Look at this:
Yes, it really is a notepad that is claiming it [1] uses future technology and [2] is the choice for tomorrow’s superstars.
Now while I appreciate it caught my attention, the fact is I look at the brand with distain and pity rather than awe and aspiration … and that’s because to make a claim like that requires either an element of proof or an element of tongue-in-cheek and this has neither.
The problem with planning is that if you take it to it’s logical conclusion, it’s job is to help brands fit in to people’s lives and frames-of-reference … which in some ways could be interpreted as being anti-differentiation. Because of this, planners are being encouraged to go to greater and greater extremes so that their creative colleagues [from an ad agency structural perspective, not an ability perspective] can do something that is interesting and imaginative.
Now I am all for creating work that is culturally impactful, provocative and imaginative – but without some element of anchoring [or, a tone that basically demonstrates you have let go of all seriousness] you end up running the risk that what you create ultimately distracts rather than motivates … and whilst some may claim ‘disruption’ is the key to creativity, I would argue that the goal of simply ‘standing out’ – whatever the cost – is not a smart strategy, but one that demonstrates an air of desperation.
I’ve never worked for TBWA but they are an agency I have always admired.
To be honest though, that admiration is based more on their past work than present – though there have done some stuff recently that I am very impressed with.
The point is, when they were at their ‘disruptive best’, they were never about pointless claims or over-promising, they were about challenging the status quo through better, more provocative insights &/or using alternative, provocative tones-of-voice … in short, it was based on smarts not shock and I can’t help but feel too many people have missed this point and embraced an attitude of ‘if it stands out, it’s OK’ and it’s not, it’s not OK at all.
The danger of post rationalisation is that people skip over the little things that shaped the approach – that went on to make the biggest difference to the thinking and the work – and so whilst I think planning and execution should always be imaginative, involving, interesting and intriguing … there’s a point where if the masses look at it and go “what a pile of bollocks”, it’s possibly more about agency indulgence than commercial brilliance.