Insights

When logos try to do too much.

When logos try to do too much.

One of the common mistakes when designing logos is creating them in a vacuum and not in context. This leads to the temptation to turn a logo into all-encompassing ad, signifying an organization's laundry list of capabilities in one small symbol.

While a logo must communicate a company's core thoughts simply and effectively, it's important to remember that a logo rarely lives on its own. It is almost always paired with some type of meaning or message: in an ad, on a product, on stationary, etc.

So how do you know if a logo is effective?

When you look at the logo, in an instant, do you get its core thoughts? Does it provoke an emotion or an idea? Does it identify the basic brand promise (or premise) of the business, service or organization? Is it functional? Most importantly, is the logo imaginative and unique? This helps with its memorability and likeability, which translates into real value for the organization.

The masterful designer Paul Rand said that a logo should serve as a flag for an organization. Simple, memorable and inspiring, rather than overly descriptive.

What challenges have you faced with logos, as a marketer or creator?

 

Welcome to my ad, please come in.

Welcome to my ad, please come in.

A popular (and somewhat comical) mantra in advertising is "break through the clutter." Rise above the sea of ads or drown with the thousands of other inputs that go virtually unnoticed. Of course, it’s true that thousands of messages assault people every day and that the competition to be noticed is ever-increasing – but focusing on “breaking through” seems to give undue credit to conditions we can’t control. People like it because it sounds easy, “Oh, I can just break out of the clutter…piece of cake.” Unfortunately, most people tend to come up with a solution that attempts to be physically bigger, brutally louder or simply annoying. Voila, instant clutter.

Instead, we like to invite people into our ad. People don’t experience sensory overload only to end up exhausted; they have filters so they can pick and choose what to perceive and what to pass up. Have you ever noticed how many ads for televisions you become aware of when you’re interested in buying a TV? It’s not that television advertisers are suddenly advertising more. It’s because that has become important to you and your filters let it in. Getting through those filters becomes the puzzle - and clutter is simply one environmental reality to plan around as we figure out how to earn meaningful attention from the right hearts and minds. How do you get them to come into your ad? By presenting something relevant and important to them. Not by shouting what is important to you.

The clutter monster isn’t ours to conquer – consumers have that influence and they use it every day. Our success will result from seeing the world from their point of view, not from focusing on the environment they live in.

 

Tuning in to TV commercials.

Tuning in to TV commercials.

In the advertising world, what goes on in media research doesn’t always affect creative circles – but Nielsen’s new TV commercial ratings are causing quite a buzz. Up until now, there were TV program ratings – we knew how many people watched Ugly Betty. However, soon we’ll know how many people tuned into the commercial breaks during Ugly Betty - and soon after that, Nielsen will tell us how many people saw each commercial within the breaks.

The breakthrough benefit for agency media planners and their clients is a more accurate assessment of actual value and a likely economic advantage. We finally have the negotiating leverage to stop paying for restless eyeballs that zap out during commercial breaks. TV sellers are understandably nervous.

Creative departments, though, are a bit more cautious. Clients hungry for accountability may perceive the new data as a black and white report card on each piece of creative. There is a natural attraction to data-based rationale whether it’s out of genuine interest to make better decisions or relief that the stake in the ground no longer has to be personal judgment. This new research capability may be a revival for the value of great creative. Demonstrating one and for all that people are more likely to tune in when the message is relevant, meaningful and (dare we say) entertaining. As opposed to the classic ad formula of screaming features and prices at the viewer.

But we can’t ask this new data to do more than its share of heavy lifting. When all is said and done, there will still be the age-old question about who gets the credit and who gets the blame: does a commercial rating reflect the spot’s appeal, or its position in the break within a well-targeted program? Or, did viewers simply zap out to grab breaking news on CNN? And to that point, can any research capture the countless forces that affect how well a message is received, such as whether someone was distracted by kids or dogs at the time of exposure? Maybe some day, but not quite yet.

It’s important to embrace Nielsen’s progress as key input, but it should not serve stand-alone as rationale for multifaceted decisions that are still better made with good old collaboration and human judgment.

 

Research is not a media strategy.

Research is not a media strategy.

For media people, few things inspire both love and hate as much as research.

By nature, we are numbers freaks. We love the comfort of turning off the

world, engaging our iPods and digging into the gritty research analysis.

It’s like heaven.

But research is not always roses and chocolate. Consider Arbitron’s outdated system of measuring radio listening. Have you ever seen the completed diaries people keep? It’s no wonder the results sometimes seem inconsistent. Or it could be the “sample size not reliable” message that is returned when you get too aggressive with your inquiry – such as trying to better understand a Harley owner by asking for his preferred brand of watch or cologne. The problem with looking for answers in research is that most of the time the answer just doesn’t “feel” right.

So each day we arrive at a fork in our planning path: Do we rely solely on research, be it good or bad? Do we simply choose the path that can be supported by data? This is the most common choice for many. And, if the path is questioned, they have the standard answer waiting in their hip pocket, “but the data can’t get that specific” or “it’s not proven.”

A solid media planner will consider the research, absorb it, but never look to find the answers in it. Real success (and a little risk) comes when we step out of our data-centric comfort zone. Rather than fall back on what is defined, why not call up an informed gut instinct based on our experience and knowledge, rather than lean on flawed or retro-fitted numbers. Real strategy comes from the gut, not from spreadsheets.

All great planners feel the pull of the data and then take it to the next level, sometimes living outside the comfort zone. It frees us to be creative and it always leads to smarter campaigns for our clients. (Not to mention, it’s way more challenging and fun.)

In the end, successful communications don’t evolve from Scarborough runs or focus groups; they result from a natural curiosity, a tolerance for ambiguity, the courage to take a calculated risk. So, appreciate the guidance and insight that can sometimes be found in research. And then walk away and trust yourself to create the answers.

 

Throw away your business card.

Throw away your business card.

One thing we've noticed as we've adopted a collaborative working model is how important it is to be equals with the people we're working with, both internally and externally, when it comes to ideas. It’s freeing to push the historical agency (and client) job titles aside and just share ideas.

We believe the best idea wins, no matter where it comes from. Art directors can come up with killer headline campaigns. Copywriters may conceive brilliant executions for a corporate identity package. A media planner can generate the freshest of guerrilla ideas. And yes, even clients and account executives may concept a wonderful interactive idea. We all have our traditional responsibilities to assume on a given assignment. And certainly within each specialty, experience and wisdom usually prevail, but it's fun to let go of job functions and just think about the challenge at hand. The latest fad of consumer-generated advertising takes this idea even further.

When everyone works together from and toward the same place, ideas seem to flourish. No hidden agendas and an almost blatant disregard for old-school “territories” is the direction that is going to take advertising into the next phase. The “greatideascomefrommanydirections” era of advertising. How has collaboration changed the way you work?

 

The official, final and complete rules of advertising.

The official, final and complete rules of advertising.

In our industry, rules are as pervasive as bad ads themselves. In fact, the least effective ads are often the results of the misapplication of rules. As sure as there is a new marketing book on the shelf, a new set of rules (and catch phrases) emerges, demanding from us that everything that has come before be thrown out.

It’s an appealing temptation to look for answers in the form of “rules” that promise a sure-fire method to solve your marketing problems. But too often, while many of these rules can and do work in some instances, they are not always applicable to every marketing situation. Unfortunately, most are based on a single case study. Not very scientific.

Take David Ogilvy’s classic book, “On Advertising.” The author pounded home such iron-clad rules as “never reverse-out type for a headline.” To be sure, there was a time when anyone reading that would have thought it would stand the test of time. Thankfully, creative rules die quickly. (What speaks more to the legacy of the great Mr. Ogilvy are the brilliant and timeless insights he had into human behavior and corporate culture. For example, he advised his agency’s management to hire people smarter than themselves in order to “become a company of giants.” Good rule.)

Marketing is a marriage of the rational and the emotional. It’s a tempestuous relationship. No rules can master it. But with the right amount of chemistry, the mixture leads to passionate work that yields real results. The only sure-fire formula is to use your brain, know what you are trying to accomplish and understand those you need to reach in order to be successful. You’ll be surprised at how often your gut instincts are the beginning of great advertising.

Just for fun, what are today’s advertising/marketing “rules” that will be tomorrow’s tomfoolery, shenanigans and ballyhoo?

 

Defining the “Return” in “ROI.”

Defining the “Return” in “ROI.”

Return on Investment (ROI) is the age-old conundrum of advertising and the root of the famous quote from John Wanamaker: “I know that half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but I can never find out which half.” Of course, in this day and age, this quote no longer amuses people. It annoys them.

The simplest way to explain that you can’t always directly measure the ROI from your marketing is by using the time-tested “AIDA” model of the consumer purchasing process. This model says that in every purchase decision a customer goes through these four stages:

1. Awareness: A customer becomes conscious of your product/service

2. Interest: Something about you or your product interests them

3. Desire: They actively seek your product

4. Action: They buy

For consumers, this process can happen in an instant (deciding where to eat lunch) and other times it takes weeks, months or even years (picking a vacation spot, buying a house or a car). This brings us to the main point of creating a brand. Most successful marketers realize that if they can create a space in people’s minds for their brands; when they do market specific products and/or need a short-term purchase, they can start at Step 2 or even 3. They don’t have to work as hard to get to Step 4 because people are already aware of and interested in their products.

This, obviously, is what you are trying to do by creating a consistent, ongoing umbrella message that is more emotionally compelling and less product specific. You’re investing in your brand’s value.

Now comes the dilemma. You can’t directly measure the first three steps in the short-term without some sort of research because your target hasn’t done anything you can measure. But you will see the long-term payoff in your investment via repeat business, increases in sales, etc. Even in the long-term, it is difficult to measure directly, because brand value is intangible and hard to quantify.

Ultimately, as a marketer, you have to go on gut, or use an ongoing research tool to measure over time.

 

Branding, with feeling

Branding, with feeling

In this era of Photoshop and computer-based graphic design, it’s become a bit too easy to lose the personal feel that collateral communication needs in order to connect with real people. In fact, over-reliance on the computer can lead to taking the path of least resistance.

More and more, we are seeing design returning to its roots through handmade elements. Practical, handmade elements add a human touch to design and help convey that what’s being communicated has a special, personal value. It can literally give your brand a “feel.”

The hand-done element doesn’t stop at writing out a font or drawing a doodle. It can be a rubber stamp applied to the piece, a tipped in label, a collage of torn paper, a letter press treatment, or even a product sample with an attached hand-crafted message.

Work that embraces this handmade feel takes more time and is difficult to complete under tight deadlines, but it can be well worth it in the end. Given the right project and strategic goal, so much more expression can be communicated, which can pay off in the way the target audience responds to the piece.

What responses have you noticed when you’ve used this approach?

 

Creativity from constraint. (AKA the MacGyver Method.)

Creativity from constraint. (AKA the MacGyver Method.)

As a smaller agency, one of the things we admire is the power of an idea that doesn't rely on big budgets, elaborate re-touching, exotic locations or the high-end TV shoot.

Often, the constraints of not having enough money, time, good photography, footage, actors, etc., are seen as setbacks, but this can be a blessing in disguise. Constraint forces you into a corner, but it sharpens your thinking.

On the '80s TV show MacGyver, a running theme was to see the title character attempting to solve precarious, no-way-out situations, say, tied to a chair with a nuclear bomb attached to his lap. His only tools for escape? A nearby paperclip, a dixie cup filled with whipped cream and a yo-yo. Somehow, he found his way out every time.

Constraint focuses the creative and strategic processes. In many cases, limitations can be the starting point of a great brief and an effective campaign.

How has constraint inspired your work?

 

The challenge to keep it simple.

The challenge to keep it simple.

“There are two ways of constructing a software design; one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.”

- C. A. R. Hoare

This quote underscores what most marketers aspire to achieve: a message without any obvious weaknesses. But which method should be pursued; the simple, or the complex?

There’s a certain courage it takes to make things simple. How often do we find ourselves loading up a message with features and benefits to make sure we didn’t miss anything? It’s tempting to pile on the information. (And it may be safer for your career.) But while this method may have no “obvious deficiencies,” it is rare that it works as well over time as a simple, true message.

Why? Because people want their decisions to be made easier for them, not more complex. Imagine yourself in your target audience’s shoes: They are implicitly asking you to make their lives easier by offering an easier choice. And the more complex you make this process, the more difficult your target audience’s choice becomes (and the least likely you will be chosen). Your marketing message becomes an irritant instead of a help.

People want a simple, straight-forward reason to choose you. And it comes down to satisfying or answering one simple thing. But, what is the one simple thing? That is why this method is far more difficult, but worth the time. Just ask Apple, Nike or Target — the brands held up as the epitomes of what consumers prefer — and the answer speaks for itself, with “obviously no deficiencies.”