Creativity is the opposite of conformity

Creativity is the opposite of conformity. Because a lot of clients do not understand this, they deny themselves the creative breakthroughs they so desperately need to build their brands.

When we present our work to our clients, we need to understand this perfectly. Tell your clients not to study your work and not to opine on it logically. There is no need to approach the work objectively: it means squat if people around you do not "like" the work. Campaigns, brands and advertising are highly subjective - for it to work, it needs to evoke emotion more than anything else.

The Mona Lisa may look terrible to many, but remains a highly superior piece of work. The Avis "We're No.2" campaign failed the "like" test by up to 50%, but remains a highly successful campaign.

"The more research that goes into providing the brief the better, up to a point, but after that I really think you should leave it up to the creators of the ad. If they are genuine, and talented, and students of human nature, you are better off leaving it to them than to any focus group. The creative team needs to be really good and really intuitive, but if they aren't, no amount of research is going to save them". (Lionel Hunt)

So the next time you present a campaign or a piece of print, never, never, ask what the client "thinks". Guide them into understanding the rational, intuition and most importantly, emotion behind it. And if you or your team thinks it doesn't work, be honest to yourself and axe the idea.

SPH bullies a small cupcake chain

Here is yet another story of SPH demanding payment from a person they wrote about. And this is not the first time I've heard of this. Apparently, if you republish an article written by them (about you), on any medium - you will be liable for a bill by SPH, without warning, without consideration. However, what I did not know, is that they even bill you for "investigation fee" - which we sincerely feel is utter rubbish. In this situation, we have here our national newspaper, generating millions of dollars in revenue, harassing a small cupcake chain over a superfluous case.

I accept that logically, there are copyright infringement laws, but at the same time, any media, newspapers or otherwise, thrives on content about people. The further the news goes, the more people will be curious to read an official medium to find out more about it. So I cannot accept it contextually, that SPH would want to go around pulling legal muscle on individuals who were just overjoyed that they were featured on a newspaper.

Yes, the small business profits from the news. But so does SPH from the article. Who profits more here? Millions of dollars in ad revenue? Or tens of thousands of dollars in cupcake sales?


I am disappointed with the SPH. You're legally correct, you've got everything right on paper, you've held workshops to "educate" people - but it is not good customer relations to attack small companies like this. This is precisely the sort of attitude that must change in this country: start re-considering, not defending your legalistic stance.

If the SPH has illusions that it has a monopoly on publishing news in this country, it had better start thinking again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Now you've read the story, why not take action: join us and express you displeasure to the Straits Times. You may use the following template and send it in to: stforum@sph.com.sg:

To the Editor of the Straits Times:

I have read with displeasure SPH's measures on Daniel Ong of Twelve Cupcakes. While it is technically correct for your company to legal recourse on his sharing of your material, I believe at times that we ought to practice "live and let live". Anyone who shares such material written by the SPH is simply enthusiastic and very happy that he/she has been published on a national medium and sharing this happiness is a natural thing to do. I would have done the same. Please do reconsider changing your rules of engagement when dealing with future circumstances, and please do reconsider your active persuasion of $214 "investigation fee" with Mr. Daniel Ong.

Sincerely,
[name]

Fight Brand Hijack

Welcome to the internet, a place where others can control, and even hijack, your marketing campaign. In the large whisky bar of cyberspace, drunken with anonymity, one feels less responsibility and more emboldened, prohibitions are lifted and lose talk will arise. Unlike highway patrols, there are no cops on the internet, and that is when things start to get dicey.

Hurling of insults, public complaints, calls for boycotts and unabashedly posting competitor links on your platforms: these are just but the milder attacks netizens can do with your campaign, but even these activities can be very damaging. It takes only a small group of people to create a sensation of majority. The usual complaints are that your brand has failed them in customer service, sells inferior products or that your competitor is flogging better widgets. Less common are that your brand is socially irresponsible, profiteering, bullying... or perhaps the younger generation could be poking fun at your brand's inadequate social know-how. That said however, if you have a problem with your service, the first attempt should be to fix it. But what about when your mistake doesn't really warrant the type of backlash a disgruntled customer lobs at you?

Have you seen a fake Starbucks voucher? A fake Microsoft promotion? Closer to home, have you seen the fake SMRT Facebook page, fake Changi Airport Facebook Page and on the political front, a fake PM Lee Twitter account? These brand hijack attempts started life as simple satire, but behind this satire is a more sinister attempt to discredit your brand.

On a more grandiose scale, was the movie "SuperSize Me" by  Morgan Spurlock. This expository movie thrust a journalistic stab at the McDonald's empire. Spurlock dramatizes the unhealthy effects of consuming fast food (specifically McDonalds) by turning himself into a lab rat. Although Mc's didn't explicitly say it, their very major, global re-branding campaign occurred very close to and right after "SuperSize Me" was released worldwide.

So what can businesses do to guard against infiltration like this? Here are a few suggestions you can use:

Build a strong community of advocates
Everyone needs friends and a brand is no different. You need a small, vocal and passionate group of "brand friends" who can help you watch the media space while assisting in defending quickly.

Build a strong brand
Nothing beats a strong reputation. If your business is known to be sincere in providing reliable service, honest work and good quality products, you don't have to lose sleep over negative publicity.

Demonstrate sincerity
With a more vocal, more discerning public, people can smell bullshit from a mile away. Never be something you're not. Never fluff things up. Good marketing will actually kill your campaign faster if you're not what you say you are.

Take things with a pinch of salt
The internet plugs into the deepest recesses of a person's mind, transmitting the most evil things that may never be uttered in real life. Chose your battles, don't lose focus and never let the attacking party set the agenda for you.

Set keyword triggers
If you are using blogs, forums and commenting systems, chances are a keyword trigger is available. Use this to earmark certain posts for moderation.

Practice -some- censorship
As a general rule, it is not good to censor. But at times, you will find that a little bit of censorship will help. Don't delete posts that express genuine complaint, but if you see a mosquito of a troublemaker, it will serve well to just click the delete button.

Hire an agency
An agency would have more manpower to react quickly to social attacks. Look for an agency with some industry knowledge, has spent time interacting with the online public and has the ability to react 24 x 7. With a skilled team, they can even turn a PR disaster into a brand building opportunity.

Create applications to limit engagement
This would be useful if you anticipate strong reaction. If you keep discussions and forums separate from other public spaces, you can do damage control faster, have the ability to move the group around and limit the distance of sharing or the number of viewership.

Meet up with the disappointed
Most times, when users go to your Facebook wall to do a public rant - it probably means that they have frustrated all avenues of trying to reach you. (My futile efforts of reaching AirAsia's help desk for example *ahem*) Meet up with them, resolve their problems and create a happy customer. This is a good chance to turn opposition into opportunity.

Get creative
We live in a modern age of digital communications, there are few rules of engagement and risk is hard to predict. Just like driving, you plan for the safest journey, however there is need react to dangerous situations when they happen. Likewise for campaign engagement.

There is much that could happen that could take your campaign awry, however, the worst thing you can do is to keep out of the game.

Tools vs Content

Content is king. Except for when it's not.

In my endeavors sailing through the wonderful world of marketing (and especially digital marketing), management seem to be more obsessed (and impressed) with the choice of technologies and mediums rather than content. There seem to be more thought, meetings and studies dedicated to the choice of tools rather than the content these tools are meant to deliver.

Here are examples:

-    Client spends more money on buying newspaper space and hires freelance designers and junior staff to develop lack luster advertisements.

-    Client obsessing over QR codes, sharing tools, platforms, questionable new applications and expensive technologies rather than creating a good set of messages

-    Client worrying too much about meeting poorly defined KPIs rather than proper targeting their messages

-    Too much concern over what advertising platforms to buy over the message strategy

Although McLuhan famously quoted "The medium is the message", it is still no excuse for creating flippant material. Good copy, spending some time and effort building a good message that your market will want to associate with.

Creating good messages, good content and building a brand has inherent risks. You're now taking sides. Your brand and whatever you say now has an opinion. If you're not funny, you shouldn't be. If you don't have size, you shouldn't pretend. Wear a hat that's too big for you and you'll turn away customers. Acting like something you're not will make you look stupid.

All this does not imply that brands should avoid creating good content. Plain porridge, tap water and odorless air may be good to nurse an ill person, but using this strategy in your marketing will get you ignored promptly. As humans, we're bombareded by so many marketing messages, our heads are already programed to shutoff messages that do not get our attention - in short, you waste your money. In this case, no campaign is better than a bland campaign.

Here are some questions you might want to consider before your next campaign:

• Who do you want to target?
• What sort of goals do you want to achieve?
• What is the type of brand personality you're feeding?
• What is the story you're trying to tell?
• How can you use marketing tools to achieve the best effect for your story?

Sponsored Post

Numerical literacy is one of the most important, flexible and transferable skills you'll require in the course of life. In a modern context, you -cannot- i repeat -cannot- do without basic financial skills.

Just like how money accumulates interest in a bank, likewise, poor financial decisions also accrue bad karma that will bite you very, very hard when it's payback time.

Then there are also career prospects; being nimble with numbers, sharp at analyzing, having the ability to weigh merits vs demerits and have these beautifully presented/argued in naked numbers are all skills that employers (and clients) will pay money for.

Above that, you'll find the following exceptionally useful:

- To understand the language of project finance through robust training at a top business school (gains you extra credibility),

- Know what/how to employ the tools needed to analyse and value project finance structures back in the workplace

Project Finance

I'd like to introduce to you this very interesting programme by the London Business School called "Project Finance". I mean, sure... this article is sponsored by them, but the thing is, this unique course from the London Business School trains an individual in a combination of skills that is very relevant in our precision obsessed society. More so if your line of work crosses, or actually are:

• Asset managers Institutional and/or private investors
• Investment consultants and independent financial advisers (IFAs)
• Regulators, compliance officers, accountants and lawyers
• Investor relations specialists and corporate financiers
• Risk managers, actuaries, auditors and quantitative analysts
• Pension fund and endowment trustees
• Investment managers, private bankers and family office representatives

At the heart of the Project Finance Programme, is an in-depth analysis of real-life case studies covering both successful and "not-so-successful" examples of project financing in both Europe and emerging markets. With rising popularity in this type of financing, there is also increasing need for such a programme for busy professionals who can’t afford to take much time out of the office. A fast, highly effective, 5 day course that starts on 25 June 2012 will add a powerful arsenal to your repertoire of skills.

Throughout the course, you will build a strong network of contacts from the growing project finance industry and with all the skills acquired will eventually lead you to an increase in confidence when working with stakeholders.

Some of the questions you probably have in mind at this moment are:

- What advantages does Project Finance have over traditional corporate finance?

- What are the valuation challenges posed by such structures?

- If such projects encounter financial distress, how should they optimally be restructured?

You'll find all this info and more at the Project Finance webpage: 

here: http://bs.serving-sys.com/BurstingPipe/adServer.bs?cn=tf&c=20&mc=click&pli=4726421&PluID=0&ord=[timestamp]

So I urge you, do hop over to their site - besides Project Finance, you might also get some ideas on what to do next with your career and professional upgrading!

For more information on this, download one of the brochures on: http://www.london.edu/programmes/executiveeducation/financeeducation.html?utm_source=EBUZ&utm_medium=SM&utm_campaign=FL_FIN_EBUZ_SM_PROG

Some notes about the London Business School:

Located in a global  financial centre and consistently ranked among the world's top business schools, London Business School offers unsurpassed connections to the world of finance. The School has one of the largest concentrations of finance faculty in the world and is firmly established as a global centre of excellence in finance. Participants learn how to use financial information to make better decisions for their organisation, or develop their understanding of a specific specialisation. These highly practical programmes enable participants to implement the knowledge and skills they have gained immediately upon their return to work.

Viral video by ebuzzing

Can Google+ ever cause a migration of users from Facebook?

I scouted around to look for statistics of Facebook growth and I found this:

From this data, it is observable that the increase in user acceptance to Facebook also followed the proliferation of the iPhone. Now, this does not necessarily mean that the iPhone was the only catalyst that caused the increase. But it is undeniable that it's introduction made sharing, catching up on gossips, forwarding helpful public alerts (especially during commuting hours), and various other social activities were made possible with this mobile computing platform.

From the blogs I run, it is also noticeable that increase in viewership occurs during morning/ evening commuter hours and lunch. Weekends see the worst dip in viewership, so do office hours.


Now, allow us to introduce, the Google goggle.

This exciting device extends the use of smart phone applications to the real world. Some of the things it can do include: helping the user see directions to destinations appear literally before their eyes, talk to friends over video chat, take a photo or even buy a few things online as you walk around. With the ability to connect to a smartphone, the possibilities are boundless. Although I'm not so sure how cool you'd look walking into a club with one of these.

I was quite excited to hear that Google is in the process of building it's new augmented reality glasses. If it can prove to integrate well in social use, this may very well be the device that can shift multitudes of users from Facebook to Google+

Let's stop paying for oil: let's go!

Oil shares more money with more people across more continents. And the sheiks who run these empires have a tremendous say in the all the economies of the world - you can have such power also if the product you produce is the raw material needed for EVERYTHING that runs the modern world. Any increase in oil prices trickle a chain of events that affect financial markets and eventually affects the small consumer. A one cent increase in oil markets over the period of a year can raise pump prices by as much as $1b in America (Source: CNBC).


We have new technology: electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, nuclear energy but why aren't we seeing more charging stations, more policies to get people to switch (maybe a cash for clunkers program...cash for guzzlers?) and more action by giant conglomerates to take more serious action? My feel is that that financial grip by the oil companies is too tight. Oil money is too tightly integrated into the world and it's profits shared by too many powerful individuals and organizations. Whoever owns the money, owns the country: even governments could face a political backlash if it pumps more money into, say, nuclear plants and electric vehicles - an action that could lead to large profit losses for the biggest companies in the world. Will this be an isolated implosion? Hard to say. Lehman Brothers opened a can of worms that crawled all over the world, eating away entire economies. Imagine Shell, Chevron and BP going bankrupt. Then imagine the Arabs going bankrupt. At the same time.


The logical thing to do now is to help these industrial giants spearhead businesses in renewable energy and diversify into different technologies so that their money can be made while the world weans off it's addiction to oil. Until then, we won't expect any real action from governments all over the world to encourage alternative energy.


Oil volatility is nothing new - but I am hoping it's mood swings will trigger a consumer's "middle east revolution": to start voting with their dollar and demanding non-oil energy.