Make the logo BOOBER

Here's another illustration of how valuable (and powerful) developing and owning market- based assets is. Branding yo!

The Bonds font and broken underline are distinctly Bonds. They own them. So developed are they in our minds that we immediately know this is a bonds ad.

We need to aim for this with every brand we touch.

I don't think it even matters what the campaign is. If it turns out these ads are 'just' ads - that's perfectly okay.

They're memorable - Boobs all over the city! They're likeable - They make you smile when you see them. And they're ownable - Bonds make bras and the ads use the typeface and Bonds underline.

The Bonds brand is refreshed in your mind in a relevant way. Job done.

For another example of the power of branding go here: Make the logo bigger

By Christopher Ott

Buyhaviour 3: Confirmation Bias

If you've seen Ancient Aliens then you've seen the confirmation bias in full effect. 

In it, anything unexplained (or explained) that's ever happened in the history of the world - the answer's aliens. From earthquakes to Bigfoot - aliens. 

Or, do you remember the last time you were book shopping on Amazon, how you were really only interested in the reviews that told you what you wanted?

This inclination to have blinkers on in favour of information that fits with your own ideas...

This is the confirmation bias.

Definition: Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to favour information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. (Wikipedia, 2013)

So, suppose you tried to convince the host (crazy-hair above) that aliens don't exist. That he's wrong. I can guarantee no matter how rational your argument is, he simply won't switch to your way of thinking.

Yet, brands try and do this all the time. 

To grow your brand is pretty simple. All you need to do is get more customers. And unless you expand your category (think sports brands like Nike becoming street wear), the only way to get more customers is to steal them from your competition. 

No problem, you'll just differentiate, right? 

Wrong.

Textbooks, greying planners and pimply graduates alike will cocksurely tell you to differentiate your brand. Differentiate or die, they'll say. The model goes something like this: Differentiate your brand, position your brand and then target that niche. 

But if your audience is only receptive to information and ideas that they already hold (Confirmation bias), and you know what that is because you're trying to steal these people from your competition, then isn't it counter intuitive to differentiate?

Of course it is, and marketing science corroborates this point.

Marketing science tells us that consumers shop from a repertoire. The implication of this being that category buyers share brands and don't really differ in any meaningful way. So, by differentiating, positioning and targeting, you're mindlessly ostracising potential buyers unnecessarily. 

(Because they're affected by the confirmation bias they won't listen to your messaging. Just like the aliens guy above being told aliens don't exist.) 

This means, with your advertising, you should be confirming your audience's existing beliefs, not differing from them, and not ostracising them.

Here's an example.

Samsung didn't try to differentiate from Apple. They simply tapped into how Apple users saw the world and aligned with their confirmation bias. They weren't trying to be 'different' they were trying to be better.

They out-Appled Apple. And look at them now!

So what does this mean for creatives? Well, it turns out you don't have to worry about unique selling propositions (USP) anymore. They're a product of differentiation and that means they're redundant. Awesome, because an inane USP only inhibits you from coming up with a truly great idea. 

Trying to get people to switch by telling them they're wrong and your (different) way is right, because of the confirmation bias, won't work. If you're married you can testify to this. So, the next time the strategist, suit, or client says you need to differentiate, you politely remind them about the Confirmation Bias and say you'd rather be better and confirm what your audience already believes than be different. 


Discover more of the Buyhaviour series:

Buyhaviour Series: An Introduction 
Buyhaviour 1: Availability Bias 
Buyhaviour 2: Status Quo Bias 
Buyhaviour 3: Confirmation Bias 
Buyhaviour 4: Conjunction Fallacy 
Buyhaviour 5: The Spotlight Effect
Buyhaviour 6: The Matthew Effect  
Buyhaviour 7: Fight or Flight Heuristic
Buyhaviour 8: Imposter Phenomenon 
Buyhaviour 9: Red Queen Hypothesis 

Christopher Ott

What fires together wires together OR how advertising actually works

We've finally emerged from the dark ages of advertising. A few stragglers (Seth Godin, Kevin Roberts et al.) aside, we're all now fairly comfortable in our understanding that advertising is principally the art of memory building.

This post is going to explore how it works. 

Mr Donald O. Hebb, an influential neuropsychologist, sums it up with his namesake associative learning adage named Hebb's rule: 

Neurons that fire together, wire together. 

You know Pavlov's dog? Or in Zoolander, when Derek hears the song 'Relax' how it triggers an involuntary reflex to murder the President of Micronesia? Hebb's rule is that, and despite being a much weaker force, it's basically how advertising works.

But instead of creating cues that result in your audience wanting to assassinate an imaginary leader, you simply want to develop clusters of memory structures that trigger memories of your brand in a buying situation. 

Here's an example.

So, when I see the Carlton Draught ad it connects and nurtures two memory nodes in my brain - Carlton Draught and pub. 

So next time I'm out for a beer, and I'm standing in front of the beer taps at my local PUB, I will be able to recall Carlton Draught easily and probably order it - Thanks to the advertising.

This is why award-winning ads invariably happen in the "closed world" (Goldenberg et al., 2009) of the brand. Because the "closed world" provides the most relevant links with the brand and its associations (Eg. The closed world of Carlton Draught includes: Pub, pint glass, beer taps, bar top, bartender etc).

Here's a new ad done by the same agency for the same client that doesn't take into account Hebb's rule (And consequently won't achieve much).

Instead of aiming to develop or refresh any memory structures, the advertisement mistakenly attempts to sell the audience on a rational message. 

In advertising, you get a fleeting moment to get your brand into your audience's heads in a way that makes it as easy as possible for them to remember when it counts - in a buying situation.

Understanding how it works will be invaluable in helping you create better ads that have a higher likelihood of working (And winning awards).

"Educating is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a FIRE." 

Williams Butler Yeats said that, but I bet he never realised just how close to the truth he was. Because, as we now know...

What FIRES together, wires together. 


Goldenberg J, Levav A, Mazursky D, Solomon S. 2009. Cracking the Ad Code. Cambridge University Press. 

By Christopher Ott

Rookie mistake Windows, rookie.

Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Apple, Windows, Apple.

After reading that, which brand are you more likely to remember?

This new Windows/Nokia Lumia ad shows a comprehensive misunderstanding of how advertising works.

Why does an ad paid for by Windows/Nokia feature the Apple iPhone for the lion's share of the time?

It exposes a complete ignorance on the behalf of its creators of the central role memory plays in advertising.

Advertising is all about memory building.

Without it, advertising would happen in a vacuum.

An ad is designed to put a brand at the top of your audience's mind (Store it in their memory) and be easily retrieved (Remembered) in a buying situation. (Achieved through creative problem solving)

So, why has Windows/Nokia (Two of the biggest brands in the world) paid for a TV commercial that will not only not be remembered as theirs, but worse still, builds memory structures for their competition?

But even more shockingly, the spot ends with:

"Do you know everyday more photos are taken with an iPhone".

This line is what's truly gobsmacking. As I write this I can't remember the ad's actual message.

I know it was one of those single minded propositions like bigger, faster, better etc. You know, real advertising-y - and forgettable.

What I am left with is this: More people use an iphone. Visually this is reinforced in the ad, and then verbally it's the last thing the audience hears.

(And according to the Herd Heuristic this is a very compelling line. Way more memorable than a stale SMP.)

The spot basically advertises the competition.

It's like taking a girl you're courting out for an expensive dinner and the whole time talking about how great the other guy is.

If someone from Windows is reading this: It's not too late.

Take the ad back into the edit suite, make all the Apple products generic, and GET rid of that last line. Stat.

As a side note, Bogusky did the same thing in his Sodastream Superbowl ad. At the time I thought he did this intentionally, see Bogus Bogusky and the Sodastream scheme, now I'm starting to think otherwise.

By Christopher Ott

Scrummdiddlyumpti... bawm bawm

The new Wonka branded Nestle chocolate has set itself up to fail.

I was at Woolworths picking up ingredients for nachos when I saw the new Wonka endcap. 

Like Pavlov's dog I began salivating.

The Wonka name triggered memories of chocolate lakes and never ending gobstoppers. I was in. I wanted some chocolate. 

Evidently, the branding had done its job. In that moment, the money Nestle paid for the Wonka name was justified.

I walked over to the display and reached out to grab the new chocolate and go about my day. 

But then I was stopped in my tracks. I was faced with an unexpected choice. 

There was actually four new 'crazy' flavours to pick from. 

So, I went and grabbed my favourite Cadbury block instead.

What happened? I wanted to try the new Nestle Wonka chocolate, but when I had to pick between four options it simply became easier to go grab the chocolate I bought last time. 

It reminds me of an oft referenced experiment about Jam. Straight from Barry Schwartz' watershed Behavioural Economics book, Paradox of Choice (2004, p.19-20):

"A study was set in a gourmet food store in an upscale community where, on weekends, the owners commonly set up sample tables of new items. 

When researchers set up a display featuring a line of exotic, high-quality jams, customers who came by could taste samples, and they were given a coupon for a dollar off if they bought a jar. 

In one condition of the study, 6 varieties of the jam were available for tasting. In another, 24 varieties were available. In either case, the entire set of 24 varieties was available for purchase. 

The large array of jams attracted more people to the table than the small array, though in both cases people tasted about the same number of jams on average. 

When it came to buying, however, a huge difference became evident. 

Thirty percent of the people exposed to the small array of jams actually bought a jar; only 3 percent of those exposed to the large array of jams did so."

Choice is paralysing. 

Choice (The same choice we fought those damn commie pinkos for) became a barrier to me trying this new product, and as a result, I reacted by being risk averse and returning to the familiar. (See Buyhaviour 2: Status Quo Bias for more on that)

This kind of behaviour, it turns out, is predictably irrational (As Dan Ariely would say).

The advertising was fine. If there was ever a 90 minute film category at Cannes, then Willy Wonka would sure be a hot favourite (With Tom Hanks' Cast Away a close second).

Because when I saw it in the supermarket I instinctively wanted to try it.

But then I was presented with choice. I was forced to think rationally, and rationally thinking I didn't really want to take the risk of buying new chocolate. Not when my favourite (safe) Cadbury block was only 2 metres away.

Better luck next time Nestle. 

Schwartz, B. 2004. Paradox of Choice. Harper Collins. 

By Christopher Ott

Make the logo bigger

I've just got back from an amazing holiday in Bali. Bali is packed with brands like the above. 

It says Jeans Place. 

But you see Just Jeans.

And that, dear sirs, is the power of branding.

By Christopher Ott

Dumb ways to die, good ways to jingle

Jesse and Joey from Full House are back in business! 

Dumb Ways to Die just cleaned up at Cannes. And that means Jingles are back!

But wait, didn't we relegate jingles to Carpet King ads on community TV for a reason?

Of course we did.

Jingles are the sum of everything that is contemptible about advertising. They are a product of primitive psychology. The same psychology that therapeutically electrocuted people, and believed homosexuality was an illness. 

Jingles were designed for one thing: To achieve memorability by getting jammed in people's heads - likeabilty be damned! (Coles down down ads anyone?)

So, everyone (Sans Ted Horton) banished the jingle from their ideas toolbox, because, like a suit secretly changing your copy, they were more than just slightly annoying. 

We even banned the mere mention of the word 'jingle' from echoing in our foosball laden agencies in fear our CDs thought we'd gone mad.

Then Dumb Ways to Die Happened. 

It has enjoyed unequalled success at Cannes (Five Grand Prix, 18 Gold Lions, three Silver Lions and two Bronze.)

And this success should be a welcome reminder that in advertising, as other art forms:

Let form follow function.

Jingles aren't inherently bad, it's what has been done with them in the past that has earned them their bad reputation. McCann knew the rules and very intentionally broke them, and to great effect. 

They knew the function of the advertising had to change behaviour and the importance of it being remembered wasn't merely to sell more stuff, but to save lives. So they created an ad in the form of a jingle. Not an irritating one (Like Coles), but an incredibly likeable one. Smashing together the benefits of old school jingles and new era story telling. Bam!

So, what do you take away from this?

Let form follow function. If an execution hasn't worked in the past it doesn't mean it won't work for you and your new brief. Don't discount a technique as bad just because it has previously been executed poorly.

(I know some people call it a song, even the creator John Mescall calls it a song, but it's a song for advertising! So, a jingle by any other name is still a jingle.) 

Bad jingle vs. good jingle:

By Christopher Ott

Buyhaviour 2: Status Quo Bias

When you're picking a restaurant for dinner, out of the hundreds around you, how many do you consider?

When you're at said restaurant what do you order from the menu? Something you've had before? 

This limited consideration set that you keep coming back to, surely you don't continue returning out of some Kevin Roberts' fantasy of deep loving loyalty, do you? 

Of course not! This lazy behaviour (cognitive shortcut) of returning to the safety of familiarity; 

This is the Status Quo Bias.

The Status Quo Bias reveals that we favour the current state of affairs, and we do this because the disadvantages of switching loom larger than the advantages.

In other words, you are biased to keep things how they are, and you do this because you don't want to risk the unknown. You are risk averse (And regret averse)

So, what’s the implications of this in advertising?

Well, it simply reinforces what marketing science has maintained for decades: 

The hyperbolic idea of brand loyalty is a fiction. Sure, you exhibit polygamous loyalty to a repertoire, but your purchase decisions aren't made because a brand has coaxed you into a deep loving commitment...

You are simply too lazy to hazard a change - you are loyal to loss aversion - and that means you keep naturally returning to the brands you know.

Or as Herbert (1956) put it, you are ‘satisficed’ with your current purchasing decisions. (They may not be the most optimal decisions, but you're satisfied and that will suffice.)

Unfortunately, many planners, suits and creatives still subscribe to the anachronism that shoppers agonise over their buying decisions in a rational, calculating way. That consumers stand in a supermarket aisle picking and switching brands because they feel an ardent sense of loyalty to them.

They mistakenly gloss over the idea that buying is habitual, and loyalty is simply a product of loss aversion and laziness - The Status Quo Bias. 

And this mistake has lead to an overemphasis on the personifying, positioning and differentiating of brands (In a vain attempt to gain loyalty), which places asinine restrictions on you being able to create truly intelligent, entertaining, memorable and ultimately effective advertising. 

So now, similar to the Availability Bias post, let's explore some practical applications using the Status Quo Bias.

Knowing the Status Quo Bias is inextricably linked to loss aversion, may mean ads that communicate what the audience is losing, rather than gaining are more effective. Eg.

But, for me, the most obvious way to use the status quo bias is to create advertising that places the audience in the protagonist’s shoes. Eg.

By doing this, you're simulating the audience's experience of using the brand, and this has every capacity to result in them feeling a sense of loss when they don't have it.

Don't miss next month's Buyhaviour, which will examine the implications of the Confirmation Bias (Our tendency to favour information that agrees with us) on the way your audiences view and process your advertising. And, if you missed it, follow the link below to read last month's post about the Availability Bias.

Check out more of the Buyhaviour series:

Buyhaviour Series: An Introduction 
Buyhaviour 1: Availability Bias 
Buyhaviour 2: Status Quo Bias 
Buyhaviour 3: Confirmation Bias 
Buyhaviour 4: Conjunction Fallacy 
Buyhaviour 5: The Spotlight Effect
Buyhaviour 6: The Matthew Effect  
Buyhaviour 7: Fight or Flight Heuristic
Buyhaviour 8: Imposter Phenomenon 
Buyhaviour 9: Red Queen Hypothesis 

Simon, H. A. (1956). "Rational choice and the structure of the environment". Psychological Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, 129-138. 

Christopher Ott

Mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved

Advertising industry anyone (Above quote)?

We're lucky. Every day we go to work and we're surrounded by these mad mad mad people. 

It's exciting and humbling at the same time.

Think of art directors and their cool haircuts, snappy dressing, self-designed tattoos, and perennial presence on the invite list to all the cool gallery openings. 

They're out impressing themselves on the world, and fearlessly shaping it in their image. 

Being mad to live. 

Writers live in the shadow of these epic creative forces... 

But, we like it there.

We're completely content observing these wild ones and processing what it all means.

Sitting with a pot of tea and a novel, joining the dots of these mad desirous ones.

Because they're living too fast to do it themselves.

Writers translate 'creative' to 'human'. 

Keroauc was the same. 

His work reveals he was an outsider too. 

He simply opened himself up to these crazies and went along for the ride. 

These were the people for him. 

Constantly observing, he translated what he saw and became the author of his generation. 

If you're a writer, and you're the quiet observer type - evidently, you're doing it right!

So, like Kerouac, the only people for me are the mad ones. The Ad people! The ones that are always creating and buzzing with batshit crazy ideas, and I'm fucking grateful to be a part of this crazy world of advertising. 

Christopher Ott

Bogus Bogusky and the Sodastream scheme

I don't want free advertising at the Superbowl. 

Said no brand ever. 

The 'banned' Sodastream commercial was never designed to show at the Superbowl. 

The whole thing was Bogus-sky!

Video: Aired commercial. (Also originally banned in the UK months prior)

Video: Banned ad.

The aired ad delivers the proposition incisively. Its execution is visually appealing, and strategically it builds lots of relevant memory cues. Generally, it's a better ad.

But the most conclusive evidence that Bogusky was up to something is: There is no way anyone, let alone Bogusky, would put two competing brand's logos in a Superbowl commercial. 

Putting your competition in your ad, especially when it's the market leader, is something akin to trying to pick someone up at a bar by pointing out the perfect-10 model in the corner. 

We know enough about how we consume traditional advertising to know that it's all about memory. (Start here, Buyhaviour 1: Availability bias, if you don't.)

In this ad, with the spotlight firmly on Coke and Pepsi, the audience would have been left with two brands in their memories. Both of which weren't the one that paid for it. 

So, the banned version could only have been effective if there was a guarantee the audience paid full attention to it. That the audience consumed it not as a traditional ad and passively, but actively. Pulled, not pushed.

What if you could devise a way to achieve this?

Hmmm. Now, if there ever was a creative wily enough to pull this off, who comes to mind?

Bogusky.

So, this is what happened:

• He sees the controversy of the original banned UK ad. (the one that ends up being shown at the Superbowl). He takes note that the ad received a lot of free media based on the controversy. 

• He decides to replicate this in the USA for the Superbowl. The brief changes from the strategic 'greenwashed' one to simply 'create talkability'. (But wouldn't it be nice to do both?)

• He makes an ad designed to be pulled, with the intent to blame the competition. He knows he can count on people's inherent mistrust of big brands, and he also knows that playing to this stereotype will stir interest. 

• He creates his commercial (webfilm) that demonises Coke and Pepsi. Then pulls it himself, but blames Coke and Pepsi saying they're running scared. 

• This generates masses of free publicity, which in turn sparks talkability, which gets people to want to see the video. (Want to see what the big greedy brands don't want them to.) 

• So, he publishes the 'banned' version online, knowing he's set up an environment where he has an engrossed audience. People search it out, (Pull it to them) and watch it actively, not passively. 

• It goes viral. He's created talkability and shareabilty, which gets Sodastream in the news media (Earned media) allowing the brand to fully articulate their proposition. Plus, he still plays the original (the banned one from the UK) at the Superbowl, which is now also watched with more interest, and punctuates the proposition. 

Result.

• 5 million hits on YouTube for the banned ad.
• A reach of 108 million for the ad showed at the Superbowl.
• Countless other impressions from the free PR.

And he payed the exact same $4 million as any other Superbowl advertiser. 

Genius.

By Christopher Ott

Buyhaviour 1: Availability Bias

Are you more afraid for your life when boarding a plane or jumping in a car? In Australia do you think sharks or kangaroos are responsible for more deaths? 

Rationally we know there's less fatalities in the sky than on our roads, and that shark attacks only happen a handful of times a year. But, because we have such well developed and vivid memory structures of plane crashes and shark attacks (Thanks to the nightly news), which makes them more available to recall, we instinctively think they're more significant. 

This is the Availability Bias.

According to Tversky and Kahneman (1973), "the availability bias is an unconscious process that operates on the notion that, if you can think of it, it must be important." 

In other words, the easier something comes to mind (how available it is to recall) the higher you rate its importance.

The advertising implications are enormous. 

It means when your consumer is shopping, they aren't rationally remembering whatever unique hard sell (USP) you tried to persuade them with in your advert. They certainly aren't thinking of which position your brand occupies on a venn diagram, and they definitely aren't ticking off a checklist in their minds about which brand has the most promoted features.

They're being guided by their memory, on autopilot, and simply grabbing the brand they remember most. 

Because that brand, according to their irrational mind affected by the availability bias, is the best brand there is. 

This is big news for creatives, because when you're conceiving ideas for ads, you can forget about the hard sell, and focus on being witty, intelligent and memorable. And that's what you do best!

Also, once you understand the bias, you can use it to your advantage. It's a really nice way to tap into the 'unexpected' territory. Below are a recent series of executions that have manipulated the bias to create some powerful print ads. 

Keep an eye out for the next Buyhaviour installment 'Buyhaviour 2: Status Quo Bias', where we explore the tendency to favour the current state of affairs, and the implications this has on advertising. 

Discover more of the Buyhaviour series:

Buyhaviour Series: An Introduction 
Buyhaviour 1: Availability Bias 
Buyhaviour 2: Status Quo Bias 
Buyhaviour 3: Confirmation Bias 
Buyhaviour 4: Conjunction Fallacy 
Buyhaviour 5: The Spotlight Effect
Buyhaviour 6: The Matthew Effect  
Buyhaviour 7: Fight or Flight Heuristic
Buyhaviour 8: Imposter Phenomenon 
Buyhaviour 9: Red Queen Hypothesis 

Tversky, A; Kahneman (1973). "Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability". Cognitive Psychology 5 (1): 207–233.

Christopher Ott

Buyhaviour Series: An Introduction

These posts will single-handedly blast the bedrock advertising has been built on. This is the first post in a series that marries behavioral economics with marketing science.  

I call it 'Buyhaviour'.

In this series we'll disseminate individual decision-making biases, and reinforce them using marketing science. A marriage of psychology and sociology within an advertising framework. 

Most clients and agencies are still under the classical-economics illusion that we act rationally when we're making purchase decisions. That we rationally analyse each purchase with something like a cost-benefit analysis. 

This antiquated viewpoint has spawned the fantasy that advertising works as a strong persuasive force.

The idea of advertising being a strong persuasive force is wildly fanciful.

Some creatives place far too much import on the 'unique selling proposition'. (Biggest, strongest, longest, blah blah blah). Although the boundaries are incredibly helpful for idea-ation; strategically they're redundant.

Some strategists place too much importance on differentiation and finding a brand position. Category buyers aren't different and don't see brands differently!

And most clients and suits think that the more detail you put into a commercial, the more the audience takes out. Wallpaper!

All of these are based on the misconception that advertising is something like a sales pitch, and the audience, circa Apple's 1984 Superbowl commercial, are being attentive, edge of their seat absorbers of advertising.

In this Buyhaviour series you're going to discover how consumers actually consider brands, and the implication this has on the creative process. 

The first post is about the Availability Bias. Hope you like it. 

Buyhaviour Series: An Introduction 
Buyhaviour 1: Availability Bias 
Buyhaviour 2: Status Quo Bias 
Buyhaviour 3: Confirmation Bias 
Buyhaviour 4: Conjunction Fallacy 
Buyhaviour 5: The Spotlight Effect
Buyhaviour 6: The Matthew Effect  
Buyhaviour 7: Fight or Flight Heuristic
Buyhaviour 8: Imposter Phenomenon 
Buyhaviour 9: Red Queen Hypothesis 

Christopher Ott

Don't just say it, demonstrate it

Due to our increasingly sceptical world, and the advertising industry's shameless past, credibility is hard currency for us advertisers. An effective way to gain credibility, and cut through the clutter, is to (memorably) demonstrate the brand promise you're claiming.   

Plus, with the onset of cool technology (2013, year of the Go-pro camera), executing your ideas using this technique has never been easier and more exciting. 

Here's an old example to get us warmed up.

As we explored in the previous post Content is dead. Long live content, at the beginning advertising was a sort of canned sales pitch for the masses, which preyed on people's insecurities. 

Advertisers have been clawing back credibility ever since. In this post we're going to discuss all the different ways advertisers have attempted to gain credibility, and through a juxtaposition, explore the 'don't just say it, demonstrate it' technique. 

If Volvo decided to simply tell you their trucks are precise, would you believe them? And would it have been as memorable as this? 

One trick brands have used to gain credibility is to employ an authority figure. You know the ones - nutritionists, dentists, mums like you? 

Viewers were changing the channel on these when Russel Howcroft still had hair. Audiences, understandably, don't trust someone that's getting paid to sell a message. Imagine if Volvo paid an engineer instead of demonstrating their 'precise' claim the way they did. It's obvious which execution is better!

How about the classic 'before and after technique'? The Dulux ad below could have easily done this, but instead it takes the audience on the journey with them. 

It uses the journey to demonstrate its promise and lets the audience make up their own minds. It uses the gap between before and after as its content - brilliant!

Another way brands have tried to attain credibility is through the use of statistics. You know the ads that are basically Powerpoint presentations on steroids? (Insert Essendon/Cronulla joke here)

The Yellow Pages could have easily used statistics to communicate its effectiveness instead of demonstrating it with a Hidden Pizza Restaurant. But, you can bet it wouldn't have been half as compelling as this. 

Presently, your audiences are far too empowered and sceptical to mindlessly sit there and  fall for these old tricks.

Conversely, advertising that 'doesn't just say it, but demonstrates it' finds credibility in their audiences, because it allows them to draw their own conclusions. 

Ads that demonstrate the brand promise, powerfully tie the brand to the advertisement's narrative (It is the narrative). That's half your job done. 

The remaining half is to conceive the unexpected way to show the demonstration. Whether it's a hidden pizza place or an angry gorilla - just make it memorable.

And, if you do it especially well, you're not merely demonstrating anymore, you're simulating. And that will lead you to some serious silverware (See below). 

By Christopher Ott

Step right up, social media snake oil here

I was freelancing at a social media agency recently, and the job included writing Facebook and Twitter updates for a few big brands. The experience has led me to two conclusions:

1. Social Media is a very powerful research tool.  
2. Social media cannot be used to launch or grow a brand. 

Why? The simple answer is: To grow a brand you need to reach buyers that aren't yet consumers of your brand. Stealing them from your competition basically.
The action of 'liking' a brand on Facebook would follow buying the brand in real life (Attitude follows behaviour). That means the individuals interacting with your brand on social media are already buyers of your brand! 

The implications of this are huge.

If someone doesn't buy you, then they aren't going to 'like' you on social media. If they don't 'like' you, then your social media messages simply aren't reaching them. If you're not reaching them, then they aren't going to buy you. Ad infinitum. (Luckily you can still reach them on tv)

It actually makes a helluva lot more sense to post information about your brand on your competitor's page. That way you're reaching potential buyers, not existing ones. 

It takes a special kind of person to be 'friends' with a brand. Social media skews towards people who are loyal heavier buyers (Creamer 2012). Which simply means with social media: 

You're preaching to the choir! 

It's the equivalent of going to a Collingwood game and asking someone wearing black and white, sitting in the member's section, if they'd like to buy a Collingwood membership. It sounds dumb, but this is the limitation of social media. 

In the same situation, wouldn't it be more valuable to ask the same person what they thought about their current membership? Do you like your seats? Or who's your favourite player? Herein lies the power of using social media as a research channel. (And why it should come out of our client's research budget and not advertising)

The social media snake oil peddlers will jump on their soapboxes and sanctimoniously announce that they've harnessed the illusive power of word of mouth.  

This sounds freaking amazing! You can see how any marketing manager would love the sound of it, but it's just not a reflection of reality. 

People may talk about brands on Facebook, but the conversation definitely didn't begin there. The conversation more likely begun when someone saw an engaging TVC with content that stuck with them - taking us full circle back to good ol' fashion traditional media as the genuine spark to flame a word of mouth epidemic. 

Another claim by social media experts is its ability to encourage more frequent buying, which, of course, will positively affect the brand's bottom line. Let's consider this for a moment.

If it's your heavy loyal buyers you talk to on social media, and then you run an exclusive promotion, or even a memory-refreshing brand campaign, communicated only using social media channels, what can you achieve?

Well, not much, because the people you are reaching with these messages were already heavy loyal buyers to begin with (They had to be otherwise they wouldn't be friends with you on Facebook). They already know about your brand, and they were already going to buy it.

Presently, social media quackery has brands (our clients) adopting a pay and pray mentality. 

I've been at an agency, as would have you, which ran a whole campaign, for an FMCG brand, through social media. No above the line at all - not even on packaging. Even if it was successful it's hard to understand what it achieved. 

But, if you're like the social media agency I was at recently, then there's still hope that social media channels will be used smartly. 

If social media experts continue to promise the world and deliver Geelong, then as soon as clients realise that it's not the cure-all it claims to be, the bubble's going to burst. 

Creamer M, 2012. (Study: Only 1% of Facebook 'Fans' Engage With Brands) http://adage.com/article/digital/study-1-facebook-fans-engage-brands/232351/

Christopher Ott

Content is dead. Long live content

‘Content is king’. It’s a bit cliché now, but truer words have never been spoken in the Land of Ad.

Content’s supreme rule reveals a maturation of our industry, but it’s nothing new. Storytellers have shaped content since the beginning of time to affect behaviour and teach their audiences how to act.

For a long time advertising had a deservedly bad reputation. If an advert didn't include a head-jamming jingle, then it was probably trying to guilt you into buying things.

Buy this mouthwash or you'll have bad breath and no friends. Buy this car or your neighbour will think you're a communist. Buy this baby food or you'll be a bad mother.

It was evil manipulative stuff. The sad thing is that we still see these degenerate ads pollute our lives today.

Content is dead!

Luckily, they're becoming increasingly rare, and we've moved on to content driven ads that engage, inspire and entertain our audiences.

But why have we crowned content as our king? The simple answer is: Because content is the vehicle that we use to evoke emotion.

Make them laugh, make them cry. This is your bread and butter as a creative. This is the product your agency sells to its clients. This is the power you have at your fingertips. It’s what should stir your creative soul and get you excited. It has the ability to radically change the world. BAM!

Make them laugh.

So, why do we go out of our way to create advertising with content that evokes emotion? Surely not for some douchey Kevin Roberts-esque reasons like love, deeper connections, or stronger relationships, right?

Well kind of, but that waxing lyrical language only works like a Jedi mind trick. It may satisfy some weak-minded marketing manager, who’s distracted by a free lunch and your shiny boardroom. But, more likely than not, when they go back to their hard-nosed decision makers – they’ll get laughed out the room.

Make them cry.

We actually do it because it’s a bloody effective way for your brand or message to be remembered. And not remembered by using ugly tactics like jingles or guilt that only result in your brand being disliked, but with stories that make the brand not simply remembered but likeable.

I've worked on a client that always received exceptional results in the research with its awareness metrics, but when we dug a little deeper it turned out it was being remembered for all the wrong things.

Enter the power of storytelling. Storytellers, for time immemorial, have implanted emotion into fables, nursery rhymes, legends, myths and parables. They weren’t doing it to try and sell more widgets. They absolutely needed their audience to remember their stories as a matter of life or death.

In advertising the consequences aren't so fatal, but without memory there is nothing. Even in the new digital world, unless the creative execution directly places the audience in a buying situation, or drastically reduces the barriers to sale (Amazon 1-click), then it’s still relying on memory. And if it’s relying on memory then it’s relying on content.

So, in a sense, Kevin Roberts is right, we are actually building deeper connections with our audiences, but not like a father son fishing trip, or a romantic getaway with your wife, rather the nodes in your brain, through emotional content, are being wired to create memory structures. Resulting in easy retrieval the next time you are looking to buy.

Long live content!

By Christopher Ott

Keep it in context

How important is context when you review commercials, and could this insight be used to help sell work in to the client?

Like many of you I saw GPY&R’s ‘Schweppes Tumble’ ad online before I saw it on TV.  At the time I thought the ad was grandiose and big waste of money. However, when I saw it on TV (it’s natural habitat) I quickly changed my mind.

This commercial received a record 161 comments on Campaign Brief, and it polarised the creative community.

When I first viewed the ad on CB, in that context, I seriously struggled to connect the content with the Schweppes brand.

For almost 2 minutes there was tumbling (admittedly - beautifully produced tumbling), which was building the audience up for a big reveal. Then finally, the actors fall into a river, creating shweppervescence-eque bubbles.

It seemed a little contrived. A bit forced, because the length created an ad that relied on a reveal, and when the reveal was a pure branding idea; it felt a little anti-climactic. Plus, 2 minutes is a huge ask for the audience to pay attention.

However.

When I saw the 30 second version, bookended between a Brand Power ad and O’Brien’s Windscreens, it absolutely popped!

In its real habitat the ad was like a Jackson Pollock hung on beige wallpaper.

Seeing it this way, the commercial refreshed my memory of the Schweppes brand by using the ‘bubbles’ brand asset in a really unexpected way, while simultaneously being absolutely stunning, and as a result engaging.

Even as a creative it’s easy to forget that when you view advertisements in a synthetic environment like Campaign Brief that it’s simply not how it’s going to be seen by the audience.

So, what chance does your client have, when you're presenting to them in your swanky board room, in being able to envisage how your ad will be seen in the real world? Nada, zero, zip.

I used this technique to sell radio ads into 'Snooze' (Bedding shop): With the help of my producer, we presented the work exactly how it was going to be heard in reality. We presented it between two other run-of-the-mill ads. The nuance and effect we were going for became tangible to the client and ‘Bam’ we got approval.

By Christopher Ott

Keep it simple stupid

You know that execution where you combine two elements to create one message? They're the zenith of simplicity, and I think we need more of them.

This technique, which unites the product with a symbol (Known as a schema in psychology) to create the message, has produced some of the most memorable ads in history, and yet oddly they are slowly disappearing. 

Presently, there's two forces leading to the demise of these simple tactical ads: 

1. Clients are scared about the economy and want (what they consider) 'risk-free' ads.  

2. We've become so preoccupied with applications, gamification and digitisation that we're forgetting the effectiveness of simple advertising.

In client-land, an advert that communicates anything less than 5 messages at a time is considered a waste of space. We've all come across the client that erroneously thinks the more information there is in an advert, the more the consumer takes out of it. 

Just like, we've all received the 'digital' brief, when a great print ad (like the ones above) is the better option. 

We know that bombarding a viewer with multiple messages and information only encourages them to turn their attention away, and that, because it has a much greater chance of being processed and subsequently remembered, communicating a single crystallised message is far more effective.

This clash of understanding, in my opinion, is why we end up banging our heads against a wall, trying desperately to help the client help themselves, while they're completely aloof.

The type of execution I'm talking about here, and shown above, is the pinnacle of simplicity. These are the ads that celebrate creativity, and are very powerful, both, with advertising effectiveness and in their capacity to win awards. No laundry lists, leaderboards, likes or QR codes needed.

Here's some reasons, for my part, as to why these sorts of executions work:

1. Simplicity.

Keep it simple stupid (KISS), we all heard this one at school. These executions treat the audience with respect. It's not spoon feeding them the message, and as a result they engage with the brand and spend more brain time with it. 

1. Dwell time.

The fusion of the 2 objects getting perceived at the same time creates a visual puzzle that, providing you’ve done your job right and the symbols aren’t too abstract, the viewer will want to solve. This is dwell time. The longer the viewer spends interpreting the message, the more likely the advertising will be effective.

2. Likeability.

I think these ads are simply likeable.  They reward the viewer for looking, as the viewer receives that wonderful ‘Aha’ moment. They get in on the gag, and this cognitive effect connects them with the brand.

We're currently going through a phase where things are becoming unnecessarily complicated. Fusion, unification, combining, bonding; whatever name you have for this execution, is a great technique to create simple award-winning adverts. Who doesn't want that? 

Entertainment is half the battle

These commercials by Ogilvy Paris for Louis Vuitton, borrowed interest aside, are unbelievably entertaining. Only a handful of other commercials have engaged me so grippingly, but does this make them good pieces of advertising?

   

The collaboration between Yasiin Bey (the artist formally known as Mos Def) and the poetic smack talk of Mohammad Ali are scintillating. And yeah, some other guy with a broom.

These two self-proclaimed films were released on the Internet and seeded through social networks. They’re part of a bigger campaign for LV named ‘Core Values’, which revolves around ‘journeys’. 

Attempting to backwards engineer the path to this idea; I think it would have gone something like: LV sells luggage, people use luggage when they travel, lets tap into the journey metaphor, and then they ended up with Mohammad Ali's life journey. Or, maybe I'm over thinking it and it was simply a classic 'if you've got nothing to say then dress it up' execution.

But what was Ogilvy and LV trying to achieve with them?

Being purely entertaining, for mine, makes you half way there to creating a brilliant piece of advertising.  This is true because the more entertaining an ad is the more likely the audience is going to remember it.

But this is my problem; I find them to be great films (ignoring the dude with the broom), but subpar pieces of advertising.

There’s nothing in the films that says Louis Vuitton. They simply don’t own it. So when the ad is remembered for its entertainment value, it’s sadly not going to be remembered with the brand.

So instead of having people sharing it with their friends, asking “have you seen the new Louis Vuitton films?”, they’re far more likely to ask “Have you seen the new Mos Def Mohammad Ali colab?”.

It seems Ogilvy kind of knew this, and that would be the reason why the LV logo sits in the bottom right corner for the duration of the films. Unfortunately this band-aid solution has been tested, and there's little evidence that it's effective (Romaniuk, 2009).

Making an ad entertaining is only half the battle. The content and message need to be relevant to the brand, otherwise, even if it's the most entertaining work ever created, it's not doing its job. So, to win the war, the trick is to make our commercials not only entertaining, but to make them relevantly entertaining.

Romaniuk, J (2009) 'The efficacy of brand execution tactics in TV advertising, brand placements and internet advertising'. Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 49, pp 143-50.

By Christopher Ott

Respect boss-man

I just want to weigh in on the VW Superbowl commercial. A lot of people are worried if it's racist. I say stop being so effing politically correct. The ad is fantastic. It actually makes me feel what the message is. Happy.

The unwritten law about racism is that the group that were doing the oppressing can't make fun of the group that were oppressed, and by extension the oppressment (New word) can't be made fun of. This means:

Okay.

Not okay.

So you can see the fundamental difference, right? What? It's that one ad has a black guy making a joke and the other has a white dude making one. Right. It's all just jokes!

Everyone needs to get some perspective. It's funny. And don't forget Jamaica was a British colony. There's plenty of white dudes walking around with those cool accents. 

Turn di frown di other way around.

By Christopher Ott

A scribble about advertising

Hi, my name's Chris Ott and this is my blog. It's a scribble about advertising. I'm a creative copywriter with a penchant for strategy. I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room but - from books to blogs to the back of buses - I do like to read. And with all this input, I'm constantly joining the dots to form ideas, which i'd like to further shape and share with you here on my blog.

If you don't agree with my thinking; post a response. I'm a creative; I have thick skin. Plus, I believe the only constant is change, so weigh in with your own ideas, because with new information I'm happy to evolve my thinking. Hope you enjoy it. 

Christopher Ott

Portfolio: copywriterchris.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/copywriterchris