There is an excellent post on Mark Lewis' blog that talks a bit about new learning from neuroscience that indicates we are chemically programmed to seek out and enjoy the new - when we encounter this the brain releases a shot of dopamine.
Mark links this to the need for continuous innovation in brand offering and communication (reminds me of the teaching we get early in the ad world about the power of new news) but it also reminds me of why we need to throw away some of the old models of how ads, communication and brands work. We're taught to be single minded, repetitive and reductive - reduce brands and briefs to one word and repeat untl submission. (And Millward Brown et al always debrief pre-tests and tracking on the importance of seeding and repeating one message.) Yet this reduces the chance of a brand being truly interesting (or at least puts all the onus on execution). It's an analogy Russell Davies has used (talking about nuance) but maybe we should start thinking less about single notes being repeated, and think more about the power of chords, harmony and counterpoint in the way brands communicate. You only have to hear old ringtones vs. new polyphonic ringtones to grasp how less interesting the single note is.
A few brands - Nike, Honda (in the UK), HUMMER - seem to have grasped this. Anyone think of some newer, better examples to keep us all interested?
MTV constantly changes it up. They pumps out new shows all the time and have a variety of station and show promos that show offer a wide range of art direction. Their Overdrive broadband destination offers new content you can't find on their shows. Their MTV Movie and Music awards pride themselves on doing something new and innovative each time. (All in all, I think they do a good job of it - a good enouh job to influence how the Oscars conducts its show.) Even MTV2.com is constantly updating itself with new imagery, content and "Need to Know" musicians whose music you can download. Just a few points. The only thing i would knock them for is showing reruns of the Real World and The Gauntlet and Laguna Beach all the time. Other than that they stay pretty fresh.
Posted by: Leland | April 04, 2006 at 09:59 AM
I would point to the Burger King work or GEICO. Both have several campaigns running at a time that have no rational, obvious connection from one execution to the next. But they all promote a similar image and voice from the company, convey the same BRAND message from ad to ad.
Posted by: steve | April 04, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Interesting examples. MTV is a difficult one for me - yes, they're fresh but I don't really understand their brand anymore. I think keeping things fresh is really important but it has to come from some similar conceptual startpoint(s) and I'm not sure this is always the case. Or am I just getting old? MTV2 however is a great example.
Posted by: Gareth | April 04, 2006 at 12:25 PM
I really like the Economist campaign. They stick with the same format, but each execution is so interesting and engaging. It keeps you in touch with the "new", but never lets you forget the brand. Check out this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3746752.stm
Posted by: Anand C | April 05, 2006 at 12:51 AM
Really excited about this post - will follow up the blog you reference. Seems to run counter to most of the neuroscience related thinking on communications about low involvement processing and ruthless consistency. This is much more exciting. Particulalry because I want to create a new rationale for radicalism.
P.S. The Economist work bores me rigid - interesting a decade ago now just a charicature of itself
Posted by: richard | April 09, 2006 at 11:44 AM