Give back by washing

I love the new TV ad and campaign that Ariel are doing in conjunction with their Water Aid appeal.I can't find the TV ad, but here is the website.

Charity partnerships is absolutley what other charities should be doing in order to make 'giving back' easier for consumers. RED does it fantastically despite the large amounts of backlash it gets ( alot of people think the brand is totally self indulgent and doesn't give that much back... the self indulgent bit is true - Bono does my nut in)...check out buylesscrap.org a site set up to directly challenge the notion that consuming is the answer to poverty. I disagree with the site, although in essense it is a good way to get people to donate as extra to their consumption habits, I disagree that these partnerships are a bad idea. Consumption in Western society is impossible to stop, and if you can't beat it, join it.

The principal of putting charitable causese at the centre of consumer purchase behaviour, I think, is key, in fact it reminds me of the way we plan online brand communications/ol advertising. Brand partnerships like 'RED and American express', 'Marks and Spencers Bras & Cakes with Breakthrough breast cancer' and indeed 'Ariel with Water aid' allow consumers to donate without being forced to deliberatly reach for that bit extra from their wallets, which they are less likely to do - the donation is a seamless part of their shopping habits and probably means more donations, more often. When we go about planning online communications, the aim is very much the same, we want brand experience to be a seamless part of people's online behaviour/usership habits, rather than making them stop, think about it, and then probably not get involved with it (like when a charity volunteer stops you in the street.) I think the traditional donation model for charities is rapidly becoming out-dated. Charities should think of more ways to become part of real life behaviour; brand partnerships, donate per click sites and brands like Snow Leopard Vodka, which was set up with a charity cause at its heart, are I hope the cusp of the wave of a new and more charitable generation, where every bit of consumerism has an "ethical" slant (whether paradixical or not!).

Is technology innovation the key to ALL advertising?

If you to talk to anyone worth their salt in digital advertising, they will say that the best advertising is no longer about delivering a literal message, cleverly promoting a brand USP ("Red bull gives you wings"), but it is about building the value of a brand by delivering something tangible and long lasting to the consumer. Our generation of consumers are cynical, and rarely believe messaging, or care about ad campaigns, especially when it is delivered by a brand that has been around for a while. Fallon’s Gorilla has been an exception in the recent landscape- because it was a piece of creative that stopped people in their tracks, and reminded people about the nation’s biggest chocolate brand. However, in the majority, advertisers/brands are waking up to a reality that, in order to glean credibility or cut through in a cluttered market, they have to look at a consumer, listen to what the consumer wants, and deliver them a tool or a service that enables an ongoing conversation between consumer and brand. We have all heard people in the past year proclaiming advertising is now about giving and supporting, rather than telling or asking.... This bar has, as many will agree, been set by agencies like R/GA making Nike+. They succeeded in this vein because rather than telling people about how well they could jog with a new pair of Nikes, R/GA provided a running service that enabled people to run further and faster with their new shoes - letting consumers set themselves targets and listen to motivating music, rather than half believe a well worded one liner.

The new job for planners seems to no longer be about defining an insight that will be the springboard to create a strong brand message or positioning, it is about developing a role for the brand in consumer’s lives, a role with a large degree of longevity and a role that differentiates it from the rest of the market.

This topic was written about almost a year ago by R/GA's senior planner on Nike+, Anne Benvenuto. In her document on planning today, she states that planners need to do more than just mine an insight about consumer behaviour, they need to have at least 4 dimensions to a brief - Perceptual (what a consumer thinks), Behavioural (what they are doing), technological (how consumer is using apps/interfaces/platforms), cultural (dynamics in which consumer operates). She also states that we need two additions to the traditional creative team: an interaction designer (who understands interface design/forms of engagement) and a tech lead (someone that knows how technology works, what technology is coming up, what is possible). She is not the only one that thinks this, Ogilvy has the Ogilvy Lab in Singapore with a rocket scientist on its team, and on the less techy front, Crispin Porter is beginning to excel at product development - using products to change brand positing rather than TV/press campaigns (ie. they made a computer game about the 'Burger King' to sell in stores, or they made an electric guitar that plugs into a Volkswagen Brora - thus repositioning the car for a younger market). Crispin’s advertising model is about inventing something tangible rather than an idea delivered in semantics and images. Having said that, these campaigns were all supported by TV and poster advertising, so you could argue that traditional advertising is really the launch pad, it whetts the appetite, but has only a short term affect. Lastly, digital agencies are constantly endeavouring to provide technology solutions to brand problems, (lets face it, the online broadcast model is only a hygiene factor and generally is asked for by clients to spread the reach of an ATL campaign). In essence there is a growing sense that advertising should be about inventions - product and service innovation, something that moulds into the consumers lives, rather than disrupting it with the delivery of short scale messaging in literature or a 30 second film....I am not saying that
the disruption model is dead, merely that it is the beginning of what should be a longer lasting relationship, it is a short announcement, that now needs serious back up.

I agree with this 'product development' concept, but I wonder how this kind of strategy will pan out for low value commodities like FMCGs... is every FMCG brand going to be linked to a wider service offering in a couple of years? Is every brief for a new product variant going to have to go through a rigorous funnel of technology innovation?

I can see how it might work for brands that are linked to a specific activity (like running), in fact I was shown a great site the other day that would be perfect for the NHS to use in a digital anti- smoking campaign…Having finally found a use for twitter.com, quitter.com allows you to track how many cigarettes you smoke a day, it lets you record why you smoked and how you felt, and it also notifies all your friends that you are having a cigarette via web and internet...so if you really want to give up smoking, you can digitally track your 'will power' and compare it a community of smokers who are using the same service. It is the anti-smoking version of Nike+ , both services track ‘will power’, and allow you to mark how much you are achieving. I believe Weight Watchers also has a similar service, although one that is less holistic technology-wise (with no mobile or mp3 addition).

Will we have to link every FMCG to a certain behaviour other than eating or showering and expand that out then? And will consumers care? The Johnson’s baby website does this to an extent – allowing mums to track their pregnancy and linking them to a community, whilst offering up information and helpful advice. But should Johnson's also be developing a portable ultra sound service or a baby-steps pedometer in order to promote their moisturiser and shower gel?– Will this extra offering seal them as the leader in the market? Maybe I am missing the point here as those ideas don’t tap into a specific insight, but I can see this all happening…

I saw a brilliant TV ad by DDB today, promoting the new Phillips epilator. The ad uses a transvestite to promote the new 'sense and sensitivity' epilator - after all, what could be better proof that a hair removal device for women works, than showing that it works on a man's hardcore, thick hair? The ad perfectly disrupted the boring ‘look at my long, smooth, female legs' hair removal ad scene, hammering home a product truth. I'm already convinced, without any extra technology letting me remind myself when I next need to epilate. I suppose it is when the product life-span begins to wane due to a newer version from Gillette that Phillips will really need to use digital to involve me in an engaging brand loyalty programme.

Let’s put it this way, in my mind, traditional ads (if they are good enough) still do a great job of launching a product or reminding people of its existence, but digital will become essential to maintaining a brand’s lifespan through innovative consumer loyalty programmes. Regardless of my fears and doubts regarding FMCG brand strategy, I believe that digital technology is a brand’s NOS, - it’s the button that needs to be pressed in order to inject new life into a brand, and help it pace far ahead of the others after initial launch. Nike ‘turbo powered’ its way ahead in the trainer market quite literally... The key for other brands will be taking this learning and applying it to the brand, consumer and campaign in a way that isn’t just technology for technology’s sake, but something that truly takes the brand streets ahead of its competitors. Whether we need to employ a techy or interface designer to develop a service technology promoting Flora or Tropicana is debatable – but I bet once one of them is employed, and cracks a technology use for this market, there’ll be no stopping the innovation efforts of the likes of P&G or Unilever - will it be the digital agencies that finally crack this and finally own the main brand relationship? Will traditional agencies be pushed aside to be briefed to launch campaigns already defined by digital agencies, that have thought up campaigns with consumer/technology insights at their heart? Watch this space….

Check out DDB ad: Once, Twice, Three times a Lady:

http://creativity-online.com/work/view?seed=e378593c

Doig is a legend

I went and saw Peter Doig’s show at Tate Britain the other day. I didn't know of him before... apparently his stuff sells for some serious doe - £11 million for a painting to be exact… and I can see why – I freakin’ loved it.

Doig takes scenes, either from reality or from films and embellishes them with his own take on texture, realism and imagination. Even though his style is largely unique, I found each of his paintings really different. Some of them are really mystical, and others are more blunt, more realistic. I loved ‘Gasthof zur Muldentalsperre’ (2002 - above). It is a painting of two different photographs mapped together, one is of a dam and lake from a German postcard originating from 1910. The other is a photo of Doig and his mate in fancy dress – they are in costumes from the ballet ‘Petrouchka’ from when they worked at a theatre and had their photo taken. The mysterious, fairytale quality that Doig manages to evoke is brilliant – and the idea is as delightful as its delivery.

The second that really got to me was ‘Metropolitan (House of Pictures)’ (2004). According to Tate Britain, Doig came across a painting by a 19^th century French artist ‘Honore Daumier’ of an arts connoisseur looking intently at prints. Doig loved the stance, outfit and expression of Honore so painted him, ironically looking at Doig’s own work. To the figure he added facepaints, as he was living in Trinidad at the time, and apparently during Carnival it is common for Trinidadians to paint there faces white and nose and cheeks red to mock Europeans (hehe- good for them!!)

Anyway, the squares actually reminded me of some of my own paintings. If only I had used him as an influence – I reckon I could of taken some of my work further than I got. My own influences were Edward Hopper, Lichtenstein and Ken Howard. I love a mixture of abstraction and realism, and variable textures and colours are essential to my paintings. Below is a painting of my school art room (2002). It was a pretty boring brown room at the time, but there was so much creative work hanging on the walls, that it influenced the colours in my work. The second two, I did when I was in California (2004) and are reflections of my obsession with palm trees. For Palm 2 (second painting), I painted the buildings in abstraction, as I was staying in a yucky peach coloured modernist motel. In my mind it was a great place, but in a painting its realism looked ugly to me. Plus the light at the time had a huge purple/pink effect on the wall. Laslty, I wanted the colours to reflect my own fairytale existence on the sunshine coast.

My favourite thing about Doig is that he often takes things that he finds interesting from other works of art (film, photos, paintings) and puts it into his own work, playing with time, space and the medium (in most cases oil) itself. It’s cheeky, ballsy and LEDGY. Big up Doig, thank you for backing oil painting in contemporary art.

(pic 1. ‘Gasthof zur Muldentalsperre’ (2002), Peter Doig, Tate Britain, pic 2. ‘Metropolitan (House of Pictures)’ (2004), Peter Doig, Tate Britain, Pic.3 Art room, Lucy Hurst, Pic 4. Palms, Lucy Hurst, Pic 5. Palms 2, Lucy Hurst.)

Marc Jacobs & Posh Spice: Ironic or Serious?

I LOVE the new Marc Jacobs campaign with Victoria Beckham. My more stylish friend HATES it. Why?

I love it because I think Juergen Teller (photographer) and Marc Jacobs are taking the Mickey, but in a way that still screams "Marc Jacobs is stylish." I don't think that they take the Mickey directly out of VB, but more out of contemporary culture itself. I believe that Teller and Jacobs have used VB in an ironic sense, portraying her as a product, whilst showing off their own product (clothes, shoes). The photos directly question VB's place in the fashion world by highlighting the less stylish features to which her WAG status is stereotypically related - Teller shows her bra straps, dresses her in fushia pink and sprays her with fake tan. Furthermore putting a flower on her head makes her look like a little doll which reflects the way that she is played out in the media - a void papparzzi puppet with a permanent pout to match. Teller also highlights her famous miniature figure by putting her in a giant shopping bag...again highlighting (in directly or not) another probelm with contemporary culture - undereating and over spending.

My friend that hates the ads, on the other hand, thinks that using VB is a huge mistake. She thinks that VB is too tacky for an Marc Jacobs ad and that Posh undermines the chic style of the brand. This friend wears a lot of Chanel, so maybe she's more target audience...in which case if Marc Jacob's is supposed to epitomise understated style, then showing VB in couture is indeed an error.

Suffice to say, using VB in his ads made both of us do a double take when we were pouring over Vogue, and usually we'd just turn the page, as we do the rest of the 1000 0000 press ads there are before you get to any of the stuff that you pay for.... Yay for posh spice :) booo to Marc Jacob's price tags!

Is there such a thing as an 'Art Market ?'

In a recent interview by Anna Somers Cocks at The Art Newspaper, the collector Adam Lindemann, was asked whether he believed there was such a thing as an ‘Art Market’. Lindemann’s response got me thinking. His answer goes something like this:

“I believe that the art market is filled with economic realities, supply and demand and wavering trends. But I do not believe in the Art market as an asset class the way it is written about in the press, or studied at NYU, because each work of art is an individual object. Now, maybe that’s going a bit far, that’s the Micro versus the Macro or Plato versus Aristotle. Aristotle is about everything being infinitely different, Plato is about the absolutes, like beauty. I don’t believe in the Platonic view of the art market as one entity, but I believe in the Aristotelian view, which is to say that each, individual artist is their own art market. There is the 'Warhol market', the 'Klein market', the 'Judd market'…. The 'Art market' is a sum of parts… There is a strange mixture of psychological factors that sets it apart.”

I think his main point is that art should never be referred to as a set of commodities because each piece has a unique value that depends on a range of psychological factors rather than commercial or numeric success rates. The psychological and economical factors that are so unique to Art being bought, sold and made is what interests me.

In the British 'Art market', one could argue that some of our best known contemporary artists have come to make art to make money. They hope it will sell, even if it is for an ethical cause, like Banksy’s recent collaboration with Damien Hirst, to be sold to raise money for Bono's ‘Join RED’ charity(see picture). Yet most of them never started off with the intention to be ‘true tradesmen’. Certainly, this is true of many bohemian contemporary artists in Russia (1960s+), who were part of the ‘unofficial art movement’.

The ‘unofficial artists’ (non-conformist), typically expressed themselves about the status of Russian life, politics and sociology. It was the first auction of there work in Russia by Sotheby’s that took their work on a fast track to becoming a highly sought after commodity. Many of these artists, like Ivan Chuikov and Pyotr Belenok, were affected profoundly by the sales of their work to the West (for thousands of pounds.) Mainly because it felt like the meaning of there work was being taken away from its provenance. Many wanted to go back to the way they were before the sale, before their art reached the fringes of capitalism and its meaning somehow changed….It was hard to do that, due to the reality of the occurrence itself, and instead some went about making art about what had happened, or what was happening. Perhaps in this sense, the so – called ‘Art market’ is just a vicious circle of production and reaction. It is the reaction of the public to art work that determines the fate of each individual artist’s market, and thus the Art market as a whole. Yet it is the artist’s reaction to the Art market, or to the economy as a whole, that can make a work of art in the first place. It is this mix of intentional and unintentional success that perhaps sets it apart from other commercial markets.

This is an argument that has been written about in thousands of books, over thousands of pages – so I'm going to stop here because blog posts are best when they are short. However, it is the inherent contradiction of art for arts sake and art for money's sake that I have been pondering over and thus felt the need to write about for the past couple of days... It's pretty cool that artists like Hirst and Banksy have come to be able to make ‘commodity art’ where the money goes to charity – thank goodness for existence of the “Art market”!

(Ref 1: The Art Newspaper. Ref 2: Adam Lindemann 'Collecting Contemporary.' Ref 3 : Getty images.)