Category: Planning

Reclaiming planning’s radicalism

 

I was recently invited by the APG of Sweden to talk about ‘the future of planning’.  This is the text of that talk - a personal perspective on whether account planning indeed has a future at all. My thanks to all at the APG for the opportunity of catharsis. 

***

The political activist Marcus Garvey once said:

A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture, is like a tree without roots.”

Now ours is not an industry much given to contemplating the past. And it is easy to take the existence of account planning for granted.  After all, it has functioned now as a distinct agency discipline for almost half a century. In that time been exported, institutionalized, taught, iterated, segmented, and even celebrated. The story of account planning is a success story.

But if we are to shape the next fifty years, then we must rediscover our radicalism. For we are in danger of being that tree without roots, and it is only by rediscovering our past that can we hope to play a part in shaping the future.

***

The story of account planning story begins in 1968.  While the streets of Paris were convulsing with the idealism and missiles of the student riots, in Swinging London, Stanley Pollitt and Stephen King began reengineering their agencies to accommodate what came to be known as ‘account planning’.

This much we all know.  But it is easy to forget that at its inception, account planning offered the industry a truly radical philosophy. For the impetus for the creation of planning was an over-dependence on copy-testing persuasion scores, the abuse of rigid qualitative research methodologies, and a shortage of decent market data.

Account planning in other words, was borne of a frustration at the way research was being used in agencies. King and Pollitt were driven by the desire to create a way of working where the primary use of research was consumer understanding in the service, as Paul Feldwick has put it, of “intelligent strategy and creative communication”.

It aimed to expose and dismantle stifling and unhelpful research methodologies. 

It devoted itself to developing a real and rounded understanding of the consumer, rather than simply selecting and polishing selling propositions. 

It sought to place thinking about the response of the consumer at the heart of strategic and creative thinking.

It shifted the focus of advertising development from finding ways of selling people stuff, to finding ways of making stuff buyable.

And it placed the quest for effectiveness above all other agendas, both internal and external.

***

So where, forty-six years later, does account planning find itself today?

In parts of our industry it is in rude health, with sharp, brilliant, imaginative minds helping shape innovative and effective solutions to clients’ business issues. The APG’s Creative Strategy Awards and the IPA’s Effectiveness Awards both provide invaluable evidence of how intelligent, creative thinking can yield fresh ideas that move businesses.

Yet planning in many other quarters feels like a photocopy of a photocopy – reproduced, but with much of the original clarity lost. 

In fact there is a palpable sense of confusion, uncertainty and anxiety within the planning community. We speculate whether planning is merely a subset of UX, whether marketing has been replaced by growth hacking, whether (God help us) the creative brief format should change, whether the big idea has been rendered obsolete by the small idea, and we entertain advice on what planning ‘should’ be by people with the flimsiest of strategic credentials.

Moreover, there is no sense that planners share a common philosophy, let alone a common body of accumulated marketing knowledge.  So to confusion, uncertainty and anxiety, we can also add ignorance.

Turning to survey the role of planning within agencies we have the planner as creative apologist and ‘strategic setup’ writer. As translator of client briefs into something coherent and workable for creatives. As articulator of other people’s ideas. As powerpoint jockey. As trend spotter. As bad creative with a big vocabulary. As cheerleader for ‘innovation’. As conference speaker and panelist. As politician and manager of client relationships. As speculator about what the future holds. As salesperson for agency capabilities.

However valuable these contributions might be, none of them represent the core purpose of account planning.   Alone they are planning distracted, and domesticated.  

Now I am not suggesting that everybody in this room is guilty of all of this. The fact that you here are all members of the APG is a pretty good indication that your hearts and priorities are in the right place. Nonetheless, there are bad habits and behaviours, and there are plenty of planners outside this room that are guilty of indulging in them. They discredit the discipline, make it weaker, and jeopardize the possibility of great work.

And that is (to indulge in understatement) a pity, for the world brims with opportunity. New consumers are beginning to find the fruits of the marketplace within their reach and means for the first time.  Technology is turbocharging, amplifying, and accelerating our Stone Age instincts,   It is rewiring how businesses do business, and how they connect with consumers.  New industries are emerging, entirely new business models are being created, and new players are disrupting and even obliterating old businesses. As it has always done, the world teems and swirls with the complexity  and opportunity that always attends creative destruction.

If planning is to help businesses adapt, survive, and prosper in this world, it must regain its sense of purpose, and go back to its future as a radical movement. 

Now by ‘radical’ I do not mean mean wayward, destructive, or self-consciously hip – coming from the Latin radicalis, meaning root, the original use of ‘radical’ meant going to the root, or essence.  Planning in other words, was (and at its best continues to be) about going to the root of the matter.  It was about asking questions – the obvious yet unasked, the awkward, the penetrating, the fresh and unexpected. It appreciated the fundamental truth that creativity begins with questioning.

Without radicalism – without the desire and tenacity to ask the smart, challenging, hard, good, fundamental and penetrating questions, without the interest, ability and fearlessness to get to the root of things – we cannot hope to produce intelligent strategy and effective creative communication. No amount of lateral thinking, digital savviness, powerpoint, eloquent brief writing, and hanging out with creatives can make up for that.

So some thoughts with on what radical planning takes seriously.

***

In a world characterized by constant change and innovation, planning will be knowledgeable about the fundamental principles of marketing and communications. 

It is breathtaking how little planning knows about how businesses actually make money, and how brands grow and are sustained. It is equally depressing how uninterested many planners appear to be in any of this today. Planners who find this stuff too tedious, or beneath them, would probably be better off advising production companies, than advising clients on how to address their business issues.

In contrast, radical planning will take a keen interest in how our clients actually make money – in the business behind our clients’ brands. 

It will know about the relative profitability of increasing volume or price, the difference between short- and long-term effects, and the economics of promotions. 

It will understand the fundamental patterns of buying behaviour so that it can translate business objectives into realistic marketing objectives.

And it will understand the relative contribution of penetration and loyalty to brand growth.

It will understand how people really make decisions, and it will understand how people influence each others’ decisions.

It will understand the different ways that people process communications, from low to high attention processing, and the strengths and weaknesses of each.  

It will understand how people respond to the same communications in different contexts (and on different devices), and why they will screen them out in some contexts and pay close attention in others. 

And while the body of knowledge so far is not extensive, it will try and understand how communications affect people in ways that are not explicit. 

Engagement, participation, loyalty, segmentation, differentiation… Marketing is full of myths, received wisdom, old wives’ tales, superstition, and zombie ideas (ideas that should have been killed by evidence, but which refuse to die).  Too much of this is simply being accepted uncritically and unexamined, swallowed wholesale, and mindlessly regurgitated. So while enthusiasm for the new is one of the things that makes our industry such an endlessly stimulating one to work in, radical planning will understand that thoughtful examination is the necessary partner of enthusiasm, not its enemy.

Of course people don’t really need communications. They need brands and products that contribute to their lives. And so planning will seek to understand how people actually use and experience products and services – both the physical and the digital, how that makes them feel, and how this helps form habits that shape future behaviour.  Indeed it will spend more time trying to understand how habits are formed than thinking about ‘loyalty’ or some other form of deep ‘engagement’.

We work at the ‘show-business’ end of business, not the business end of show-business. If we want a future in which we add value and are valued, we’d better start being interested in and knowledgeable about what keeps the wheels of business turning. 

***

Secondly – though surely it should be unnecessary to demand – planning will be knowledgeable about how ordinary people live.

95% of all that’s awful about the output of our industry stems I’d argue, from the fact that it operates as ‘Adland’. Because to operate in the tiny world of ‘Adland’ is to live and work in splendid isolation from all that surrounds us. It is to see ‘consumers’ not people; to worry more about the accolade of one’s peers than people in the real world; to be out of step with culture, both fast and slow; to create work according to ‘rules’ that have no foundation other than corporate solipsism; to breathe in an environment filled with the exhaust fumes of our own rhetoric; to find inspiration only in the output of ‘Adland’; and to judge our work against other advertising, rather than all other things that interest and excite people.

Now the notion of the planner as “voice of the consumer” has fallen for good reason into disrepute. It had come to legitimize marketing’s slavish following of consumer research. But we are in danger of replacing it with ‘the voice of adland’, which is just as terrifying.

Radical planning will not have forgotten that its role is to bring a knowledge of the outside world into creative process.

In providing that window onto the world outside adland, it will know the basic stuff about demographics, lifestyles, incomes, etc. But it will go beyond this, and occupy itself as much to understanding societal and cultural change, as it currently does to understanding the shifting technological landscape.

And it will understand that the real world can be very different from the cloistered confines of adland. 

Now I’m old enough to remember when when planners moderated their own focus groups. If this did nothing else it confronted us with the fact that most people lived very different lives from ours. Today, for all our glut of data and for all our ‘listening tools’, a great many planners are spectacularly and completely out of touch with ordinary people.

Radical planning will recognize that the lives of the people it seeks to influence can often be very different from our own. In reconnecting itself with reality, it will seek to dismantle the insulating assumptions, rhetoric, borders and behaviours that isolate ‘adland’ from the real world.

And in doing so, it will finally accommodate itself to the fact that for most of the time, most people are not terribly interested in brands, and that our primary task is not the nurturing enthusiasm of the few, but overcoming the indifference of the many.

***

The landscape is evolving and changing rapidly, but planning will have a good working knowledge of people’s media behaviours.

When I started in advertising, the media choices would be between TV, outdoor, print, and maybe if you were feeling adventurous, a bit of radio. Communications planning since then has of course changed dramatically. Marketers today are faced with a truly dizzying array of options, choices, and potential media combinations. Indeed almost anything can be a medium.

This complexity is compounded by the  the explosion in the number of brands vying for consumers’ attention, and the endless tsunami of compelling, distracting, useful, or entertaining content that now surrounds us.

In this environment, gaining and sustaining competitive edge demands that imagination be married with a new degree of rigour and objectivity. As Kate Cox has observed, once upon a time media recommendations invariably began with the objective of “build rapid reach and frequency to raise awareness”.  Today, the endless flexibility of digital interactions demands that we think through what each point of consumer contact does for a client’s brand and business.

However, there is in some parts of the planning community an almost wholesale ignorance as to the media diets and behaviours of different consumer segments. To some degree we can blame separation of the media function from the creative  one. But it is not an excuse.

While it will not know more than the specialists, radical planning will have an understanding of the relationship people have with different media (in the broadest sense of the world)  so that it can have useful and intelligent conversations with those experts.

It know the basics of what different channels, platforms, and devices can deliver – in terms of experience, audience, scale – as well as value to a brand and business.

For example, we talk about ‘second screening’, but exactly how many people do it, how much time do they spend doing it, when do they do it, and what are they doing on that second screen? Radical planning will know the answers because it will have got over the collective allergy or lack of interest in data that bedevils us today.

It will be able to distinguish intelligently between ‘wide’ channels that deliver reach and frequency and ‘deep’ channels that offer a more immersed consumer experience. And it will have the breadth of vision to appreciate that both can play a role.

And in contrast to our frequently naive response to media data and factoids, radical planning will be able to exercise a sense of proportion. It will be able to distinguish between apples and pears, and not fall for example, for comparing the audience delivered by a one-off broadcast with a video that has taken months and months to aggregate its views.

And it will be able to critique the sales patter of salespeople from, for example, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc. Certainly it would not have gushed quite so much at the 100m+ views that a certain three minute film garnered online.  It would have known that this is tiny for a global phenomenon, and equates to about a 200 TVR campaign just in the UK. There’s really not much point us banging on about ‘big data’ if we cannot cope with this much smaller data.

And finally, radical planning will know the relationship between media investment and market share growth, and be able to have an informed voice in the setting of task-appropriate budgets.

Our ideas are nothing if they are not experienced by consumers, and mediating technology is increasingly part of the idea, rather than merely a delivery system for it. Planning must climb out of its pit of ignorance and begin to ask all the questions that communications and media planners have been asking for decades.

***

And finally, planning will be able to actually evaluate the effectiveness of the ideas it helps develop.

Our purpose is to help in the creation of work that worksAnd yet investigating how it worked in the marketplace is neglected by too many planners. How can we hope to have clients take creativity seriously – to encourage it, invest in it, and pay us for it – if we ourselves have absolutely no idea what its contribution to their business was?

Radical planning will take seriously evaluating the business impact of creativity. 

Now evaluating communications responses – whether people saw it, remember it, liked it, etc. – is relatively easy. And of course people’s digital interactions give us even more things we can measure – searches, downloads, uploads, clicks, views, tweets, shares, likes, visits – the list goes on and on. All these things are easy to monitor and easy to count. They tend to move quickly, and they’re relatively easy to link to marketing activity. But despite our industry’s collective and frequently naive fixation with mindlessly counting these numbers, communications effects and media efficiencies are not evidence of effectiveness. Even if others do not, radical planning will grasp this distinction and understand that the end goal for clients is money and profit.

Properly radical planning will have a working knowledge of how to evaluate the effectiveness of our ideas.

It will know that short-and long-term effects are different kinds of communications responses, and it will know that they must be measured differently, over different time periods.

It will be aware that creativity is in all cases only one of the many factors, external and intrinsic, which may have driven sales or created a change in behaviour. So it will have an appreciation of how (I borrow here from the advice for entrants submitting cases to the Cannes Effectiveness Lions) distribution, pricing, competitive failure, share of voice, superior product performance, market monopoly, seasonality, price promotion, macro-economic pressure, cultural bias, legislation, average temperature, rainfall, force majeure, popular culture, fashion, politics are all potential factors in the fortunes of companies and the performance of brands, and that the influences on buying behaviour of consumers is almost infinite.

In working to identify the specific contribution of communications, it will know how to manually discount these factors.

It will have at least a working knowledge of the principles of econometrics.

And of course it will know that creativity makes money in different ways, whether that’s driving top-line sales, securing new distribution, supporting a price premium, reversing reputational damage, reducing the cost of sale, and so on.

If we really want to demonstrate to our clients that investing in creativity is good business (rather than just talk about it), then we must all take seriously the task of evaluating its business impact.

***

So, the fundamental principles of marketing and communications… how ordinary people live… media behaviours… and effectiveness. None of this is merely ‘nice-to-have’ theoretical knowledge – it has a direct bearing on what we choose to create. It shapes objectives, targeting, timing, channel and platform choices, investment levels, creative solution, and performance metrics. The fundamentals of what makes for good, effective planning have not changed.

Indeed the need for properly radical planning, for planning that has the intelligence, conviction, determination, and skills to involve itself in, ask, and address the fundamental questions is arguably more urgent than ever.

For while planning has long been obsessed with simplicity and reductionism, as Tracey Follows has noted, what clients really want is not so much help in coping with complexity, but certainty.  Uncertainty can paralyze a business (think about all those corporations that have been amassing vast cash reserves) and surprise can jeopardize it.

Uncertainty is of course, a perennial challenge in business planning.  But it’s probably fair to say that our world is volatile, complex and interconnected like never before.

Uncertainty of course cannot be eliminated. Risk is always the inescapable partner of return.  But if planning is to help clients manage risk, then it must be radical.

So rather than be content with breezy confidence, a dollop of marketing buzzwords, some observations about the Zeitgeist, some references to Nike+, Zappos or other case study du jour, and some pretty powerpoint, it must commit itself getting to the very heart of things.

Now this is not to insist that the development of ideas is a linear and entirely rational process in which each step logically leads to the next. Nor is this to argue that rigour and radicalism are the only requirements for effective planning.

As Stephen King himself noted:

The whole process of advertising is not a safe, cautious, step-by-step build-up, because that would inevitably lead to me-too advertising for me-too brands.”  

Hunch, gut, improvisation, lateral thinking, guess work, hypothesis, prejudice, intuition, even naiveté … they all have an essential and vital role to play in the development of strategy and ideas. Planners who fail to bring these elements to to the table are just as handicapped as planners who fail to bring to bear rigour and a desire to get to the root of the matter. Planners after all work with research, but in communications. As such their business is the same as everybody else’s – the application of imagination to clients’ business issues, helping create entirely new futures for our clients’ businesses and brands.

Planning then, is an essential part of the messy process, and is not just an upstream, conceptual discipline that does not get its hands dirty with the work. It is practical, pragmatic, and focused on execution, not mere abstraction.

However, without the skills and interest to get to the heart of the matter, planning is a body without a skeleton, and without this necessary infrastructure of knowledge and ability – without radical planning – we do ourselves, the work, and our clients a disservice.

Without planning that gets to the root of things, planning simply has no foundation. It speaks without authority, reduced to just another opinion – one everybody else is perfectly entitled to ignore. We are, after all, already over-supplied opinions.

Without radical planning, we also do creativity a disservice. We risk creativity being tasked with unreasonable, unrealistic, or inappropriate objectives, we deny the creative process the fuel of that old fashioned word, insight, and devoid of deep understanding, we render the development of successful ideas a roll of the dice.

And of course without radical planning we also do our clients a disservice. 

At this point we should pause and shudder as we contemplate the fact that the average tenure of a CMO is now a paltry forty-three months. 

The implications for the organisation are clear. Results (sometimes any results) must be delivered, and delivered quickly. Inevitably then, short-termism has become the scourge of the marketing world. And it is a scourge because real, significant, sustainable business results are felt in the longer term.

Only by getting to the root of things do we have any hope of helping clients set the right objectives, select the best tools, and marshal the appropriate level of resources. For as Laurence Green has observed:

Too often, our business has sliced and diced its tasks in the style of a sub-prime mortgage bundler. A corporate task set by the chief executive, reframed as a comms task by the marketing director, refined by the brand consultancy, and reduced by the ad agency to the stuff advertising can do: Grow awareness, nurture engagement. Too many links, too indirect and weak a connection between commercial possibilities and creative resolution.” 

Without properly radical planning we – along with our clients – we will remain hostage to this kind of thinking and operating.  

So if we want to take proper advantage of the ever-expanding canvas of creative opportunities, if we desire a broader application of creativity to clients’ business needs and issues, and if we are to go beyond only ever seeing and solving ad-shaped problems, then we must go beyond the merely superficial and apply ourselves more seriously to asking more, better, and different questions. 

***

We should never forget that the emergence of planning as a discipline was driven by anger and indignation. 

Anger at stifling and bogus research techniques. 

Anger at spurious assumptions about how communications worked. 

Anger at poor quality data that yielded no insight. 

Anger at a research and marketing infrastructure that got in the way of work that worked. 

The work and our clients today deserve this same degree of energy and fearless intelligence.

This same independence of thought.

This same commitment to cut through the self-serving rhetoric and rigour-free bullshit.

This same determination to look beyond the easy platitudes and lazy thinking.

This same relentlessly questioning spirit.

Planning is radical, or it is nothing.

***

 

 

Hacking the business with Stephen King

Small-Plants-Growing-1-IA4MU09IGM-1024x768

The need for more (and better) problems

When did creativity become a pseudonym for producing advertising? And when did strategy become a means to a message?

At a time when technology enables boundless creativity,  when digital interactions are blurring the line between product, product experience, and marketing communications, and changing how people search, choose, and buy, we are all – clients and agencies alike – in danger of limiting the scope and potential of creativity. As Lawrence Green has put it:

The task of any imaginative agency, any creative company, is to understand and serve it client’s business problems. Too often, our business has sliced and diced its tasks in the style of a sub-prime mortgage bundler. A corporate task set by the chief executive, reframed as a comms task by the marketing director, refined by the brand consultancy and reduced by the ad agency to the stuff advertising can do: Grow awareness, nurture engagement. Too many links, too indirect and weak a connection between commercial possibilities and creative resolution.”

Elsewhere, away from adland, others have argued that we need  to be ‘growth hackers’.  Josh Elman has described growth hacking as describing “a new process for acquiring and engaging users combining traditional marketing and analytical skills with product development skills.” According to Elman:

In the past, marketing and product development departments were often at odds where marketing groups would be spending significant amounts of money to acquire users but couldn’t get any development resources to build something as simple as new custom landing pages. And on the other side, product development teams would often build what they think users want and will attract users without deeply measuring and understanding the impact of their changes. This concept of “growth hacking” is a recognition that when you focus on understanding your users and how they discover and adopt your products, you can build features that help you acquire and retain more users, rather than just spending marketing dollars.” 

Of course what Elman is describing is not new at all. It is simply good marketing. It just probably doesn’t happen as often as it should.

So all this begs some questions:

How can we look beyond what advertising can solve?

How exactly do we expand the scope and value of creativity?

How can we identify opportunities for growth?

How can marketing properly shape itself around the consumer?

How can marketing define itself by what it solves, rather than by what it makes?

How can product development and marketing be reunited once more?

In all of this, theory and rhetoric will not help us. We need something more practical.

I am no a fan of templates and processes. We create after all, bespoke solutions for the unique challenges faced by each client. But I am a fan of anything that gets us asking better questions. And it is at this point that we must step back to the future.  For Stephen King gave us just the sort of questions we need. They are oddly neglected in the compendium of his best work – A Masterclass in Brand Planning, and are worth revisiting.

King’s Consumer Buying System

King’s model  – the ‘consumer buying system’ – appeared in his Manual of Tools of the Trade for Advertising Planners that he developed for JWT in the late 1980s.

It is by no means a panacea. And it certainly cannot solve the systemic dysfunctions of both agencies and client organizations that prevent us from a broader application of creativity. Nonetheless, it can encourage the well-intentioned and the ambitious to ask new, and better questions.

King had developed his model principally as a means of shaping and guiding a communications plan. His focus was largely on both the role and the choice of communications channels.

However, in as much as his model was largely a means of understanding consumer behaviour, its application and value goes far beyond that.  As King wrote in his introduction to the model:

The objective is to take your brand, examine the stages in the [Consumer Buying System] and ask, ‘How can we move the consumer through the process?’”

I make no claim for uniqueness in any of what follows. There is many a good marketer who employs their own version of King’s model.

(That said, and by way of a pedantic aside, King’s model predates  McKinsey’s model by decades. Thus demonstrating that those who are unaware of history are doomed to repeat it).

The model

Below are the phases of the model, as described by King.

It is worth noting that King was a big opponent of the one-size-fits-all approach, and recognized that the path to purchase varied depending on the category. Buying a bar of chocolate is different from buying a Picasso, or breakfast cereal, or a pair of trainers, or a holiday, or a car.

And so, by way of a preface, it’s worth bearing in mind, as he wrote:

The time frame for this process will vary enormously from category to category, for example, buying a car could take the consumer a year, whereas buying a box of cereal, from running out of the previous box to the next purchase, could take just hours. Thus some  stages are less relevant to some categories, and not all consumers within one specific category may pass through all the stages. For example,  when “buying” a new long-distance phone service, some consumers are  simply stimulated to change their phone company by an advertised offer,  whereas others will collect and evaluate information on long-distance  providers to improve their comfort level with the company.”

buying system.001 buying system.002 buying system.003 buying system.004 buying system.005 buying system.006

At each stage we should be asking – what exactly is happening?

buying system.007

New questions, new solutions

If we must, we can call it a framework for ‘growth hacking’. Certainly the sort of thinking, questions, and the types of solutions that King’s model encourages is instructive. As soon as we start unpacking people’s behaviours, we start inventing all manner of stuff that isn’t advertising:

examples.001 examples.002 examples.003 examples.004 examples.005

If we in adland only ever see ad-shaped problems, we’ll only create ad-shaped solutions. But if we see people, all manner of new and exciting stuff starts to happen.  As ever in marketing, progress lies in asking better questions and more imaginatively examining the lives, habits, needs, wants, desires, frustrations and dissatisfactions in people’s lives.

As King said of his model:

Since all marketing activities are aiming to reinforce or modify people’s sequence of ideas and actions, the buying system really is the starting point for all marketing and planning activity.”

That said, client organizations and their marketing departments too must assume their share of responsibility.  Often, it seems, they are divorced from product development, isolated from IT, embroiled in turf war standoffs with other functions, unwilling or simply unable to provide agency partners with real business issues to solve, and more comfortable passing off ad requests and  ‘insight’ babble as bona fide client briefs.

King, ever prescient, identified the need and opportunity for thinking more broadly about brand building:

Marketing companies today… recognize that rapid response in the marketplace needs to be matched with a clear strategic vision. The need for well-planned brand-building is very pressing. At the same time they see changes in ways of communicating with their more diverse audiences. They’re increasingly experimenting with non-advertising methods. Some are uneasily aware that these different methods are being managed by different people in the organisation to different principles; they may well be presenting conflicting impressions of the company and its brands. It all needs to be pulled together. I think that an increasing number of them would like some outside help in tackling these problems, and some have already demonstrated that they’re prepared to pay respectable sums for it. The job seems ideally suited to the strategic end of the best account planning skills. The question is whether these clients will want to get such help from an advertising agency. What agencies, and the account planners in them, would have to do is above all, demonstrate that they have the breadth of vision and objectivity to do the job”

If we can only grasp the necessity of beginning our thinking with real consumer issues and needs, rather than what type of creative product (social, viral, advertising, content, POS, etc., etc.) we will make, or what line of fashionable rhetoric we will subscribe to, then we might stand a better chance of unleashing the true potential of our collective creativity.

Indeed we might at last start actually living up to the theory, claims, and promise of marketing.

****

Sources

Judie Lannon & Merry Baskin, eds., A Masterclass in Brand Planning: The Timeless Works of Stephen King

Josh Elman, ‘What Is “growth hacking” really?’

McKinsey & Company, The consumer decision journey

 

Good fucking planning

good fucking planning - 6.001

I was inspired to dust down, revise and shorten the planner’s manifesto I wrote a while back when I came across the work and good fucking advice from the very cool guys at Good Fucking Design. Even if you’re not a designer, there’s wisdom for everybody there. Big thanks to them for being such princes and letting me pay homage.

The use and abuse of research: Some principles to create by

SalmonVsLampposts

As a former researcher turned agency planner I’ve worked both in research and with it. So as a gamekeeper turned poacher, I’ve always held rather strong views on research. I got a chance to air some of those this week, having been invited by Ipsos ASI to their seminar ‘Research as fertiliser, not weed killer’ in London this week.

It’s fair to say that what this presentation does not cover far exceeds what it does cover. The subject of research and effective creativity after all is vast.  So working on the basis that the essence of strategy is sacrifice, it felt helpful to restate some simple principles to work by. More specifically to share Wieden+Kennedy‘s beliefs about the best use of research.

Of course for some these will seem breathtakingly obvious. After all, the likes of Stephen King, Stanley Pollitt, and Alan Hedges were saying the same things forty years ago. The necessity of restating them might justifiably depress us, but perhaps it should not mystify us entirely. For as Voltaire once had cause to lament, “the trouble with common sense is that it is not very common.”

Good research can and does happen. And it can and does contribute to the development of great, effective ideas. In both the APG Awards and the IPA Effectiveness Awards we have plenty of evidence for that.

But too much research is still done for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way, and arguably by the wrong people.

Too much research has wholly outdated assumptions about the human mind, let alone how advertising works.

And too much research defines itself by its methods, rather than by the relevance and usefulness of its outputs.

My gripe then, is not with research per se (who would not want an understanding of the context for their efforts?) but with bad research. Of which there is still, far too much.

Enough with the preamble. First, here is the work I began with  - a selection of work from Wieden+Kennedy Amsterdam and Portland:

And here is a slightly expanded version of the presentation that followed:

My very sincere thanks go to IPSOS for inviting me to join conversation, and for having the fortitude and broadmindedness to allow me to share some unedited (and occasionally inconvenient) points of view.

And a very special thanks goes to a wonderful gent and a fearsome talent – Ignasi Tudela Calafell here at Wieden+Kennedy Amsterdam, who designed the awesome Salmon vs Lamposts poster.