HEAD BLOG

In an episode of Looney Tunes called One Froggy Evening, the frog’s owner/agent attempts to put on a show designed to bring the world to see the marvellous singing and dancing of his pet. It never happens. The frog never performs. Capable of amazing things in front of the hapless owner, the presence of a second witness renders it completely and utterly amphibian. The whole episode is a lesson in frustration to rival Beckett but this one particular sequence has other lessons.

Despite detailing the contents of the show (it’s a singing, dancing frog – isn’t that enough?) not a single person shows an interest. You’d think they would. It’s a testament to the creativity often found in classic Looney Tunes cartoons that even this expectation is trumped in order to prolong the anticipation. Faced with an empty auditorium but still determined to show the world he’s not a liar (and by this point even we are wondering whether this is some kind of dream) the owner places a placard outside the theatre doors with the legend “Free Entry”. He steps back to avoid the crowds.

But of course, none come.

The theatre remains empty and the frog continues is performance in solitude.

Undeterred, the owner replaces the placard with a new one saying “Free Beer”.

That does the trick. Crowds pour through the doors and, inevitably, the frog reverts to froggy status.

He is, of course, let down by his product but his methods are perfect. Knowing that he only had to get people through the door in order to make his fortune, the owner was a lesson in promotion. By knowing his customer, by adapting to his customer, he was able to put the bums on seats. He didn’t repeat what many would see to be the sales message. He didn’t stand and shout “but it’s a singing, dancing frog”. He adapted.

His only real mistake was in not ditching the frog and getting this in sooner.

I’ve a lot of time for Open Source. I’ve a lot of time for standards and protocols. Yet when it comes to advertising, the attacks on Flash have me worried.

The reason isn’t that I want to see Adobe continue to dominate the market, I don’t.

I don’t even care whether Flash gets adopted by every smart phone around.

I care because the debate over Flash vs HTML5 focusses on technology, not ideas.

Taking a look at how an iAd is created I have to say that I’m worried. Worried that these will take more manpower to produce, which makes them more expensive, or that they will be more limited because of their complexity.

And let’s just look at that word: complexity.

I use it in the sense of how easily certain functions in web advertising can be achieved. Flash is guilty of this also of course. The change from Action Script 2 to Action Script 3 has had the effect of making certain functions more complex. I look at some web ads and ask myself where the need for Action Script 3 is.

In the same way I ask where the need for style sheets is.

It all just increases complexity.

And that’s when we begin to focus on the wrong details.

Invariably the ideas get pushed back as the gap between coder and creative widens.

Maybe that’s the cost of freedom and certainly in the world of enabling information to a wide audience and retaining control of our data that all seems good and worthwhile. But in the world of advertising it’s not the same. I’d rather see a static ad with a well designed message than let the technology lead. Flash, for all its flaws, has two things in its favour: the reach to a wide audience through browser technology and the way anybody can use it.

As time passes and tools become available then maybe this will change but at the moment it seems that most of the people attacking Flash ads are doing so because they don’t like advertising. They feel that Flash enables it to be invasive and irritating (which it does). But that’s not an argument for changing technology, that’s an argument for changing ideas.

And that is where the debate ought to be.

Feel-good ads are a way to identify with the needs of your audience but they carry a risk in doing so.

John Lewis ads have, in recent years, become something of an art form. Layered with emotive imagery of wholesome living they are an art director’s dream and a way to explore techniques that will prepare them for that Julia Roberts film they’ve been planning.

Yet walking the tightrope of social and political viewpoints to pinpoint a common vision of Dickensian Christmasses and a gentle humour isn’t all that easy as they have discovered. Their most recent ad, featuring various unusual objects being wrapped, received complaints because one of those objects was a dog. Hardly acerbic satire and certainly not portrayed in a sinister League of Gentlemen manner – although wouldn’t that make for an eye-catching and headline grabbing advertisement? In a nation of dog-lovers, however, it was clearly the wrong subject for a company that never wishes to offend.

It speaks volumes about many things: about consumer power, precarious corporations and recession and even what it means to be British.

But most of all it speaks volumes about advertising messages, specifically about the fact that when your message is feel good rather than pay less or see more, you’d better please some of the people all of the time.

You sit down of an evening and watch TV. What else are you doing? Are you talking to friends on the phone? Are you on the Internet? Are you accessing the TV guide to see what’s on next or whether there is anything better on another side?

You sit down at your computer. Now what are you doing? Most likely it is the task you sat down to complete. You will be reading the news, shopping, chatting to friends or catching up on a programme through an online on demand service.

Both scenarios represent something of a dilemma to advertisers. Both tell us that our relationship with advertising has to change.

The power of TV advertising still holds sway over our purchasing habits. At least they do when we are watching the ads. But how often is that when shows are subject to Sky+ or distractions from other, living room based, technology.

Advertisers know this of course. It’s one of the reasons we see increasing amounts of non-traditional advertising be it through sponsorships, idents or product placements.

As technology enables us to set our own TV schedules and access entertainment in different ways, this becomes even more of an issue.

Then there is the computer.

Whatever that means these days.

Whether it is through a terminal in the corner of a room, a laptop or tablet perched on the arm of the sofa or via a mobile phone, it’s really the Internet we are talking about.

And there our consumption behaviour changes. We are either more focussed or certainly less amenable to advertising than we would be in our old, goggle-eyes days. We see the banners flashing in the frame of article and might, just might, take note.

But not in the same ways we would with a TV ad.

Advertisers might want to count the click throughs because the technology allows but we probably have other ideas.

We are on this page for a reason, remember.

Our relationship with advertising has to change.

Instead of seeing us as willing followers, eager to watch the next ad or cluck through to the micro-site where we can can “swish” our hair for some marketing person’s vain hope of building a community, advertisers need to understand the key changes in our viewing habits.

They, we, need to understand that the relationship needs to become more equal, more give and take and account for the fact that whilst we understand the need to be alerted to new products, we would like the method to change.

We would like to be informed rather than told about products; given reasons to purchase rather than slapped in the face and told to pay attention to advertising that has no message.

Advertising must seek to build a rapport with us and it must do this by engaging, not intruding. New technology demands advertisers take a new approach. Rather than deafen us with ever-increasing volume, they must work harder to let us hear the message they contain.

Our relationship with advertising has changed.

As a writer, I find one of my natural instincts is to resist perceived wisdom. Sure as eggs is eggs, if somebody were to say something is true I find myself taking the opposite view. In defence, I might argue that it helps me resist cliches and view things differently.

Mostly it makes me annoying during any discussion.

One such slice of “truth” is that the old as-seen-on-tv sticker aids sales. Years ago, whenever I saw one, I would wonder at the sort of people who could be swayed by such a message, as though the marvel of TV was enough to add lustre to a product.

I was missing the point of course. This wasn’t one of those cliches to avoid or subvert. I only had to be asked to purchase one of those nice gooey chocolate puddings “off the telly” to understand, on a practical level, that it acted like a pack shot, aiding recognition to drive in-store sales.

That such a simple trick could have eluded me, that its use could be misconstrued as some kind of old fashioned trope best avoided, showed me the importance of not reacting against everything simply because it was in common usage. It is like avoiding rhyming couplets in a poem on the basis of them having been the mainstay of poetic form for hundreds of years. If they are appropriate,use them. Use them for the effect they have.

When exploring the form your message is to take don’t dismiss the obvious. And don’t throw out those “new and improved” stickers yet either.

All too often marketing tries to push out a message without asking what it is the customer wants to hear.

It’s understandable. Of course it is. I want everybody in the world to know that Head First can produce really exciting and effective creative. I can shout about it. I can stop product managers I’ve been stalking for months and tell them that. It won’t necessarily convince them though. Or even interest them.

They might, for example, be a little more interested in whether we can be cost effective, or manage projects efficiently, or meet deadlines. No, no and no.

Only joking, of course we can.

The point, of course, is I can’t just force my message on them. It’s why some companies mistake this message with “brand” but that’s a topic for another rant time.

Discovering what it is the customer wants to hear means gaining insight. It means admitting that not every customer will be interested in what you have to offer because insight often tells us we have nothing in common.

But when we do have something in common, when understanding what it is they need leads to a better understanding of how our product can meet that need well that, that is exciting. That is the start of a bond, a shared value which, after all, is what brand is really about.

OK, I’m going to shock you. You may not survive the process. You may find your world has been irrevocably destroyed.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Advertising isn’t new.

Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s the plain and simple truth.

Yet many people think it is.

They must do.

Because when it comes to advertising on the internet, they seem to throw out all the experience we’ve collected over the past hundred or so years.

Perhaps in the early days of Flash, after seeing nothing but blue hyperlinks, white text and grey background, people saw image led advertising as new, as a drink of water in the desert. Perhaps.

These days there is no such excuse. The prevalence of ad blockers show that we are, in the main, quite used to advertising on the internet and hold it in the same, suspicious regard as all other forms of advertising.

So where are the messages.

And why do so many ads not only avoid supplying us with a reason to buy but actively discourage us from making an informed decision on the purchasing process by holding of on the information until we ‘clickthrough’?

It must be a new form of advertising.

And I’m not sure I want to buy into it.

The fuss and bother around Apple and Adobe, around HTML 5 and Flash, is raising issues at every turn.

Misconceptions arise over what constitutes ‘open’ as Apple use their closed portal to push open standards whilst Adobe use popular takeup to push their closed system.

It’s all very interesting.

It’s all very entertaining.

In some ways it is a fight over who controls the web and neither side represents a particularly attractive proposition. Even when Google enters the fray the potential for greater public harm doesn’t dissipate and web watchers are right to be concerned about the role of the Nation State.

But we will leave that weighty issue to one side whilst we think for a minute about what this means for communication, in particular for advertising.

When it comes to platform, the best use of the word in advertising terms is as something to stand on. It’s not important whether that be a wooden box or a Web 2.0 super site.

What is important is who is standing there.

And what is more important is what is being said.

It may seem like stating the bleeding obvious but looking around at web advertising reveals that more focus is going on the technology than on the message. Flash can do many things. It can animate text, connect to Facebook, manipulate the browser screen and generally astound.

Which is to say it can’t do diddly squat for your message.

It can’t urge consumers to click your banner because it can’t think of a good reason to give them.

And nor can HTML5.

You might be happy that your ads can be seen across multiple platforms, by multiple millions of people.

But are you happy with what you are communicating?

Apple’s recent announcement of the iAd system was designed to further desensitize us to use of the lower case “i” in a bid to trademark the letter and prevent us all from talking about ourselves.

It also had the effect of exciting an awful lot of media buyers who know that wherever Apple walk, premium pricing “opportunities” are sure to follow.

The system was heralded as something new, as adding value to advertising as only Apple can by being more than than just animated text over a background – something most marketing people seem happy with when it comes to online advertising.

It’s a welcome move.

But it certainly isn’t new.

The Great Enemy – Flash – is capable of doing everything Steve Jobs demonstrated. It just isn’t done very often. All creative advertisers (not just Head First) understand that people don’t really want to click through because, well, they were on that page for a reason. Enabling consumers (or people, as we like to call them) to be diverted but not distracted is something we would all love to do because we’re people too. I’m reading a story and I like the cut of your ad. That doesn’t mean I want to marry it. I might explore a little further, see what the rollover state is but really, I’d like to carry on reading.

iAds “solves” this by not taking you out of the App space. It has the benefit of working within a fixed frame, thereby ensuring designers can make full use of space rather than be restricted to 300×250 or 728×90. And creating a mini-site within the ad, with all the hooks into the system is a great idea. It’s what closed systems can excel in.

But it’s not new.

Our recent ad for MotoGP 09/10 enabled people to choose from a variety of different trailers depending upon their interest in the game – from balls to the wall action to the more strategic coolness the game offers.

Much like the iAd proposition, it didn’t demand that you visit the website in order to explain why you really ought to buy the game. It showed you what was cool and then left it to you to decide.

We think that’s sensible. We know it helps sales.

Not all briefs enable us to this of course. Some briefs are written so that the client can increase traffic to the website.

And that’s ok too.

iAds will be a lovely advertising system. But it’s not new and certainly not innovative. All products can benefit from such an approach if they opt to bring the sales message to the person, not send the person to the message.

If I were to leave you with an image of a broken rattle and an NSPCC logo you could fill in the blanks. As far as advertisements go you would be in no doubt as to the message. That is, of course, assuming you are aware of what the initials ‘NSPCC’ stand for. So whilst the advert could be seen as a risk (the risk being leaving you clueless as to its intention), it’s a minimal one.

Stood upon a train platform at 6:30 in the morning each day I take special note of the billboards that cycle through my early morning life. Even on the darkest of mornings, when it’s hard to see the person next to you, the powers that be ensure a warm glow surrounds the hoarding as it sits, fattened by years of paper and glue, by the platform edge.

If I were to leave you with an image of a guitar on a chair and a strapline of ‘It pays to be confused.com’ you might ask why, you might guess at the meaning by knowing that confused.com are in the insurance business or, like me, you might not understand what the message is supposed to be.

Teaser ads, ads that don’t give you a clear understanding of their purpose are a difficult form of advertising. Sometimes, as with the excellent campaign for The Economist, the tease is the message. But often they are designed to intrigue the viewer enough to peak interest and spark some sort of follow through whether it be through the viewer talking about the mystery or tapping the company name into a search engine.

Often, these campaign elements are a part of a larger, linked concept.

The result hopefully being greater than the sum of its parts; but that assumes the tease concept has sufficient power to spark that interest.

When I saw the billboard for confused.com I gave it quite a bit of thought. I didn’t understand its aim but I carried on thinking because advertsing is what I do. Was it just there to reinforce the brand name (which seemed like a waste of money) or was there a clever sight gag I was missing? I just didn’t know.

I’m reminded of something Dan Chung once said, that we naturally form ourselves into patterns. He was describing the way people will form unconscious patterns by the choices they make when sitting down ( so people might choose to skip a seat in order to retain personal space and in so doing form a checkerboard) but the observation works equally well for describing how we naturally look for such patterns.

And when it comes to interpreting advertisements this behaviour can be used (and is used) to great effect.

I couldn’t see a meaning, however. So I sent out a Tweet.

The socially aware guys over at confused.com came back to me saying that if I watched the TV ad then all would be made clear.

Why didn’t they tell me that on the billboard?

Maybe the TV ad would make it all clear. Maybe if I’d seen that first I would be more receptive to the billboard; receptive enough for it to give the old brand retention a dig in the elbow. The bus and underground ads show the real message and it’s a cool one. It makes sense, offers real incentive to use them by being appropriate to people’s lives – all a great campaign apart from the billboards. Which makes me wonder why they expected me to see those and run to a TV set to see what it all meant.

Which I didn’t.

Mainly because the imagery and approach weren’t interesting enough to compensate for the lack of message, the lack of reasons to engage that would prompt me to action. I work in the advertising world and so have a bit more motivation when it comes to pursuing this sort of thing. For others, advertising is an inconvenience; street furniture that can get in the way. They aren’t proactive.

This tendency to assume knowledge of a wider campaign isn’t a pecualiarity of teaser ads. Nor is it confined to confused.com (whose social media policy, incidentally, I admire). Look around at the billboards on your way to work and ask yourself whether you get their message and on what level.

MacDonalds have an ad running featuring a burger and the headline “The best things in life are 3″. Now of course I get that they sell burgers and I get the free/3 joke. But what does it mean? There is a pay-off line at the bottom of the ad with a list of ingredients but it doesn’t seem inclusive of all the real ingredients which make up the burger so I assume it’s part of an in-store promotion. But what in-store promotion? Do I get three items for a low price? Are there three really lovely new burgers to choose from? Or is it really just a burger with three ingredients (one of which is onion)? What? And why should I find out?

The message needs to be clear. And the message might be as simple as “remember our name” which is fine of course. Putting your brand out there for people to remember next time they go in-store is as worthy an aim as pushing a specific product or feature. The way in which they are achieved, however, differs greatly.