brand new

Very 1960s

Starbucks are opening a new concept called the Starbucks Salon between September 8 and September 17 in NYC.  Essentially it's a curated exhibition space with live events.  Feels like a good way for Starbucks to solidify their 'third space' idea and interestingly it draws inspiration for the past - the 1960s coffee bar counter culture.  It's also another example of brands as verbs - they are actually doing something, not just saying it.

John Rayson

I've been thinking for a week about whether or not to write this post - whether it would be meaningful, whether I might offend family or friends, whether it was in good taste, even why I wanted to write it.

I got an email last week while on a work trip in LA from my parents telling me that the headteacher at my first school (St.Olave's in York), John Rayson, had passed away.  Normally, for most people you would feel a little sad and move on if you heard the news but to be honest I was really upset.  Not just because someone who had become over the years a family friend had passed away, but because I realised that I never had taken the time to thank him for the mentor figure he played in my life.  He was one of those people who even when you were young you knew was an amazing human being - incredibly intelligent, compassionate, fair, and an incredible sense of humor.  Always interested in what you were doing, and always interesting to be around.  And you knew in a quiet way shaped the way you lived your life.  I wouldn't be half the person I am now without his influence.

I know this has nothing to do with the usual subject of this blog, but John was the first to make me hungry for information, to question perceived wisdom and not take things at face value and I guess turn me more than a dozen years later into a planner.   And I just wanted to say thank you, albeit to late.  My thoughts are with his family and friends.
(If any of his family or friends want this post removed for any reason, just email me at garethatgarethkay.com or leave a comment and I'll remove it straight away).

Apologies

I've been quiet recently. A potent combination of a new client and lots of meetings, flu and buying your first place to live over here.  And then realizing how much crap you have to pack (I have bought some very bad books, especially business books, over the last decade).  (I must note here that my wife, Clare, has been a total star in handling the move). 
So I feel I should apologize for this lack of silence.  Not because I feel guilty to the few of you who kindly take the time to read this blog - there is after all much better stuff out there to read.  But because I feel bad to myself for not getting stuff I see, hear, observe, thoughts in my head, etc. out of my mind and onto some kind of personal archive of the good, bad and ugly.  Must do better.
But one thing has got me thinking.  There's been a lot of talk on the blogs of all the usual suspects over the last few months about the best definition of planning - Russell found a great quote by Thomas Huxley at Creative Generalist  :"Try to learn something about everything and everything about something."

To me this is a fantastic definition of the core skill and aptitude of a planner, but it made me think that at the end of the day our work is highly intangible - at best, we're a catalyst for tangible output.  We're oil.  So, anyone up for writing the brief 'to sell more planning'?   Try and make the intangible feel a little bit more tangible?  Thought it might be a useful way to discuss what the hell it is we do, or is it just a way to gaze at our navels?  (I hope this makes sense, flu meds over here are pretty powerful...)

Indie rock

Just came across two very good shorts on youtube taking some good swipes at the snobbery of the indie rock scene.  The first is the indie rock version of High Fidelity with the snooty clerks who are just too cool for school:

The second (which I think is far funnier) is the story of Clem Tickle, self-described indie marketing guru and 'dreamweaver'.  More importantly, he will kill for his bands.

Four words that don't often go together

Great + Coca + Cola + ad

It's another Wieden / Nexus Productions collaboration after the genius that was the Honda 'positive hate' ad and the best Coke ad I've seen in a long time.  Fantastic example of giving a cultural phenomenon - GTA - a twist, and handles the idea of 'happiness in bottle'  - an idea that could induce vomiting - in a way that makes me smile.  Hats off.

A little humility

I've just read a story about the new Mini campaign - essentially, it's about creating an ad that can only be fully read by Mini owners.  Every Mini owner is being sent a black box that will include a paper screen that when placed on a print ad in five magazines will reveal information directing owners to a special site where they can redeem a reward.
I'm all for interactive ads that engage people, but this got me to thinking a little bit about the pedestal we in the industry often place advertising.  According to the article, the idea for this campaign came from the insight (albeit a little bit 'duh!') that "Mini owners were already a community, waving to each other from their cars, meeting in their own chat sites and organizing their own events".  I buy that - it's a powerful brand.  But this, to me, has a strange thought process - because you're passionate about a brand, does this mean you'll work hard to play this game?  Or is the real model here one of exclusion - trying to get people to feel that they need to become part of the club?  Either way, it just feels that passion for the brand is being confused for passion for its advertising, and forgets that advertising is a very small part of people's lives.  Or am I being way too cynical?

Thank you Mr Ephron

Erwin Ephron is one of the smarter commentators on advertising and media in the US.  Following the post below it was a relief to see his latest newsletter where he articulates some basic truths:

Media channels have changed but engagement is not a media problem.  As he puts it "media deliver consumers, ads produce response".
We should worry less about consumers creating content and more about them ignoring it and avoiding it.
The new Nielsen ratings system in the US (based on viewership of breaks not merely the total program), does little to address these truths as it measures people who claim to watch the set, not watch the commercials.

What is very refreshing is that Erwin understands the symbiotic relationship of media delivery and content.  As he puts it, "an engaging ad can be crippled by an inattentive audience, just as an attentive audience can be wasted on a hapless ad. To manage advertising, we need to know the individual contributions of media (in facilitating) and advertising (in achieving), response."

This may seem like common sense but as Voltaire famously said, "common sense is not so common".

OK, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record

Just been flicking through this week's Ad Age and I saw another one of those 'advertising isn't working' articles plastered over the front cover.  This one was based on some research by McKinsey which they are now trawling around a bunch of major marketers.  It's the usual argument - and I don't disagree with the sentiment - that TV advertising is less efficient than in the past due to media proliferation.
What galls me again is the seeming interchangeable use of the words efficient and effective, and the blind focus on media channel and not the content it carries.  As I, and many others, have discussed before shouldn't we be talking about making the content more interesting regardless of the channel?  Isn't this what we should be really spending our time talking about, rather than the continual debate over the proliferation of media?  It feels like the debate has swung from one extreme to another where all we chase is media efficiency rather than overall effectiveness, of which content is key.
Of greater interest to me seems to be the new book 'What Sticks' that challenges the effectiveness of a number of the standard go to plays today.  I'm normally very dubious of books that tries to increase the science of marketing, but this seems to come from a much more common sense Freakonmics approach.

OIA

Piers has a good interview at if! with Russell and the gang from  Open Intelligence Agency talking about their reasons for starting OIA

Back again

Sorry for the lack of posts but I've been traveling too much recently.  Two quick things.  First, go and visit the new blog from W&K Amsterdam which is in its infancy but shows promise.  Second, for any of you in Boston, Aaron and myself will be DJ-ing again as the Coalition of the Willing (possibly the last for a little while) on Friday (8/4) from 10pm at The Independent in Union Square, Somerville.