Just do it

If I was a decade or two earlier in my career - and still lived in the UK - I think I'd be signing up for the course run by the apg "21st Century Planning for integration and behavioural change."

The blurb about this course points out that planning is not just about what "message" you need - if you need one at all - but that's it's vital to plan campaigns around desired behavioural change.

This sounds good to me, but it does remind me that we did sort-of pay lip service to this aspect in our creative briefs a decade or two ago, with the "desired consumer response" section. In this, we would state what we'd like people to think, feel and do as a result of the campaign.

Unfortunately, I don't think many of us thought past "buy the brand" when we filled in that section. It would be great if this course can get people beyond that sort of thinking.

By the way, why is Behavioural Economics trendy and a buzz-phrase while Behavioural Psychology is not? Is the clue in the picture?

Ozymandias Airways

I was lucky enough to cut my planning teeth on the British Airways account, at the end of the 80s.

It may seem odd to people starting out in their careers now that working on an airline was the jewel in the crown as far as accounts went back then - just as cigarettes had been a few years before. But it does occur to me that the best communications tend to happen when the category is a "happening" one - like Apple or Google today.

Airline advertising had a dromedary of a golden age - the first hump ran from the late 40s to the early 70s and comprised mainly of print advertising which just oozed the glamour of air travel and the exoticism of the destinations.

A slight oil crisis/cheap packages on charter flights/hi-jacking fears dip held things down for a few years in the 70s, but with the privatisation of British Airways and the increased popularity of long-haul business flying, airline advertising entered the second hump of the golden age, with some of the best TV commercials the world has seen.

Working on an airline account must be a challenge these days. Horrendous acts of terrorism have led to ever more intrusive security checks. Cheap n' cheerful no frills budget airlines have stripped the whole sector of its glamour and dreams. And anyone with a smidgeon of conscience will surely wonder if it's not just Concorde that should be pensioned off as being non-sustainable.

Perhaps it's no wonder that airlines reach back to those carefree golden days for their communications, whether it's Virgin celebrating 25 years in glorious 1980s style, or Lufthansa selling retro-style travel bags via Tchibo.

Happy Talk

There was a time, when I lived in the UK when I couldn't walk past a building site without being told "cheer up, love - it might never happen."

Builders were always Britain's official cheerer-uppers - and their chirpiness was guaranteed to produce a curmudgeonly "grrrrrr" of a backfire.

I'm afraid that the following piece of advertising evokes a similar reaction in me. It's a shame, because the movement behind it, Action for Happiness, does seem to have some substance and some intelligent thinkers associated with it.

But while I agree with the sentiments is ticking an email "pledge" to try to create more happiness really the way?

It's a bit like money. The people with the most aren't the ones talking about it.

Antisocial Media

I'm pretty mediocre when it comes to social media, apart from this blog. I have a half-hearted presence on Facebook, use LinkedIn for business contacts and click "yes" for most people that come looking for me on Xing. And there are a couple of communities relating to non-work interests that I'm quite into, when time allows.

I've noticed in the last week that a couple of these networks are "coming back at me" - and not always in a desirable direction.

It looks as if LinkedIn are starting to recruit people to take part in surveys. This is just about OK in my book - and at least they had the decency to ask if I wanted to take part in future surveys, and how often. Plus there was the option of donating the €5 incentive to charity.

But a worrying development happened via a site called InterNations, that I joined once, never used, and don't seem to be able to extricate myself from. It was a classic cold-caller selling financial advice who used every repugnant trick in the book until I called his bluff and he admitted to having my details from InterNations. What's rubbish about this, apart from the annoyance, is that not only did the financial advice firm take a plummet in my estimation for using such shoddy tactics (I'm not naming names yet as I am giving them a chance to redeem themselves) but the whole grubby feeling also manages to rub off on InterNations.

What you'd call a lose-lose situation, I suppose.

Sweet Sixteen

For one reason or another, I've been looking at presentations from a number of major market research agencies lately and one thing that the quant agencies are trying to do is to get a handle on the way people respond to communication emotionally.

Interestingly, agencies are looking at ways of classifying human emotions or motivations (NB: I'm not using these terms inter-changeably as others seem to do!) and using this as a basis for quantifying response to a piece of advertising - what desire does the brand meet or which emotion does the advertising evoke?

I was reminded in all of this of my own studies and one thing that's remarkable is that most of these grids and lists seem to focus on the magic number 16! There was the personality inventory, the Myers-Briggs grid and another Magic 16 that seems to be referenced by many of the research agencies is Professor Steven Reiss' "16 Basic Desires".

It seems reasonable that these desires govern behaviour to some extent but I would question whether they really define someone's personality. Personality is surely something more fundamental, more complex, more long-term. And I also wonder if there should be some good old Maslow-esque hierarchy at play here: can you really put "Eating" and "Idealism" on the same level? And where is creativity ?

But as a basic list, it's not bad and could certainly help in defining which human desires your brand in particular can satisfy.

Mum's the word

In time for Mothering Sunday in the UK and to lead up to the London Olympics 2012, Procter & Gamble are about to unleash their first-ever corporate advertising for the general public. Interesting, because I've been involved in discussing the rights and wrongs of such an approach in the past. Interesting, because arch-rival Unilever has had its corporate logo on all its brand advertising since 2009.

Of course, newer companies don't have this headache. There aren't shadowy corporations lurking behind the brand names when it comes to the amazons, Googles and Virgins of this world. And even some of P&G's fellow-centenarians from Coca-Cola to many car brands have put their company name forward as brand name from the start.

You have to sympathise with P&G and their ilk to some extent. In the brave new internet age you can't hide. And if you don't take some kind of stance about who you are and what you stand for, someone else will do it for you. But however much I believe that P&G should have done something, I'm afraid that they've done the wrong thing.

Part of this comes out in the way both P&G and Unilever talk about why they've gone for the corporate-to-general public approach:

"(The Olympics)...is a great opportunity to talk to consumers about P&G and what we stand for." The phrase "talk to consumers" says it all. Isn't it about conversation these days? It's true enough that people these days want to know more about the companies that they buy products from - but they won't learn by being "talked to," like a naughty child standing in the corner.

Or this: "Our research says that consumers...are increasingly marketing-savvy and know that there are people who are behind brands." Well, I never!

While I'm sure that P&G have done their research, I'm a little uneasy that they appear to have done their usual version of copy & paste, which is known as "search and reapply". A successful campaign that ran for the Vancouver Olympics will be used in the UK - "Proud Sponsors of Mums."

I do find this a slightly patronising - and exclusive approach - after all, men and women without children have to clean their homes, wash their hair, use denture fixative, do the laundry and all the rest, too.

And when it comes to it, do I really want to be thinking about Pampers when I'm buying perfume? And talking of Pampers, what would be really fantastic is if P&G ditched the corporate budget when it comes to Germany and ploughed the money into an action-led campaign - from Pampers - that really did something to change the lot of mothers in Germany, as suggested here.

Second Hand Brand

One of the little email highlights of the week is seeing what new ideas are percolating around the world via Springwise. And, like myths and legends, similar ideas seem to spring up independent of each other in countries as far flung as the Philippines and the USA. You can either blame the internet or maybe it's just a touch of the good old Collective Unconscious.

The trend I just love at the moment is new from old in the fashion industry. The Fortune Cookie purses from Diana Eng pictured above just make you want to smile. They are made from scrap leather from the furniture, upholstery and garment industries and each comes with its own history as well as a fortune - in words rather than coins, I hasten to add.

Over in the Philippines, Rags2Riches are also using discarded scraps from the fashion industry to make handbags and rugs - and helping disadvantaged women at the same time. And Saved is an idea from Do The Green Thing which rescues unloved and unwanted T-Shirts to give them a new story and a new home.

I have to say these companies, organisations and enterprises have brilliant names and Worn Again is no exception. They are a UK company who make bags and the like from old aircraft seat covers from Virgin Atlantic - and they are also in partnership with Eurostar and the Royal Mail.

Interesting to speculate who may have sat on your new shoulder bag?