of industry creative success. Having guys like that pitch your business carries all the excitement of going with a start-up, with minimal perceived risk.

The connections they have run deeper than most. Their brand projects confidence. They're winning most accounts without reviews. Just a great effort all the way around that, in my opinion, hasn't received the proper ink deserved.

Defining High-Concept

It's been a very long week. One of those perfect storms: lots of new business activity, significant client workload, not enough time. Exciting stuff, really.

I've been delayed on posting. And over the last 7 days lots of stuff has been on my mind...

I'm going to resume by starting a dialog that I hope continues for awhile and gets some comments. The subject is High-Concept advertising. You know, those deeply smart and insightful ads that, once you understand what's going on, make you feel part of the club and look at something completely different. Great stuff.

The trouble is, often these ads fly right on by the consumer. High-concept ads are expensive, difficult for the agency and client to agree on, and if they don't work, often spell trouble for the entire relationship (see Bahamavention).

I don't know the answer but I think somewhere between Motorola and New Mexico Tourism the truth lies.

Like I seem to have been doing for the last several weeks, I'm going to use filmed content to articulate a point... Below is a recent campaign from M&C Saatchi for New Mexico Tourism and a Motorola spot directed by Michel Gondry:

They're both excellent. Each tell a story in a very unique and visually appealing way. What's interesting for me is how my familiarness with both brands affects my thinking of these ads.

I know nothing about New Mexico from a tourist perspective. I've lived 33 years and have never seen an ad for the state. But it's not that complicated of a product...we all have some imagery in our minds about New Mexico. After seeing these spots, I want to go visit and had to check out the site. The end shots look fantastic and the aliens make me watch. I mean, how can you not?

Motorola is a bit different. I know the brand, know it's cool and know it's relevant. As a consumer what I'm waiting for is new information. And I'm waiting for them to tell me 'when' to buy my next RAZR. The Gondry ad is beautiful but it does take a few viewings, and with me an explanation, to get it. Once you do, you're hooked. And the more I see it, the more I want to watch it. But because I was so familiar with the brand and was waiting for product information, I had a predetermined set of expectations surrounding what I wanted to see. I became somewhat perplexed when I didn't see it and felt dumb when I didn't immediately get it. (For what it's worth, agency and client parted ways after the ad was done.)

Overall in the US, I would argue that we don't have the patience for High-Concept advertising. A healthy combination of Wall Street, short CMO tenure  and consumer message bombardment are to blame.

But there are three roles for it:

1. "I know you, just not your personality." High-Concept advertising is powerful when you have a product with established brand awareness, and minimal ongoing advertising--like New Mexico Tourism.

2. "I get it, you don't, and that's great." For niche/exclusive audiences--like IBM enterprise solutions, the Nike sport lines and Diesel--high concept is perfect because it's obviously only high concept to those outside the target. For those inside, it's a special connection that needs no explanation.

3. "Long live the web." In 2003 I was fed up with the rising costs of TV production. People were watching less TV, the internet had not yet developed to be a true viable option, yet production companies continued to raise the already insanely high costs for ads. My opinion has changed now if the value is there, meaning: well produced advertising will be with us for years and the high concept ads can be winning over viewers and niche audiences long past it's completion date. It's a great investment. The young Gondry's of the world have a bright future.

But I think marketers and advertisers would be wise to keep high-concept away from product pushes. They should center around ideas. Around the brand itself and ways of thinking. Marketers don't have the time and they can't risk missing people today due to the intensity of the c-suite they answer to. Keep high concept on the brand, and we'll see you at the shows. If the Gondry ad was about the brand itself: perfection.

I've been trying to work out my thoughts on high-concept advertising for years. This is a work in progress. Any thoughts/examples would be appreciated.

Radio: Insights into Global Marketing

As an industry we don't think global as much as we should here in the US. We say we do, but we don't. We know that Toyota is global and that Nike finds trends in Tokyo and brings them back to Portland... but we don't really think of things being "global" at the one-on-one purchase level. But we need to start because global is coming to the most unexpected place: AM/FM radio. I think that's worth repeating: global is coming to AM/FM Radio.

Recently I attended a convention for state radio and TV broadcasters. One of the speakers who happened to be there was from Google. For 60 minutes this gentleman explained how they're getting into the radio business in a way that's very similar to AdSense.

It basically works like this: At the end of every day radio stations close their next day's logs. Many times there are ad timeslots left to be purchased. Google technology (acquired through the January DMarc deal)  checks these logs every night and fills the holes with their advertisers at a reduced rate, in which they share 50/50 revenues with the stations. The next day, station managers come into their office, see the updated inventory and, so long as nothing is loaded that they have previously said they won't air (like alcohol or something) the spots run and the station gets a check by month's end. It's pretty cool. And really easy. Perfect for marketers who want a scatter shot at a great price: Tide laundry detergent, Ford brand ads, maybe even Las Vegas Tourism. And naturally, because it's Google, everything is done online. So far, nothing too Earth-shattering.

But here is where it gets really cool in my mind... Now imagine that a sweater maker in New Zealand logs onto Google's radio product and buys some tbd inventory across the US. Wherever that inventory was available, people would hear her spots: Denver, Boise, St. Louis, perhaps somewhere in Virginia. The spots talk about "authentic New Zealand sweaters" and tells people to go to cozysweaters.co.nz to order. Now we have a company halfway around the world buying American airtime, for a very good price, right from the home office, generating sales for a family business. Awesome.

In this example, how much longer will people be loyal to LL Bean, Eddie Bauer and those damn roll neck J. Crew sweaters that the company refuses to retire from some odd reason?? You have to go online for these products anyway...

All too often, we don't look far enough away. Google Radio is amazing because it's taking a medium that was publicly cast for dead and whose revenues are down 5% (vs. YAG per the RAB), and is giving it new, global, consumer life. Imagine hearing a radio ad from an artist in Mexico City or a watch maker in Switzerland. I for one think this in an excellent way for the consumer landscape to evolve.