Why Western Australia is The Healthiest State in The World: Good TV Advertising in the 1970's

I was talking to my wife Anna this morning and started singing the benefits about vitamin E. She asked me why I was singing, and how I knew this??  I recounted to her where I learned about the various benefits of vitamins - TV ads. In particular this iconic piece of communications from my childhood in Perth









It's a Community Service Announcement, (CSA) that looks like ti was written and produced by Channel 9.  It was brilliant.  This ad, and the rest that follow have stayed with me my entire life. I can still sing every word to some of them.  It was great fun watching these.  They feel as relevant today as ever.  It's proof that as an industry advertising hasn't really gotten any better over the last thirsty years.  What I think works with these ads are:
a) A jingle: I have no idea why advertisers and marketers have moved away from catchy joggles - they stick in the head - its what we want isn't it
b) an own able treatment: The squiggly animation cuts through, coupled with beautifully written songs
c) The length: these ads give enough time to tell a story
d) clear message linked into each son. 


If done today they would be linked through social media, have a strainer participative element, and so on, and would be all the stronger for it. But for classic 1970's / 80's advertising this can't be beat.


What do you think? Like?
Do people growing up in places other than Perth have a similar set of CSA's that have state with them? Bet they are not as good as these.

Advertising Trends for 2012

So I’m a week or two late with my predictions, but these are the big advertising trends I see happening in 2012.  I’ll be discussing these on ABC Radio tonight with James O’Loghlin.  If you disagree then please let me know here, or call in tonight. 

The Context

Advertisers are (slowly) coming around to the idea that all advertising is going to work harder if it involves a degree of participation from the consumer. This coupled with smart phone and social media technology means that interactive messaging will become the dominant force.  Couple this with increasingly expensive space in traditional media (same amount of space many more brands wanting it), and consumer control of messaging means that traditional advertising will become less effective per dollar spent.  With this context in mind here are the big (and small) trends for 2012. 

The Trends

1. Advertising Platforms as Content

Masterchef is sponsored by a well known retailer, Coles.  It has been a massive success because a) it’s great TV, but b) it has a natural synergy with its biggest sponsor that can then help co-promote the show.  The sponsor will also act as a platform of multiple levels of sponsorship, from a multitude of brands, all of whom fit naturally into the show (in fact they help build the shows credibility.  Watch out for networks building show platforms that are natural places for brand and product integration.


 

2. Video and Audio Print

2011 saw a few examples of video enabled and audio enabled print.  We now have the technology, and the price has come down sufficiently for advertisers who want to stand out to embed their favourite video content into the traditional magazine environment.  Magazines may be become noisier – but it seems fun. Check out this attempt by Peroni, via Mumbrella.

3. Consumer Completion

OK so it’s not new, and really had it’s breakthrough in around 2009, but the trend of asking consumers to finish the marketing off for us, aint going anywhere. You'll be asked to like things on Facebook, Twitter certain things on, name new flavours, write the script, star in the ad, or send a message to the CEO.  All in the name of to brand wanting to give the consumer a sense of ownership. This is a nice example of people being allowed to become members of the crew for the latest AAMI ad via Facebook. (image via campaign brief.com)

4. Dirty Realism

You'll see less glamour and polish and more everyday people – as we demand authenticity from our advertising.  We’ve seen reality TV blossom over the last 10 years, and documentaries become as mainstream as fiction in cinema. However, some deluded marketers insist on portraying shiny, happy people in their advertising.  It doesn’t work like this anymore.  We purchase the majority of our brands, primarily to reflect who we are and our tastes, not to show who we aspire to be.  Expect to see more average looking people in advertising commercials (AMMI makes a pretty good example of this too!). We’ll see more reality in advertising in 2012 and beyond.

5. Geosocial Offers

Offers and promotions that take place through social media and are activated when you are at a certain place at a certain time.  I Imagine this will become mainstream quickly.  Here are two promotions that have had mixed and very good success for McDonalds and Dominos pizza respectively. Wagamama did something in Australia recently too, offering free soups to people who checked in 5 times or more.  Expect more soon. In fact every major retailer will soon offer them I expect.

6. Gamification

OK so it was the buzz word of 2011, but I think it will be a significant trend of 2012.  If you can have people spend time with your brand, whilst at the same time offering them an experience they enjoy – then why wouldn’t you.  We created a game that finishes this week – Steal Banksy. The success has been phenomenal.  We offered a two prizes to the value of $20,000 but gamified the mechanic (you had to steal the prize to win) this created a level of engagement with the promotion far beyond what would have otherwise happened.

One Trend that may die (or morph)

1    Group Buying

I think people will realize that there are only so many dog washing services they need, or aromatherapy classes they can attend before the group buying sites have a very quick fall from grace.  That said, they may well respond with a fundamental change of offer that makes them stronger than ever.

How Advertising Changes Behaviour: Ease versus Motivation

All marketers and advertisers are in the business of behavior change.  There is not a marketer in the world paid to keep things as they are. As long as business growth in a given then every brief will end in someones behaviour needing to change.  As a result of nearly all marketing activity people are ‘required’ to change brands, pay more, consume more often, or have more people consume.

In order to change peoples behaviour there are two key factors we can influence; Motivation and Ease.  The higher the motivation, and the Easier it is, then the more likely that behaviour will occur.

Historically, the advertising industry has been obsessed with just 50% of this equation - building motivation.  The products were available in store, the advertisers job was to increase motivation to get people to go and buy it.  The main weapon advertisers have had to build motivation is ‘creativity’. The issue with being ‘creative’ is it’s as much luck as it is skill.  So even though it’s been the area of focus for most advertising agencies, none I know have a robust model on how to build motivation – they just have a creative department that comes up with ‘ideas’. Sometimes these ideas are brilliant, sometimes average, and often worse than ordinary.  If you ever talk to someone in advertising ask them how their agency builds motivation - at best you'll get a corny metaphor about 'falling in love with brands'. Watch Madmen and you'll learn more about how to build motivation than you will from most agencies.  It's not that they can't do it (build motivation), they just don't know how they are doing it - it's often luck.

However, something exciting is happening in advertising. Some are taking a broader view of how to change behavior rather than just building motivation.  Making the desired behavior ‘easier’ to complete is just, and often a significantly more effective way to get the result you are after.

The advent of social media and smart phones, means that the race is on to making things easier for consumers (us).  A Grand Prix winner at Cannes this year bought a virtual supermarket (Tesco) to train stations in South Korea, everything you ordered was delivered by the time you got the train home.  If the desired behaviour change was get more people shopping at Tesco versus competitors this was a brilliant way to do it.  They didn't build motivation, they just made it easier.

My prediction for 2012 will be that agencies change of focus as they rejoice not in increasing consumer motivation, but in making things easier for people.

Steal Banksy: Stealbanksy, Stay the night, Steal the art

Here's a campaign we've created for the Art Series Hotels that allows people to really express their dark side, and commit the perfect crime - all going to plan.  The below is taken largely from teh press release.  It's fun, it gets people involved, and it's highly talkable. it had a good first day today. Fingers crossed the campaign unfolds nicely.  

Art has a history of theft and heist, a history that Melbourne has shared. In 1986, Picasso’s Weeping Woman was stolen from Melbourne’s National Gallery Victoria and held for ransom.  There have also been rumours of a Banksy being stolen in the streets of Melbourne.

Steal Banksy from Art Series Hotels on Vimeo.

Now Art Series Hotels is offering the public the chance to steal a Banksy for themselves, No Ball Games This work is just one of a handful of signed and authenticated Banksy’s available in Australia (valued at $15,000).  From 15^th December 2011 till 15^th January 2012, 

Art Series Hotel guests will have the opportunity to try and steal it.  If they succeed, it’s theirs to keep.  If they get caught, back on the wall it goes.

Expert in street art and editor of Invurt Magazine, Fletcher Andersen, said: “Banksy has helped to place a global spotlight on the street art genre, transformed multiple urban spaces and become a household name in the process.  The chance to own one of his works is a great opportunity, and more than worthy of a heist attempt.”

Will Deague, CEO of Art Series Hotels, said: “The Art Series Hotel Group is passionate about supporting the arts in Melbourne and we’re very excited about the StealBanksy concept.”

It's Gone! 2 #stealbanksy from Art Series Hotels on Vimeo.

Post script: As you can see from the above video, Banksy number one got stolen, by two very clever thieves.  See the full story at www.banksy.com.au, or on the Facebook site, or Mumbrella.  Needless to say we have a spare and Pulp Fiction is up and ready to be stolen.

Twitter: @stealbanksy

Facebook: facebook.com/artserieshotels

Building Interactivity Into TV

Thought I'd put this up on the blog.  It's an initiative from Channel 10 News called Sydney Soapbox.  It's an example of making a TV show, in this case the nightly news interactive, and building a sense of community. The Soapbox is represented online via Facebook and Twitter, and gets a high level of interaction.  It's an interesting trend as articulated in this article in The Australian, Social Media the X Factor in Boosting TV Ratings.  I've seen stats showing Q&A audience increased 23% after introducing Twitter feeds.  I also had the pleasure to speak at Promax, the industry responsible for all promotional material on air.  It surprises me that so few of the promotions ask the viewer to get involved in the message.  The promotions often just ask people to watch the next show (or don't miss out - as loss aversion is a significantly strong motivator for action).  However, getting people to Tweet the show, or join the Facebook group, or in some way be part of the show's community before the show is launched could be an even stronger conditioner - and ensure the show starts with positive momentum.


Here's a completely random clip from Sydney Soapbox I've chosen as an example! Just so happens to be linking to my favourite cause at the moment - hoping Karl Sandilands is squeezed by advertisers to get off air.


If you want to see more or follow it go to the Ten News Facebook or Twitter pages.

Marketing Hoaxes: Why I Love Them

OK so this is my POV on Hoaxes.  It was printed in the last edition of Adnews. I also spoke about the topic on ABC radio with James O'Loghlin on Sunday night.  I asked listeners what they thought.  By and large they said they didn't like them and it put them off the brands that did them. I'm not convinced.  


 You'll have to click the image to read and hopefully it's big enough.

It's Like The Beams Crossing in Ghostbusters

I was in the airport lounge yesterday when I heard over the pager 'Could Professor Noam Chomsky please come to the reception area'. What?!?  I then realised Noam was in town to pick up his Sydney Peace Prize, so thought, unless it was a coincidence of linguistic proportions that it must indeed be the Noam Chomsky (that is the distinguished American social scientist, author and human rights campaigner (including spotting that 9-11 was a terrorist act that differed from other terrorist acts only in that it was committed on American soil and not by Americans on other nations soil).  


I went to the reception are to wait and try and get a glimpse of the great man but to no avail (he didn't turn up after being paged - no manufacturing consent with Noam).


Anyway, thinking I had missed my chance I left the lounge to board my plane, and there he was, sitting in business class looking bemused!  I went to my seat and wondered how I could meet him - I'd get him to sign something.  The only thing I had was todays Adnews, so I grabbed it and off I went to have it signed.


So now I'm getting what must be the only piece of advertising trade press in existence to be signed by Noam Chomsky framed.  It will hang in my home among works by Shepard Fairey, an infamous Australian serial killer, and my sister Tania Ferrier.


I wonder what the Occupy crew must think?

Roland Barthes "Mythologies" and Consumerism in the Occupy Wall Street Movement

A student called Anthony emailed me asking he could write a post on my site about Occupy Wall Street.  I said yes here it is.  His name is Anthony Garcia he writes at www.onlinegraduateprograms.com what do you think? He'll probably be incredibly famous one day.

Students in online graduate programs and traditional colleges read and discuss the world famous theories Roland Barthes. When Barthes published his seminal 1957 work, Mythologies, the way linguists, philosophers, and semiologists thought about symbols and myths was significantly altered. Barthes was concerned with the ways in which symbols function in contemporary society, particularly in a consumerist context. For Barthes, consumers purchase products because there is an unmeasured value attached to them through myths and symbols. A luxury car may not be any better than a family sedan, but society tends to view people who drive luxury cars differently. According to Barthes, a symbol can be a sign, product, or even a word (for example, he notes that the word "tree" is a symbol for a concrete object). Symbols impact and affect daily life in myriad ways that continue to interest curious observers.

In protests about how the economy functions, education is always a key factor. The effects today of this regime of symbols are seen nowhere more clearly than in the Occupy Wall Street movement. For the past several weeks, protesters have gathered in New York City and other major metropolitan areas to protest what they view as the inequitable distribution of wealth in American society. The members of this movement are concerned with how business and banking practices have affected American democracy and the well-being of millions of citizens. In an era of bailouts and recessions, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement are putting the spotlight on consumer practices in the U.S.

For Barthes, symbols represent ideas beyond the objects to which they are attached. A diamond engagement ring is not just a ring; a diamond engagement ring is a representation of love and devotion. Symbols of wealth are central to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Much ado has been made about bonuses in the banking and insurance industries in the last decade. In Barthes system, bonuses are more than just checks. Bonuses are a representation of who is deemed worthy in society and business.

For the protesters gathered with the Occupy movement, penthouses and bonus checks communicate a great deal about bankers and businessmen. These are not just homes and checks, they are symbols of a kind of ultra-wealth. Housing is a particularly potent symbol, considering the 'brand awareness' many Americans have of ultra-rich neighborhoods like Central Park, Beverly Hills, and Nob Hill. The arrest protesters are a potent symbol of government power. We are led to ask who has it, who does not have it, who will get it in the future? Education can symbolize many things, and certainly does in this movement.

Symbols and their attendant myths are not just attached to the powers that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are fighting, though. The protesters themselves are also characterized by signifying symbols. Slogans written on simple cardboard signs have a mythology—a history—of their own in American society, and they are certainly communicating a whole set of ideas about the Occupy Wall Street protesters. American flags are a potent symbol which can take on many different meanings. Some protesters have been spotted waving the original 13-stars version of the flag, perhaps in a call for fellow citizens to really consider the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps the most potent symbol of all in and around the Occupy Wall Street movement is Wall Street itself. One of the most famous streets in America, Wall Street alternatively signifies the dreams and nightmares of citizens. It has appeared in movies as a potent symbol of absolute wealth and power, and has also been used as the symbol of absolute corruption and greed. No matter what end the Occupy Wall Street movement comes to, the attention it has drawn to consumerism and symbols in America and could potentially change the way everyone thinks about wealth, power, and opportunity.

Occupy Melbourne: The Good and Bad

I ventured down to Occupy Melbourne yesterday.  It was the first Melbourne event in a global 'movement', originally started as Occupy Wall Street in New York.  The movement was originally started by Adbusters, and was a protest against the uneven distribution of wealth.  The movement has sort of, kind of, taken hold and at this early stage in the movements inception it's worth noting what they are doing right and wrong.


Wrong

• Lack of clarity: Lets assume the goal of the movement is to have economic equality - if that's the case then everything they do should be single minded towards that goal (think Wall Street protest by Adbusters).  The rallies should be held in the financial quarter of the capital cities (not the city square), and protest should be limited to that agenda (not land rights, gay marriage, or 9 / 11 conspirators.  Like any good brand keep it focused.
• Vitriol towards the 1%: Nelson Mandela said 'The stronger the enemy the stronger you are.'  He was keen to embrace the enemy and work with them.  Capitalism isn't broken, it  provides happiness and opportunity for most people in most countries where it takes hold - however it can certainly be improved.  There were also too many hippies and hipsters. The rally felt like no less of a lunatic fringe than the type of crowd Allan Jones and Tony Abbott could muster - not at all representative of the 99%.
• Lack of credibility: The issues of fair distribution of wealth is a complex one.  An economist or someone with credibility should have been on hand to talk about how the trickle down economy is broken and doesn't work, and provide other sound robust economic models to consider. 

Right

• Open source content:  Instead of having an agenda they make people listen to the floor is opened up for anyone to suggest anything and then voted on by the general assembly. This then dictates the movements actions.  If this remains focused it's a great way to galvanise and direct the masses.
• Social media and PR: The campaign has created huge amounts of noise on and online by clever and consistent use of social media.
• The right cause: It feels like the cause of unfair distribution of the countries wealth is a fair and timely issue to go after.  No one else owns this ground.  

Watch Occupy closely - If they can keep it focused, and not get hi-jacked by the lunatic fringe (it's meant to be the 99% involved) then this one may be here to stay.

Here's my take on how to modify our capitalist urges into something more useful.

The Steve Jobs Hoopla

Heres an opinion piece on Mumbrella about our reaction to Steve Job's death. The Naked office is a reasonably fun and happy place. On the whole it’s free of workplace bullying, and most people clock in and out at a reasonable hour.  However, recently something happened that caused great upset to our staff – it was beyond our control and very worrying.  There were group emails sent around with messages of condolence, and perhaps even a tear or two.  However, it wasn’t just our office – the same scenes of morning could be seen right across the world. What happened?

Well…. Last week a very good manufacturer of consumer electronics died, Steve Jobs.

After his death The Economist describes Steve Jobs as a man who “Stood out in three ways – as a technologist, as a corporate leader and as somebody who was able to make people love what had previously been impersonal, functional gadgets.”

Could not have said it better myself.

We are living in a world where there is an unparalleled outpouring of grief for someone who has made us fall in love with our PDA’s, computers, and MP3’s.

What the fuck?

Continue reading it (and seeing the comment thread which are great) here.

Don't get Ripped Off By Real Estate Agents

I'm selling a house, and I'm very well aware of the research that demonstrate the many forces at play to ensure a real estate agent will try and sell my house for a low price not a high one.  However, I'm also lazy and / or don't have the confidence to sell it myself. So what do you do?


Real Estate Agents Will Try and Sell Your House For a Low Price
Real Estate agents in Australia work on a commission of between 1.6% and 2.2% - whatever they can get away with.  It's a flat fee and one that only gets paid if the house is sold.  If the commission is 1.8% and you sell the house for $1,000,000 that means the agent will make $18,000.  If the house doesn't sell - the agent gets nothing.


However, if you sell the same house for a terrible price say $850,000 (compared to the $100,000 expected) the agent will still make $15,300, that's only $2,700 less. Conversely if they sell it for $1,200,000 then they only make $21,640  The figures between a low amount for a property, and a high amount for a property mean a lot to you  -but not that much to the agent - especially when you consider how much they make if the house does not sell at all $0.00.  Hence, your real estate agent will want to sell your house AT ANY COST.  it matters much more to them that the house sells, rather than what they sell it for. You can see this below:

• No Sale = $0.00
• Sell at bad price = $15,300
• Sell at ok price = $18,000
• Sell at great price = $21,640

The Freakonomics authors refer to this study that also shows real estate agents reduce the value of a property sale. They also show evidence here and here why and how real estate agents try and sell houses for a lower price.  Anyway, if you believe the Freakonomics guys (and associated research) or not, the logic I put upfront is - I think, compelling.


The Solution
Create your own incentive scheme for the real estate agent, one that will change their behaviour, and have them motivated to sell the house, at a high price, not be motivated to sell the house at any price.  I personally have just negotiated with an agent and have put the following incentive scheme in place*:

• 1.0% commission for every dollar they get for selling the house up to $1,000,000, plus
• 10% commission for every dollar they gets between $1,000,000 and $1,150,000, plus
• 20% commission for every dollar they gets over $1,150,000

So if the real estate agent does there brilliant best and we sell the house for $1,200,000 they would make $35,000 (that's $10,000 (1.0% of 1,000,00) + $15,000 (10% of $150,000) + $10,000 (20% of $50,000), compared to the $21,640 he would have made if we had a flat rate of 1.8%.  And believe me, if I sell this house for $1,200,000 I would be more than happy to part with $35,000:

• No Sale = $0.00
• Sell at bad price = $8,500
• Sell at ok price = $10,000
• Sell at great price = $35,000

What do you think? 
So what do you think? If the house sells for an great price I owe $35,000 in fees rather than $21,640 in fees.  However, everyone wins as the real estate agent is on my side.  There is, from I can gather very little written about this confusing world. I would like to know from real estate agents, economists, and the general public if I am on the right track or not.  In short we need to incentivise people to work in our interests, not against them.  In the current paradigm real estate agents are incentivised to work against the person paying the bills (the seller) and in the interests of the buyer.  It's a silly system and needs to be rethought. 


Note the photo is courtesy of Mumbrella - spot the IT guy.


* Please note all prices are indicative - to make the point. Not actual prices.

Social Media Suggestions: How to Charge TARPS into BANANAS

Caption Added: Click to make big (but you should be able to read it anyway)

Two key rules for social media are discussed in the article above originally printed in Adnews. It's also the reason why everyone now refers to TARPS as BANANAS.

The Happily-Healthy Project

Recently Naked Communications have been working with Nestle and a number of psychologists and nutritionists to create Australia's most comprehensive study on happiness and health, The Happily Healthy Project. The study looks at the inter-relationship between health and happiness, and gives everyone who completes the lengthy questionnaire a HHQ (Happily Healthy Quotient). So far over 60,000 Australian's have completed the survey, an incredibly large number for a study of this nature.. Australian's have an average HHQ of 59, more results will be released shortly.


The study supplements work in Positive Psychology and the latest in nutrition, such as that released from Harvard Medical School where the relationship between happiness and health is proving to be inseparable "Want to improve your health? Start by focusing on things that give you happiness?"


The Happily Healthy Project also gives people advice on how to improve their scores, and will form the basis for future studies in this area.  There are several psychologists and nutritionists involved in the project, but please go to www.happily-healthy.com.au to find out more.

You may see ads on TV like the one above reminding you to take the survey. Please complete it, and let me know if you beat my terrible 57!

Positive Consumption: A How To Guide

This article originally appeared in The Punch, earlier this week.

Consumer spending is good, right? We are told in the media all the time to spend more, and we worry when “consumer confidence” is down. Why is that?

In short, the answer is because we have a GDP to look after. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is one of our key financial indicators, and in developed western societies consumer spending makes up approximately 65 per cent of GDP.

If consumer spending is a large determinant of GDP, then the more we spend the higher our GDP and the better the economy. So if we are being told to spend just so we have an increasingly higher GDP, then someone, somewhere must have worked out that this must be good for its citizens right?

Or put another way ‘What’s so good about an increasingly high GDP?’

There is evidence that a high GDP is correlated with people’s wellbeing, their happiness. However, what’s interesting is that the correlation only works up to a point. Studies in the area broadly show three things:

- Countries’ wealth and happiness are highly correlated but not infinitely. A basic level of wealth gets food, shelter, education and healthcare for its citizens, ensuring a strong correlation between wealth and happiness. However, after a certain level of wealth the correlation fades away.

- Within individual countries, the same is true. Richer people are generally happier than poorer people. But again, the correlation between wealth and happiness works only to a point. After a certain level of wealth, the correlation fades away.

- In developed nations (like the USA and Australia), our increased level of GDP does not appear to be contributing to a happier society over time.

So if the level of happiness we can achieve via economic means is finite, then why are we hell bent on ensuing consumer spending continues to rise? To what end? The GDP? What use is a higher GDP if it’s not benefiting its citizens?

There is a saying in psychology: ‘The brighter the picture the darker the negative’, and it’s about time the dark side of consumerism was exposed. If we continue to consume to increase GDP then we may continue to observe the following trends, all arguable by-products of consumerism:

- Financial Hardship: We are experiencing higher levels of wealth, yet at same time greater levels of debt and financial hardship.

- Physical decline: We have the highest rate of obesity in the world – due in part to over eating, eating bad food, and of course exercising less (we don’t have time as we are working harder so we can consume more).

- Psychological Issues: Rates of anxiety and depression are on the rise. One in five will experience a mental disorder in their lifetime.

So why do we bother consuming so much? It’s not making us happier. What’s more important, money or happiness?

I’d argue that we should not be trying to consume more, but we should be trying to consume in ways that make us happy. We should aim for “positive consumption”. Instead of encouraging people to spend “more” we should be encouraging people to spend “positively”.

Here are five guidelines to positive consumption:

Giving: The happiest countries on earth are often Scandinavian or ones with socio-democratic government. That is a socialist spirit within a democratic framework. We need to consume in ways that redistributes the wealth more evenly. At an individual level if you are going to buy yourself something as a reward, consider buying something for someone else. You’ll feel happier as a result.

Connectedness: Consume in ways that forge stronger connections with others. Even a bunch of flowers for your partner or a beer with an old friend can achieve this. Further, consume in a collaborative fashion. Purchase things you need together, as a street or community.

Interests: Consume in ways that foster deep and satisfying interests. Understand what you are truly interested in, and consume to further that interest. If you’re a golfer then go on, buy that oversized driver. Your helping the economy and your own level of satisfaction by buying soemthing you’ll use again and again.

Experiences: Experiences and travel provide greater happiness and enjoyment than purchases of material goods to the same value. You won’t remember yet another a big night out on the town, but you’ll definitely remember a weekend away to the vineyards.

Consume to create: Stimulate our economy by creating something amazing, not consuming something ordinary.

So in short, the suggestion is to encourage people to practice positive consumption, not excessive consumption. To do this, we’ll need to educate ourselves on consumption styles that lead to better outcomes and not just consume for the hell of it.

Change T.A.R.P. To BANANA

If you work in advertising or media you will know about and have been baffled by the term TARP. It stands for Target Audience Rating Point (TARP) and is meant to be a meaningful way of suggesting how many TV spaces media buyers should purchase for the good of the brands they are working on.  OZtam define a TARP as  "The average viewing audience for a demographic expressed as a percentage of the relevant Universe Estimate".


My issue with TARPS is that there are so many unknown variables, and we don't even know how many times we should be getting people to view our ads anyway.   I've suggested changing the term TARP to BANANA because broadly we know the more TARPS (BANANAS) the better, but after that things get a little... grey.  


Thanks to all of the people who have joined the 'cause' so far.  This includes:
@ren172
@daveetempleman
@rhoughtcloud
@granleese
@georgezd
@gavinheron
@tonyohalloran
@simonislawson
@baingavin


You are all brave pioneers.

The Renault Latitude Stress Test Drive

Here's something that Renault is unfolding at the moment as part of the launch for the new Renault Latitude in Australia (any guesses who the agency involved is).

Some research conducted by Galaxy found over 80% of people found the drive to work more stressful than work itself. Here's a article about it, the rest of the research results can be seen on the website at www.stresstestdrive.com.au

Renault then wired up three families with 'Facial Recognition Technology' (FRT) and assessed if drivers were more stressed when driving the Renault Latitude vs their normal car. Here's a video of the results. As the communications unfolds you can expect to see the videos, and accompanying advertising on LinkedIn, in general online, and also in a few other unexpected places.

Finally, they are offering people the chance to Stress Test Drive the car themselves at city locations. They'll give you free lift to your next meeting, the airport, where ever. It's at Sydney Monday 12th - 23rd September at Northpoint, North Sydney, Bris-vegas 10th to the 21st October at 363 Adelaide St and then 60 Edward Street.

The thinking behind the campaign is simple. Get people to experience the car as much as possible (either online, or the real thing at the experiential locations).