I never liked school.
I hated studying the thick volumes of textbooks of facts and numbers to be regurgitated verbatim back into tests. Because of the way questions were asked in multiple choice, rather than absorbing information, it became more about memorizing pieces of truncated data points word for word. I didn't grow up studying in the American education system and where I grew up (Malaysia), I felt that it was much more rigid, with less freedom for creativity and more focus on black and white answers. I recall being thrilled and astounded when I went to college here and being asked to write open-ended answers and essays. Being graded subjectively on how I chose to answer a question versus the actual answer. There were no absolute right or wrongs, everything was arguable and shades of gray, it was liberating.
I also remember being told that some students were terrified of this, trained in the education system of black and white facts. Unsure of how to answer an open-ended essay question, they would simply memorize entire paragraphs from their textbooks and literally rewrite exactly what the textbooks would say, much to the chagrin of professors who would receive carbon copies of identical essays which were basically just handwritten copies of the reading material they assigned.
Now in the corporate world, this mentality has become extremely relevant, especially in my field. The difference between data points and story telling. People who hide behind data or can't seem to actually make sense or use the information they have been given. You see presentations full of statistics and numbers, regurgitation of white papers and reports and data they have pulled. Informational certainly, but like the baffled professors of my college years, wasn't answering the question. They wanted the point of view of the writer, that important quality and filter of perspective that differentiates a human being from a text book. That's when data becomes insights or strategy - when it becomes interesting. That's what the human truth is all about, the big aha. It's extremely simple in the zen way that most insights are - to learn something you didn't realize you knew. That's why people argue most insights aren't new, they're just articulated in a way that resonates and inspires, but it's a known truth by everyone because well, it was sourced from data points from everyone.
I alluded to this briefly in this post on where to find insights. I mentioned you could pretty much find insights anywhere e.g. watching commercials. I can honestly say that the majority, at least 90%, of the knowledge I've retained over the years have not come from studying a text book. It came from reading a non-academic book, watching a movie, listening to a song. I hope everyone appreciates the irony that educational material is probably the least effective in educating.
One of my favorite song lyrics is from Death Cab For Cutie's 'A Lack of Color':
"And when I see you, I really see you upside down,
But my brain knows better, it picks you up and turns you around."
I love this song and this particular lyric because I was never able to grasp this concept when I learned it in science class but I instantly understood it the moment I heard it in the song. It's deceptively simple but it stuck with me permanently.
This is what great insights or strategy or pretty much anything you want to present has to possess. A narrative. It's never going to be about the data, it's always going to be about the way you explain the data. When I recalled my experience about the students repeating the textbooks word for word, that was really a data point in support of my hypothesis. But it was told it in a way that wove the information into an anecdote, that then compelled the reader to absorb a piece of information without realizing I was trying to prove out something. I could've said x percent of people consider x as an educational format/channel, but I doubt you'd remember that next week.
Writers, artists, talk show hosts, comedians even are the most effective way I've gleaned insights from the world. I think I've learned so much more about human behavior and mindset from a Louis CK standup act than I did from a TED talk.
This storytelling trend that's taken like wildfire over the industry has some legs- but like so many concepts that people try to 'replicate' - there's no way to teach how to tell a story, to have classes on how to compel an audience. The moment storytelling becomes self-aware, just like textbooks that try to teach, that's when it fails. That's the balancing act between informing and inspiring. You need to do it without trying - it actually needs to be authentic. And there's no class that can teach you authenticity.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Observation: The Passive Consumer
This observation is as old as time - if a tree falls in a forest but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a consumer doesn't like a product out loud (in today's world, 'like' means on Facebook), does that mean they don't like it?
One of the first questions a researcher always asks is: What is the source of this data? How was this question asked? I realize the irony in my next statement (as I don't know either) but I read on my LinkedIn feed that the majority of tweets during the Superbowl originated from only less than twenty percent of the Twitter universe.
Assuming this is true, using this as a rough ratio of the real world, only about 1 out of every 5 people are really 'heard', and yet these are the people you hear so we consider them the voice of the consumer. Think about every other research methodology available. In focus groups, the people that get picked are people that are interested in talking about their opinions. Maybe in syndicated surveys, you get more representative, but it is still a voluntary opt-in based on some sort of monetary incentive.
The fact of the matter is, there is a large amount of people that don't talk about what they like - they just like what they like. And if the only way brands can measure what people like is public or voluntary data of people talking about their brands - they are only looking at a very specific type of person. Are they the same type of people as what I would term, the passive consumer? I consider myself a passive consumer because I don't express opinions about what I like publicly but I love a lot of products and brands and from what I can see and hear about 'active' consumers, we don't have the same mindset. I might not be interested in talking about brands, but I do buy my favorite ones loyally without prompting every time I go shopping, and I think that's more valuable than a person that's just 'all talk'. There has to be a way to capture the activities and voice of people like me. All you need is a little coercion, and a little more passive capturing and this might be throwing back in the face of research, but perhaps, some leading questions.
There is an inherent difference between people who talk about brands and people that don't. People who talk about brands tend to be naturally more opinionated, probably extroverted and most likely brand switchers. They get pulled into different conversations, have varied interests because they get exposed to more - imagine a talkative person in a grocery store or discussion forum talking about what they like, and having other like-minded people pipe in and compare their opinions on what they like.
More passive consumers are more likely to wander into a store, not ask anyone's opinion, grab the thing they like or are most familiar with and leave. There's your target right there. Potential switchers because while these people aren't looking to push out their opinions, they do want you to pull them in with yours. That is a different type of conversation. Think about talking to a shy person and how to get them to open up. You ask them questions about themselves, their interests, then slowly get them to earn your trust and finally ask them what brands they like and perhaps, this might be something that suits them.
There is a lot of value and asset that constantly gets overlooked not just by marketers but society in general of the passive consumer/person. I recommend reading 'Quiet' by Susan for more insights into these people, she fleshed out some really interested perceptions on how American culture rewards the loud and the vocal, but again, those aren't the only people. There are other people in the room, in fact, I'd say just as much or even more than typically extroverted people. If you can lead the silent army, it's a harder fruit to reach, but one that has yet to be discovered.
One of the first questions a researcher always asks is: What is the source of this data? How was this question asked? I realize the irony in my next statement (as I don't know either) but I read on my LinkedIn feed that the majority of tweets during the Superbowl originated from only less than twenty percent of the Twitter universe.
Assuming this is true, using this as a rough ratio of the real world, only about 1 out of every 5 people are really 'heard', and yet these are the people you hear so we consider them the voice of the consumer. Think about every other research methodology available. In focus groups, the people that get picked are people that are interested in talking about their opinions. Maybe in syndicated surveys, you get more representative, but it is still a voluntary opt-in based on some sort of monetary incentive.
The fact of the matter is, there is a large amount of people that don't talk about what they like - they just like what they like. And if the only way brands can measure what people like is public or voluntary data of people talking about their brands - they are only looking at a very specific type of person. Are they the same type of people as what I would term, the passive consumer? I consider myself a passive consumer because I don't express opinions about what I like publicly but I love a lot of products and brands and from what I can see and hear about 'active' consumers, we don't have the same mindset. I might not be interested in talking about brands, but I do buy my favorite ones loyally without prompting every time I go shopping, and I think that's more valuable than a person that's just 'all talk'. There has to be a way to capture the activities and voice of people like me. All you need is a little coercion, and a little more passive capturing and this might be throwing back in the face of research, but perhaps, some leading questions.
There is an inherent difference between people who talk about brands and people that don't. People who talk about brands tend to be naturally more opinionated, probably extroverted and most likely brand switchers. They get pulled into different conversations, have varied interests because they get exposed to more - imagine a talkative person in a grocery store or discussion forum talking about what they like, and having other like-minded people pipe in and compare their opinions on what they like.
More passive consumers are more likely to wander into a store, not ask anyone's opinion, grab the thing they like or are most familiar with and leave. There's your target right there. Potential switchers because while these people aren't looking to push out their opinions, they do want you to pull them in with yours. That is a different type of conversation. Think about talking to a shy person and how to get them to open up. You ask them questions about themselves, their interests, then slowly get them to earn your trust and finally ask them what brands they like and perhaps, this might be something that suits them.
There is a lot of value and asset that constantly gets overlooked not just by marketers but society in general of the passive consumer/person. I recommend reading 'Quiet' by Susan for more insights into these people, she fleshed out some really interested perceptions on how American culture rewards the loud and the vocal, but again, those aren't the only people. There are other people in the room, in fact, I'd say just as much or even more than typically extroverted people. If you can lead the silent army, it's a harder fruit to reach, but one that has yet to be discovered.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Trend: Artisanal Conglomerates
Ever since the cultural zeitgeist decided focus its attention on conglomerates monopolizing the market and strangling out smaller, mom and pop companies, consumers have shifted towards the big=bad mentality. What Walmarts of the world offers are cost-savings with brand labels so big they became as generic as the product category. You're not buying orange juice, you're buying Tropicana, but it's the same meaning to you, really.
It harkens back to the most base form of products, buying for a needs and function basis, no emotional strings attached. These are the original and oldest form of consumers, the value-conscious, the ones that are closer to the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The coupon clippers, the ones whose immediate focus is the price tag versus the brand promise because honestly, that's all they can afford. Thing is about these consumers, they don't need much advertising. It'd be great if you can give them a lovely story about the product and where it came from, but what they really care about is that it's a dollar fifty cheaper than the rest of the competitors.
Hence why any brand or marketer who want to compete outside of the price ring, which is pretty much most brands (otherwise, just be generic and spend your marketing budget on coupons/sampling), need to focus on other brand offerings. People look for themselves in brands - besides the actual need for the product, they want a brand to reflect who they are, something they would use, something that screams 'them'. Brand stories emerge, happy - like-minded people using the product show up in ads, portraying how this brand is just like you and agrees with all your values and mindsets and lifestyles. Lots of brands are focusing on storytelling - the origins of their products, how they came to be, very much similar to what artisanal small mom-and-pop products naturally do. It personalizes these products - I'd much more likely buy say, a carton of eggs from the farmer's market because I know that these come from a farm upstate and the friendly people that sold those eggs were the same ones that actually took care of the chickens. I like that, it gives me a sense of community and contribution, like I'm actually helping these specific people and this was a true human transaction. Rather than say, picking up eggs mass produced at a supermarket, there's no human emotion, my money is just a drop in the well going into the pockets of shareholders that don't know I exist. People want to feel that their purchase matters. It's not just about knowing where the product came from, but where their money is going.
I just saw a commercial for Beats Music, that had an evocative narrative on the appreciation of music and how they weren't just technology, but integrating humanity into their technology so that the service you receive isn't an algorithm, but from people that respect and appreciate your need for music to act as the soundtrack for your life. It was great, because I had no clue what they were actually selling, but I wanted it. That's proof of how you sell a brand, not a product. I understood their ethos, it was exactly what I (and millions) feel about music. That's what I want to buy, and if I needed whatever product they were selling, headphones, music subscription service, etc. , I'd probably go with them. They got me to trust them as entities, and therefore, if I ever needed a music-specific product, I'd think of them first.
What was unnerving to me is that I am aware that Beats isn't an mom-and-pop and rather a huge conglomerate like most of the these ads popping up on prime time air lately. Target, P&G, Unilever - the one with the Swiffer ad and the old couple, they're all multi-conglomerates but speaking like real people. If these huge companies can paint themselves just as authentically and realistic as the real corner store upstate farm egg sellers, then what hope does the small-batch artisan have left? Their only competitive edge was that they had a personal story to peddle with their goods - these large corporations have started to peddle the same story (with cost savings, mass awareness and convenience). The new successful brands seem to be these artisanal conglomerates, huge companies with small beginnings and stories - creating personal relationships with you while in the mass grocery aisle.
It harkens back to the most base form of products, buying for a needs and function basis, no emotional strings attached. These are the original and oldest form of consumers, the value-conscious, the ones that are closer to the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The coupon clippers, the ones whose immediate focus is the price tag versus the brand promise because honestly, that's all they can afford. Thing is about these consumers, they don't need much advertising. It'd be great if you can give them a lovely story about the product and where it came from, but what they really care about is that it's a dollar fifty cheaper than the rest of the competitors.
Hence why any brand or marketer who want to compete outside of the price ring, which is pretty much most brands (otherwise, just be generic and spend your marketing budget on coupons/sampling), need to focus on other brand offerings. People look for themselves in brands - besides the actual need for the product, they want a brand to reflect who they are, something they would use, something that screams 'them'. Brand stories emerge, happy - like-minded people using the product show up in ads, portraying how this brand is just like you and agrees with all your values and mindsets and lifestyles. Lots of brands are focusing on storytelling - the origins of their products, how they came to be, very much similar to what artisanal small mom-and-pop products naturally do. It personalizes these products - I'd much more likely buy say, a carton of eggs from the farmer's market because I know that these come from a farm upstate and the friendly people that sold those eggs were the same ones that actually took care of the chickens. I like that, it gives me a sense of community and contribution, like I'm actually helping these specific people and this was a true human transaction. Rather than say, picking up eggs mass produced at a supermarket, there's no human emotion, my money is just a drop in the well going into the pockets of shareholders that don't know I exist. People want to feel that their purchase matters. It's not just about knowing where the product came from, but where their money is going.
I just saw a commercial for Beats Music, that had an evocative narrative on the appreciation of music and how they weren't just technology, but integrating humanity into their technology so that the service you receive isn't an algorithm, but from people that respect and appreciate your need for music to act as the soundtrack for your life. It was great, because I had no clue what they were actually selling, but I wanted it. That's proof of how you sell a brand, not a product. I understood their ethos, it was exactly what I (and millions) feel about music. That's what I want to buy, and if I needed whatever product they were selling, headphones, music subscription service, etc. , I'd probably go with them. They got me to trust them as entities, and therefore, if I ever needed a music-specific product, I'd think of them first.
What was unnerving to me is that I am aware that Beats isn't an mom-and-pop and rather a huge conglomerate like most of the these ads popping up on prime time air lately. Target, P&G, Unilever - the one with the Swiffer ad and the old couple, they're all multi-conglomerates but speaking like real people. If these huge companies can paint themselves just as authentically and realistic as the real corner store upstate farm egg sellers, then what hope does the small-batch artisan have left? Their only competitive edge was that they had a personal story to peddle with their goods - these large corporations have started to peddle the same story (with cost savings, mass awareness and convenience). The new successful brands seem to be these artisanal conglomerates, huge companies with small beginnings and stories - creating personal relationships with you while in the mass grocery aisle.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Millenialisms: Thoughts on Entitlement
Another reason I started this blog was the eruption and waves of op-eds and POVs on the Millennials. That generation. My generation. The scathing reviews from both previous and current generations, followed by passionate response pieces, both sides of the pro and anti Millennials waging a war on whether or not this generation was the best or the worst. I swore to myself that I would never join the conversation because I wanted to be Millennial agnostic. Regardless of what anyone says about the Millennial generation whether it be praising or bashing them, it really isn't relevant to who I am because it doesn't actually directly affect my life.
And yet, like anyone, I am drawn by my own reflection and need to at least take a look and voice whether or not I think it is accurate.
One of the main points of contention I have on the Millennial debate is the topic of entitlement. I don't disagree that Millennials feel entitled but I believe it's inevitable and they will eventually grow out of it, the same as when Gen X people were in their twenties or Boomers. The sense of entitlement isn't based on the generation they were born into but rather, just circumstantial of people who have progressed from being teenagers to young adults.
When you transition into adulthood, it is a stage of firsts. You are thrown into many, many new situations that seem accelerated because it went from zero to well, not zero. From not making any money to suddenly making a bunch of money (even if it's minimum wage, it's still a lot more than they were ever making). From having zero equity, to suddenly owning stuff. Having their own car, their own place, their own phone. From not sharing their life with anyone but their family to suddenly having to make decisions with a significant other. It's a pretty big change going from having nothing.
And when you get used to that level of incremental raise, your mind instantly expects the same to happen the next change you undergo. You'd think the next change would be just as exponential and life-changing.
For example, living in a bedroom to moving to your own apartment. Take into account the scale of that shift. A single room (that you don't even technically own) into a whole apartment with your own furniture, bathroom, kitchen, bedroom. I'd say following that relative scale, the logical next leap would be an apartment twice that size, if not more. I'd even say a fancy loft apartment. If you went from making no money to say, thirty thousand dollars, logically, you'd think you'd make twice as much in your next leap. That's just rational and what I'd imagine someone who was dealing with this for the first time would expect. This generation has yet to grasp the concept that their next leap is never going to be as big as the first. It will not produce exponentially larger results. It's going to output the same amount of effort they put into it.
They are at the stage of their lives where the acceleration is starting to even out and plateau. Yet, they are naturally addicted to the rush one gets when they accelerate forward, and have yet to realize that sprints only works in short distances, not the marathon that is life. They haven't yet realized it yet because they're dealing with it for the first time. I don't think it's illogical to think that way when that's what you've been accustomed to - you expect the same results for the same efforts. When they finally realize, as all people eventually will, that moving upwards or forwards is just a build on what they already have, that's when what anti Millennials call 'entitlement' will stop. It's the realization that well, it's about 'growing' up, literally. You build on your current life. You add on to your current salary or career or apartment or social life - you don't get entirely new, improved ones. Unless you want to start from the beginning and burst forward again. This is a possibility they'll leap further than their first time - but they'll still have to start from the beginning.
And yet, like anyone, I am drawn by my own reflection and need to at least take a look and voice whether or not I think it is accurate.
One of the main points of contention I have on the Millennial debate is the topic of entitlement. I don't disagree that Millennials feel entitled but I believe it's inevitable and they will eventually grow out of it, the same as when Gen X people were in their twenties or Boomers. The sense of entitlement isn't based on the generation they were born into but rather, just circumstantial of people who have progressed from being teenagers to young adults.
When you transition into adulthood, it is a stage of firsts. You are thrown into many, many new situations that seem accelerated because it went from zero to well, not zero. From not making any money to suddenly making a bunch of money (even if it's minimum wage, it's still a lot more than they were ever making). From having zero equity, to suddenly owning stuff. Having their own car, their own place, their own phone. From not sharing their life with anyone but their family to suddenly having to make decisions with a significant other. It's a pretty big change going from having nothing.
And when you get used to that level of incremental raise, your mind instantly expects the same to happen the next change you undergo. You'd think the next change would be just as exponential and life-changing.
For example, living in a bedroom to moving to your own apartment. Take into account the scale of that shift. A single room (that you don't even technically own) into a whole apartment with your own furniture, bathroom, kitchen, bedroom. I'd say following that relative scale, the logical next leap would be an apartment twice that size, if not more. I'd even say a fancy loft apartment. If you went from making no money to say, thirty thousand dollars, logically, you'd think you'd make twice as much in your next leap. That's just rational and what I'd imagine someone who was dealing with this for the first time would expect. This generation has yet to grasp the concept that their next leap is never going to be as big as the first. It will not produce exponentially larger results. It's going to output the same amount of effort they put into it.
They are at the stage of their lives where the acceleration is starting to even out and plateau. Yet, they are naturally addicted to the rush one gets when they accelerate forward, and have yet to realize that sprints only works in short distances, not the marathon that is life. They haven't yet realized it yet because they're dealing with it for the first time. I don't think it's illogical to think that way when that's what you've been accustomed to - you expect the same results for the same efforts. When they finally realize, as all people eventually will, that moving upwards or forwards is just a build on what they already have, that's when what anti Millennials call 'entitlement' will stop. It's the realization that well, it's about 'growing' up, literally. You build on your current life. You add on to your current salary or career or apartment or social life - you don't get entirely new, improved ones. Unless you want to start from the beginning and burst forward again. This is a possibility they'll leap further than their first time - but they'll still have to start from the beginning.
Ad Musings: AT&T Bigger is Better
The original reason why I wanted to start this blog was because I'd see or hear an advertisement and think 'I wonder if they thought...'
AT&T's latest 'Big is Better' ads with the comedian Beck Bennett talking to children is supposed to illustrate that the mega-conglomerate that is AT&T is obviously better, that even children can see it. He proceeds to ask them leading questions and the children proceed to be adorable. I admit, I do find them funny and cute but not all of them exactly relay the message. The first ones (where they probably had the A1 material) were pretty straightforward but now that they seem to be scrounging through B-Reel material are a little less so.
The one in particular I keep noticing is the one where he uses the analogy of a big swimming pool and a small one and asks which the kids would prefer. First, they never outrightly select the big pool, secondly, they start asking questions about what the big pool has - pirahnas, dinosaurs that change into motorboats, etc.
Seems that size doesn't matter. They care about additional features I don't care about your coverage, tell me what added value you can give me. Better prices for newer phones, unlimited data, more perks. Even the kids can see that.
AT&T's latest 'Big is Better' ads with the comedian Beck Bennett talking to children is supposed to illustrate that the mega-conglomerate that is AT&T is obviously better, that even children can see it. He proceeds to ask them leading questions and the children proceed to be adorable. I admit, I do find them funny and cute but not all of them exactly relay the message. The first ones (where they probably had the A1 material) were pretty straightforward but now that they seem to be scrounging through B-Reel material are a little less so.
The one in particular I keep noticing is the one where he uses the analogy of a big swimming pool and a small one and asks which the kids would prefer. First, they never outrightly select the big pool, secondly, they start asking questions about what the big pool has - pirahnas, dinosaurs that change into motorboats, etc.
Seems that size doesn't matter. They care about additional features I don't care about your coverage, tell me what added value you can give me. Better prices for newer phones, unlimited data, more perks. Even the kids can see that.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Where to Find Insights
Working in the business of measuring advertising, I cannot turn off thinking about media implications when I am consuming content. I assume this would be the same for all occupations - a hairstylist will always discreetly sneak a glance at every single person's hair that they meet, an architect will always survey every building or room layout they walk into. So even when I'm watching television or surfing the Internet or flipping through a magazine, I inevitably end up studying the ads. This makes for great entertainment when normal consumers usually tune out. More than often, I wonder how the creator of the advertisement came to the decision to produce that particular ad - since I work in consumer insights, I'm more preoccupied with the 'why' and where it came from. Why is it that this particular brand chose to slam its competitor in a side by side comparison whereas this other brand decided to do a funny, irrelevant commercial with a talking animal or cute puppy? Especially if they belong in the same category, this clearly indicates that there are two different types of audiences they are trying to attract with the same product. One is rational, one is emotional. Insurance is a great example of this - some brands are dry and to the point, invoking an air of professionalism and no-nonsense and the majority lately seem to be based in silly humor. But both still want you to buy insurance.
If you end up studying the ads long enough, you can kind of get at how they came to an 'insight'. Lately, I feel like creatives are becoming way too meta. This isn't necessarily a bad or good thing, just an observation. I feel as though creatives are literally spelling out their insights in the advertisement, versus using it to portray an insight. I just recently saw a Domino's or some pizza commercial where the narrator talks about thoughts which normally I would hear in a brainstorming insight or strategy meeting, not in the actual ad. He was talking about how they could lie and say that getting pizza signifies that it's the weekend and so if you order it, you'll instantly get that downtime mood. A little slice of heaven, perhaps. I guess the insight came from how people love ordering pizza when they feel like relaxing, not cooking and chilling out, which is usually during lazy days e.g. the weekend. Therefore, to capitalize on that feeling of relaxation and downtime, order pizza on a Wednesday and it'll feel like the weekend! Similar to drinking a Corona and feeling like you're on a beach, this isn't a new concept and it intuitively makes sense. What was funny to me was the commercial was basically the narrator explaining that concept and then some - that pizza won't get you to feel like it's the weekend, but it's what you do with that time, cut to shot of happy family enjoying pizza. So order pizza, but spend that time wisely, is what the commercial is trying to instruct. I didn't understand the concept at all. I imagined a frustrated brainstorming session where the team is tasked with finding the emotional hook to pizza, and someone says, 'It's just fucking pizza. There's no emotions. It's what happens when you're eating pizza, family dinners, quiet nights in, etc.' And there's your ad. On one hand, I get that it's time now for brands to be purely transparent about their intentions - to sell you their stuff, and not hide it behind fluff. However, there's just a certain tinge of patronization in the ad, it kind of feels to me like they're saying that they studied you and are now telling you what you feel and why you should buy their product. That isn't supposed to be what an insight serves. An insight is supposed to shed light on a piece of information, and then create something new from it, not regurgitate it.
Hate to bring up the over-cited Dove but also now the recent Pantene commercial from the Phillipines - but those to me were good examples of using an insight and running with it. You find out women are insecure about their looks and don't see themselves the same way other people do? Do a test where you ask women to describe how they see themselves and how other people see them and spot the differences. That takes the insight and tells a story from it. For Pantene, it's been an age old complaint that women feel that if they act too emboldened, they're considered bitches as opposed to if you were a man, it'd be fine. Cue last year's whirlwind of feminism, Sheryl Sandberg, Marissa Mayer, the countless articles addressing the topic in The Atlantic, NY Times, NY Mag. Even Beyonce's new album was used as an example of feminism and whether it was different for black women. This had nothing to do with shampoo, but it had everything to do with women and women's rights. Pantene grabbed that opportunity and jumped on it - showcasing their product in the background. Another viral hit (I sometimes wonder, if 'viral' just means heralded by the ad/media world, whereas regular consumers barely bat an eyelid). Whether or not it'll help push sales of their shampoo off the shelves, I can't say. But it did get them attention and attached them as a brand and product that 'gets' women. So it was a success for the brand, if success doesn't always have to mean sales.
The fact is, there are hundreds of insights to be found while watching television. I come across a dozen every commercial break. Groups of people had to sit around, cracking their collective brains trying to figure out what to say in their next commercial and it all comes through perhaps somewhat diluted, but lately, pretty clear in every single commercial I see. Why wouldn't I just glean insights from watching a few commercials? It's the same as curation really - I'm watching the end results of months of research coming together in a professionally put together sizzle reel, so to speak. What makes this less academic than sourcing it from a whitepaper? People tend to get obsessed with trying to come with the insight by themselves from scratch, in a roomful of data points - something revolutionary and the big 'a-ha' (hence the title of this blog). You don't really need to. You can if you want. But information is out there for the taking - why not just tune in?
If you end up studying the ads long enough, you can kind of get at how they came to an 'insight'. Lately, I feel like creatives are becoming way too meta. This isn't necessarily a bad or good thing, just an observation. I feel as though creatives are literally spelling out their insights in the advertisement, versus using it to portray an insight. I just recently saw a Domino's or some pizza commercial where the narrator talks about thoughts which normally I would hear in a brainstorming insight or strategy meeting, not in the actual ad. He was talking about how they could lie and say that getting pizza signifies that it's the weekend and so if you order it, you'll instantly get that downtime mood. A little slice of heaven, perhaps. I guess the insight came from how people love ordering pizza when they feel like relaxing, not cooking and chilling out, which is usually during lazy days e.g. the weekend. Therefore, to capitalize on that feeling of relaxation and downtime, order pizza on a Wednesday and it'll feel like the weekend! Similar to drinking a Corona and feeling like you're on a beach, this isn't a new concept and it intuitively makes sense. What was funny to me was the commercial was basically the narrator explaining that concept and then some - that pizza won't get you to feel like it's the weekend, but it's what you do with that time, cut to shot of happy family enjoying pizza. So order pizza, but spend that time wisely, is what the commercial is trying to instruct. I didn't understand the concept at all. I imagined a frustrated brainstorming session where the team is tasked with finding the emotional hook to pizza, and someone says, 'It's just fucking pizza. There's no emotions. It's what happens when you're eating pizza, family dinners, quiet nights in, etc.' And there's your ad. On one hand, I get that it's time now for brands to be purely transparent about their intentions - to sell you their stuff, and not hide it behind fluff. However, there's just a certain tinge of patronization in the ad, it kind of feels to me like they're saying that they studied you and are now telling you what you feel and why you should buy their product. That isn't supposed to be what an insight serves. An insight is supposed to shed light on a piece of information, and then create something new from it, not regurgitate it.
Hate to bring up the over-cited Dove but also now the recent Pantene commercial from the Phillipines - but those to me were good examples of using an insight and running with it. You find out women are insecure about their looks and don't see themselves the same way other people do? Do a test where you ask women to describe how they see themselves and how other people see them and spot the differences. That takes the insight and tells a story from it. For Pantene, it's been an age old complaint that women feel that if they act too emboldened, they're considered bitches as opposed to if you were a man, it'd be fine. Cue last year's whirlwind of feminism, Sheryl Sandberg, Marissa Mayer, the countless articles addressing the topic in The Atlantic, NY Times, NY Mag. Even Beyonce's new album was used as an example of feminism and whether it was different for black women. This had nothing to do with shampoo, but it had everything to do with women and women's rights. Pantene grabbed that opportunity and jumped on it - showcasing their product in the background. Another viral hit (I sometimes wonder, if 'viral' just means heralded by the ad/media world, whereas regular consumers barely bat an eyelid). Whether or not it'll help push sales of their shampoo off the shelves, I can't say. But it did get them attention and attached them as a brand and product that 'gets' women. So it was a success for the brand, if success doesn't always have to mean sales.
The fact is, there are hundreds of insights to be found while watching television. I come across a dozen every commercial break. Groups of people had to sit around, cracking their collective brains trying to figure out what to say in their next commercial and it all comes through perhaps somewhat diluted, but lately, pretty clear in every single commercial I see. Why wouldn't I just glean insights from watching a few commercials? It's the same as curation really - I'm watching the end results of months of research coming together in a professionally put together sizzle reel, so to speak. What makes this less academic than sourcing it from a whitepaper? People tend to get obsessed with trying to come with the insight by themselves from scratch, in a roomful of data points - something revolutionary and the big 'a-ha' (hence the title of this blog). You don't really need to. You can if you want. But information is out there for the taking - why not just tune in?
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Overheard on Twitter
Everyone that's bored and on the Internet would've read about the latest PR fiasco from Justine Sacco, and right off its' tail, Gogo wireless. Her tweet in itself, while definitely un-PC, has probably been uttered by a slew of comedians or drunk people during parties. That's my whole point entirely. Look at those scenarios. Context. You cannot capture context in Twitter. Twitter and any other social content curation websites are the worst at providing context. You pluck a sentence from a conversation and it's very easy for it to sound horribly worse than it is. That's why 'Overhead in....' websites are hilarious because you don't really know the full story but pick one out of every five sentences and you can turn it into a 'That's what she said' nudge-nudge joke quickly.
Twitter allows people to retweet their tweets with no relation to any prior conversation. Anyone who cares about their brand, be it corporate or personal, have to, despite how annoying it is, be aware of this. While this woman is in PR and probably has some exposure to the public, I am sure she never realized she would get picked up by the media. For example, if I'm on the street and I do something ridiculous, say, being engrossed in texting and walk into a pole, I realize that I am public domain. Literally anyone can take a photo or record me and that would be the end of it. Never mind that I was on my phone for a serious emergency, the first instinct anyone would react to when watching a video of me walking into a pole while texting would be ridicule.
I find it fairly impossible to present research that isn't unbiased. There is a difference between presenting data points, which yes, can be factual, and telling a story with data points. When storytelling, you have no choice but to form a string of information together, thereby omitting other information or building up a string of sentences to form a point of view. That's not unbiased. That's you picking a lens in which to tell your story. It can be based in facts - but it's still biased. I didn't grow up in the US, so I visit a number news sites that are non-American - some UK and some Asian. I have noticed that the same news stories can be told in entirely different perspectives, using the same facts but with nuances of words that change the story completely. I've noticed in more extroverted cultures, a quiet person can be described as 'withdrawn' whereas more introverted cultures use the word 'reserved'. Notice how this switches the connotation describing the person.
Back to the original story. In the past, it might have been that everyone was looking for their five minutes of fame, uploading photos and videos to try and strike Internet fame (evocative of settlers looking for 'liquid gold' in the Wild Wild West). Today, one would actually have to avoid it. At any step, you could explode into Internet. Your publicly shared photo on Facebook might be used for a post on Buzzfeed, a brand could pick up the tweet you hashtagged and retweet it to their million followers. The world is watching and waiting to pounce. I have several social media sites and while I am not consciously vetting my responses - I am always aware that they can be uncovered one day, in which case, I would probably suffer the same fate as the woman above because somehow, something I wrote or took a photo of would be taken out of context. I would probably delete everything, cover my tracks and try to start over. But in the mean time, I constantly remind myself that this stream of content I publish online that for some reason I feel is private, might be discovered one day.
Twitter allows people to retweet their tweets with no relation to any prior conversation. Anyone who cares about their brand, be it corporate or personal, have to, despite how annoying it is, be aware of this. While this woman is in PR and probably has some exposure to the public, I am sure she never realized she would get picked up by the media. For example, if I'm on the street and I do something ridiculous, say, being engrossed in texting and walk into a pole, I realize that I am public domain. Literally anyone can take a photo or record me and that would be the end of it. Never mind that I was on my phone for a serious emergency, the first instinct anyone would react to when watching a video of me walking into a pole while texting would be ridicule.
I find it fairly impossible to present research that isn't unbiased. There is a difference between presenting data points, which yes, can be factual, and telling a story with data points. When storytelling, you have no choice but to form a string of information together, thereby omitting other information or building up a string of sentences to form a point of view. That's not unbiased. That's you picking a lens in which to tell your story. It can be based in facts - but it's still biased. I didn't grow up in the US, so I visit a number news sites that are non-American - some UK and some Asian. I have noticed that the same news stories can be told in entirely different perspectives, using the same facts but with nuances of words that change the story completely. I've noticed in more extroverted cultures, a quiet person can be described as 'withdrawn' whereas more introverted cultures use the word 'reserved'. Notice how this switches the connotation describing the person.
Back to the original story. In the past, it might have been that everyone was looking for their five minutes of fame, uploading photos and videos to try and strike Internet fame (evocative of settlers looking for 'liquid gold' in the Wild Wild West). Today, one would actually have to avoid it. At any step, you could explode into Internet. Your publicly shared photo on Facebook might be used for a post on Buzzfeed, a brand could pick up the tweet you hashtagged and retweet it to their million followers. The world is watching and waiting to pounce. I have several social media sites and while I am not consciously vetting my responses - I am always aware that they can be uncovered one day, in which case, I would probably suffer the same fate as the woman above because somehow, something I wrote or took a photo of would be taken out of context. I would probably delete everything, cover my tracks and try to start over. But in the mean time, I constantly remind myself that this stream of content I publish online that for some reason I feel is private, might be discovered one day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)