The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

We use acronyms like KOL.

We use words like synergy.

We use terms like transmedia platforms.

Why?

I can’t help but feel it’s done for one of two reasons:

1. To delude us into thinking we’re specialists.

2. To keep normal people ‘out’ of our conversations & inflate our importance & ego.

But here’s the thing, it’s not working.

Worse, it’s making us look like fucking fools.

If adland is supposed to be the bridge between companies and culture … the specialists who find ways to marry business need with cultural need … the masters of conveying emotion over rationality … how come so many of us express ourselves in a language that is the antithesis of normality?

But it’s worse than simply making us look idiots, I think it’s killing the value, potency and effectiveness of our entire industry.

I know agencies do it because they think companies want their partners to ‘speak their language’ – but in my experience, that’s not what they want.

The reality is we didn’t lose our seat at the boardroom table because we refused to speak in ‘corporate speak’, we lost it because we didn’t talk about their business, only their advertising.

I genuinely believe if we got back to communicating like ‘real people’, it would do adland the World of good.

Not just because it would remind us to always live in the World of cultural reality rather than marketing delusion, but because it might help business remember, recognise and fundamentally believe in our skills and value again.

While this has nothing to do with adland, I recently read an article in Bloomberg that – at least to me – highlighted how important it is to always communicate in the ‘real World’.

OK, so the person I am holding up as an advocate of conversation is an internationally recognised expert in his field, but my response to that is this might be one of the contributing reasons why that is the case.

First a bad example … an example that isn’t that different to some of the bollocks I hear from people in our industry:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

Seriously, what the hell is she going on about?

Fine, maybe people in her field might understand what she’s saying, but that doesn’t mean it’s right … especially when you compare it to the everyday language used in this quote:

Brilliant.

Clear. Consise. Conversational.

I’m sure you could provide me countless quotes where Buffet has talked in the sort of corporate bollocks I’ve just slagged Esther Dyson off for, but in this case – the way he communicates not only clearly articulates his point of view, but it gives you the impression he’s a real person, who understands real people, real issues and real ways to get results.

But more than that, because he talks in a way that anyone can understand, he comes across as someone you’re more likely to want to meet – which in our industry, is something we could do with a hell of a lot more of.

I continually say to people that we need to communicate – whether in the office, with clients or in presentations – in ways our Mum’s can understand and connect with because if someone whose always going to be more interested in what we say than the average person on the street doesn’t ‘get it’, then why the hell do we think the rest of the World will be interested and moved in our views either?

What are we supposed to be?

It appears – at least to me – that we’ve somehow positioned ourselves [at least to ourselves] as ‘the brains’ of our industry, relegating everyone else as bit part players in the creation of whatever genius we have envisioned is right to make.

That is scary for a number of reasons.

1. Being called a planner doesn’t automatically mean you’re the only person who has a valid opinion just like being called a creative doesn’t automatically mean you’re the only individual who can have a good creative idea.

3. Being desperate to be seen as intelligent, is the surest means of showing you’re not.

Of course there are plenty of other reasons, but all that aside, one that really bothers me is, like Picasso’s view on computers, we seem to have become a discipline that only operates in the trade of ‘giving answers’ rather than ‘asking questions’.

Yes … yes … I know many people will argue with that, claiming they ask copious amounts of questions to give them insights into how people think, feel, fear, love, want and do … but they’re not the sort of questions I am talking about.

What I’m talking about are questions that no one has the definitive answer to.

Questions that inherently have a massive challenge attached to them.

Questions that – if an answer was found – could maybe change the way people think, feel, fear, love, want and do … forever.

I appreciate this all sounds the sort of advertising ‘big idea’ wank that has made us the pariah of business for the last 20 years [mainly because what we often come up with are big ‘advertising’ ideas, not big ideas] but these are the sorts of questions great business people ask themselves each and every day … questions that are about affecting the future rather than reflecting the now.

Of course, whether a client would be willing to pay for such an approach is open to debate when [1] it has no assurance of success and [2] it would probably take a long time, if ever, to actually happen [3] most are only in their job for 2 years so only care about results they can take credit for … but I still naively believe that if you have the right client and you frame what you’re proposing as a business opportunity rather than an advertising exercise, then you might stand more chance of making it happen.

Please don’t think I am suggesting we suddenly stop caring about finding out what is going on in people’s minds and lives and become become masters of the philosophical question, far from it, in fact my view is you can’t ask a decent philosophical question if you don’t know what’s going on in people’s minds and lives … all I am saying is that if we only think our job is providing answers that reflect what’s happening today, we are undermining our potential [not to mention our colleagues & clients] to possibly influence and change what happens in the future.

Of course, the key is to actually do something with these questions being asked, as opposed to sitting there and talking about them – which is something planners love to do – and that’s why we should, ironically, look at the the people of the past for our inspiration, not just the ‘rockstars’ of the present.

_____________________________________________________________________

Sadly, because of the availability of such things in China, I have little option other than to pull out the iPad or Kindle, and that makes me sad, because there’s something I love about the physicality of a book.

I’m the same with DVD’s.

Despite having more computer data storage capacity than America at home, I still prefer having the original [or in China’s case, the ‘inspired by the original’] film or documentary.

I previously thought it was because I liked seeing them on display as it was a permanent visual reference – and reflection – of all I’ve discovered and been touched by over the years, and I still stand by that view, despite the fact there was always a bunch of stuff that I hadn’t got round to enjoying yet.

However I recently came across a letter that appeared in the UK Guardian newspaper that gave another reason why we shouldn’t be so eager to get rid of paper books and I absolutely loved it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to start a Paper vs. E-book debate because that would be as ridiculous as those TV vs. Digital debates, however too many people – especially in adland – like to dismiss ‘old’ simply because it’s old and for me, that’s as misguided as dismissing new, simply because it’s new.

Let’s face it, there are unique and specific advantages and disadvantages to most things in life [and that is definitely the case where books and ebooks are concerned] so any decision should be based – amongst other things – on ‘what helps convey the idea to the audience in the most powerful and meaningful way’ possible … but sadly, I don’t think that is always the case because I’ve met some people who make choices based on whatever is the new, new thing available for use.

And to me, that is one of adlands biggest problems.

We have seemingly become so obsessed with being associated with whatever’s being touted as the ‘next big thing’, that we will happily walk away from any effective platform simply because it’s not the latest thing.

It seems some don’t even care what that latest thing is, they just want to be linked to it because they think it makes them look – or feel – relevant.

Or cool.

Probably cool.

In essence, it appears they have stopped caring about being associated with creativity that infiltrates society and liberates business and just want to be seen as being on the cutting edge of cool.

I can only assume that because I got her to do all manner of “interesting” things in her time here, she decided to get her own back by asking me to answer some questions. On video!

Not only do I have a face for radio and ramble on incoherently for bloody ages [she only asked me 3 questions and I talked for over 8 minutes!] … she also managed to make me sound a lecherous old bastard at 1 minute 59″.

Genius character assassination, especially as I do it all by myself.

Anyway, if you want to see a video that makes the combined horror of The Ring, The Shining, 28 Days Later and Poltergeist look like an episode of Seasame Street, then just click on the clip below.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Probably around 3:30pm.

Any work that needed to be done has been finished and put away.

We’re watching a documentary or some film we’ve bought from the local dodgy DVD store.

The cat is asleep.

I’m stretched out on the couch.

My head gently resting against my wife’s side.

We’re probably holding hands.

Depending on the weather, there’s either a bottle of ice cold Coke Zero or a cup of hot coffee on the table in front of us.

At that moment, everything – and I mean everything – is OK with the World.

I like that feeling.