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.