Does Money Make You Happier? Yes.

I came across an interesting study today by Gardner and Oswald (2007), Money and mental wellbeing: A longitudinal study of medium-sized lottery wins.

In short they tested if people who had a medium sized lottery win (approx. $3,000 - $300,000) were happier. They did the study under quasi-experimental conditions, including creating a sample size large enough to make the findings reliable. In short they found people who won money in lotteries were psychologically happier as a result of their win - even up to two years later.

A financial windfall made people happier. From what I remembered most evidence before this study suggested that people have a rough set point of happiness, and that after a little bit of initial euphoria most people return back to their set point. This study has some pretty significant implications.

Consider the psychological impact K Rudd's Stimulus Package. Even, the most ardent Rudd detractor will have to admit that we came though the GFC with flying results. What has perhaps been underestimated is the impact of not just having an extra $900.00, but how good it felt receiving it. If receiving a financial win fall makes you happier, then the Australian government dished out a lot of happiness in 2009! Unfortunately, the nations happiness is not tracked nearly as accurately as our financial well-being - so the psychological impact of the stimulus package may never be known.

Any thoughts? Agree / Disagree?

Post script: Here's an article I wrote for The Punch, a little longer - but similar theme.

Are You Happy?

This map was done by Adrian White at the University of Leicester (2009). It's a sobering snapshot of a largely unhappy world.

Action Advertising Over Emotional Advertising

I've spoken previously many times about the importance of getting people to ACT and not just RECEIVE a message. The whole industry has been hijacked by ad agencies flogging 'emotional advertising' ('Lovemark anyone?') for too long. The choice has always been is it emotional or rational advertising (for the record if you're after passive advertising demand both).

That is, connect at an 'emotional' level and that would result in behavioural change (Action). However, there is an alternative I call 'Action Advertising'. This is advertising with a goal of jumping straight to Action. The thinking being, get someone to ACT and they'll then build a stronger emotional connection with your brand anyway (for the reason why see previous blog posts).

There are a number of reasons, we still don't see much of this style of advertising:

a) Arrogance: Advertising encouraging Action is seen by many ad agencies (and clients) as promotional (I remember the head of a multi-national agency in Melbourne telling me once 'Adam we don't do that form of advertising here'.

b) Ignorance: Very few people in advertising agencies have studied behavioural change. They study advertising.

c) Technology: Up until recently we haven't been able to encourage Action so easily. We've showed 'advertising' that was passively received. It seemed futile to encourage someone to ACT at 7.30pm lying in front of the TV after a hard day.

Advertising that asks for action is still only a tiny proportion of all communications created. So things are going to change, but slowly. And the biggest barrier to encouraging action, as a client recently pointed out to me is that it's plain and simple difficult. Relatively, it's not that hard to create a TV ad that interrupts people's enjoyment. However, it's extremely difficult to create something so compelling that people choose to interACT with it. To do this we need bigger and better ideas, and therefore bigger and better human understanding.

Finally, here is an example how not to do it. It's worth noting that now ALL media is interactive. All media can encourage immediate action with a phone number, SMS, QR code, URL, Twitter, etc.

However, just because you should doesn't mean you can! Check out this ad above. It asks you to push a button, I don't know why. I pushed it a few times but nothing happened. Like I said, encouraging ACTION is difficult - but when you get an idea good enough to inspire action it will reward you well.

Mr Whippy Driven Out of Cottesloe!?!

I've begun 2010 in my hometown of Perth, only to hear some very concerning news - Mr Whippy is being driven out of the Town of Cottesloe (my local beach). You see Mr Whippy is what the Cottesloe Town Council describe as a 'Street Trader' and there will be absolutely no street trading in Cottesloe. The council has put it's foot down.

Rudely, Mr Whippy occasionally enters Cottesloe from neighbouring Nedlands and Mosman Park, and in the Cottesloe councillors own words "we are onto him". Mr Whippy cannot and will not to lure kids with Green Sleeves and ice-cream in Cottesloe. The council also mentioned annoyances such as volume levels and disturbing the peace.

Is Mr Whippy just another victim of a town hell bent on regulating everything. This feels like a council drunk on its own power. To the people on the Cottesloe town council relax. 'Colour and community' is what you should be striving for not 'order and control'.

If there are any progressive community minded people living in Cottesloe you only need between 100 and 200 votes to get elected onto the council - and perhaps one day Mr Whippy will again be able to roam free.

My Favourite email of 2009

2009 was an interesting year - not without its dramas. As a leaving gift I thought I would share with you an email I received in the midst of the 'Get Kyle off the air' saga (I've deleted his name). Bring on 2010.

Adam

Dear Adam,

My name is X, I am a freelance media adviser and publicist writing with reference to Mr. Kyle Sandilands. I am writing an e-mail that has been a long time coming. Speaking as someone who has has the privilege of working with Kyle, I am disgusted by your gutless bullshit withdrawls of sponsorship from Austereo. The only reason people are kicking up a fuss about this genuine mistake is because Kyle Sandilands has a reputation for being a hard-hitting entertainer.

Instead of supporting one of Australia's greatest talents, you kick him to the kerb. I am tired of people victimising Kyle for something nobody could have predicted.

No human being would have ever put a minor on air with prior knowledge or belief that such an incident, especially none as compassionate as Mr. Sandilands. Kyle Sandilands lost one of his greatest passions - the opportunity to enhance the careers of talented performers - through a simple case of human error. Speaking as one media professional to another, I offer these words of advice: You claim to have some utensils between your legs. Either use them to support true talent or go promote fluffy bunnies.

Good day to you.

X

Tiger Woods Never Watched Batman

"The brighter the picture the darker the negative", is a wonderful quote from the Batman animated series. Batman is based on the concepts of the shadow - made popular by Carl Jung. Briefly, the theory is that we all have a shadow, and one of our challenges in life is to successfully embrace our shadow. You can see most of the characters of Batman coming to terms with their shadow through the story (Bruce Wayne created his alter ego Batman in response to his deep seated fear of bats - in this regard he has attempted to embrace his shadow).

As we know Tiger Woods, presented a very bright picture indeed, whilst his shadow was running rampant. Tiger always appeared a little to close to perfect for comfort. White shiny smile, lovely wife, professional, well mannered, humble, winner. He really was admired by everyone. However, all was obviously (in hindsight) not well. Tiger was suppressing a shadow as dark as his image was bright. (Consider Tiger to his fellow Gillette TVC star Roger Federer. Roger presents as equally steely and focused, yet we have seen Roger have tearful outbursts, and doses of erratic behaviour throughout his career. Arguably, he is suppressing less.)

The real issue for us was that Tiger Woods was just an image - that's all. The money sponsors gave him, the love fans showed him was never actually for him - but for a carefully constructed image. And now the image has been shattered. This will become a recurring them in the new world order where there is no place to hide. The 'image' and the 'reality' of sports stars, movie stars, brands and regular folk will become more interrogated and therefore integrated as access to information and its subsequent documentation becomes omnipresent.

What's happened to Tiger was just a matter of time. There is no room for a shadow so large if you are in the public spotlight today. Not only did society catch his shadow, they hung it on the line and gave it a public flogging for the world to see. If you have a shadow (and you do), or your brand has a shadow (and it does), embrace it, and deal with it before someone else does it for you.

Note: Thanks to Simon Thatcher for originally teaching me about the shadow and the power it can hold over ones life.

Are you lonely tonight?

You may have heard about the latest study on loneliness by now. If you haven’t there are two key messages:

• Loneliness spreads between social networks like a virus
• If you are lonely you tend to act more negatively to others therefore reinforcing your loneliness.

There are some conclusions to be drawn from this, namely 1. If someone has been ignoring you for a while, when you see them next don’t bring it up and confront them - just be nice (put on a happy face). What’s interesting about this is it goes against the common psychological convention that we should always express how we feel in search of an authentic life and authentic relationships. The implication of this study is – if you don’t want to lose more friends then keep your issues to yourself (to a degree of course). 2. If you find yourself in a lonely cluster then do what you can to get out, as it's only going to get worse (as loneliness spreads).

This study helps show lonely people that the issue is systemic and is happening everywhere. There may be comfort for them to know that others are as lonely as they are. It's only going to get worse too, according to the ABS over a third of us will live alone by 2026. Loneliness is going to become omnipresent in our society, especially prevalent among older people (i.e. us).

The interesting thing with loneliness is that it is very situational and there is a cure, of which interacting with, and forming relationships with others is a key part. Therefore it's relatively easy for companies and brands to help play a role in this.

For example, brands playing in the telecommunications space, may benefit by teaming up with brands in the experiential space, and encourage people to actually physically meet each other once in a while. Now brands such as www.meetup.com have successfully brought vampire worshipping bungy jumpers together for years. However, these brands don’t take into account how hard it is for someone who is feeling negative, and has a lack of confidence, to meet others. Companies and brands who can tap into this mindset, and offer a real difference to people will be rewarded. Brands can take a role in facilitating interaction between lonely people (not people who are already socially doing fine).

Loneliness, boredom and depression are all closely correlated. It would be fantastic to see brands divert some of their investment in high gloss advertising into actions that would help fix the problem.

PS I couldn't bring myself to use the tired black and white shot of the man on the beach to illustrate lonely - hence The Beatles.

Some News on Naked and FBI Radio

Quick note to say Naked was happy with winning B&T's

• Specialist Agency of the Year, and
• Media Campaign of the Year for FBi radio

The campaign was called 'Ask Richard' had a $0.00 media budget, and was driven primarily through social media. So to all of you who promote social media campaigns like 'Ask Richard' thank you for the part you played. You've helped raise over $680,000.00 and kept the community based station on air. It was also a nice example of not worrying so much about building an 'emotional connection', but rather just getting people out there doing something. Congrats also to all the other winners on the night.

Postscript Jan '10: The Ask Richard campaign for FBI Radio is a finalist in 4 AIMIA awards including best use of social media.

Forensic Shopping Investigation III: 48hr Rapid Detox

I’ve just had a rather turgid form of diarrhea bought on by my latest purchase the 48 Hour Rapid Detox (The fast, easy, delicious detox plan that works in as little as two days). Right now I’m feeling fragile and sore and I can confirm that this product is of course no more than a glorified laxative, and of course a complete scam. I was watching TV when the above ad came on and decided to give it a go.

I rang, spoke to the chap who was completely disinterested in making a sale. He admitted there is no actual office in Australia and he was in a call centre in North Sydney. To his credit he told me the product will have a “mild laxative effect”. Once the purchase was made I was told (once I asked) that the order would take “three weeks to arrive”.

There is no company address, or way to get in touch with anyone but the sales number. The url on the pack http://www.hilifehealth.com.au/ takes you to another sales scam. My credit card has been debited for $159.00 I have stopped the payment, but I have no way of knowing if I'll get that money back. Something tells me I wont. This is despite them assuring me it would be 'free to try".

I wait my three weeks and look what arrives! Three litres of fruit juice, really bad juice made from concentrate with an aggressive laxative added.

Anyway, the juice sat on my desk for a week before I got the courage to drink the stuff. I started drinking it this morning, developed terrible diarrhea, and stopped.

These are the instructions as they appear on the back of the pack “Simply replace your meals with 8hr Rapid Detox for 2 days”. The website is very shiny www.rapiddetox.com.au but of course gives no information.

There are no overt benefits of detox. They vaguely promise that you'll have more energy and lose weight. However, this wont work as:

• anyone who has the ability to not eat for 2 days in order to lose weight wold not be overweight in the first place
• There is no support, counselling line, behavioural component to help the person to lose weight
• Not eating gives you less energy not more.
• As its just a laxative, the person will simply put the weight back on that they would lose if they had of completed the program.

Please don’t believe this stuff. If you want to lose weight then the best method is “eat less and exercise more”. There are also well established programs that offer support to people whilst they embark on that deceptively simple equation.

* Feel free to slightly change the text and insert Shamwow, Proactive, or many other ‘call us now’ infomercial products.

A Day at the Races

Yesterday I went to the races. I (along with most of Melbourne it seemed) was lucky enough to be watching from The Birdcage. There were a number of celebrities there - including Lara Bingle. Now I've commented on Lara's fashion elsewhere, however nothing prepared me for the striking number she was wearing yesterday. As someone said "You could almost see her religion". None-the-less she was very sparky and pleasant. And it was nice of her to pose for a photo with someone so odd looking.

Tortured link to marketing following.

I've written about gambling before - and in particular the concept of variable positive reinforcement. That is rewarding the desired behaviour (in this case gambling) at random times, and with random amounts. It still amazes me that marketers don't use this concept more often. It feels the only time marketers use it is during 'promotions' (something like '1 in every 7 wins'). However, if it's the strongest conditioner of human behavior shouldn't marketers be trying to understand it, and applying it's principles in a slightly more sophisticated way.

The Bastard Child of Social Media

I wrote a piece for The Punch that was uploaded today. The conversation that follows is more interesting than the actual article.

Insight is over-rated: Why 'why' is less important than 'how'

It's about why 'why' does not have all the answers.

The Obsession With 'Emotional Advertising' is Missing the Point

Recently Millward Brown put out a white paper titled "Should my advertising stimulate an emotional response?" I applaud Millward Brown for trying to answer such a question - and the article is a good read, concluding unsurprisingly with 'yes' we should encourage an emotional response. However, to be frank, I think asking a different question would prove to be more useful.

Lately, the advertising industry has been obsessed with 'emotional advertising' and building an 'emotional connection'. However, more progressive agencies are leaving the quest for emotional advertising behind - at a rate of knots. As Alex Bogusky puts it when talking about advertising - "Create something so funny, charming or useful that I can't live without it". In other words the gold bar is no longer 'emotional advertising', but something more meaningful to the consumer (or person).

We now live in a world where there is so much more available to us within the communications framework. Rather than just 'emotional' or 'rational' advertising - we can:

• Make products (e.g. iphone applications) that act as communications.


• Put on experiences (e.g events) that act as communications.


• Provide useful content (e.g. a traffic or finance reports) that acts as communications.


• Create games that act as communications (e.g. The Beatles game to sell more Beatles records).

Though technology, ideas and insight, all communications can now be useful, and worth interacting with - rather than just passively receiving it. And all communications can, if good enough, evoke a direct behavioural response. So why just let people passively receive an emotional message when we can encourage interaction with our brand. Or better yet, give people something of genuine utility that makes their lives better in some small way.

The focus should be on a behavioural response, not an emotional response. the question therefore could become

"Should my advertising stimulate a behavioural response".

Then once you've answered 'Yes' to this the next question is:

"How do I use my advertising to stimulate a behavioural response".

Then, the next question is:

"How do I use my advertising to stimulate a behavioural response that builds my brand?"

It's much harder to create advertising that stimulates a behavioural response, and do this in a genuinely brand building way. However, it has the potential to be significantly more powerful. Once people chose to interact with the brand or message they have invested something of themselves into what you have to say / give.

We are about to see a rapid shift away from 'emotional measures' towards behavioural measures' as the research industry catches up to where (only the progressive) advertising agencies are going.

The Weirdest 'Client' I Ever Had

Just about everyone in the workforce has 'clients' of some description. I used to work for the NSW Department of Corrective Services - where my 'clients' were prison inmates. We used to call them 'clients' as we were providing a service to them, and calling them patients was apparently pathologising them (incidentally during an even more politically correct year or two I think inmates were actually referred to as 'consumers' as they were consuming services!)

Whilst at Corrective Services I remember one particular client very well. He was a young guy with a particularly weird sexual paraphilia - and he used to hang around cemeteries a lot more than he should. He was also very unstable, neurotic, and had an extremely explosive temper.

One time I was interviewing him, and he was becoming increasingly agitated. Half way through the interview he stood up abruptly, walked around my desk, approached me, and then punched a huge hole in the wall right next to my head. Shaken, I told him that he was scaring me. The poor chap then unexpectedly put his head in his hands lurched backwards and burst into tears. He fell into his chair and repeatedly cried how sorry he was, and that he 'always scares people'.

.

I believe he really hated the fact that he scared (and probably hurt) people - myself included. However, he hadn't learned the ability to control his own behaviour.

.

I'm not sure of the purpose of the anecdote but it's something along the lines of this.... people act to the best of their ability, and sometimes - they don't have the skills to act in ways they wish they could.

We Consume To Stand Out While Fitting In

There was a Lee ad that ran in Australia about 5 years ago. It had the tag line 'Stand Out. Fit In.' I really liked it. This is a perennial internal debate people play in their minds when consuming brands. Whatever the category people are playing a balancing act of wanting to fit in, conform and ultimately gain peer acceptance. Whilst also, wanting to stand out, express themselves, and be recognised as an independent being.

This principle is easy to understand in fashion - and leads to tribes of people all looking different from everyone else, but very similar to one another. Goths, Skaters, and Fashionistas are all standing out, yet fitting in. However, the principle can be generalised to other categories and perhaps even applies when we choose meals in a restaurant. For some reason someone felt compelled to study this. At the Journal of Consumer Behaviour a study has found that when we order food in a restaurant in groups we do the following:

1. Tend to seek variety when making initial orders - that is we consider ordering things other people are not.
2. Then we gravitate toward similar choices as others - that is we begin to conform with everyone else.

3. And then, as the group consensus grows, we move away from popular choices and get our own thing anyway.

I love this study, and although sad to say reflects the way I go about choosing meals in a restaurant. The study goes into more detail about what % of people need to consider ordering the same thing before the need to stand out kicks in. However, to read more and ensure I have not misrepresented the original please visit it when published in full as these findings were taken from the press release.

Next time your ordering a meal, or putting on your favourite jeans be sure to ask yourself 'Is this choice going to help me conform, whilst expressing my individuality'.... or perhaps don't!

Lee photo

In Advertising Give Me Utility over Emotion Anytime

Here's my latest Adnews article. It's about Utility Marketing, trying to use every possible opportunity to give people what they want. It's an alternative to the 'emotional ádvertising' thing people talk about (see previous blog posts).

I'd be interested in peoples thoughts.

The Ministry of Muffins

Last year, George Weston Foods, along with Naked Communications, decided to completely transform the ‘Little Bites’ brand. After re-segmenting the market, a significantly larger opportunity for the brand was identified, and a new master brand (The Ministry of Muffins) was created to meet this opportunity. This work has resulted in reformulating the product and improving its nutritional profile, completely redesigning the packaging, and creating an integrated communications campaign.

The Power of Social Media

Over the last three months something interesting has happened to the Sydney radio scene, largely due to the power of social media. One radio station, 94.5 FBI, has been saved. Whereas another, the high profile Kyle and Jackie O show (2Day FM) has been severely wounded.

FBI asked Naked Communications to develop an idea that would encourage their loyal listeners to donate money to save the station. Previous donation drives had had only moderate success and we know from social influence theory that people don’t enjoy backing an ailing cause. Therefore, Naked had the idea to turn the listeners creative capital into financial capital. We encouraged listeners to creatively ‘Ask Richard’ Branson for $1,000,000 – whoever asked him in the most creative way also scored some dollars. Anyway, the creative peoples participation was enough to generate strong PR , Richard Branson called in to the station, people did silly stuff, and the campaign raised over $500,000. That was enough to save the station.

Kyle and Jackie O on the other hand acted in a deplorable, grubby manner. They angered many areas of the community and threw fuel on the fire by refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Bloggers, and Twitterers demanded action, other media groups joined in, and advertisers listened. I personally participated in this action, and was pleased with the result; a 7 second delay, an investigation instigated, and a reduced public role for a very offensive man. Again, this result was at least partly due to the power of social media.

So what can we take from this?
1. Not all voices are equal: Brands need to find the influential few and invest more time with them .
2. Tap into your lovers passions: People got involved with FBI as we asked them to create inventive ways to release money from Branson, rather than just asking them for money. Don’t ask consumers to just name your product or write an ad (many people would find that boring / trivial) but look at ways they can get involved in ways they want to get involved.
3. Listen before responding: Kyle’s use of social media (The Punch) just inflamed the situation. He did not listen to the audience who was calling for action. His tone was as if he was speaking to his regular all forgiving audience.
4. Use social media: Social media, especially combined with other forms of communications is now even more powerful (through some fancy technological innovations). The FBI campaign cost $0.00, and raised $500,000 over the course of 6 weeks. The financial impact on Kyle was even more staggering.

It’s a neat case study. Two brands, same category, same media spend ($0.00) and with extremely different results. Social media is, as they say ‘hot right now’, and with good reason.

The Brilliance of the Bored

The Brett Rolfe took this photo this morning in Glebe, Sydney. It's very clever. I sickly hope it's part of a marketing campaign - but fear it's to clever for that.

What Marketers Want - In Their Own Words

The attached is an article as it appeared in The Australian on August 3, 2009. Naked Communications and Booz & Company have jointly conducted research looking into the pressures faced by marketers, and how they are responding. This article summarises the findings of the qualitative stage of the study.

Forensic Shopping Investigation II: Shopping For Religion

When I was 16 my friend Cam and I went out one night shopping for a religion. Well, we were not really shopping for a religion, as much as minding our own business when we were accosted by scientologists on the street who coerced us to come inside their 'church'. I remember it very clearly.

Once inside, we were immediately separated, and each asked to fill in a long questionnaire, as they were going to ‘audit’ our personality. After about an hour, questionnaire completed, I was asked to watch a video whilst it was marked. The video had the classic disorienting hypnosis spiral thing, as well as someone espousing the virtues of Scientology. After viewing I went back and got the results from my personality audit. Apparently, I had a very bad personality, and needed a lot of help. At this point I left and waited for my friend (who I had remained separated from). When he finally came out he had bought a book, and signed up for a course after also being told he had a very bad personality. Not a surprising result for an impressionable teen.

It was this early experience that got me interested in religion and cults and the blurring of the line. So last week I went back to The Church of Scientology (COS) to see how their methods had progressed in the intervening 20 years.

I walked past the 'free personality and IQ tests' sign, and into a shabby makeshift building, and asked the shabby lady behind the desk what the COS was all about. Guess what she said? Yes, the classic a) do the personality test, b) watch a video, c) I get the results. Good to see their recruitment methods haven't changed in over 20 years!

I completed the questionnaire and was ushered into a small, black room where I watched a video in surround sound on a very large screen. The video was beyond imaginable cheesy (like a send up of a cult recruitment video). It was hosted by a Ken doll impersonator, and showed lots of well dressed, shiny, white toothed Americans, smiling to camera. It's painful to recite how bad the movie was - pure propaganda, talking up L Ron Hubbard's many achievements (he was "fully proficient in 59 different fields"), and demonstrating the opulent assets of the COS. Just one of the silly quotes was:

"Psychology and psychiatry are proven failures...stone age" (said in a melodramatic voice, by a camp looking professor)

Anyway, bad video. The fun really stops when I got my test results back. Just like last time I am told I have a very bad personality (at least the test shows good test re-test reliability - joke). Diane takes me through my results - you can see the table below. According to the test the three scales that are about 'Me' show that I am completely Unstable, very Depressed, and very Nervous. The scales to do with 'Work' show I'm Active and Aggressive, and totally irresponsible. And the last scales, how I relate to 'Others', show I'm very Critical, and have a Lack of Accord with others. This was Diane's cue to tell me how depressing my life was, and how much I needed help. Any resistance I put up to this was met with - "well your personality shows you are aggressive so of course you are not going to agree." The circular conversation lasted an hour or so, and would have gone on all night if it had to as Diane had one objective only - and that was to make me feel bad about my life so that she could provide the answer and sign me up.

This was not nice, in fact - it was very confronting. She told me her personality was 'Clear' (she had a good one) - but my personality was so bad that it needed "urgent attention". Mainly to get a break from her I asked to take the IQ test. I've always been good at taking IQ tests (this correlates highly with getting good IQ scores) so I knew if the IQ test marked me as a dullard then the whole thing really was bogus. Interestingly the IQ test came back quite high. This made me happy (and smug) but didn't do much for my relationship with Diane. She immediately reminded me of how unhappy I apparently was and insisted I sign up (and pay for) now for a 2 day course happening that weekend. The course was only $135.00. Bait.

Anyway, I used the tried and tested excuse of having to talk it over with my wife before I signed (see Forensic Shopping I) and at 10.30pm I emotionally limped my way out of there. Thoughtful Diane gave me a personality questionnaire to give my wife so she could find out how unhappy she was as well.

In short, I felt pressured and attacked. I was made to feel bad about my lfe so that they could then supply the answer. The recruitment techniques they used are tired and corny. Further, it felt to me like there was a lot of evidence of cult like behaviours as outlined in Raphael Aaron's book called 'Cults: Too Good To Be True'. For example:

1. Language loading: Changing language to make it unique to the cult (i.e. 'clear' and 'auditing')
2. Demand for Purity: You're in or your out, and if you're out you're wrong. In their own words if you don't do Scientology it's your choice but "...it's a stupid choice. You can also jump off a bridge or blow your brains out".
3. Confession: Admitting something bad that's happened to you. This promises to set you free but in effect binds you to the group (They really wanted to know about the loss that happened dusing my childhood!)
4. Doctrine over person: Their worship of L Ron Hubbard
5. Sacred Science: The belief that their belief is right for all humanity

Also, for the record I'm a relatively happy, stable and calm person (albeit a little weird). I've taken many scientifically validated psychological tests in the past (through training, and professional interest) and all point to a significantly different personality profile than the one suggested by the COS. I believe the personalty test they offered was designed purely to make oneself feel bad about their current life.

It must be said I came into this shopping investigation with an open mind, yet also a preconceived notion of what COS may be like. So, to provide some genuine objectivity to the situation the good (and rigorous) people at Auspoll, put some questions forward to 1,500 Australians representative of the general population. They found that 85% of Australians do not believe the COS is a real religion.

Further, 76% agree it's a 'money making scam' (only 4% disagree with this statement), whilst 89% disagree (or strongly disagree) that it's a good religion to join.

So there you have it. After my experience I would avoid the COS if at all possible. I would read up on cults, and I would look at websites such as Wikipedia or Operation Clambake (so named as L Ron Hubbard believes that man evolved from clams!) The Scientologists' website is here and offers a different perspective. Looking for a religion to buy/join feels even more potentially dangerous than trying to cure penile dysfunction. The only person I've found who educates well on the subject is the man who married me (to my wife), Father Bob McGuire. If you're in a cult (or know someone who is) and want out, then contact Raphael Aaron at Cult Counselling Australia.

This was the second in a series of Forensic Shopping Investigations.

Thoughts on These Ads?

I really like these ads. I imagine young guys would like them, read them, and potentially even take in the message. What do you think?

Aspiration versus Authenticity in Advertising

Saw this billboard for Kayser undies in Melbourne last night - and took the photo (with my Blackberry from the passenger seat of our car). Each one of these girls is supposed to represent a different body shape; Column, Pear, Apple, and Hourglass. It's a simple idea - 'we have undies for all body shapes', but is it just me or do these four bodies all look very, very similar (tall, toned, skinny and model like)? However, instead of showing the actual body shapes the skinny models are all holding literal examples of the body shape they are meant to have i.e. the 'pear' girl is holding a pear - but does not really have a 'pear shaped' body.

Getting the balance right between authenticity and aspiration is always difficult - and I would be interested in peoples reactions to this attempt? Do people really want to see 'reality' in underwear advertising, or is it acceptable to have aspirational portrayals of various body shapes? Is it cheating using the objects next to each body type instead of showing real versions of each? Thoughts?

PS: We were off to see a film called My Suicide as part of MIFF Well worth seeing if you get the chance.

Kyle and Jackie O: Some Suggestions on How to Remove Them From The Airwaves

I have written an open letter to the advertising and media industry asking for Kyle and Jackie O to be removed from the airwaves. Many people have written in and left comments, some of which have urged others to take action. Below is a list of activities people have suggested you can do to express your support:

• You can view my open letter and make comments here
• You can make a complaint to 2Dayfm here
• You can make a complaint to Austereo here
• You can join a twitter protest at #optus #stopsponsoringaustereo
• You can join a Facebook group protesting against Kyle and Jackie O to be on the air (there are many - but) here's just one
• many people also suggest contacting the sponsors of the show directly.

...and so on.

Just received an update from Twitter and Mumbrella that they have just been taken off the air. Well done to those who find their behaviour reprehensible and expressed their thoughts.

Bad Spelling and Grammar

This morning I received the following comment on a post:

Hi Adam,I am an avid reader of your blog and love everything you write on branding. However, in virtually all your posts you mix up 'to' and 'too' which detracts from the quality of your writing. 1) should be 'too' big 2) should be 'too' quickly. I know it's a silly/minor thing, but I always notice it and feel that a consumer psychologist making complex observations should have mastered simple grammar.I hope you see this as helpful and not narky, as I genuinely enjoy your blog.

To the person who wrote this - thank you. I agree with you. My terrible spelling and grammar detracts from everything I write on this blog. Unfortunately, I never listened much at school and many of the learned skills in grammar / spelling passed me by as I was staring out the window. Further Blogger only has basic word processing tasks.

I will make more of an effort but unfortunately cannot guarantee it wont happen again (and again and again). I did read a study once that said that neither of these acquired skills are correlated with intelligence - and I hold onto that thought tightly!

Now can I ask of you that in future you don't post anonymously - it's not you is it Mike?