Does Client Relation Interfere with Product Relation?

If there’s one brand in the whole wide world I am a dedicated fan of (the value of a Facebook fan x 10000), it’s the Belgian beer Duvel. Not only do I think the marketing strategy for this brand has always been genius and awesome (how it can be a hip/popular/design brand among the youth as well as please the old lonely man with his self-rolled cigarette in the bar); I also simply love the product. Love the taste. Love the glass. Love the tornado when poured out well. I’m actually writing this post having one standing here next to my computer right now. To put it into Kevin Roberts’ words: Duvel is my ‘lovemark’ without any doubt.

I’ve been following their path a bit through the past years. Keeping close which (Belgian) agency does their work; and the fact they also have an office in Shanghai was definitely one of the reasons for my return some months ago. And so I’ve always been thinking if there was one client I would love to work for, it would have to be them. Digging more into their strategy – branding their activities to a broader audience … wonderful. I would almost jeopardize my NIKE-relation in order to have time for a Duvel-pitch (AKQA is not reading this ……………).

But then I realized: What if the client relation and the work project are not as exciting as you expected they would be? Not as pleasant, not as interesting, not as fulfilling? It might be a bad client relation, it might be the fact they simply don’t like your ideas or direction. What then? Would if affect your love and your interest for their product and brand? And if it does, would it have been better never to have worked on that account in the first place? Because the magic might get lost or harmed. Because every time in your spare time you want to pour out a Duvel, it reminds you of that working experience?

And so here’s my question to all the planners, ad & communication people out there with a lot more experience in the business as I do: Do you have encountered a situation like this before? Is it possible? Have you had to work on an amazing brand you really liked priory but had a bad client experience and so it fucked up your brand-perception afterwards? And if you have, what do you recommend? Obviously everybody wants to work on his favorite brands. But also if there’s a chance your personal magical experience might be damaged? That it might have been better to leave it alone and not monopolize your unique product relation? Let me know please!

Personal Truth

P&G recently made a new commercial putting their stamp on the London Olympics this summer and honoring all the mothers around the world for their hard work, courage and eternal dedication to the education and support of their child. It’s without any doubt a nice ad that tickles a very basic human emotion in us – the unconditional love from a parent towards its child. The ad has been praised on several blogs and by several people so far.

Have you watched it? Good. Being a mom is the hardest job in the world, but also the best. I could agree to this ad if it wasn’t for a recent discovery through a friend of mine.
Now, lately I’ve been a huge fan of Bill Burr. One of the only American stand-up comedy that isn’t too much ‘American’ in my humble ànd pretentious European critical eyes. Watch what he has to say here:

How appealing is the P&G ad after seeing this? It made me realize once again how fragile the truth is advertisers try to create and bound with in their story. Sure, I’m just one person now blogging about this, but it’s posts like this one that could be so vital and even harmful if you’re trying to come across something with a certain truth in your ad. Let it be known that I still think this is a good ad and I have no intention whatsoever to bash it. A friend of mine at W+K also worked along this one and I praise their insight trying to connect the brand (what it means for people in their everyday life and household) to the Olympics (something so exceptional for only a hand full of people to truly participate and shine in).

Yet, we have to be careful. Good advertisements tell you a true story. An insight that holds a certain truth and where people can say “Hell yeah …” after seeing it, but that’s the funny and most awesome thing about this business: the truth is plausible. You can approach it from different directions and angles that have all the possibility to make sense. That’s the beauty of the planning part. But it could also be the trap. If the other truth becomes more empowering, more appealing, is more out there for the people. Think what would have happened if this ad was aired on TV in between Bill Burr’s show? You think it would have been as appealing as it is now? Or you think Facebook pages would have risen with titles like “I think Bill Burr likes Unilever better”?

It’s just a thought, but it definitely worked on me. If it wasn’t for Bill, the ad would have been more powerful for me without any doubt. I wouldn’t have written this post about it and you wouldn’t have read it. That’s only a very small portion of people, I know (perhaps you didn’t even know the ad yet and by reading this post I have spread their story a little bit more).

Why We Wear Boxers

Sometimes advertising does more than bring you a (positive) brand awareness. Advertising has the power to fundamentally change something in the world or show us what exactly has to be changed. Sometimes bigger, moral issues come up. Sometimes smaller stuff. Like why men wear boxer shorts instead of those tight Speedo-looking seventies underwear slips.

In the middle of the eighties, one of first accounts the fresh started BBH won was Levi Strauss Jeans, or Levi’s. Not only did John Hegarty’s team a fantastic job to put an old workmen’s outfit into a young sexy position that still holds its fame; the work they produced also put the new agency on the map of being the new creative hotspot of London (and later on globally). One of the ads, and also one of the most popular ones (next to the poster of the black sheep that later became BBH’s identification mark), was this TV Commercial:

The original script of the TVC had the main character stripping until only wearing a slip. Because that was what the people wore in those days. Especially the young ones, since boxers were considered diapers for the elderly (time changes …). But when the British Advertising Watchdog got their eyes on the script, the forbad the agency and the brand to have a young man only in a slip on national television. So the agency proposed whether they could use boxers. Note that in those days they strongly believed it would decline the appealing effect of the ad because of the just mentioned reason. The Watchdog approved.

Not only did Levi’s sales climb rocket high they had to pull off the ad after a couple of weeks due stock shortage; sales for boxer shorts suddenly set a new record in the country! Suddenly the youth thought differently about wearing boxers and by the late eighties, we suddenly see a shift in male underwear for young people, as of this day still making guys buy boxers instead of Speedo slips. The brand, nor the agency ever meant for this to happen (if only Levi’s sold boxers then as well), yet it did, all thanks to the British conservative system back then.

Please Get It

 

We often tend to believe (here in the industry) that companies and brands are all jumping on the train of successful online communication and messaging. Successful communication in the knowledge that it is effective, entertaining, word spreading and reveals something of what the brands stands for. It’s a naive idea. Too many people are still rusting away in their old marketing (and advertising) models.

Look what happened last week when I blogged about the brilliant cover version of I Follow Rivers by Belgian rock band Triggerfinger (click here). I included the YouTube clip which had been around on the web that day. Few hours later when I came back I saw the video had been removed due copyright claims by VARA (the Dutch media company by which the radio station is owned). But the brilliance of the web of course is that once content has been posted, it’s like an unstoppable bullet you can never get entirely back. Obviously another user had put the video online again. So I edit my post with the new relevant video in it. Again; few hours later I had to witness that video had been removed as well. This even happened a third time. An easy Google Search brought me to the official VARA channel where the video was being hosted and apparently supposed to be hosted only. So I included that link. Don’t I love you guys?

Look how willing I was to share that video. I can assure you I’m one of the few that would put so much effort in sharing content that I’ve already seen, and tried to spread. And willing to repeat that process over and over. And content that has actually nothing of value for me to share (unless I would masturbate on the numbers of posts I publish here).

Doesn’t VARA get that?

You have to ask yourself (or better: THEY have to ask themselves) what their priority is in putting this video on the web: By driving more users towards their own brand channel to increase the visit number; or by spreading the name of their brand and activity in an appealing way? It’s clear VARA puts their priority on the first option. And that’s what is wrong with them and many other brands today.

Don’t they realize that by sharing that clip on Youtube, it will be spread a lot more (I saw several Facebook friends posting the clip)? And by spreading that clip (for free and really easy for users) it creates positive awareness for the activity they’re bringing (unless you don’t like Triggerfinger or that song but those people should be hanged)? It creates not only awareness for the band but more importantly: for the radio show Giel which I didn’t know before (among lots of other Belgians) and am curious to check it out a bit more. And shouldn’t that be the entire purpose of putting your brand’s content online AND for free AND in an easy way to share without your narcissism to have in ‘only’ on your own portal which will generate a lot less content sharing? Get your shit together! ORRRR … call me … I can help you (and make myself rich)!

PS. Just when I’m busy writing this post I notice they put the video on YouTube again, now by the official GIEL account itself. I don’t think it breaks down the point I’m trying to make here and actually it proves it somehow: they only want the video to get shared by themselves – in their own name (claiming a superior position) in order to drive more traffic to their website instead of providing entertaining free branded content people are willing to share. And for what reason would the brand prevent that from happening? Brands have established the most effective positions within online communication by acting as a peer towards their audience instead of a god or a king on its throne, serving his slaves with sacred, royal branded content he hopes they’ll all absorb as easy as water.

On Good Salesmen

I recently had a short talk with an account from (luckily) another agency, she asking me why I never considered a job like hers. Before I even could answer she already answered that with another question: “Is it because you’re afraid you would lose a client?” … WTF!? … I never even considered that being an option among the idea that a career as an account manager simply does not serve my interests or even qualifications. I was stunned that this was considered an option, perhaps even THE option and goal for her and I think it showed what’s wrong nowadays how a lot of agencies are being run and operated. We’re going backwards.

One of the many reasons why advertising became so booming in the sixties and following decades is because you had a shift in leadership and client relations. Creatives were sick and done with the fact accounts would take all the credit for winning over a new client “Because they both play golf on Sunday”, while the creative masterminds were left behind in the shadows with their ideas and accomplished work that proved to be effective. In those days, lots of brilliant creatives also left that ‘business oriented’ environment to start their own agency, where they could pull the strings themselves and prove good work sells. And it’s most of those agencies that proved their success by still being the leading ones today.

But I think we’re slowly growing away from those brilliant days again. Because campaigns are simply not one print advertisement or TVC anymore; 360 campaigns require a lot of different and varied angles, talent and people to make everything work and fit together. Because everybody is so busy contributing his part to the big puzzle, client relations suffer. And so, bigger responsibility comes into the hands of accounts (again). Don’t understand me wrong: I have nothing against accounts or their job. I think I would terribly suck at it myself. But I do feel we need more people in the industry that know how advertising and creativity work precisely. Who are not driven by a fear losing a client or a relation, but driven by the same passion the Creative Director has for the work the entire team has worked on. And out of that passion, good and persuasive selling skills can grow and develop. We need more accounts that don’t think individually their job depends on how the client thinks of the agency or even their own position; but think in a team spirit how the agency thinks of the client. And how we can help them grow and become better.

I do am optimistic. In those Mad Men days, an ad agency was more than simply producing advertisements for them; they were the entire communication consultancy for a company. One company: one agency – and everything that had to deal with the tone of voice of an industrial HQ, the ad men were there to help you to bring something human inside and outside. I think we can go back to those days. While the online world and communication is taking over and changing our entire way of interacting with each other at such a rapid speed; companies will need again one strong leader and opinion maker who consults them and is highly engaged with the knowledge of how to communicate at your best today and tomorrow. Since the world is becoming globally so connected and a lot more complicated; companies will need highly effective agencies to keep up with the world, the communication, the people and everything that comes along with that, as they will be too busy looking over the markets that are intriguing and challenging the status quo anywhere possible.

Time for agencies to prove themselves worth again …