Consumer Psychologist

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

2012-01-15T11:04:00.000+11:00

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

2012-01-08T12:42:00.001+11:00

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

The Context

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

TheTrends

1.Advertising Platforms as Content

Masterchefis sponsored by a well known retailer, Coles. It has been a massive success because a) it’s great TV, but b) it has anatural synergy with its biggest sponsor that can then help co-promote theshow. The sponsor will also act as aplatform of multiple levels of sponsorship, from a multitude of brands, all ofwhom fit naturally into the show (in fact they help build the showscredibility. Watch out for networksbuilding show platforms that are natural places for brand and productintegration.

2.Video and Audio Print

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

3.Consumer Completion

OK soit’s not new, and really had it’s breakthrough in around 2009, but the trend ofasking 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 newflavours, write the script, star in the ad, or send a message to the CEO. All in the name of to brand wanting to givethe 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'llsee less glamour and polish and more everyday people – as we demandauthenticity from our advertising. We’veseen reality TV blossom over the last 10 years, and documentaries become asmainstream as fiction in cinema. However, some deluded marketers insist onportraying shiny, happy people in their advertising. It doesn’t work like this anymore. We purchase the majority of our brands, primarilyto 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 2012and beyond.

5. GeosocialOffers

Offersand promotions that take place through social media and are activated when youare 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 soit was the buzz word of 2011, but I think it will be a significant trend of2012. If you can have people spend timewith your brand, whilst at the same time offering them an experience they enjoy– then why wouldn’t you. We created agame that finishes this week – Steal Banksy. The success has beenphenomenal. We offered a two prizes to thevalue 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 wouldhave otherwise happened.

One Trend that may die (or morph)

1 Group Buying

Ithink people will realize that there are only so many dog washing services theyneed, or aromatherapy classes they can attend before the group buying siteshave a very quick fall from grace. Thatsaid, they may well respond with a fundamental change of offer that makes themstronger than ever.

How Advertising Changes Behaviour: Ease versus Motivation

2011-12-28T17:39:00.000+11:00

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

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

Historically, the advertising industry has beenobsessed 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. Themain weapon advertisers have had to build motivation is ‘creativity’. The issuewith being ‘creative’ is it’s as much luck as it is skill. So even though it’s been the area of focusfor most advertising agencies, none I know have a robust model on how to buildmotivation – they just have a creative department that comes up with ‘ideas’.Sometimes these ideas are brilliant, sometimes average, and often worse thanordinary. 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 inadvertising. Some are taking a broader view of how to change behavior ratherthan just building motivation. Making thedesired behavior ‘easier’ to complete is just, and often a significantly moreeffective 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 yearbought 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 2012will be that agencies change of focus as they rejoice not in increasing consumermotivation, but in making things easier for people.

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

2011-12-08T00:52:00.001+11:00

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

Steal Banksy from Art Series Hotels on Vimeo.

Now Art SeriesHotels 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 andauthenticated Banksy’s available in Australia (valued at $15,000). From 15^th December 2011 till15^th January 2012,

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

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

Will Deague, CEOof Art Series Hotels, said: “The Art Series Hotel Group is passionate aboutsupporting the arts in Melbourne and we’re very excited about the StealBanksyconcept.”

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

2011-11-26T16:00:00.001+11:00

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

2011-11-18T07:38:00.003+11:00

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

2011-11-05T11:37:00.001+11:00

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

2011-10-27T21:31:00.002+11:00

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 andtraditional colleges read and discuss the world famous theories Roland Barthes.When Barthes published his seminal 1957 work, Mythologies, the waylinguists, philosophers, and semiologists thought about symbols and myths wassignificantly altered. Barthes was concerned with the ways in which symbolsfunction in contemporary society, particularly in a consumerist context. ForBarthes, consumers purchase products because there is an unmeasured valueattached to them through myths and symbols. A luxury car may not be any betterthan a family sedan, but society tends to view people who drive luxury carsdifferently. According to Barthes, a symbol can be a sign, product, or even aword (for example, he notes that the word "tree" is a symbol for aconcrete object). Symbols impact and affect daily life in myriad ways thatcontinue to interest curious observers.

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

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

For the protesters gathered withthe Occupy movement, penthouses and bonus checks communicate a great deal aboutbankers and businessmen. These are not just homes and checks, they are symbolsof a kind of ultra-wealth. Housing is a particularly potent symbol, consideringthe 'brand awareness' many Americans have of ultra-rich neighborhoods likeCentral Park, Beverly Hills, and Nob Hill. The arrest protesters are a potent symbol ofgovernment power. We are led to ask who has it, who does not have it, who willget it in the future? Education can symbolize many things, and certainly doesin this movement.

Symbols and their attendant mythsare not just attached to the powers that the Occupy Wall Street protesters arefighting, though. The protesters themselves are also characterized by signifyingsymbols. Slogans written on simple cardboard signs have a mythology—ahistory—of their own in American society, and they are certainly communicatinga whole set of ideas about the Occupy Wall Street protesters. American flagsare a potent symbol which can take on many different meanings. Some protestershave been spotted waving the original 13-stars version of the flag, perhaps ina call for fellow citizens to really consider the philosophies of the FoundingFathers.

Perhaps the most potent symbol ofall in and around the Occupy Wall Street movement is Wall Street itself. One ofthe most famous streets in America, Wall Street alternatively signifies thedreams and nightmares of citizens. It has appeared in movies as a potent symbolof absolute wealth and power, and has also been used as the symbol of absolutecorruption and greed. No matter what end the Occupy Wall Street movement comesto, the attention it has drawn to consumerism and symbols in America and couldpotentially change the way everyone thinks about wealth, power, andopportunity.

Occupy Melbourne: The Good and Bad

2011-10-16T16:41:00.001+11:00

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

2011-10-11T21:43:00.001+11:00

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

2011-10-09T20:40:00.000+11:00

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

2011-10-02T15:31:00.000+11:00

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

2011-09-24T11:41:00.001+10:00

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

2011-09-24T11:19:00.000+10:00

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

2011-09-17T12:56:00.000+10:00

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

2011-09-06T09:23:00.006+10:00

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

2011-09-04T09:40:00.005+10:00

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.

Non-advertising funded media models and the effect of GDP?

2011-08-28T13:12:00.002+10:00

I was writing something today for something else when I had the obvious thought that the relationship between the media and consumer spending is a self-perpetuating machine. The media rely on advertising dollars to grow big. The more advertiser dollars they have the bigger they become. And the more advertiser dollars the media receive, the more advertising and consumer messages they propel into culture. The more the advertising there is, the more we consume. The more we consume the more money the manufacturer gives to the media company to advertise and so on.

SO what would happen in a world of non-advertiser funded media models. The same money-multiplier effect would not come into play, and there will be a massive reduction in ‘traditional’ advertising. Less advertising = less consumer spend. If consumer spend makes up approximately 65% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) then the less consumer spend = a slowing down of GDP.

I’m not sure what the answer is, as I don’t really have a question. Just a lose thought that I wanted to put out there.

The Consumer Sentiment Index: A National Treasure?

2011-08-07T20:32:00.005+10:00

Here is something really interesting. The latest figures for Consumer Sentiment, the Westpac and Melbourne University Consumer Sentiment Index came out last month. Any guess what the results were? Bloody terribly, in fact consumer sentiment is just about the worst its ever been in Australia. Consumer sentiment is this countries ‘official’ index for consumer confidence. Consumer confidence being how optimistic or pessimistic people are feeling about the economic future of Australia.

The index is measured across 5 factors:

1. Do people think economic conditions will get better or worse in the next 12 months

2. Do people think Economic conditions will get better or worse in the next 5 years,

3. How are their family finances a year ago compared to today

4. How are their family finances going to look over the next 12 months compared to today,

5. Is it a good or bad time to buy major household items.

So what’s the result? Well the July figures show a drop from a rate of 101.2 (the figures are benchmarked at 100.0) to 92.8. 92.8 represents the lowest level of confidence since the eye of the GFC, it’s one of the lowest levels on record, and the over 8% drop is one of the highest ever drops on the Consumer Sentiment Index CSI). Surely, this is terrible news?

The CSI reminds me of sir Francis Galton’s observations at a country fair, clearly outlined in CCC book ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’. The crowd was asked to estimate the weight of a bull. The average of the crowd was closer to the correct weight than any single guess, including expert butchers and ‘cow folk’ in the crowd. What he discovered was ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’ was smarter than any one of us, including the experts. If you’ve seen ‘The Inside job’, a movie about the Global Financial Crisis, you’ll be incredibly sceptical on ever relying on an economists opinion ever again. The movie made a damming case against the impartiality of economists, claiming most of the senior ones were in the pockets of big business, and government. Their ‘predictions’ were often tainted with their conflicting interests.

The Consumer Sentiment index, much like the Australian Bureau of Statistics is a national treasure, a way of delving into the hearts and minds of the collective conscious and understand how we are thinking.

In this case, baton down the hatches as the second half of the year looks dodgy.

All the Emotions You Need To Know

2011-07-17T19:48:00.004+10:00

Passive advertising (advertising that talks at you and you don't need to do anything but not change the channel) is still omni-present. We see it on TV, in magazines, on outdoor advertising. However, none of this has to be passive. Through advances in personal technologies and social media there is now no excuse to just do passive advertising (I just don't understand why people continue to do it at the exclusion of adding a layer of interactivity).

If you're still in the mindset of finding an emotional connection with your consumer then use the chart below. It's from a very smart chap called Robert Plutchick in the 1980s.

If you're still convinced you need to tap into an emotion to change behaviour then you should find this useful. There are a few points I'd like to make about it:

1. Emotions develop as the species develops. The core emotions (the 8 at the top) are the most basic / base. They are the ones we need for survival.

2. The further down you go, the more complex and neunaced the emotions.

3. For more information go to wiki

So hopefully this chart will aid in your discussions around which emotion is best. However, if you really want to make a difference we would suggest you get people to act in some way, not just passively receive a message. We strongly believe this for reasons outlined here and here and throughout this blog! We call it action advertising.

Utilising Game Mechanics: Doing Verses Showing

2011-07-10T11:40:00.006+10:00

Many people are currently talking about game mechanics, and the gamification (yuk) of culture. What is it? In a nutshell humans have a desire to play. By playing we test boundaries, we exercise cognitive flexibility, we use our imagination, and we push the limits, all in a safe environment. Therefore we are hard wired to enjoy this activity. A game is a 'play with rules', it's providing structure around the play. The structure can make the play even more fun, and it certainly makes it more practical - people can join in.

Gamification, as I see it is a) taking the rules of gaming, b) marrying it with the innate desire to play, and c) applying it to settings where you want to change a behaviour. This is what is so interesting for advertisers as it closes the gap between what people want to do (play) and what we want them to do (buy).

The techniques have always been used in a cumbersome way (i.e. 'one in every six chocolate bar wins a prize', or 'Happy Hour 5 -6pm') however, by carefully looking at, pulling apart and reapplying gaming mechanics then whole industries of commerce will be reinvented, and passive one way advertising will be made redundant. Currently the US gaming industry, at $25 billion is bigger than the music and film industries put together. It's only a matter of time before advertisers understand why.

However, getting people involved in something, even a game that's fun to play, is difficult and requires genuine human understanding.

The above ad for Melbourne is an interesting one as the promise is there 'Play Melbourne', it's a great platform of which to create many playful interactions.

...and here is a nice post-script, the gamification of news services from Google. You get badges when you digest their news services. WTF. Perceived value has a lot to answer for.

It's The Second Golden Age of TV.

2011-06-27T06:59:00.004+10:00

It's the second golden age of tv.

The networks are making money, and everyone's happy. New distribution streams means that more complex and better quality TV is being created (like The Wire). This also means various niches can be served better targeted entertainment as not everything has to be mass reach and mass ratings. If the networks have a strong understanding of their brand then various shows can target various segments - not all shows need to be as big as possible - making for more interesting programming.

Last week I saw Piers Morgan interview David Simon ( who wrote The Wire) and Aaron Sorkin (who wrote Facebook and West Wing) and they claim TV is now the highest form of art attracting the best artists and commanding the most money.

So is TV dead? Not even close. Is TV advertising dead? Not even close, but the format (30 second tvc) will change dramatically, quickly.

Psycho-marketing Experiment: Stop Talking, Get People to Act

2011-06-17T18:13:00.003+10:00

Below is the write up of the psycho-marketing experiment we conducted at Mumbrella360, as it appeared on Mumbrella. There is also a link to it in The Australian, and on The Punch with some interesting comments.

For those of you who missed it, we teamed up with Save the Children and Deakin University to run an experiment at Mumbrella360 to identify the most effective way to change behaviour using behavioural change and decision making principles (boring for some interesting for others). It was a fun way to put into practice, and demonstrate the power of some of the principles that change behaviour.

We found that the most effective way for a charity to raise money was not to hit people with rational or emotive messages, but rather by asking them to participate in the communications even in a very small way.

We also believe these learnings can be generalised to other forms of behaviour change desired. For example, convincing consumers to purchase one product over another may be more effective through ‘action’, rather than rational or emotive messaging.

Here’s how it worked:

Look at most charity organisations’ advertising and you’ll see that it focuses on one of two ways to unlock peoples’ wallets to raise money. It’s either:

1. A rational message: Providing statistics that provide evidence as to how important the charity is, and how large the task at hand is. For example, how many lives are at risk, how many people have died, how many degrees the earth has warmed up and so on. Followed by a ‘donate now’ message.

2. An emotive message: Showing evocative and emotive images of the cause (scenes of devastation) or the effect (scenes of happy, smiling people) of the charity. Followed by a ‘donate now’ message. Emotions of joy and fear are often used.

We wanted to compare these traditional methods with this more ‘action orientated’, actually getting people involved in the charity, participating in some capacity and only once they have done something, asking for money.

We teamed up with Mumbrella 360, Deakin University and Save The Children and conducted an experiment – on the participants of the conference (sorry about that – but you were warned). We divided some people at Mumbrella360 into one of four groups; one group receiving a rational message (stats and figures about children dying and being saved), the second an emotitive message (lots of smiling children over-coming adversity to a wonderful sound track); the third group was asked to create an advertising campaign for the charity, and finally a ‘control’ group (who were asked to solve meaningless puzzles). All four groups were then asked for money.

It was the third of the these three groups, the ones who were asked to write an ad for ‘Save The Children’ that ended up donating the most money, they donated $4.03 each, around 35% of the total amount for cash they had on them. The rational group donated a measly $2.39 each, and the emotive group donated $3.69 each.

These results support our thinking (and there is plenty of other evidence in science and marketing that does as well). At least three psychological principles were at play, that ensure an ‘action orientated’ approach is the most effective way to increase donations:

a. Ownership: people feel more responsible for the charity, and therefore are more engaged with the message (need to pay attention)

b. Cognitive dissonance: once people act in a certain way, they strive to align their thoughts and feelings accordingly. Thereby making it more likely to give to the charity

c. Autonomy: people are invited to interact with a message on their own terms versus it being forced on them. This circumnavigates resistance to the message, and makes it more likely they will give.

The results have a significant impact for charities, causes and brands in general everywhere (anyone who wants people to give them something!). If they involve people in their cause (whatever their cause may be), rather than just ask for money, or a purchase (with either rational or emotive messages), then they have a much greater likelihood of success.

We like to believe that this is pretty radical thinking and is flipping conventional advertising theory on its head. No longer do we try and build awareness, then interest, then desire, then action. We flip the old AIDA model on its head, start with action and the rest falls into place.

Thanks to everyone who got involved.

Cyber Bullying Happens To Adults Too

2011-06-05T16:06:00.005+10:00

Interestingly, Sean Cummins of 'Best job in the world fame' is talking at Mumbrella 360 on the anonymous blogger and the damage it they can cause. I hope his message gets heard. I wrote on the subject two years ago for The Punch here. The story attracted many comments, mostly telling me to 'harden up'. There was also one weird comment from Laural Papworth explaining that anonymous negative comments don't exist online - here's what she said

"I have thousands and thousands of comments - and only about 4 negative ones given anonymously. My clients - journalists, governments, global companies - that are building online communities don’t have an issue with negative anonymous comments, in fact the comments are 80% positive, 20% neutral…".

This kind of 'head-in-the-sand' social media is soooooo great and beyond reproach is, I believe, damaging. The story was repeated on Campaign Brief, an advertising blog, where once again the results were hardly supportive. This was the typical response:

"Whinging about negative comments is still whinging. Count your blessings pops, or sail on home."

I'm glad Sean is raising the issue, and I hope intelligent empowered policy makers develop policy and laws to regulate the damaging behaviours that exist on the Internet. Anonymity, if left unchecked will always result in abhorrent behaviour.

For the first time last week a cyber bully has pleaded guilty to causing the suicide of his victim. Things, I suspect will be changing quickly.

Selling The Carbon Tax and the Role of Celebrity

2011-05-30T17:49:00.002+10:00

I ADORE Cate Blanchett. Who wouldn't?

She's stunningly beautiful, seems like a lovely person, promotes the arts (including Australian theatre), has had an amazing international career as an actor, all while raising a family.

Unfortunately, for all of these reasons she is completely the wrong person to be fronting a campaign to garner support for the carbon tax.

To the typical Australian, the carbon tax debate has at its heart a big question - will a carbon tax compromise my way of life? Will I have to make compromises to my already difficult lifestyle to have a greener future?

People are not yet willing to believe (and nor do we know) if we can have our cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, high profile actors such as Blanchett and Michael Caton don't have the credibility to tell people their lives won't be compromised. Continue to read here

This article originally appeared in The Australian on 30.05.2011.

Have you ever met a grave digging masturbator?

2011-05-01T16:13:00.003+10:00

Here's my latest Adnews column. It's written for those in advertising, but applicable to everyone - more or less.

I was once interviewing a chap who used to go to graveyards, dig up dead peoples bones, stand and masturbate over them (I was working in prisons at the time). When interviewing him once he swung his arm back, punched at me, diverting his fist at the last second to punch the wall behind me. Having left a fist sized hole in the wall, he flung back, collapsed in his chair and begin to cry ‘I’m sorry. I’m sorry.’ he said. He was odd – this was an odd thing to happen to me.

It’s not the most remarkable thing to happen to me at work – but it’s right up there. Nothing that remarkable has ever happened to me in advertising.

Think back over the last year whilst at work – how many remarkable incidences have you had? I’m talking about odd, remarkable, ‘out-there’, experiences? Stop. think about it. Please. Write it down. What are the most remarkable incidences you’ve been involved in? Could be a pitch? Could be a shopping experience with a ‘cond-sumer’, could be a prank the office played on the boss on April Fools Day. This is meant to be advertising right?

How did you go? Come up with anything? No? That’s why I’m scared.

We are becoming boring. As an industry I wonder if we are self-policing each other to such a degree we are becoming intolerant of new, different and odd, this is sad. What makes it sadder is this is meant to be ‘advertising’. What makes this thought (if true) truly tragic is that our industry, more than any other shapes the culture we live in. Therefore our industry – yes you and I, is making our culture boring and unremarkable. As I see it:

Advertising, more than any other industry shapes our culture. Day to day people are exposed by and shaped by advertising more than anything else (debatable of course but you get the point).
The more extreme the extremes of culture are the broader the playing field of experience for all of us.
Advertising that broadens a sense of possibility broadens the playing field of culture.
An advertising industry that is conservative is going to create a boring culture.

Unfortunately, as an industry we self-monitor, police, and pull each other down in a fashion that is rather unbecoming (read a marketing blog lately). We’re developing a culture that is risk adverse and shuns difference. We’re no longer avant-garde. We’re no longer ‘pushing boundaries’? Now out of these challenging conditions remarkable and possibility expanding work or course still makes its way though. The following have all made me think ‘fuck that’s interesting’.

Lynx Jet by Unilever
The sun sound campaign by The Cancer Council
The Yellow Treehouse and chocolate campaigns by Yellow Pages NZ
Queensland’s Best Job in the world

For whatever reason all of these pieces of work made me think the playing field just got bigger, the advertising world more exciting. The clients and agencies involved should be applauded (and of course though our ridiculously self-congratulatory awards culture all of these were well recognised again and again and again).

So let me loop back. The reason the poor grave digging, masturbating sod was so upset was because he saw himself as a freak, as a monster, His behaviour was abhorrent – no doubt. And he was odd no doubt and such behaviour should not be tolerated by a civil society. However, lets:

a) stop making a sing and dance and vilifying everyone who’s odd or unafraid to put their head above the parapet
B) stop ripping the shit out of creative work that’s not our own
C) act in a more fun, creative, inspirational, different way. Stretch the boundaries of possibility very day.

Kim Duthie: Just because you can doesn't mean you should

2011-04-17T14:37:00.006+10:00

KIM DUTHIE is the 17 year old schoolgirl of St Kilda footy players photo fame / shame. It’s a story that puts nearly all involved to shame. There are four key players; Broadcast Media, Social Media, Kim Duthie, and us. All have played a role in her dramatic fall from a normal life (I can only imagine how aspirational normal feels when you don’t have it). All may be responsible for even more tragedy if we don’t show some restraint.

The way I see it working is like this. A psychologically unwell girl demands attention. Broadcast media happily obliges parading her (and family) in a cage through the streets on a Sunday night. The social media crew with their front row seats hurl vomit, vitriol and metaphorical shit at the poor girl. The rest of us stand and watch tut tutting. Then psychologically damaged girl – now smeared in the towns vitriol, but with the attention she craves demands it happens again, and again broadcast media provides the platform, social media the abuse and we all shrug our shoulders. So what can the key players do to stop it happening again (and again)?

Broadcast media? Show some bloody restraint. Simple. Obviously you have a business to run, and that involves chasing ratings. However, even Kerry Packer pulled a show or two when it failed to meet the basics of human dignity. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Social media? I’ve written about the damaging impact of social media here. I’ve suggested cyber-bullying needs to be checked. She has received countless death threats, and the most damaging comments I could ever imagine attacking everything from the way she looks, her parents, to her morals. Check it online if you want to be mortified. To the people making these postings. There are a few things to ask yourself a) where is your anger coming from?, b) think about the harm you’re doing to another human being (are you proud of your actions?), c) show some compassion for someone who is not well. Above all again show some restraint. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Kim Duthie: Kim has courted the media since this began with many on and offline appearances. She’s changed her Twitter account from @its_k_isabella to @its_k_isabellas to @kimduthieworld in an effort to shake off the vitriol from other Twitter users. She started a blog, but quickly after disabled comments as so many were grossly negative. She’s threatened to kill her followers “I’ll slit your throats” before deleting the threats and posting happy messages the following day. She posts semi-naked photos of herself and naked photos of others. Lies about being pregnant, and has an alleged affair. To a layperson she would be ‘an immature girl who is all over the shop’, to a psychologist she’s a mix of personality disorders, with pressing mental health issues. All of which need addressing – urgently. Kim Duthie, again show some restraint. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Finally there is US, and our mistaken belief that people have complete control over their own destiny. We don't. Nobody is born saying I want to lead a tragic, lonely, dysfunctional life. People make decisions with the information and resources they have available – and yes they make bad ones. People don’t learn from mistakes – we learn from success. Hence the people making the mistakes will keep on making them – much to the frustration of the working class shock jocks who think ‘well I’ve made it, so should they’.

We’ve paraded Kim in front of the masses. Smeared her in vitriol and spat her out. She needs help - this will be difficult and complex to implement. Those who have exploited her / harmed her the most are probably in the best position to put something in place. Think they will?

Segmenting the Prison Population: Who eats who in prison

2011-04-02T16:58:00.004+11:00

Here's the Adnews March 2011 article.

Ever been to prison? You’ll quickly discover not all inmates are the same, a quick and dirty segmentation reveals a wild array of characters. Like any market you can segment it in different ways; what ethnic gang they belong to, or what mental illness they have, or even what level of ‘dangerousness’ they are (C1, C2, or C3). However, the unofficial segmentation preferred by the inmates and officers is behavioural – and based on what crime you’ve committed. Here it is.

At the top of the tree, the most respected inmate by officers and other inmates alike is the old school armed bank robber. They rob as a career choice and importantly they are not drug effected. They are brazen, cock-sure, and relatively intelligent. They’ll regale everyone with their narcissistic stories. Next, it’s the murderer – but only if the victim is another male, and again is not committed in a drug-affected state. The murderer often walks around with a calmness and intensity reserved for those who are clearly not quite like us. Next in the hierarchy comes the rapist. Sad but true that sexual violence against a woman is (at least partially) condoned whilst all other violence towards them is condemned. After these relative opinion leaders it becomes a little messy, but next up would be the general drug effected petty crims doing B&E's and other crime to support their habit.

Then, at the bottom of the prison animal kingdom we have the groups who are not tolerated by the rest of the prison system. They are sometimes put into segregation or protection* (or indeed there are special prisons that house only these types of inmates). In this group we often have those who have murdered or bashed women. Second to the bottom are those who have committed infanticide, those who killed children (interestingly infants make up over half of all murder victims). At the bottom of the segmentation is the pedophile, delightfully named ‘rock spiders’. The pedophile in prison has a very difficult time of it (interestingly even within pedophiles there is a hierarchy – at the top are people with older female victims, men having sex with very young males (toddlers) and many victims are at the lowest). A clear segmentation understood by everyone who operates within that market.

It surprises me that so few marketers fully understand the market they are playing in – and the influences that exist within it. I’d say approximately 50% of marketers have an operational segmentation, and only a quarter of these understand the relationship between all of the different segments. To not only know your different segments but how information and influence flows across them is a marketing gold mine. However, it takes discipline and 3 months work to do it. Further, it takes a long-term vision of success – the investment won’t be paid back within the first year.

With the opportunity to do multi-modal communications these days and have different messages targeting different segments it has become increasingly important to understand how your market segments, and these information flows. Within the prison system if we wanted to institute a new behaviour, or in some way change something we knew exactly who to get on board with the message. We knew which groups were the opinion leaders, who were the disseminators, who were the receivers, and whose opinion didn’t matter.

The prison system is a controlled market. However, so to can be the market you’re operating it. Take a strategic approach to understanding and segmenting your market, and you’ll be able to ‘control’ it much more efficiently. Consider taking these for steps to understand and better control your market:

Define it
Segment it
Understand its key dynamics
Understand and exploit the emerging opportunity areas

*Even today in Australia some inmates on ‘protection’ are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day for weeks or months on end - truly barbaric.

Marketing, Advertising, Play

2011-04-02T16:30:00.004+11:00

There has been a lot said recently about the powers of play, and how marketers can harness this philosophy. As we see it marketing is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do. Play is about people doing what they enjoy doing. The more marketing can be delivered through play then the more these two concentric circles overlap.

Here is the article appearing in The Australian on Naked Communications launching its new Play initiative headed by Naked Communications Japan Founder, Johnny Shaw (apologies for the editing - and obviously click on the photo to make it readable).

The Most Hypocritical Post Ever

2011-03-14T17:22:00.008+11:00

With Twitter, blogs, social media, voice recorders, the ability to take photos and videos and pass them on iMovie and so on. It makes creating and sharing content so damn easy. This at first glance seems like a good thing. However, how much of it is really useful content? And how much of it is just clutter and noise. A friend described Twitter as 'The mouthpiece of mediocrity' a premise I once Tweeted, before receiving the brief retort 'bullshit'.

In my industry some of the noisiest bloggers and tweeters in marketing are largely young punks who know nothing about marketing (I'll resist supplying links). However, because they are so busy outputting their voice is heard, or at the very least their voice makes it harder to detect voices of more merit (and I am sure it happens in other industries too).

I sort of blame Clay Shirky and his concept of the 'cognitive surplus'. Of course he is not responsible for it, but he has given the movement a name. He suggests that the cognitive surplus is something that should be harnessed so that we should constantly invent, create, share, blog etc. However, the alternative point of view was eloquently put by 'Spike Jonz'. He said words to the effect of "We are all obsessed with outputting we should find more time to input." That is, ensure we have the wisdom and content to make the output worthy of sharing.

So next time you're getting the urge to share your profound wisdom on Twitter or a blog - ask yourself. Does the world really need to hear this? Why not read a book instead?

Yes I'm aware when you point a finger you've got three pointing back at yourself - and I am a serial offender against what I'm suggesting (to the point of this very article). So yes I'll try and practice what I preach.

A Feeble Minded Hipster, Focus Group Junkie and Murderer Walk Into A Bar...

2011-02-27T12:06:00.004+11:00

Why did you watch that ad, buy that silly fixie or commit that murder? Understanding your own motivations for your behaviour can be…difficult.

I’ve never murdered a person, but I would imagine it would be quite a ‘high involvement’ task. Even the most brazen and seemingly spontaneous murder would require a degree of thought and planning. However, put a murderer in a room and ask them why they did it and, well you may as well run a focus group and ask them why they liked a particular ad on TV.

It occurred to me when watching a police interview with a recent murderer (there are loads on youtube) the police had no idea what questions to ask this chap, and this chap had no idea what to say to explain his behaviour.

Police: Why did you feel the need to kill her?

Murderer: I don’t know

Police: So why did you feel the need to kill any of the girls?

Murderer: I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.

Sound familiar? Done any qualitative ad testing lately?

How about this? On Twitter (@adamferrier) I asked the question “Why would anyone buy a Fixie (a bike with one gear) other than to be cool? What I got back was hilarious.

Hipster 1: “You feel closer with the road.”

Hipster 2: “You feel more at one with the machine.”

Hipster 3: “It wont break down.”

Hipsters everywhere trying to grab at anything other than the truth – they bought it to be cool, and fit in with all the other feeble minded hipsters. The murderer and the Feeble Minded Hipster (FMH) have a lot in common. They don’t have enough insight or motivation to tell the real reasons for their behaviour for self-report measures to be accurate.

So in truth, we rely on self-report measures in marketing not because they are accurate but because they are easy – they are available. Now lets look at ad testing:

Moderator: Why did you like that ad?

Focus group junky: I don’t know….it was funny.

And so we learn that we need to make the ad funny. It’s not that the ad needs to be funny – its just the only thing the consumer can say when asked to analyze their own behaviour “I like funny things”. Frankly they don’t know. This is captured beautifully in this clip that has people analyze and “improve” the iconic Apple 1984 TVC.

What’s the alternative? It’s tricky. It involves understanding the causal relationship between the piece of communications and the behaviour change you have in mind. Any thoughts on how to do this would be greatly appreciated.

So let me finish this rambling little piece by saying I’m a huge believer in research, and a massive supporter of focus groups – but only when they are used for the right purpose. We ran focus groups in the prison, to help inmates talk about particular issues and uncover insights used to develop behaviour change programs. Same goes for qualitative research. Do it, but do it up front in the process not when you’re evaluating stuff. Self-report is a lousy research tool when the subject matter is murder, it’s even worse when it’s about what cereal tvc will make me buy more cereal.

This article appeared in the latest issue of Adnews

Adnews Article: Jan 2011. The need to rationalise our behaviour

2011-02-05T16:46:00.002+11:00

So here’s something we all need reminding of, ‘nobody wants to see themselves as a monster’. This was never made more clear to me than interviewing sex offenders for court in a previous occupation. Sex offenders do not want to see themselves in a bad light and will therefore distort their own cognitions to make sense of their abhorrent behaviour. “I loved that child, it was important she learned about sex from me, and not someone out there’ was typical response to the ‘why did you do it line of questioning.

The reason their responses were so earnest, and their defence of their behaviour so steadfast was because it was important to them, that they didn’t loose face to themselves. They saw themselves as good people, and to face the fact their behaviour was so harmful to others would be extremely confronting (it’s also why so many offenders seem so convincing when protesting their innocence on TV).

So why talk about these sex offenders and their distorted cognitions? Because we all do it. We need to. Humans have a natural desire to keep their thoughts, their feelings and their behaviours aligned. We need to be able to see ourselves as ‘rational’ people, and be able to make sense of our own behaviour. For example, if you go to the pub and drink a beer someone may ask ‘Why are you drinking that beer? You cannot (and will not) say ‘Because I loved the advertising’. This will paint a picture of yourself (to yourself) as a feeble minded human, susceptible to advertising. You will need to defend your behaviour in a way that makes sense to yourself (and if they ask others too.) Beer marketers call this ‘the barroom defence’; it’s just about my favourite expression in marketing.

If you don’t have a barroom defence (or the equivalent for your category - no matter what your category) you’ll be at risk of doing donut advertising. Woolly overly emotive imagery that doesn’t give consumers a concrete reason to justify their purchase. I’m surprised by how much advertising (mainly that advertising yearning to seek an emotional connection) fails to fill this fundamental objective, give people a reason to purchase. It may not be why they purchase it, but without a reason they wont be able to justify the purchase and therefore wont purchase at all. Get me?

We all need to justify our behaviour and have a ‘because’ ready in our heads somewhere, something that makes sense of our own behaviour. Something we can latch on to so we can justify why we are doing the things we do. There are a number of things I learned whilst working in prison. This year I’ll drag up a few other parallels between forensic and consumer psychology

Renaming Speed to Speedkills: Getting People to Slow Down

2011-01-14T18:57:00.005+11:00

Here's a new approach to asking people to slow down on the roads that we have developed with the TAC and the people of Speed, Victoria. We are working with the TAC and the rural town of Speed to get the town of Speed to change its name to Speedkills.

It was only launched on Friday and we had the initial goal of getting 10,000 people 'Liking' the campaign on Facebook, to activate the name change. However, we've recevied 12,900 hits so far, and the stakes have increased. One of the towns best farmers 'Phil Down' will change his name to 'Phil 'Slow' Down if we get to 20,000, and after that - well there's another surprise in store. So help us get to 20,000.

Please spend some time on the site having a look at the town appeal movies - they are quite beautiful.

I'll explain the psychological principles as to why this will be an effective campaign later. Any guesses for now?

POSTSCRIPT September 04 2011 Just a quick update. The campaign was shortlisted for 2 Effies at the Australian Communications Council Effectiveness Awards. It also appeared as a Case Study in Marketing Magazine. Here's a link to a cut down version of the case study.

POST POSTSCRIPT September 29 2011 It also won a Gold Spike at the Asian Spikes Nice one.

Have a Very Merry Christmas - Give to Others

2010-12-19T12:42:00.003+11:00

Christmas is the time of presents, however what many people don’t realize, or at least are beginning to realize is that it truly is better to ‘give than it is to receive’. Comprehensive studies on gifting show that when it comes to gifts giving makes us happier than receiving (Dunn, Aknin and Norton (2008).

Related to this I wonder if people are rapidly becoming less commercial and consumerism focused as they quickly realize that an ever increasing number of possessions are not likely to make us happier. There is a flood of information coming into the market (mainly through positive psychology) demonstrating the relationship between happiness and consumerism. And although it’s difficult to pull apart casual effects the research tends to suggest that being less consumer focused is a sure fire way to stoke up our happiness quotient.

Further, research on those who enjoy Christmas the most (Kasser and Sheldon, 2002) shows that those who focus on family, friends, and the religious elements of Christmas have a happier experience than those who focus on the spending and consumerism. So this year we see the retailers complaining that it’s their worst Christmas in years. Retail spending is at an all time low we hear. I wonder then if that means on balance this will be the happiest Christmas for some time.

Naked Communications and Behaviour Change

2010-12-14T23:15:00.001+11:00

Here is how The Australian's Lara Sinclair reported Naked's focus on behaviour change, as reported on 13.12.10

PLANNING agency Naked Communications is repositioning itself as an agent of behavioural change.

The positioning, which is based on some key tenets of behavioural psychology, was developed here and will be rolled out globally, according to Naked Australia founding partner Adam Ferrier.

While some advertising agencies may argue they have been finding ways to persuade people to change their behaviour by trying a new product or buying a new brand for decades, the Naked model turns on its head traditional marketing theory in an effort to expedite and streamline the process.

"Behavioural change is seemingly obvious but currently the marketing industry still is taking the wrong approach: build awareness and desire (which leads to) action,'' Mr Ferrier said.

"We believe in flipping that model on its head, where we start with action first. The rest - interest and desire - will look after itself.''

Campaigns such as "Cabaoke'' for Telstra - in which young people were offered a free ride home in a customised karaoke cab and the experience was captured and shared via social networks - and the Effie Award-winning "Ask Richard'' for Sydney community radio station FBi, which asked listeners to come up with creative ways to ask billionaire Sir Richard Branson to give FBi $1 million to keep the station on air, are examples of the model in action.Naked has used or is using the model with clients Kraft, Novartis and the Transport Accident Commission in Melbourne as well as Coca-Cola in Sydney, and is believed to have used it in its recent successful pitch for the Weight Watchers account.

"We're finding that its the most effective way to deal with loyalty is through getting people to interact with a brand rather than passively receiving a message,'' Mr Ferrier said.

"This has all come about because of massive changes in technology,'' he said. "With all media having the ability to be interactive we can always get (people) to do something.

"It doesn't mean we're changing what we do. Our focus is on understanding humans and understanding behaviour change and that's our focus.'

Three brand positionings that are not

2010-12-12T22:24:00.002+11:00

I love looking at communications and trying to understand the brand positoning that lies behind it (that is one of the things that makes me a little sad). Here are three brand positionings that I don’t think are brand positionings at all.

Real

Any time a brand tries to say ‘I’m the real one’ be wary. All brands in a category are real (unless they don’t actually exist). To say one is more real than the other is esoteric and not at all consumer focused. People need a degree of authenticity in the brands they consume nearly all the time, but this is not a brand positioning, it’s one small element of positioning (credibility). To say you’re ‘real’ is to say you exist, and brands need to do more than that. What’s your promise?

Individual

How can a brand deliver ‘individuality’? It’s weird. Marketing is a mass-market game, and brands have to appeal to lots of people to succeed. You cannot credibly be individualistic to each of these people. There is one exception, perhaps brands that can completely change their appearance for every customer can live up to this promise (e.g. iGoogle?). However, a typical FMCG or alcohol brand (for example) cannot.

Nostalgia

What’s nostalgia? It’s a story that communicates the brand has been around for a while. However, this is more a product feature than a positioning. If you can’t think of anything else to say, then say you’ve been around for a while, but please don’t confuse that with your brand positioning.

There you go. Thoughts?

Big Richard Condoms Available Now

2010-11-11T23:20:00.006+11:00

This is a condom brand. It's called Big Richard and is available here. Stock up for summer.

The paper just did a nice story on the condom courier service we started.

The brand has been co-developed by Naked Communications. We recently congratulated the popes 'progressive' decision to allow people to use condoms in certain situations by sending him some Big Richard condoms. If you'd like to purchase you can here. This is what they look like.

Flipping AIDA: Why it's Much More Effective to Start With Action

2010-10-30T16:42:00.012+11:00

In marketing communications the dominant view is that we grow brands by climbing up the AIDA ladder. That is you use your marketing communications dollars to create Awareness, then build Interest, then motivate Desire, before finally seeing Action. Amazingly the model was created in 1898 by E. St Elmo Lewis after studying how to sell life insurance. It has no scientific robustness, nor credibility. but it was simple to follow and perhaps had some perceived logic. Anyway the model, with some slight variations has stuck. It's also how people still see marketing communications (it's how most marketers and market research companies measure brand health)

However, if you've been working with Naked Communications over the last 18 months or so you'll know that we have resorted to flipping the AIDA model on its head to communicate our view on how many strong brands are built today. That is strong brands are built through action. We believe changing behaviour is what marketing communications is about (why are you spending money otherwise), and the best way to change behaviour is through action. Drive Action first, and the rest will, by and large look after itself. The Naked Communications ADIA Model is below - the most important thing to note is that we start with action.

There are three key reasons we have done this, a psychological reason, a technology reason, and lastly a business reason.

The Psychological Reason

Human behaviour works like this, How you think controls how you feel that in turn controls how you act. However, Cognitive Behavioural Psychologists have now stopped arguing over what comes first emotions or thoughts (the two are inextricably linked yet we have more control over thoughts hence they make a more useful therapeutic tool) and jump straight to action. Or as Castonguay and Beutler, 2006 say in a meta study "effective treatment is characterised more by behaviour change than insight". If we can focus on behaviours the rest will follow.To this end psychologists today don't ask you to sit on the couch and have an insight, they get you practising the desired behaviour and reinforcing it when it happens. The same goes for marketing communications - we should stop trying to find a big emotional connection with advertising, and start to promote action.

The Technical Reason

We now live in a digital age. ALL media can now command action. There is no media that needs to be received passively. A TV ad can have a URL, a website can have a link, an outdoor ad can have a hyperlink, a magazine ad can have a QR code. Further, so much technology can help brands provide utility to people. Marketers can use their marketing dollars to promote action, not just passively receive a one way image.

It's been asked that if we have technology to command action always then why don't we? Well the short answer is that it's extremely hard to create advertising ideas that people chose to interact with. It's much easier to create ads that people must watch passively as they interrupt their favourite program. Creating ideas that people chose to (inter)act with is extremely difficult, and requires genuine human insight. In short, with so many ways to promote action with the consumer why would you just want to build an emotional connection?

The Business Reason

There is little argument that passive advertising has been an effective way of build a brand for many situations (i.e. you have a brand big enough to warrant the massive entry costs of production and media). However, we contest that getting people to act with your brand may be an even more effective way to build a strong brand. If it's a choice between asking a consumer to act and get involved, or passively receive communications - then take action every time. It's a difficult area to conclusively prove but we are starting to pool some evidence. Firstly, we are doing it and have been developing case studies showing the effectiveness of advertising (including the most awarded campaign at the 2010 Effectiveness Awards). This campaign promoted Action, not Emotion and knocked the ball out of the park. Secondly, it appears that many of the seemingly effective campaigns around the world are now inviting interaction between consumer and producer. Finally, it makes sense. If we can jump straight to Action, and invest our advertising dollars at that level then perhaps it's a more focused use of advertiser dollars.

However, as said before promoting action is hard. In order to command action you have to focus on a behaviour that is likely to happen. This needs to be carefully assessed and deliberated on. However, when you are confident you have a behaviour that's likely to occur then I would suggests you spend your marketing dollars to make that happen (and not waste money trying to build an emotional connection*.)

Consider this article in BETA, I'd love builds an inputs. It also links to many points I've made previously over the last year here, here, and here.

* Be wary of the advertising agency who says their goal is to make consumers love your brand, or form an emotional connection. I've loved MINI for 15 years and never bought one. So much advertising dollars aimed at building an emotional connection is wasted. Love, or any other emotion is not the end game for marketing communications. Action is (the emotional connection will be much stronger as a result of interacting with your brand). The same goes for research companies, they track brand performance on brand pyramids that look rather similar to AIDA. Below is an image from the Millward Brown, Brand Pyramid taken off the Internet. It's their measure of brand health, and with 'presence to bonding', looks very much like Elmo's AIDA model which he made up in 1898 (I don't mean to pick on MB I actually quite like a lot of what they do - but not this model).

Movember

2010-10-30T12:16:00.002+11:00

This post is a request for money to help raise awareness for men's health through Movember. You can stop reading now if this is not of interest.

...still reading? Nice one, you may yet end up donating so be careful. I've dedicated my face to Movember this November. I am going to shave and be less hairy than I normally am. However, my commitment is the growth of a mexican styled mo - it will look sleazy, yet sexy, but not at all sophisticated.

I am doing this in the name of finding cures and treatments for prostate cancer and depression (money goes to Beyond Blue too, 1 in 8 men suffer depression).

These are causes I feel strongly about, and have been personally touched by. I'm asking you to support my efforts by making a donation to support by efforts.

To help please Click this link

http://au.movember.com/mospace/790096/

and donate online using your credit card or PayPal account.

Anyway, just by reading to the end of this email you've contributed by being more aware of the issues, so thanks. If you want to donate, even better.

Best,

Adam

FYI

Through the Movember Foundation and its men's health partners, PCFA and beyondblue: the national depression initiative, Movember is funding world class research, educational and support programs which would otherwise not be possible.

For more details on the impact Movember is having please visit: http://au.movemberfoundation.com/research-and-programs.

Since When Did The Ad Guy Become Respectable?

2010-10-24T10:42:00.002+11:00

The other day I was presenting at a conference on sustainability, and wondered what I was doing there. I clock up more air-miles than a rare bald headed eagle, have an unsustainable lifestyle, and don’t own a rainwater tank. Don’t get me wrong I was flattered to be asked to talk, and trust I contributed to the conference, but it got me thinking.

I can’t go past a discussion on a cultural, environmental, or societal issue these days without seeing an ‘ad-guy’ (and unfortunately it’s very often males) proffering their opinion on what will solve our latest ill.

Like it or not, the advertising industry is being pulled into all manner of communities with the hope they can solve the world’s issues. And like it or not, the world is now taking the ‘ad guy’ seriously.

So why is this happening? It’s probably due to a number of factors such as the exposure that advertising is getting through shows such as The Gruen Transfer, 30Seconds, and Mad Men. However, it’s more likely these shows are a by-product, and not the cause of the new found popularity of ‘ad guy’. It’s the ‘ad-guy’s’ time for a much more significant and more interesting reason. That reason is, information and its close cousin, rational debate has not worked.

We’ve just lived through the beautifully coined, ‘information age’. We have loads and loads of information, and we are all inter-connected, sharing all this wonderful information. And yet how much has this over-load of information really contributed to solving any of the world’s significant problems?

Did all of the financial information we had access to help us predict the global financial crisis (cutely branded the ‘GFC’)? No. With all this information can we make someone ride their bike to work and not drive a car? Can we convince a rich nation to give 10% of their wealth to a poor nation? Can we make men stop raping women? No, no and no. Information, and rational debate hasn’t answered any of these issues.

Where does one turn?

You turn to an industry that has managed to convince people to pay $10.00 for a beer, $1,000 for a new BBQ and $100,000 for a new car. You turn to an industry that’s made it normal to change your car every few years, your wardrobe every few months, and your toothbrush every few weeks.

Advertisers are seen as the masters of manipulation, and although they may not quite understand how their craft actually works, they know it gets results. Other industries are beginning to get curious, they want the ‘ad-guy’ to unbottle their tricks and help solve bigger issues. The do-gooders are getting into bed with the devil, potentially for the greater good?

Good because the advertising industry is full of very bright, creative, action orientated people who have learned the power of influence. They’ve learned how to change behaviour and how to appeal to people’s emotions, and not try and win arguments based on just information and fact.

And bad because I personally don’t want people trained to come up with a non-existent reason to buy one form of tomato sauce over another coming up with the solutions for problems that really matter; homelessness, the environment, income distribution inequality and mental health. Will their solutions really work? Will the ‘ad-guy’s’ involvement take us forwards or back? It takes more than a cool t-shirt to care.

As advertising gets pulled into problem solving for more and more areas of society the ethics of what we do, and how we do it should come under even greater scrutiny. These problems we increasingly get exposed to are not just another ‘creative opportunity’, they are an opportunity to make the world a better place, and should be treated as such.

Well done those who are starting out in advertising now, your moon, as they say, is rising. Your opinions will be devoured in mainstream media and at dinner parties alike. You may become the doctors of the modern age, curing the world of all ills (‘Eeek, could the messiah be an ad-guy)? To those not in advertising and want a quick fix to whatever your issue is just remember ‘the brighter the picture the darker the negative’ (that’s a quote from ‘Batman’ that even Don Draper would be proud of).

This article appeared in The Punch, and a similar version appeared in Adnews

Behaviour Change and Advertising

2010-10-09T15:52:00.004+11:00

I am speaking at a conference on Behaviour Change, and I've been asked to speak as a representative from the advertising industry. There is a perception out there that advertisers know how to change peoples behaviour. From what I've seen this assumption needs challenging. Let me explain....

There are some very clear models developed by psychologists on how to change behaviour, and the stages of change in behaviour. However, I've never seen anything equivalent developed within the advertising world. Further, I've never met anyone in advertising who has a robust opinion on how to change behaviour. Normally they'll start talking in very vague terms about 'emotional engagement' and other such rubbish such as love.

At Naked Communications, over the last year or so we've taken the concept of how to change behaviour seriously, and it's changing the way we do things. We have begun to develop some strong models and processes that we think, when applied correctly, will be much more effective in changing behaviour. Why the obsession with behaviour change? Well it's at the core of marketing - any and every project undertaken will have, as an end game, the desire to change behaviour.

Behaviour change is an endlessly complex area of study. Anyone who says 'we have the answer' must be looked upon with suspicion. However, so too must anyone who works in advertising who hasn't a clue on the subject.

Optical Illusions in Advertising

2010-10-03T14:48:00.002+11:00

Interesting way to get the viewer involved in the ad.

The Most Addictive Things in Society

2010-09-29T22:08:00.003+10:00

Great research looking at the worlds most addictive stuff. Top of the list - media!

Top 10 addictions (in America)

1. Media

2. Tobacco

3. Alcohol

4. Marijuana

5. Food

6. Gambling

7. Prescription drugs

8. Bulimia

9. Cocaine

10. Hallucinogens

Grogger: Is this really the right thing to do?

2010-09-26T15:48:00.005+10:00

Recently the City of Melbourne launched a series of initiatives designed to improve pedestrian safety. They've used every trick in the new-wave marketers handbook including a 'edgy' little movie called 'Redman and Greenman' (below)

...and an online / mobile game called Grogger. It's Grogger that worries me. This initiative seems like a wild stab in the dark, and it would be interesting to know the thinking that lay behind it. I'd love the City of Melbourne, and those behind the campaign to respond, tearing this post apart. So far they have been open saying "Usually we try to propose an evidence-based approach to the measures that we use but there are certain things where you don't have a solution that's already proven so I think you have to start exploring new possibilities," Dr Bruce Corben, Monash University Accident Research Centre. However, I think, if anything, Grogger may increase, and not decrease the undesired behaviour. Here's why:

Grogger is a mobile / online game based on iconic, and retro-cool arcade game Frogger.

It involves a person trying to cross the road without getting 'smashed'. The character drinks and burps as they attempt to cross the road, getting increasingly intoxicated and more likely to get 'smashed' by a tram or car. There is of course also a Facebook page that goes along with this.

My concern is that the game is making a previously undesirable, dangerous and silly behaviour (drunk jaywalking), trivial and popular. It's taken a behaviour 'drunk jay walking' and branded it, 'Grogger', it's then turned this into a game to 'play'. The game can easily be replicated off-line in the real world. That is, crossing the road drunk will now become an opportunity to have a quick game of 'Grogger'. You can imagine wayward yet normal, young people challenging each other to a game of 'Grogger' as they attempt to cross the road drunk.

Further, by 'branding' the act of walking drunk across the road, and giving it a catchy title, are you not normalising the behaviour of drunk jaywalking? 'If it's got a title it's got to be a big issue. If it's a big issue then lots of people are doing it. If lots of people are doing it then so can I'.

I applaud the City of Melbourne to undertake initiatives aimed at increasing pedestrian safety. Gaming is a hot subject right now, especially as many studies show that people can learn very effectively through gameplay. However, in this case the question is what are they learning? I actually think they are learning to play 'Grogger', that is learning (and practicing) how to try and cross a road drunk. Again, I would sincerely like to be proven wrong and further understand the behavioural principles that lie behind this initiative. Any takers (and please don't say 'to raise awareness of the issue and get people talking')

Stop Ingratiating Marketing: There Are Other Ways To Be Liked

2010-08-28T11:10:00.005+10:00

Jonny Shaw, Founder of Naked Communications Japan and I were having a chat about how so much marketing tries so hard to get our attention. It's always trying to please us, entertain us, make us notice them. If people treated me this way I would without doubt do my best to ignore them

We're suggesting that this 'Ingratiating Marketing' is only one way to build a brand. Don't try so hard to be liked and see what happens. The thought is captured in this months Adnews column above.

There Are Better Ways To Spend Your Money Than Advertising

2010-08-15T17:01:00.004+10:00

It's great to see brands use their marketing budgets do things that give consumers something useful rather than just yell at them. There are other ways to build brands rather than just advertise and this is a lovely example. Perhaps a secondary message bringing it back to the product suck as 'now you can do your Internet banking on the way to work'. Regardless it's nice work.

Forensic Shopping Investigation V: Buying Vanity

2010-07-31T13:23:00.013+10:00

Ever done anything and you’re not quite sure of your motivation for doing it? I recently went and peroxided my hair blond, grew a moustache, and received a deep spray tan. I’m not entirely sure why. Potential reasons could be:

To give me something to write about as a Forensic Shopping Investigation
To garner attention
Because it’s an interesting social experiment to dramatically change ones looks
It entertains others
Because it’s fun seeking out new experiences
I’m approaching 40
...or maybe I just wanted to appease Renata at work who thought it would be really funny

I’m not a huge believer in understanding ‘why’ we do things (see previous blogs here), but how. So if you’ve ever wondered what’s involved in getting your hair peroxided blond, followed by an intense spray tan – here’s how it goes.

Create Time

The session peroxiding my hair took about 2.5 hours. Getting a spray tan takes about 30 minutes. However, you have to leave on a film of brown muck on your body for 6 hours before showering (I didn’t realize this).

Create money

My hair was done at Rokk Ebony ($175), and my tan at Soleil ($45). Various products were offered to me at Soleil (ranging from $30 for moisturizer to $60 moisturizer with bronzer?) The service I received at both was lovely.

Be Prepared to Feel Gross

The hair wasn’t so bad. I actually wanted to get the peroxide done right to the roots. However the lovely ‘colourist’ refused telling me it would look awful. She then told me she’s never had her own hair coloured – and doesn’t much like the look of other people doing it either. She foiled my hair (see photo) let it burn, put a heater on to cook it a bit more, took the foils off, washed it, put a bit of yellow colour in, blow dried, and I was done. I was on my Blackberry the whole time, and although it felt a bit uncomfortable and silly it was all fine. However, the spray tan was something else. Here’s what happens:

I pay
I walk into a tiny, grotty, shower cubical (disgusting in every way, except for a picture of Corfu on the wall – inspiration I guess)
I strip (you can wear little undies they give you, or your own. I actually left my jeans on as I only wanted the top half done
A lady came in and with a converted hair dryer blew a fine dirt like substance on me (a derivative of sugar cane she tells me). She told me to assume many interesting positions to ensure the brown muck evenly covered my body.
Same lady then blow dries my body with the same device
I put my clothes on and leave.

As I leave she mentions to not get wet at all (“one drop of water on you skin will make it streak”) or perspire for 6 hours. It’s humid, and pouring with rain outside, I know I am destined for disaster. Throughout the day the spray tan gets darker and darker making one look like a complete idiot (see photo). I sincerely apologise to the Regional Marketing Director I met and had lunch with that day. I washed much of it off that evening, but still look inappropriately ‘summery’.

We’re Screwed?

Our increasingly superficial society is causing peoples concept of self-identity to fuse more and more with physical appearance. We are distorting our bodies more and more to meet some mythical ideal (Actual Self + Brand = Ideal Self). More and more weird and invasive beauty treatments are now considered normal (like spraying shit over ones whole body, and chemically cooking your own hair). Unfortunately, self-acceptance is fighting an uphill battle against everyone telling us we should be (and look like) someone else. And we’re probably getting more depressed and anxious as a result.

As an aside, people keep looking at me funny too - and I'm not sure why?

Why Master Chef is So Popular

2010-07-18T15:39:00.004+10:00

Before I go on I have to confess I've never watched MasterChef, never given it a spare 5 minute glance. Hence, this post may fall down under interrogation. That declared, I want to have a guess as to the three reasons that make MasterChef so popular:

1. Sport for Females

Sport always has an inherent drama in its structure. The good (who you support) and the bad (the others) do battle. The good overcomes adversity to win the day, or alternatively there is an injustice and they die. MasterChef is a sport for females. Why? It's easier to passionately follow a sport if you've played that sport yourself, even at a very junior levels. That way you can relate to the skills on show. The field of endeavour in MasterChef, cooking, is something many women (and of course men) can relate to. They can compare their gravy to the gravy made by the contestants on the show. The women love it, the (non-cooking) men can still enjoy it (it's sport), and therefore couples and families watch it together - both satisfied.

The entire show is structured like a good footy competition (complete with bad umpiring decisions) and with up to 5 million tipped to watch the final episode that will make it bigger than the AFL Grand Final (3.75 million).

2. It's Simple

Who is the best cook. Australian's don't like to have to think about their TV to hard. MasterChef keeps it really simple.

3. It's a Great Vehicle For Brands

With so many sponsors included in the show, there are many opportunities for the show to exist outside of the TV program format and it permeates into all parts of culture. If each brand endorsing the show, also mentions MasterChef in their communications then the show starts to create its own sense of bigness and popularity, thereby normalising the watching of it, bringing in even more viewers.

OK, so I've never see the show. They're not the only reasons - but anything that captures Australia's imagination as completely as MasterChef has is worth a few minutes analysis.

What would you say are the key reasons it's so popular?

The Seduction of Cool

2010-07-12T16:17:00.003+10:00

It's a little disconcerting to see how easily marketers and ad agency snakes get seduced by the latest cool director, or thing.

Gen Y are Marketing Saturated not Marketing Savvy

2010-07-04T09:59:00.005+10:00

I've said it elsewhere, but I was recently asked to comment on Gen Y and their consumer habits to Cleo. They published pretty much what I said (see article above). However, I've had a bit of feedback saying how wrong I am, and how Generation Y has its marketing defences up more than any other previous generation. The reactions against my assertions claim that younger people are demanding more 'utility' and less 'puffery' from marketing.

I'm not sure if my comments in the article above are correct or not. However, I do think it's a conversation worth having. We are so keen to use marketing buzzwords that we say things like the youth of today are so 'marketing savvy' - but are they? What does that really mean?

Consider this: Who is more likely to fall for the latest over hyped marketing guff? Generation Y (or younger) or their grandparents?

The Psychology of Fashion Victim

2010-06-28T23:19:00.007+10:00

Any guesses where I am right now?

I bet you didn't say Surry Hills. In fact I'm pretty sure some of you would have guessed correctly. I'm in the south of France, Nice airport to be exact. These two photos were taken within 2 minutes of each other.

These two men would look silly in Surry Hills, but to their contemporaries they... actually they probably look silly where ever they went. None the less they represent nicely the bind that drives fashion, the constant struggle to both fit in and stand out. That is we all want to express our sense of self through fashion, yet at the same time confirm to societies standards ('society' being the reference group you hold in high regard).

Anyway, this was more an excuse to publish two funny photos. And yes I am well aware that I, in whatever I was wearing, would look equally silly in their eyes too.

Collaborative Consumption

2010-06-16T21:27:00.003+10:00

There is a very smart woman who works with us at Naked Communications, Rachel Botsman. She's written a book called 'Collaborative Consumption: What's mine is yours'. Out soon. In the meantime here is a sexy video talking about the idea. It's the place where socialism meets capitalism and as a result we all prosper.

The Bramotion and Understanding Consumer Behaviour

2010-06-05T11:37:00.004+10:00

Here's an article in Adnews about why it's imperitive you understand a) how advertising works, b) how to change behaviour, and c) the power of the Bramotion.

Bands and Brands

2010-06-03T21:38:00.006+10:00

Today I read that Melbourne band 'The Triangles' have topped the Spanish charts with their song 'Applejack'. How has this been done? The song was selected as the soundtrack for a commercial for beer brand Estrella'. The same has happened for any band featured on the Apple and iPod advertising.

Sincerely well done to the bands and brands involved.

However, things have changed. When I was growing up this quest for money (from the bands) would be seen as a 'sell out' (does this concept still exist?). The bands would have been seen to have lost their integrity, and looked upon with disdain. However, the concept today seems weird to write, and laughable. Youth today are completely marketing saturated. All entertainment, socialising, and general interactivity with the world is branded - and this is the just the way it is.

Youth today are not marketing savvy, they are marketing saturated.

Living in a branded would is the status-quo today. Therefore, the concept of 'selling out' to commercial culture no longer exists. Nowadays everyone is born and raised in this commercial culture and there is no longer anyone to 'sell out' to.

Good luck to all involved? I'm going to go feel old somewhere.

Cigarettes, Coffins, Branding, and Death

2010-05-02T15:54:00.009+10:00

This is a photo of my brothers and I carrying my dad's coffin. You may have noticed the coffin is painted (by my talented sister Tania Ferrier) as a carton of cigarettes, Marlboro Reds to be exact, it was his brand. Before dad died he also asked me to give his eulogy and remind everyone that he wanted to be cremated so he 'could light up one last time'. Dad smoked at least a pack a day until he died of cancer in 1996. Dad was a Judge, a relatively conservative chap - but one with a wicked sense of humour.

I've never had a cigarette in my life, for some reason it’s not that appealing to me. So it is with extra interest that I examine the moves by the federal government last week to remove all branding from cigarettes, and raise the price (again). It’s enough to make a smoker turn in their grave. It’s enough to make a non-smoker take a deep sigh of relief. Smoking is the only legal product in the world that if used exactly to the manufacturers directions will do you harm. It is categorically different to any other legal product in the world - and therefore its availability should be tightly regulated. Guns, ‘don’t point them at people’, alcohol ‘fine just don’t drink to excess’, gambling ‘it can be fun – but don’t over do it’, sugary foods ‘they are OK in moderation – just brush your teeth afterwards’. Smoking? ‘Ummmm?'

Having spent some time understanding brands and the power they can have over people (and having seen it first hand above) I can only applaud the Federal Government for their actions. Working in conjunction will all the marketing levers being pulled from under the cigarette companies legs, it will no doubt be effective:

Price: The price is going up, and this has been shown to impact more on people from lower socio-economic status, people more likely to smoke
Promotion: No broadcast communications allowed.
Placement: Distribution is tightly controlled, where you can enjoy them is even more tightly controlled.
Packaging: No brand building motifs, or recognisable symbols anywhere. Research shows that increasingly plainer packaging makes cigarettes appear less aspirational, less tasty, and of poorer quality.

It is no wonder we have one of the lowest smoking rates in the world. Currently we hover at around 19% of adults (this is 2007, but it's actually less now) and it's decreasing all the time. Smokers days are numbered and I think it’s a good thing. The regulation of cigarettes has resulted in less people smoking. The result will be a healthier, and consequently happier country.

Post script: A simliar entry with many additional comments on The Punch.

The NRL Should Make All Marketers Brave

2010-04-24T18:53:00.003+10:00

Many years ago, whilst at Saatchi & Saatchi, I worked on the General Mills business. Everyone who worked on this business, was asked to sit through an induction video. It was a good introduction into the business and its brands. However, one thing the video said has sat with me for years. That is, interestingly, the video ended with an unexpected joke and it went something like this (written in the classic Star Wars font fading to black):

"General Mills is the owner of some the worlds greatest brands, all with very proud histories. If nothing else can you please do your best not to screw them up."

This was on their corporate induction video - it was a brilliant moment of levity. We never screwed up (that much). However, what would it take for marketers to 'screw up', or at worst, kill a brand. If you take a look at the NRL - quite a bit it would seem.

In the last few years the NRL has been closely associated with many communications disasters, including the latest massive issues with the Melbourne Storm. However, the NRL appears to be not just surviving but thriving. The brand feels strong. Further, take the list of brands that appeared on Mumbrella's 'Marketing Disaster's list. Brands including Witchery, Westpac, Kyle & Jackie O, Tiger Woods, and Tourism Queensland - all, it would seem are doing well, and their disaster is long forgotten, or indeed was not a disaster at all (although I really wish Kyle and Jackie O would disappear). In essence it's extremely hard to kill a brand - and even the occasional 'disaster' may not be a disaster at all, perhaps even having an unexpected positive impact.

If you're worried about taking a risk - then take heart from the NRL. They, more than anyone show how resilient brands are. When brands find a way into peoples lives, then people really don't want them to leave. Take risks, try new things, get new learnings, and have fun - don't be to afraid of screwing up - as it's really, rally hard to genuinely do so.

General Mills needed have worried, no one in that room was near powerful enough to do any damage.

Logorama: Oscar nominated 2010 short film

2010-04-17T15:38:00.006+10:00

Not sure how I missed this, but my friend Warwick bought this Oscar nominated short film to my attention. It presents a dysphoric future where brands have taken over, morals corrupted, and Ronald McDonald is angry. Pulp Fiction in tone, and Bowling for Columbine in attitude it's an entertaining point of view highlighting the continuing commercialisation of our world. Interestingly I haven't seen it mentioned in any marketing or advertising blogs?

An Alternative To Advertising

2010-04-11T17:41:00.003+10:00

The attached Adnews article looks at how you can build brands with a mindset other than advertising. We need a new mindset when building brands other than 'advertising' or 'line extensions'. There is plenty more we can do.

Stop Abusing Masturbation: Why we should get it out in the open

2010-04-02T10:20:00.008+11:00

About the only thing I ever got told about masturbation at school was that a) 95% of guys did it, and 5% lied, and b) around 66% of woman masturbate. This is silly, and I find it extraordinary that something that gives so much pleasure to so many people is not more openly discussed.

Recently Psychology Today has written an excellent article on masturbation. Among the highlights are the fact that the Spanish government ran a campaign encouraging its citizens to masturbate 'Pleasure is in your own hands'. Further, the article talks about the dangers of masturbating such as picking up bad habits i.e. masturbating about inappropriate fantasies. This is a topic worth 'outing' in and of itself. Although not mentioned in the article, it's likely that people who commit sexually deviant / illegal / harmful acts have masturbated about the act 100's or 1000's of times previously, conditioning them to eventually commit the act they are fantasising about. Further, they'll relive the act over and over again through masturbation, in turn conditioning them to do the act again. The more masturbation is discussed, the less likelihood that people will a) feel guilty about it, or ) pick up such bad / harmful habits.

However, masturbation obviously also provides a lot of 'joy'. Most of us (I assume) have gotten a grip on the art of masturbation and practice it frequently.

I've long seen masturbation as one of the last untouched bastions open to us in advertising / marketing. We presented an idea once to a client that clearly communicated the brands proposition, and would no doubt have got 'cut through' - through it's use of masturbation (albeit somewhat veiled). They didn't buy it. However, why shouldn't masturbation be a topic of communications. Masturbation is fun, enjoyable, aspirational, a part of daily life (or near enough to it), and is a very, very strong conditioner of human behaviour.

Masturbation works via paired association. Think about something, couple that thought with pleasure (orgasm) and whatever you were thinking about becomes more desirable. For marketers interested in behavioural change, this is a massive, but as yet missed opportunity.

Anyone game?

PS Masturbation Month is in May - so this article came a month early.

Sunday's With James O'Loghlin on ABC Radio

2010-03-28T21:41:00.006+11:00

James O'Loghlin has a show on ABC radio 'Sundays with James'. Once a month I go onto his show and talk about consumer psychology. It's a fun 30 minute chat. If anyone has any suggestions on things within the world of consumer psychology that could be interesting to talk about on radio I'd love to hear them.

You can hear a podcast of James and I talking about behavioural change here.

Sex, Happiness, Advertising and Monogamy

2010-03-16T11:47:00.002+11:00

Latest article for Adnews. The headline says it all. Click on the article if you want to make it big!

Getting People Involved

2010-03-14T14:17:00.006+11:00

So by now most people are getting the message, forget about making people receive information passively, and get them involved in the communications. Getting people to act with the message is a much more effective tool for behavioural change rather than just yelling at people.

I'm sometimes surprised how much difficulty marketers are having with this message, especially when you consider that even local councils are now in on the act.

Have a look at the sign near where I live (see photo), it's not just telling people of a street beautification program, it's actually getting people involved in the program. It's asking people to contribute to the program by asking them to vote on what trees to plant. The winning tree is the one with the most votes. The logic is, ff you vote, you become invested in the project, will tell your friends, and become more involved. If local councils can find ways to involve people in the message, then surely we can too.

The marketing communications landscape is changing rapidly, and new principles are yet to be established. However, it's clear that now we have the ability, it's always better to get people to ACT with the message, and not just passively RECEIVE it. For more background see here, here and here.

Talking at The Feds with Mike Walsh

2010-03-06T22:42:00.004+11:00

The Feds is a regular digital agency get together where they invite people along to talk 'on the couch' with a nice chap, Mike Walsh. I spoke to Mike last week about psychology in marketing, the rise of the social media goon, and data. It was captured as an audio podcast here

How To Get a Job as a Consumer Psychologist

2010-02-28T20:34:00.000+11:00

Here is a simple how to guide to getting a job as a Consumer Psychologist - if that is you want one.

Personal Acumen

When I was at school I saw a counsellor (Kim Soia - thanks for the excellent advice by the way) to see what I should do with my life. I told him I was interested in brands, money and people. He said straight away I should become a consumer psychologist. If you're curious about these things it's pretty much all you need.

Education

To call yourself a psychologist you have to be registered as a psychologist. This involves either a 3 year under grad degree through either science or arts. However, study hard as you'll have to then qualify for a forth year post-grad year. Once you have the four year degree you can either get registered through professional supervision (i.e. get a government job that includes two years supervision), or do a further 2 years Masters or Doctorate degree. I did both. When doing the final two year degree you can chose what area to do your masters in. To get into Consumer Psychology I would recommend either do your masters (or Doctorate) in Consumer psych (not available in Australia), Clinical Psychology, or Organisational Psychology.

Employment

Market research is the safest way to start as a consumer psychologist. In Australia contact the AMSRS for a list of market research companies. The other way to become a consumer psychologist is to become a strategic planner in an advertising agency, contact The Communications Council for a list of agencies. The final way is to become an academic and start your own consultancy. See Michael Edwardson about this one.

However, even if you achieve all this you may not find yourself doing the job of a consumer psychologist, or working with that title. There are many different ways a consumer psychologist can operate, and many varied jobs they can have.

Some Tips

Again study hard in your undergraduate - what they don't tell you is that those grades count to see if you qualify for a forth year of study - without it you're screwed.
Do your thesis in something popular with human interest. Make some noise about it. I did mine in 'Identifying the underlying constructs of cool people'. It was not only interesting, but great fun.
Get a specialism that makes sense, and gives something to the world of consumer psychology
Stay on top of research, and back up opinion with said research. This will differentiate you massively in industries that are completely made up.
Try and maintain a link to an academic institution for as long as possible. They are invaluable for resources, and access to research.
Avoid the trap of getting into organisational psychology - its very different to consumer psychology (although obviously a worthy career in its own right.

Brunch with ABC's Simon Marnie

2010-02-27T13:09:00.012+11:00

Last Sunday morning ABC's Simon Marnie came over to my house as part of his Sunday Brunch series on ABC 702. Here's the link to the podcast, it's 30 minutes long so please find something to entertain yourself with if you chose to listen?

The actual concept of the show is brilliant (as opposed to this particular episode)- Simon goes into peoples houses and asks them to talk about their three favourite books, movies and TV shows. It gives a nice insight into people. Simon has been doing this as a radio host for 10 years. It also parallels what Sam Gosling has been doing at The University of Texas. They look at applied social psychology. Part of their work is captured in Sam's book Snoop, that tells you what your various possessions say about your personality (i.e. if you listen to Celine Dion you're likely to be depressed, and if you have sporting paraphernalia around your house you're likely to vote right wing!