Archive for May, 2009

Polarisatie

May 31st, 2009  |  Category:

Rijkelijk laat (had ik u al verteld dat het druk geweest was ☺ ) kom ik nog even terug op een nieuwsfeitje van enkele weken geleden, toen bleek dat Marc Coucke van Omega Pharma zijn Bentley inruilde voor een Skoda. Want “het was crisis, en dan moet iedereen de tering naar de nering zetten. En bovendien zijn het goede auto’s”

De move werd – terecht - ingeschat als een goede PR-stunt voor Skoda. Maar, wat ik me afvraag, is het dat ook niet voor Bentley?

Tuurlijk, op het eerste gezicht lijkt het een klap voor Bentley. Want, stel je voor dat velen het voorbeeld van Marc Coucke zouden volgen? Stel je voor dat ze zouden ontdekken dat ook andere merken goede auto’s maken? Stel je voor dat, met andere woorden, Bentley synoniem zou worden voor geldverspilling – zou dat de bodem niet onder uit hun markt slaan?

Ik denk het niet. Want wat hier gebeurt, op kleine schaal, is een polarisatie, met Skoda als symbool van de ene pool, en Bentley als dat van de andere pool. En ook al heeft Bentley dan nu even een tikje gekregen, ik ben ervan overtuigd dat elk merk erbij wint een deel van een polarisatie te zijn. Het verstevigt het beeld dat Bentley hét merk is voor supermanagers - een imago dat hen alleen maar baat kan brengen eens de crisis voorbijgaat.

Read more

There’s no show business like business

May 29th, 2009  |  Category:

“De wereld zit vol supermanagers die samen gaan eten om heel belangrijke beslissingen te nemen. Wat was er zo uniek in mijn geval? Dat was de vriendschap, Pietro. Geen van die managers is de vriend van degene die tegenover hem zit. Integendeel, vaak haat hij hem. Dus hij drinkt niet tijdens het eten, hij kijkt niet naar het uitzicht, hij eet zelfs niet, hij doet maar alsof. Hij luistert, twijfelt, berekent, praat. Hij is een machine. Hij kan nergens op vertrouwen, hij kan zich niet laten gaan, hij moet niets voelen, hij moet alleen vechten, ook daar, altijd. En dat maakt zijn leven onaangenaam. Ik stond echter op het punt dat te doen met een vriend, ik kon genieten van de avondbries en kijken naar het uitzicht en die lichte wijn drinken terwijl ik op hem en zijn heel belangrijke zaak wachtte: mijn leven was mooi.

(…)

Onze overwinning bestond eruit dat we niet groter wilden worden dan we waren, niet rijker, niet aanzienlijker, dat we wilden blijven zoals we waren: vrienden, rijk, machtig en nog betrekkelijk klein. We waren goed, Pietro, als je begrijpt wat ik bedoel.”

(Uit: Kalme Chaos, Sandro Veronesi)

In Kalme Chaos worden wel meer gevoelens en ervaringen bijzonder accuraat beschreven (hoe het voelt een broer te hebben, bijvoorbeeld, of wat een vader voor zijn dochter voelt). Maar in het bovenstaande stuk (maar eigenlijk moet je het hele hoofdstuk lezen), voel je de liefde van een man voor zijn onderneming, voor zijn compagnon, proef je het avontuur van samen iets op te zetten.

i_love_business_t_shirt-p235067727546656633trlf_400Ik vond het een bloedmooie passage, en dat heeft uiteraard te maken met het feit dat ik dat herken, dat samen, elkaar diep in de ogen kijkend, met angstig bonzend hart een business-avontuur inspringen. Maar dat is niet de reden waarom ik dit citaat vandaag aanhaal. Maar wel omdat ik een iet of wat contra-intuïtieve … nou ja, intuïtie met u wil delen. Namelijk: dat ondernemen, een zaak opzetten, business, … dat dat m.i. allemaal binnenkort zeer hip en trendy wordt.

Hallo? In deze tijden?

Read more

Where old ad people go to die

May 29th, 2009  |  Category:

At the latest “Best of Activation Award”, surrounded by people from distinctively more recent production years than myself, I was once again confronted with the age old question: where do old advertising people go? Are they all sucked up in The Great Advertiser’s Sphere? Are they shipped to a remote island? Do they become Soylent Green, like in the classic horror movie?

Fortunately, there are ways out. You can still be productive, like Jan, Danielle and Tony at GERMAINE’s. You can end up in the management of an agency. Or you can be George Parker.

Trust the bank!

May 25th, 2009  |  Category:

faith_rm

I suppose we were all shocked to discover that, once again, a bank we had all learned to trust has abused this trust. Be it intentionally or not. And in hindsight, you ask yourself why you trusted them more than other banks. You tell yourself you should have known.You shouldn’t have believed. And yet, you did.

Recently, in De Tijd, a very interesting article about (restoring) trust. In it, the author, David De Cremer, applies his lessons from the psychology of interpersonal trust to the world of finance, and argues that banks don’t succeed in restoring trust, because they have not yet really fully accepted that the world has changed. Underneath all their outward signs of understanding and humility, they still hope for things “to return to normal”. People feel this, and justifiably therefore, refuse to trust their bankers. No wonder they score low in a recent survey on the trustworthiness of professions - they almost rank with advertising people!

Which brings me to what I guess my main topic is: trust. Trust in advertising. Trust in brands.

Trust is by definition not rational (which doesn’t mean it’s irrational). It’s by definition a forward-looking decision, and is therefore always uncertain: no matter how well you think you know the subject of your trust, you don’t know if he/she/it will keep its promise. That’s why it’s called trust. And I’m convinced that people look for it, in brands, and therefore, in communication.

Sometimes the claim is made that brands are dead. That consumers have taken over control, have become supercritical, don’t accept anything from brands anymore, that the Internet has given them the power to challenge authority, etc. See this discussion between Fons Van Dijck and Guillaume Vanderstichelen.I don’t believe any of that, I’m with Guillaume here: even the most liberal, emancipated people desperately want to believe in something, in a person, in an idea, in a future. In a hero. They want to trust somebody. That’s the magic of Obama, and I think it can be the magic of your brand too.

Obviously, your brand has to be worth this faith, and that’s where the supercritical consumer kicks in: if something smells fishy, he’ll discover and share it. But that will not take away the, in my eyes fundamental, need for people to believe in something. I seriously believe cynical people are people who don’t dare to believe, not people who don’t want to believe.

Hoe niet te communiceren

May 25th, 2009  |  Category:

Het OIVO stuurt geregeld berichtjes door om consumenten allerhande te wijzen op alle mogelijke vormen van consumentenbedrog. Op zich niks mis mee. Goed zelfs. Maar dan moeten ze beter communiceren dan via het onderstaande mailtje. Want heeft u nu door dat de boodschap exact het omgekeerde is dan wat het lijkt?

picture-1

This is my life

May 25th, 2009  |  Category:

I remember when I first heard about Microsoft’s pioneering tool for lifelogging, the Sensecam, a small camera you wear around, that automatically takes a picture of everything you see, as soon as a person enters your personal space or you change environment. Typically, the output of this little machine “logs” your day, creates as it were a slideshow of your life. And I remember finding this a little creepy, this whole concept of lifelogging, an intrusion of my private life, even if, of course, an intrusion I’ve chosen myself.

sensecam_468x321

Then there was Twitter. Which is, if you want, also a form of lifelogging, although it’s more life-sharing: you decide to share a thought, an idea, a moment, an experience with a group of people that find your life interesting enough to follow. I’ve tried it, but found out I really couldn’t be bothered with other people’s lives (which is why most reality programs bypass me completely - I guess I’m just not interested in other  people :).

However, I find myself using the Facebook-application on my iPhone more and more. I take pictures, use captions, upload them and share them with the world. Or at least the people I know well enough to allow them to be Facebook-friends. Which is still a loose definition, by any standard.

So these people can now see where I am, what I read, what I’m doing, who I’m seeing, how I feel. Many people now know how I spent my weekend. And I feel allright about that, and I wonder why. Why is it that I, and of course I mean also the other thousands of people who do this, seem to have and enjoy ts urge to share my life with others?

Is it narcissism? Exhibitionism? Is it anxiety (do I even have a life?)? Is it coincidental that I’m only using negative motivations here, and not, say, things like “openness to the world”, “friendship” and stuff like that? Do I think something is inherently wrong about this, well, let’s call it, screaming for attention? Could it be just, say, interaction?

Now, I have never shunned the personal in this blog, even if it is officially a company blog. And on Facebook, I’m nog getting too personal either (I never forget clients and prospects might be reading too :). So the difference between the two worlds is not that big. And yet, I have to admit, and you will be with me here, that I haven’t done much blogging lately. I could, of course, blame work and deadlines for this, but these deadlines have not stopped me from using Facebok a lot more. So there’s more to it.

Dear old Henk (”old” is used here in the metaphorical sense, obviously) told me he basically stopped blogging because “blogs are dead”. Possibly it’s about the feeling that with a blog, you lecture; with social media, you communicate. With a blog, you have to make a point somewhere, you have to have something to say. With social media, a picture or a mere “hello” will do. With a blog, you’re on your own, you throw something in the world, and others may pick it up, or not, but you basically have no idea. In social media, there is the illusion people are always around.

social_systems

Is that it? In this hyper-connected world, we are all becoming contact-junkies?

Or is this just a practical application of Guillaume’s central thesis, that we should all, as individual people, become brands, and hero brands while we’re at it?

Up Close and Personal

May 24th, 2009  |  Category:

With the upcoming elections, and our agency being heavily involved in the campaigning, a lot of people ask me whether I have now also on a personal level become a converted “green”. Other put it more bluntly: will you vote for the green party in two weeks?

we_love_green

Three answers to that.

First of all: how come that literally everybody asks me this question, but before I was never asked whether, from now on, I would only travel via Thomas Cook, fill up at Q8, drink only Campina milk, call with a Samsung phone, and so on. Apparently, politics and advertising still remain this weird combination, that somehow you have to rationalize away. To make myself clear, I think that’s a good thing. I dread the day that politics is literally sld and marketed the way cereals or drinks are. There is the underlying idea, I suppose, that somehow, political ideas and convictions are not meant to be formed by marketing, but merely sold (and even then).

Second, and this is really the topic I wanted to discuss: as advertising people, we always have personal convictions and attitudes towards the brands we work for. And, advertising being inherently a subjective profession, these attitudes inevitably influence the work we’re doing. The strategies we develop. The problems we pinpoint. The creative work we’re proposing.

How can I not think of my own customer experience at, say, IKEA, when analysing shoppers experiences? Sure, part of being professional is being able to transcend your own point-of-view, e.g. by listening to consumers (through market research, private conversations, and obviously good old empathy). But being too professional, and therefore excluding one’s own experience, is a bad idea, I think. For various reasons.

- sometimes, the passion you feel for a client’s brand is a passion you already felt as a consumer for that brand. It’s an extra drive and motivation, and that’s a good thing.

- it’s easier to connect with consumers if you don’t forget to be one yourself

- let’s never forget communication, branding and the act of purchasing are emotional things. Try to analyse it only in a rational way, and you will be examining a dead product.

What is needed therefore - or rather, what I do in these situations - is not to hide away your own attitudes, but on the contrary, to examine them and be very aware of them. Because you know they will drive and influence your interpretations and actions, so better to get it into the open. If, for instance, a client launches a product I adore on a personal level, then it’s good to realize that my enthusiasm for the campaign may be just my enthusiasm for the product. Which could lead me to re-examine the communication. On the other hand, should I work for a brand that I don’t feel for myself, then I should be aware of this, otherwise I will be throwing away any attempt at creation, because “I don’t feel it”.

Of course, getting personally involved with a clients’ brand can go too far. Our former CEO, when we still worked for Hoegaarden, used to hide all the other beer brands in the supermarket, so consumers would be obliged to buy our client. There’s motivation, and then there’s obsession.

But, as an answer to everyone who asked me the original question in the last weeks: Yes. I will.

Yes he can?

May 24th, 2009  |  Category:

Zoek de zeven verschillen.

vdb1obama