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).

What Happens if You Make People Want What They Can't Have

Here's my latest Adnews piece - appeared in Adnews on August 26th. It draws a long bow - I'm not entirely sure it's right but I like the direction it's heading in

On opposite sides of the globe two very different stories are unfolding. Both concern a sub-plot of disenfranchised youth, amongst much more complicated issues. The two seemingly unrelated stories are ‘the St Kilda schoolgirl’, and the young rioters of London. It is not just their prolific use of anti-social media that binds them, but a far greater dilemma facing powerless youth living within powerful economies – unchecked consumerism.

The link between the two is the nihilistic result of blending together; a lack of education mixed with a bombardment of consumerist messages, against a backdrop of lower socioeconomic conditions, within absurdly rich societies. What that wank filled sentence just said was; if we tell kids they must consume stuff to be happy, yet they can’t get the means to consume, whilst at the same time we flaunt the fact that lots of others can afford it – well there’s going to be trouble.

Take the St Kilda schoolgirl; I’ve followed her and her 17,000 followers for the past year. It’s a warts and all Twitter reality (Twitality?) drama full of disenfranchised teens, sex, drugs, and self-destructive behavior. However, one theme that stands out more than most is the protagonists desire to ensure she is seen as wealthy, and spending lots of money. She frequently reports of shopping trips, how much she’s spent on clothes, and photos of her new consumer goods are commonplace. Many of her tweets show how much she uses consumerism and material possessions to gain acceptance. Now what if same young person does not have the means to consume at this level? Jump to the sad sight of youth rioting in London.

These riots are remarkable for many reasons, not least of which was the looting. It was reported by The Guardian that most looting was of consumer goods stores, not for basics, but the ‘nice to haves’. The very things youth are told over and over again will make their lives better if they consume them. But many of the looters normally can’t afford them.

Marketing exists, some would argue to magnify the difference between actual self and ideal self. As the equation goes Actual Self (AS) + Brand (B) = Ideal Self (IS). Make a big enough gap between actual and ideal and insert brand here. So if I want to achieve my ideal self, and I can’t afford it – the if the opportunity comes along to just take it – then why wouldn’t I?

So are we starting to see real chinks in society, the sheer desperation that results in a supersaturated marketing solution? Today’s young adult is by far the least marketing savvy generation we’ve ever seen. Many lack the discretionary powers older generations took for granted. They live in a super saturated world of marketing, and this doesn’t make them more adept at understanding it – they’re sinking in it, and can’t get out. The younger the person, all other things being equal, the less marketing savvy or sophisticated they are.

The time has come for consumerism to be on the national educational curriculum. Not media studies, or economics, but consumerism. How one consumes has such a massive impact on ones personal well being that it needs serious contemplation. The impact will only be positive, for the more educated the consumer, the more the brands they consume will have to live up to their respective promises. Image and artifice is out, walking the talk and delivering on your proposition is in.