This I love:
It's entertaining, distributable in several forms, gave the Asteroid Galaxy Tour a nice (and profitable) 15 minutes of fame, and overall delivers a much needed breath of fresh air from the usual barrage of beer advertising we see.
I'm guessing Heineken has some penetration troubles with the 20-something crows. The brand is old-European and trying to be fun. But it's generally percieved to be the stuff your dad drinks when he wants to feel worldly. It doesn't hold ground with the younger drinking demographic light Bud Light or Corona does. This video paints the story of Heineken so differently. The world that young adults consider dull has an underworld...and it's fun as hell! It baits the viewer to open their eyes; "Open Your World."
This, however, I don't get.
Back to boring I guess. I understand that brands, particularly larger ones, have varied audiences with different wants and needs, so a single message won't always work for everyone. But it ought to exude the personality of the brand across all messages. Most of all, it should bring value to the listener. What does this print ad bring? It's a USP faintly disguised as a semi-clever tagline. With the recent surge in micro-brew popularity (not just in Oregon too), claiming Heineken is a leader in craftsmanship isn't going to persuade anyone. To me, at least, it only dilutes an otherwise brilliant strategy.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
13 | It's the Coffee Stupid
How did Bill Clinton win the 1992 election? Jon Steel and Clinton's campaign strategist James Carville would argue it's because Clinton's brand message was focused so dedicatedly to the issue plaguing American's most.
The economy sucked in the early 90s. It sucks today. It is the top issue on the minds of Americans today. Clinton used the times to his advantage by addressing them. Starbucks is doing likewise, despite being a coffee company.
The project is simply named "Create Jobs For USA." Starbucks has teamed up with Opportunity Finance Network (OFN) to invest in small locally owned businesses across America. Small businesses are best suited to create jobs (and avoid negative connotations associated with large corporations). Here's how it works:
-Customers at Starbucks are encouraged to donate $5 to the cause.
-OFN invests that $5 and increases it sevenfold to $35
-For every $3,000 donated by coffee drinkers, $21,000 is raised, which is enough to create or sustain an average of one job.
-The money is invested in small businesses, afforable housing, micro-enterprises, and non-profits
-The project has a 98% repayment rate allowing every dollar to go further.
-Starbucks has started off by seeding the project with $5,000,000 with no strings attached (that's a major ad campaign budget and then some!)
Coffeehouses are the proverbial "third place" in oiur lives. If you are unemployed it may be your second place. Either way, miliions of Americans find themselves in a Starbucks every day. While there, they notice this campaign to create jobs. Starbucks gets it. It's the economy [stupid]. Create Jobs for USA shows this goodwill every time somebody steps into a Starbucks line and gives any person an opportunity to give support to their community in a feasible and measurable way. What a great idea.
The core is there, but I believe Starbucks could effect far more good with a stronger promotional strategy. Right now, the holiday promotions are in full force. No surprises there. The holiday season brings in a huge percentage of Starbucks' revenues. Besides, even I'd be upset if something got in the way of my Pumpkin Spice Latte. But January is a month and a half away. The start of the the year is one of the hardest seasons economically for most Americans, and 2012 is an election year undoubtedly dedicated to job creation. Starbucks ought to jump on the opportunity.
12 | Too Over The Top?
Must we not be subtle? Must we leave nothing to the imagination? Axe body spray (or Lynx as named in Europe) has always been a bit over the top with its promotions. The message is very clear: wearing Axe makes women want to sleep with men (though I have only ever known boys to wear it). It's usually comically over the top and chalk-full of innuendo. It works. But it works partially because it lets the viewer connect the final two dots. This "Premature Perspiration" video follow the same successful, yet vaguely sexist strategy as in past Axe ads. But it is so forward in pointing out that without Axe guys are "most importantly losing women." It makes me shudder.
Same to you, Dr. Pepper 10. It's not for women? I have mixed emotions over this, but overall I'm facepalming. Given, this ad is a satire and it works at grabbing attention. But was sexist exclusion (even if ironic) the best that could be produced?
Why do we need to bash consumers heads with commercial content? It devalues the viewer by assuming they can't put two and two together on their own. We're seriously heading towards entertainment like this. As if these commercials aren't degrading enough. We can do better. Axe can do better. Axe has done better (minus the gender stereotyping). No words required. Good advertisements tell a story. Great ones allow the audience to create their own ending (like buying the product). What will you reach for?
Same to you, Dr. Pepper 10. It's not for women? I have mixed emotions over this, but overall I'm facepalming. Given, this ad is a satire and it works at grabbing attention. But was sexist exclusion (even if ironic) the best that could be produced?
Why do we need to bash consumers heads with commercial content? It devalues the viewer by assuming they can't put two and two together on their own. We're seriously heading towards entertainment like this. As if these commercials aren't degrading enough. We can do better. Axe can do better. Axe has done better (minus the gender stereotyping). No words required. Good advertisements tell a story. Great ones allow the audience to create their own ending (like buying the product). What will you reach for?
Saturday, November 5, 2011
11 | Glance At No Evil
Marketers/advertisers have a new tool in their arsenal to reach the consumers they want. It's a research technology called facial monitoring, and it's not far from entering your home. Cameras and computers have long been able to recognize where a subject's eye contact is and discern fleeting facial expressions. It's widely used by advertising research groups to gauge reaction to ads. The Economist reports that this technology is now ready to jump to your personal computer and webcam.
Your glances, emotional responses, and even heart and breathing rates may soon be reported back to marketers in real time. In practice, this could allow businesses to gauge whether a particular ad is welcome and appealing to an individual and then continue to send similar ads to that person, regardless if the individual clicked on the primary trigger. Conversely, if a consumer shows frustration or dissatisfaction with their face over an ad they are seeing, an apologetic message could appear, and no more similar advertisements would be shown.
It seems great at first, but consider the ethical dilemma this poses. Capitol Hill is already considering legislation severely restricting corporations' ability to track IP addresses for privacy reasons. People are upset by marketers' scientific tools of persuasion online as is (think Amazon.com using cookies to suggest ever more insightful product suggestions). If facial monitoring goes mainstream, marketers could (and many undoubtedly would) manipulate their audiences in more compelling affective ways. On the other side of the picture, facial tracking could further reduce the amount of non-pertinent clutter we witness day in and out; a higher percentage would be tailored to our emotional desires.
If this technology can be successfully implemented, it will be. There are too many business leaders out there focused on their financial bottom line to ignore such an effective (well, we'll see) opportunity. But what then? What if media takes such a step forward as to hack into our psyches and is able to introduce near perfectly relevant ads online? It still comes down to what's actually being delivered. This tool of computer facial recognition is not the answer to persuasion or the larger problems at bay. No matter how you get there, a bad ad is still a bad ad. The burden still falls on businesses and agencies to create meaningful user experiences and value propositions (not just USPs) for its audiences. A useful trick for communication transmission is not an excuse to make sub par and/or generic work. Messages still needs to be crafted with care. Clients and agencies still need to think creatively, with courage, and armed with compelling insight.
It's important to stay on top of the trends; especially if they will affect you. The battle over do-not-track lists and online facial monitoring will undoubtedly be decided before I have a chance to influence the course of the marketing field. But if I find myself in a situation where technologies like these will be used (I will), I vow to approach them considering the moral effects they may have, and promise to guide my clients/companies as not only an agent, but as a responsible corporate citizen. Anything less would be irresponsible representation to my principals and their stakeholders. It's easy to get lost in marketing buzz and forget what the real issue is. The journey ahead is not one of advertising, but of creative problem solving. A computer cannot do that... At least not today...
Your glances, emotional responses, and even heart and breathing rates may soon be reported back to marketers in real time. In practice, this could allow businesses to gauge whether a particular ad is welcome and appealing to an individual and then continue to send similar ads to that person, regardless if the individual clicked on the primary trigger. Conversely, if a consumer shows frustration or dissatisfaction with their face over an ad they are seeing, an apologetic message could appear, and no more similar advertisements would be shown.
It seems great at first, but consider the ethical dilemma this poses. Capitol Hill is already considering legislation severely restricting corporations' ability to track IP addresses for privacy reasons. People are upset by marketers' scientific tools of persuasion online as is (think Amazon.com using cookies to suggest ever more insightful product suggestions). If facial monitoring goes mainstream, marketers could (and many undoubtedly would) manipulate their audiences in more compelling affective ways. On the other side of the picture, facial tracking could further reduce the amount of non-pertinent clutter we witness day in and out; a higher percentage would be tailored to our emotional desires.
If this technology can be successfully implemented, it will be. There are too many business leaders out there focused on their financial bottom line to ignore such an effective (well, we'll see) opportunity. But what then? What if media takes such a step forward as to hack into our psyches and is able to introduce near perfectly relevant ads online? It still comes down to what's actually being delivered. This tool of computer facial recognition is not the answer to persuasion or the larger problems at bay. No matter how you get there, a bad ad is still a bad ad. The burden still falls on businesses and agencies to create meaningful user experiences and value propositions (not just USPs) for its audiences. A useful trick for communication transmission is not an excuse to make sub par and/or generic work. Messages still needs to be crafted with care. Clients and agencies still need to think creatively, with courage, and armed with compelling insight.
It's important to stay on top of the trends; especially if they will affect you. The battle over do-not-track lists and online facial monitoring will undoubtedly be decided before I have a chance to influence the course of the marketing field. But if I find myself in a situation where technologies like these will be used (I will), I vow to approach them considering the moral effects they may have, and promise to guide my clients/companies as not only an agent, but as a responsible corporate citizen. Anything less would be irresponsible representation to my principals and their stakeholders. It's easy to get lost in marketing buzz and forget what the real issue is. The journey ahead is not one of advertising, but of creative problem solving. A computer cannot do that... At least not today...
Friday, November 4, 2011
10 | What Would Howard Hughes Do?
I read The Economist, though not as frequently as I ought to. Aside from the constant reminders that the Arab Spring is still in full bloom and that Europe is about to collapse financially yesterday, I take note of the print advertising inside. It's mostly for investment banks, information networks, top MBA programs; you know, things I can't buy. Each issue usually holds 2-3 print ads for airlines.
Some of them appear to take a step or two back as far as gender stereotypes go, but then I remember: this is an international magazine, with international readers, with very different cultural backgrounds. It's then that I realized that I never see advertisements for American airlines (general, not the brand itself) in The Economist. The U.S. runs a massive share of international flights in the world; it's almost bizarre that American flight carriers don't control a larger portion of business/upper class travel abroad. U.S. airlines don't even carry the stature that the international carriers do. Qatar Ailines is The world's 5-star carrier. Cathay Pacific is all about loving to serve the flyer. Emirates is about exploring the world. What do American giants stand for? This is especially peculiar considering so many of international business deals involve U.S. companies.
But then again, it does make sense. When the airline industry was deregulated in 1978 ticket prices began their long hike downhill. Dozens of new players entered the field. Operating costs initially rose now that the federal government wasn't running logistics.But then prices started falling... and never stopped until they couldn't go lower without cutting amenities. So airlines cut corners, but for the sake of profits, kept costs for customers the same. That's how we ended up with bag fees, and a la carte refreshments, and "premium" coach seats.
Every airline did the same thing, but it turned against them in the last decade. Brand parity among the American giants allowed smaller carriers to swoop in and grab the low cost/low margin/quality service position, just as the critical decision factor switched from price to quality of service. Airlines like JetBlue and Southwest Airlines are humongous yet, but they will grow to be at this rate because they made air travel a unique and enjoyable experience.
Delta, a partner to AirFrance/VTM, has caught on and is trying to brand themselves as the big guy striving to make flying suck less. But the 2011 American Customer Satisfaction Index points that Delta is the most hated airline brand in the U.S. I appreciate Delta's effort to rebrand themselves, but apparently the execution is lacking support. Nothing kills a bad product faster than great advertising (sorry W+K). Delta has a lot of growing up to do if they want to change their position at all.
Some of them appear to take a step or two back as far as gender stereotypes go, but then I remember: this is an international magazine, with international readers, with very different cultural backgrounds. It's then that I realized that I never see advertisements for American airlines (general, not the brand itself) in The Economist. The U.S. runs a massive share of international flights in the world; it's almost bizarre that American flight carriers don't control a larger portion of business/upper class travel abroad. U.S. airlines don't even carry the stature that the international carriers do. Qatar Ailines is The world's 5-star carrier. Cathay Pacific is all about loving to serve the flyer. Emirates is about exploring the world. What do American giants stand for? This is especially peculiar considering so many of international business deals involve U.S. companies.
But then again, it does make sense. When the airline industry was deregulated in 1978 ticket prices began their long hike downhill. Dozens of new players entered the field. Operating costs initially rose now that the federal government wasn't running logistics.But then prices started falling... and never stopped until they couldn't go lower without cutting amenities. So airlines cut corners, but for the sake of profits, kept costs for customers the same. That's how we ended up with bag fees, and a la carte refreshments, and "premium" coach seats.
Every airline did the same thing, but it turned against them in the last decade. Brand parity among the American giants allowed smaller carriers to swoop in and grab the low cost/low margin/quality service position, just as the critical decision factor switched from price to quality of service. Airlines like JetBlue and Southwest Airlines are humongous yet, but they will grow to be at this rate because they made air travel a unique and enjoyable experience.
Delta, a partner to AirFrance/VTM, has caught on and is trying to brand themselves as the big guy striving to make flying suck less. But the 2011 American Customer Satisfaction Index points that Delta is the most hated airline brand in the U.S. I appreciate Delta's effort to rebrand themselves, but apparently the execution is lacking support. Nothing kills a bad product faster than great advertising (sorry W+K). Delta has a lot of growing up to do if they want to change their position at all.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
9 | Together We [Could Be So Much Mo]R[e]
I really got my hopes up for Russell Athletic's latest campaign after watching this:
This spot speaks with an inspiring yet down to earth tone. It champions the pride small communities have - especially around their sports teams. It calls the viewer to look at a familiar topic in a new light, and builds a foundation for ascension by hard hit localities. It rings a similar (but unique enough) chord to the Chrysler "Imported From Detroit" effort. Oh! Sam Bayer, the popular director from those Chrysler ads, was hired to do Russell's. It makes sense. The other two TV spots in the campaign showcase similar themes with an emphasis on the rural high school football teams themselves, and the "plurality"of team. They nail the WE in the slogan wonderfully.
But then why am I so disappointed with this campaign? My conclusion is twofold. First, because Russell and its main agency, The Richards Group, can't piece together a uniform message. Second and more importantly, the value offered all but stops at the TV spots. The content is so potent, so deep, so full of potential; but the reflection by Russell is shallow.
1) "Together We R" exists beyond the tagline. You can find it on Russell's website. But the intensity doesn't ever match that in the commercials. In fact, just about everywhere you navigate on the page, the inspirational message from before is overpowered by Black Friday deals and Colt McCoy. Nothing about communities, selflessness, and unsung heroes. From there it goes downhill. There's a blog, but it simply reiterates a mishmash of ESPN stories displaying mild reference to the central message. There's a twitter account, but it almost entirely reports score updates on college football games. There's a partnership with ESPN's "Rise" TV series, but it's a weak attempt to grab some air time on a prexisting show. Readers are encouraged to "join the team" but there's little evidence of conversation or chance for engagement. The facebook page actually has a general grasp of the situation, and invites teams to nominate themselves online in a contest on the merits of their teamwork, but falls short of its potential*. All in all, the message is disjointed. The commercials by a celebrity director are a powerful foundation, but more needs to be done to ensure the message is heard.
* This sponsorship of "Rise" makes a gesture in the right direction, but what is the actual benefit Russell brings to those schools? Uniforms. Four sets of team uniforms. The facebook contest has a prize too. One team will receive a uniform scholarship. Five sets of uniforms: this is the tangible goodwill Russell shows to its audience currently.
2) Who is the target user? High school football players (Russell makes gear for many sports, but the commercials have made it clear what niche they're trying to grab). But who must Russell connect with to make this happen? Small town rural American communities. Now think about what problems small town rural America has. No, not uniform needs, real problems. Problems like high dropout rates, rampant poverty, failing infrastructure, low college education rates due to financial boundaries, homelessness, crumbling arts support, hunger, racism, forclosures... the list goes on. Suddenly uniform "needs" don't seem to important.
But Russell makes athletic gear. Shouldn't they just stick to that? It's what they're best at after all. I say absolutely not. This is a great chance for the apparel company to use its resources strategically and reach out to communities that need them most, and at the same time secure a strong foothold in a forgotten market.
Let's focus on one issue: rural communities send too few of their worthy youth to college. These small towns contain 50% less degree holding adults than urban areas, and send even fewer of their eligible high school grads to higher learning (usually because of the high price tag). For lots of aggie kids, scoring an athletic scholarship is their only way out of town. For far more, an athletic scholarship is out of the picture, and college is a mere fantasy.
"Together We R" has portions dedicated to recognizing the players that don't make the big plays, but truly make the team: the water boy who helps the guys with their math on Sundays, the team manager that makes sure the practice equipment is ready every day, the average-hitting left tackle that lifts the team's spirit when the quarterback gets carted off the field. Okay, now let's blow this up. Take half the media budget from before and invest it in a scholarship program/contest (get others to match your contribution for an augmented effect). Spend a fraction on encouraging high school students, coaches, teachers, and community members to nominate their peers on the basis of dedication and selflessness for the good of the whole. Incentivize nominations with something for the team or school, such as uniforms (not bad to keep the product present, but not the main focus). Follow up. Share their stories. Inspire the silent leaders in all of us. Tour Colt McCoy and other superstars to some of the most impoverished areas in the heartland with a message of, "Yes, you can go!" Award not one, not five, but dozens if not hundreds of in-state college scholarships to those who most demonstrated that "team is plural." Then witness these communities be touched by an apparel brand who gave opportunities to their most-deserving that would have never been available before. Watch these communities grow over time to be more prosperous and hopeful. Watch your goodwill be returned by grateful school boards, coaches, influential parents and students who recognize Russell as more than a uniform company, but as the glue and a supporter of good ol' fashioned Americana. Don't say Russel is the brand of small town rural communities. Live the brand of small town rural communities. This is but one of countless ways to look at the campaign differently. The point being: there are better ways for ad budgets to be spent than just a strong traditional campaign. When targeted at a real issue, and crafted with insight, courage, and human emotion, any brand can help make the world better, regardless of the product, and still beat the bottom line.
A traditional campaign like the current Russell "Together We R" move will probably accompany boosted sales. It's a clever and powerful message. The numbers won't even need to be framed in a particular way to show it either (numbers can be shaped to say anything), thanks to timing with the fall and holiday shopping seasons. But if it keeps at its current bearing, it will dry out and wither away. Some marketing execs at Russell will lose their jobs and a new crew will come in pledging to really "engage their customers." We'll see a new campaign next summer, or the one after. But Russell Athletic and countless other companies across all industries will fall short of their potential as long as they see the answer to their problems in advertising their brand or product. The answer to long term success is in creative problem solving - not just for themselves, but for the world around. Advertising may fall into the formula, but it is not the end-all-save-all. So whether you're a veteran marketing director, a fresh intern at a boutique agency, or an entrepreneur on her fourth business launch, I invite you to step away from the tried-and-true, and instead look for something that could really benefit from your resources. Being a responsible corporate citizen does not mean you must sacrifice profits. Constructed in the right manner, it means you will rake them in.
This spot speaks with an inspiring yet down to earth tone. It champions the pride small communities have - especially around their sports teams. It calls the viewer to look at a familiar topic in a new light, and builds a foundation for ascension by hard hit localities. It rings a similar (but unique enough) chord to the Chrysler "Imported From Detroit" effort. Oh! Sam Bayer, the popular director from those Chrysler ads, was hired to do Russell's. It makes sense. The other two TV spots in the campaign showcase similar themes with an emphasis on the rural high school football teams themselves, and the "plurality"of team. They nail the WE in the slogan wonderfully.
But then why am I so disappointed with this campaign? My conclusion is twofold. First, because Russell and its main agency, The Richards Group, can't piece together a uniform message. Second and more importantly, the value offered all but stops at the TV spots. The content is so potent, so deep, so full of potential; but the reflection by Russell is shallow.
1) "Together We R" exists beyond the tagline. You can find it on Russell's website. But the intensity doesn't ever match that in the commercials. In fact, just about everywhere you navigate on the page, the inspirational message from before is overpowered by Black Friday deals and Colt McCoy. Nothing about communities, selflessness, and unsung heroes. From there it goes downhill. There's a blog, but it simply reiterates a mishmash of ESPN stories displaying mild reference to the central message. There's a twitter account, but it almost entirely reports score updates on college football games. There's a partnership with ESPN's "Rise" TV series, but it's a weak attempt to grab some air time on a prexisting show. Readers are encouraged to "join the team" but there's little evidence of conversation or chance for engagement. The facebook page actually has a general grasp of the situation, and invites teams to nominate themselves online in a contest on the merits of their teamwork, but falls short of its potential*. All in all, the message is disjointed. The commercials by a celebrity director are a powerful foundation, but more needs to be done to ensure the message is heard.
* This sponsorship of "Rise" makes a gesture in the right direction, but what is the actual benefit Russell brings to those schools? Uniforms. Four sets of team uniforms. The facebook contest has a prize too. One team will receive a uniform scholarship. Five sets of uniforms: this is the tangible goodwill Russell shows to its audience currently.
2) Who is the target user? High school football players (Russell makes gear for many sports, but the commercials have made it clear what niche they're trying to grab). But who must Russell connect with to make this happen? Small town rural American communities. Now think about what problems small town rural America has. No, not uniform needs, real problems. Problems like high dropout rates, rampant poverty, failing infrastructure, low college education rates due to financial boundaries, homelessness, crumbling arts support, hunger, racism, forclosures... the list goes on. Suddenly uniform "needs" don't seem to important.
But Russell makes athletic gear. Shouldn't they just stick to that? It's what they're best at after all. I say absolutely not. This is a great chance for the apparel company to use its resources strategically and reach out to communities that need them most, and at the same time secure a strong foothold in a forgotten market.
Let's focus on one issue: rural communities send too few of their worthy youth to college. These small towns contain 50% less degree holding adults than urban areas, and send even fewer of their eligible high school grads to higher learning (usually because of the high price tag). For lots of aggie kids, scoring an athletic scholarship is their only way out of town. For far more, an athletic scholarship is out of the picture, and college is a mere fantasy.
"Together We R" has portions dedicated to recognizing the players that don't make the big plays, but truly make the team: the water boy who helps the guys with their math on Sundays, the team manager that makes sure the practice equipment is ready every day, the average-hitting left tackle that lifts the team's spirit when the quarterback gets carted off the field. Okay, now let's blow this up. Take half the media budget from before and invest it in a scholarship program/contest (get others to match your contribution for an augmented effect). Spend a fraction on encouraging high school students, coaches, teachers, and community members to nominate their peers on the basis of dedication and selflessness for the good of the whole. Incentivize nominations with something for the team or school, such as uniforms (not bad to keep the product present, but not the main focus). Follow up. Share their stories. Inspire the silent leaders in all of us. Tour Colt McCoy and other superstars to some of the most impoverished areas in the heartland with a message of, "Yes, you can go!" Award not one, not five, but dozens if not hundreds of in-state college scholarships to those who most demonstrated that "team is plural." Then witness these communities be touched by an apparel brand who gave opportunities to their most-deserving that would have never been available before. Watch these communities grow over time to be more prosperous and hopeful. Watch your goodwill be returned by grateful school boards, coaches, influential parents and students who recognize Russell as more than a uniform company, but as the glue and a supporter of good ol' fashioned Americana. Don't say Russel is the brand of small town rural communities. Live the brand of small town rural communities. This is but one of countless ways to look at the campaign differently. The point being: there are better ways for ad budgets to be spent than just a strong traditional campaign. When targeted at a real issue, and crafted with insight, courage, and human emotion, any brand can help make the world better, regardless of the product, and still beat the bottom line.
A traditional campaign like the current Russell "Together We R" move will probably accompany boosted sales. It's a clever and powerful message. The numbers won't even need to be framed in a particular way to show it either (numbers can be shaped to say anything), thanks to timing with the fall and holiday shopping seasons. But if it keeps at its current bearing, it will dry out and wither away. Some marketing execs at Russell will lose their jobs and a new crew will come in pledging to really "engage their customers." We'll see a new campaign next summer, or the one after. But Russell Athletic and countless other companies across all industries will fall short of their potential as long as they see the answer to their problems in advertising their brand or product. The answer to long term success is in creative problem solving - not just for themselves, but for the world around. Advertising may fall into the formula, but it is not the end-all-save-all. So whether you're a veteran marketing director, a fresh intern at a boutique agency, or an entrepreneur on her fourth business launch, I invite you to step away from the tried-and-true, and instead look for something that could really benefit from your resources. Being a responsible corporate citizen does not mean you must sacrifice profits. Constructed in the right manner, it means you will rake them in.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
8 | Jazz and Originality
Many years ago my dad took me to see Wynton Marsalis and the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra perform in Portland. I was an aspiring trumpet player and future band teacher at the time, so I was instantly mesmerized by everything the virtuoso could do. A lifetime later, one thing that sticks with me is the humble attitude he held. He's still considered to be the premier classical plus jazz master of our time. He can play like nobody's business. He sells out concert halls and stadiums everywhere. Still, he claimed then and still claims that he's not to be identified as an innovator. He considers himself merely an adapter of the classics before him.
Years later and thanks to google I finally tracked down the document Wynton was referring to. In Jon Panish's The Color of Jazz, the intensity of jazz improvisation (and music in general) is broken down into four levels: embellishment, imitation, assimilation, and innovation. Embellishment and imitation are harder to distinguish from each other, as they both follow closely to something original in style, tonality, and rhythm. Imitation gets away from the written music more and focuses on incorporating the feel and style with new motivic elements. Assimilation takes this to the next level by adapting previous styles to make something unique to that performer. Innovation is self explanatory: the performer takes historical context into perspective and then jumps in a completely new direction. As we move along the spectrum toward innovation, there are fewer examples.
None of this is to say that different levels are inherently better than the others. It points out a progression of creativity in the context of the work around. Even some of the most successful jazz performers moved little from the players before them. But the stuff that sticks around and leaves a lasting difference requires more than the norm. Keep this in mind and then consider advertising. Not everything can be truly innovative. Not even all the great work can break the mold to lead the industry and our culture in a new direction. But as advertisers we can acknowledge the actual originality of our work, which will enable us to avoid future repetition and create a world of more value.
To show how the four levels mentioned before can be applied to advertising, look at Apple's "Hi, I'm a Mac" campaign. I'll justify why I find this to be an example of "assimilation".
Years later and thanks to google I finally tracked down the document Wynton was referring to. In Jon Panish's The Color of Jazz, the intensity of jazz improvisation (and music in general) is broken down into four levels: embellishment, imitation, assimilation, and innovation. Embellishment and imitation are harder to distinguish from each other, as they both follow closely to something original in style, tonality, and rhythm. Imitation gets away from the written music more and focuses on incorporating the feel and style with new motivic elements. Assimilation takes this to the next level by adapting previous styles to make something unique to that performer. Innovation is self explanatory: the performer takes historical context into perspective and then jumps in a completely new direction. As we move along the spectrum toward innovation, there are fewer examples.
None of this is to say that different levels are inherently better than the others. It points out a progression of creativity in the context of the work around. Even some of the most successful jazz performers moved little from the players before them. But the stuff that sticks around and leaves a lasting difference requires more than the norm. Keep this in mind and then consider advertising. Not everything can be truly innovative. Not even all the great work can break the mold to lead the industry and our culture in a new direction. But as advertisers we can acknowledge the actual originality of our work, which will enable us to avoid future repetition and create a world of more value.
To show how the four levels mentioned before can be applied to advertising, look at Apple's "Hi, I'm a Mac" campaign. I'll justify why I find this to be an example of "assimilation".
This stood out amidst the sea of visual noise constantly thrown at us. Where everything else was loud, Apple showed that it was simple. One point of focus on a background of white is all there was. Seems innovative right? I argue that while this was a breath of very fresh air, it still draws from another source for significant inspiration:
DDB kicked already down the doors 50 years earlier with the Volkswagen print campaign. It would be naive to say the Apple campaign didn't attempt to incorporate some of the same elements as VW. Apple may or may not be paying homage to Bernbach's original masterpiece, but it takes the aspects and changes them to fit and define Apple uniquely. The Mac commericals then in turn became points of reference themselves for other advertising:
The UPS "Whiteboard" series imitates many aspects from before. It even adds a UPS flavor to make it reflect the values on sale. Though it doesn't distinguish itself as boldly individual as Apple managed. Finally, there are some ads that hardly go beyond copying previous work, and merely embellish (maybe only for the sake of copyright issues):
What will stand the test of time? What rises above the clutter and brings something new to audiences? It's not embellishments and imitations. Those might be well made, entertaining, and even tell a story, but they'll fade fast. I certainly have little desire to solve problems in a way that fades into the noise or even adds more static. I'm here to take the world around me and interpret it into things new, or at least things that aren't lost in the wash. Step away from what's tried and true. Be an innovator at all possible times. Be a Miles Davis. Be a John Coltrane. Be a Thelonious Monk. Even if you fall short, you're far more likely to end up a Wynton.
And while I have Wynton and Apple are in the same post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)