1.27.2009

Trust Me: The first client meeting

The Suit and the Creative: For every tie, a carefully crafted chin of two-day stubble.

In keeping with today's theme of breaking the mold a bit on the range of my blog posts, I wanted to put down a few thoughts about the new TNT series, Trust Me, which premiered tonight (SPOILER ALERT).

As with any pilot, the creator's immediately set to set the stage of context and the various characters of the play. While they clearly sought very hard to portray Mason (Eric McCormack) as the responsible, older brother type and Connor (Tom Cavanaugh) as his immature-but-don't-you-dare-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-idea partner, I appreciated that it wasn't just a caricature of the people they'd play through the series and instead paid off in the episode when Mason gets promoted. 

While the development of Sarah (Monica Potter) leaves a bit to be desired up to this point, I can see her going places. And I love the way Sarah and all the other characters were introduced with supers with their name and role. There was just something very charming about the little notes "It's her first day" and "Everybody's boss." I hope these continue to be used in the series and aren't just a tool for getting the ball rolling.

A lot of folks have been preparing to compare Trust Me with its period piece counterpart Mad Men, but after having seen the first episode, I've decided the comparison is really quite irrelevant. If anything, Trust Me reminded me more of Scrubs--taking a diversified group of folks and highlighting their interactions with themselves and each other as they work through shared cases--and perhaps I just described really every series in the history of series, but bear with me.

With this modern tale of the men and women of advertising, there's always a hint of dark cynicism you see in many comedians underneath their witty banter and sharp speech. (Connor=Perry? Anyone else see it?) And there's a certain lightness to the way they approach more serious themes. Of course Connor would call Stu an asshole in his eulogy. Of course there'd be a quick flashback to Connor picking a fight with some random Todd on the street to quickly explain how he got the shiner. But truthfully I like it. The supers, the flashbacks, they're all nice touches to add a little something, and I think it'll open up a lot of opportunities.

While there were a lot of jokes that strike a chord for ad folks (hello, focus group scene and failure to reach first class), I think that this show has a chance to appeal to all audiences. Everyone get advertising because we're all consumers. Further, there's a certain glamour to advertising that has made the profession a common thread in lots of movies and shows, and while Mad Men has played to the idea of the power of advertising, Trust Me really fleshes out the egos, the speed, the competition, and the insecurity that comes with the territory (don't tell me you didn't wince when the word "hack" started flying). And everyone can appreciate the dynamics of partner relationships, and for all the animosity that went between Mason and Connor, I think everyone gave a little internal "aww" when he said "I'm a better writer when I know you're gonna be reading it." Even though Trust Me can find some depth, you don't feel the weight of it afterwards the same way as at the end of Mad Men.

All in all, I think the pilot really served as a well-written brief: it's setting the series up for some great work, but we'll have to wait to see if it can truly inspire the creatives to take it to the next level or if the execution will fall. I'm certainly looking forward to the first round of work.

Note: I've only just remembered that Cavanaugh was also in Scrubs, as JD's brother. And I can't help but note my disappointment that the annoying woman from the Zyrtec commercial ("They should put that on the label: Two hours you didn't have before.") will be a part of the show. Oh well, maybe she'll wow us. If Flo from the Progressive commercials can rock it on Mad Men, I'll give Zyrtec gal a free pass.

1.26.2009

Can Pepsi pull it off?

I don't like using this platform as a forum for reactionary conversation, but I think there's some big things going on behind the new changes Pepsi has made and what it means for the age-old relationship between Pepsi and Coke.

With the new logo and new campaign "Refresh Yourself" produced by TBWA\Chiat\Day, Pepsi has firmly aligned itself with the themes of the Obama campaign-- hope, optimism, and change. (Whether or not they have any legitimate ties with the Obama campaign I do not know. Care to enlighten me, anyone?) 

My initial reaction was that the campaign would have been just as well suited for Coke as it would for Pepsi--I more associated the ideas of hope and optimism with Coke than with Pepsi in the first place. So I considered more closely what the brands stood for.

Coke has always stood for happiness, togetherness. It meant polar bears sharing Cokes with penguins. It meant singing together on a hill. It's message is timeless; Coke means happiness, now and forever.

On the other hand, Pepsi has always been based in what is timely. Between "Generation Next," Britney Spears and her comrades, and the brand's young, irreverent tone, Pepsi has always been the "cool" alternative. So their new campaign begs the question, is Pepsi taking to this attitude of hope and change because that's what's "in" right now, or are they doing it because its an integral part of the brand?

It does make me wonder if "current" can be considered a strategy. Earl Cox, director of planning at The Martin Agency, told my class at VCU Brandcenter that "Cool is not a strategy," which I wholeheartedly agree with, but there's an important distinction between "current" and "cool." Going with current seems to work for MTV, but one could argue that is because they're better able to both reflect and create what's current, building some of the trends to begin with. 

Similarly, I considered whether or not Coke can break out of their role as a timeless brand. For what events had Coke ever shed its timelessness? Perhaps the Olympics, but to be fair that's a tradition in itself and of course based in bringing people together. The new millennium? Again, the work was still a reflection of the past and introducing Coke as a relevant part of our future, too.

So who's to say this won't work for Pepsi? As for the consumers participating with the campaign, will it translate into increased consumption? Improved brand health? Paul Isakson recently wrote about how sometimes you just have to remind your consumers you're there and give them something to be excited about (though his discussion was more in the context of the weird and wonderful). Aligning themselves with Obama certainly a great way to piggyback on the enthusiasm of the public. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Any predictions??

Related: John Eighmey of the University of Minnesota just posted Coke's newest work, translating "the Coke Side of Life" to "Open Happiness" so as to make the message clearer across global communities. As always, though the translations change, Coke remains steadfast in their images and ideals.

EDIT: I just saw an ad that actually tied it together a lot more for me. It took iconic images of generations through the ages (with, of course, Pepsi in every hand) all the way up to current times, all set to "My Generation." It ended with the super "Every generation refreshes the world. now it's your turn." This ad served as the glue. Still not sure I'm convinced, but if the images through the generations are clips from old Pepsi ads, then it seems pretty solid.

1.21.2009

Fighting consumer skepticism (and TIVO?) with unique media

On a number of occasions I've talked about how brands aren't using sponsored video streaming online to its fullest potential. Namely, they have the chance to do something great having sponsored an entire episode of a show. But having realized this and wondered vaguely how TV could learn from this, I think I've come to a conclusion.

In an age of cynicism and skepticism, what if a brand sponsored an entire show, and put the entire commercial time in one long chunk after the program? They'd likely win a lot of points with consumers, and furthermore, the long-format opens up a myriad of opportunities in terms of content. Double points-- no frustrating commercial breaks, and innovative branded communication that can entertain on a longer, deeper level.

ABC, say goodbye to "commercial interruptions."

Side-note: While I know a few shows have tried commercial-free showings, they haven't used the opportunity to their advantage, using the 20 minute commercial space for anything beyond a brief sponsorship message and then have the rest of the space sold to others.

1.20.2009

Wearing our heart on our sleeve...wrist, arm, and chest

I've been musing on the concepts of badges and why we seemingly feel the need to broadcast our choices, most obviously our choice of social causes. From Inspi(red) shirts to Livestrong bracelets and self-proclaimed reusable bags, consumers have been increasingly showcasing their alliances. 

So what's the draw? Folks would never want a Coach purse that said "I'm made of cow!" but we love our reusable bags stating "I'm made of recycled plastic bottles!" (Though some would argue that Coach is already synonymous with quality leather, aka cow, so it wouldn't need such a proclamation, but I digress...) We like people to know that we're green, or that we support cancer research, and badges make that possible.

But what if we didn't get our badges? What if people went around collecting one dollar for cancer research without giving athletes and general supporters the now-iconic bright yellow rubber bracelet? Would it have been as successful? My best guess tells me no, definitely not. But how long will this work? Will badges start to lose their meaning, their momentum? If so, will people still buy reusable bags that don't proclaim their continued use, or support AIDS research one iPod-priced donation at a time? I regret to say it's likely some of these behaviors may taper off, and I'm worried that these causes might suffer if badges lose their social currency. What do you think might be the next evolution?

To take the discussion one step further and play the devil's advocate to my own thoughts on generational theories: One common belief of Millennials is that they were raised on praise and recognition and thus are motivated by reward. We were paid for good grades, and showcased weekly in our schools for menial achievements like running the mile in under 8 minutes. Assuming this recognition-and-reward-based-condition is valid, might this be part of why these products are so transparent, and so popular in young demographics? Then again, badges are far from exclusive to the young folks. Anyway, just a thought. It's not like the Millennials are the only ones making the products, either.

Photo: Bag from Roots Canada

1.14.2009

Research Processes: Mary Roach


Many planners will tell you that there has been a definite push-back against planners coming from a traditional background (aka studied it in college, came from another agency, etc) in favor of folks with experience in other fields, such as anthropologists, librarians, and even neuroscientists. Being a kid who studied advertising in undergrad (and for a while in grad school even) I'm not necessarily on the top of the list for some of these companies, so I decided to look to other disciplines to see what I could learn from their experiences and bring to my own.

Enter Mary Roach, author of Stiff, Spook, and Bonk. (Despite the nice ring to it, this is actually three separate books on alarmingly different topics: cadavers, the after-life, and sex.) Each book is a candid, science-based discussion of various topics related to these items in a variety of interesting angles. Having read and greatly enjoyed both Stiff and Bonk within the last two months, I started to get curious about Mary's approach to research. After deciding to email her, I was shocked to get an email back within 20 minutes with her home phone number (and having read Bonk, I have to say it was strange to have her husband pick up the phone--I felt I knew things about him I really really shouldn't.)

 She claims her research methods are best described as "random, chaotic, and ineffective" but given her success, I beg to differ. Throughout our conversation I learned a number of lessons that have helped to form her research approach:

1. The broadest source isn't necessarily the best. Though in the beginning Mary attended conferences to get the lay of the land, she ultimately found that they weren't as useful as getting in and interacting with the people who are actually doing the research, preferably as they complete research for a related project. These people would explain what they were doing as they performed it, giving Mary the chance to be walked through the process and then relay that step-by-step experience to her readers. This speaks specifically to the fact that generalizations, theories, and large-scale conferences are NOT a suitable replacement for primary research. Sure they save time, but what did you really learn that your competitor can't?

2. Use the right language to guide your search. It was particularly important for Mary to use the correct language when she began her search--I can only imagine what kind of results you get from a Google search for "odor of body decomposition." For Mary, this meant using "cadaveric" as her search term instead of "cadaver," as it is only in medical research that the term "cadaveric" is used. Similarly, if we want to connect with a target about a concern like wrinkles, we need to know the way they talk about it- "anti-aging regenerating serum" certainly wasn't what consumers expected would be a product on their shelves before advertising and branding had their say--they likely imagined something like "wrinkle cream."

3. Have a folder to collect relevant content. Collect all things you think are interesting and connected to the topic you're researching. You never know when one of those things might become the newest, most interesting movements in the current landscape. Furthermore, having a physical collection of related items can help you determine what your brand or product has or knows that your competitors don't-- it can help aid you in everything from the strategy to creative execution and media placement. 

4. Connect the dots-- from each strong source, find another. Perhaps the best way to save time and ensure great results--when you find a source that is on the right page for what your research requires, consider asking them for more references. In Mary's case, many times the community she was working within was small, and so the folks she was interviewing typically knew of many others she should contact. The same will go for your target--they'll likely know of others that could be valuable to your search.

5. Don't stop looking for new content. Mary told me that the majority of her time is spent sending emails to possible leads trying to find out where the newest research is being conducted, or what the newest findings are. In her process, Mary takes up up to two years or more to complete her book. Of course, in advertising, that isn't an option. Continual research and digging for relevant insights, however, is not only an option but should be part of our daily role as planners. Our work is not done once the brief is out of our hands and approved by the client. Similarly, husbands around the world will tell you their wives still want flowers "for no reason" and expect dates and other vestiges of their previously-single lives. It's a continual relationship, one you have to continue to work on.

I intend to look to other disciplines to learn more, both in terms of research methods and approaches to communication. I'm looking forward to my re-education.

Photo credit: David Paul Morris