I was wandering around looking at the work at D&AD judging week when this one caught my eye. Even Stella Artois – known in certain circles as “wife beater” for bringing “rocket fuel” lager to the general public in the 90s- is getting in on public good branding.




At first sight you think that the brand is getting in touch with its old-fashioned self with the line “Buy a Lady a drink”- Port and Lemon perhaps? Half of bitter Shandy ? A Babysham? But no in fact the brand is supporting clean drinking water in emerging economies…who would have thought it.IMG_4494


I used to work on the Amex account at Ogilvy and during the 1980s Ogilvy and Amex invented many of the new rules of database and promotional marketing.

One of the perennial  winning offers was called Member Get Member– if you introduced five new members you got a case of wine. Wine was always the winning offer ( rather than whisky which also we tried out) because you could share the spoils with the friends you had introduced to membership.

I see this basic idea come up all the time in different guises. This latest is from Uber- who have come up with a fresh spin on it

BTW- feel free to use my code and get a free taxi ride with Uber

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 11.47.38


Got your attention ? I think that too explains why Rubens was so fabulously rich and successful in his lifetime. He pandered to most of the basic human drives in his lifetime. His paintings are the old master equivalent of watching one of Paul Greengrass’s Bourne identity films. All action. all of the time. Leaves you feeling slightly exhausted.Scan 2

Scan Scan 1

The thesis (supported by very a po-faced audio commentary) of the RA show is that Rubens influenced many many artists and so canvases by other are shown alongside to make this point. Well yes sometimes

But it was overstated and on occasions i thought that they were simply making a virtue of necessity- the RA did not really have enough great paintings by Rubens to go round. Rubens’ themes are explored by many other artists and so it is not so surprising that they reach for similar imagery.

Rubens’ depiction (shown in a copy by another artist) of a mass of bodies tumbling into hell reminded me of Jake and Dinos Chapman’s vitrines – but they did not get a mention. So once you play the game of influences you can end up anywhere – who is to know.



This presentation of old master art was so serious that i think it missed a simpler and larger point. Rubens’ was a great entertainer and he knew how to pander to the tastes of his patrons. He died rich. His art is second rate compared to Rembrandt – who didn’t pander to fashion and died poor.


Unknownis the title of a new book by Paul Feldwick about the history of thinking about how to create effective advertising. It is short, clearly written (as you would expect of PF) and full of fascinating stories.
Any one in the biz should read it.
Some of the things found interesting
Many people in the biz do not know this history.

Often this results in practices not being critically examined. “Creative briefs” (which most agencies use) contain phrases like “Target Audience”,”What is the single thing we what to say ?” and “what are the reasons to believe ?” that come from an era when people (Like Rosser Reeves) thought that we actively processed information and should be targeted individually  Two things.  1) We now know -thanks to Kahneman,Robert Heath and others- that a great deal of comprehension is rapid, instinctive, subconscious and depends heavily on context. “The Creative Brief’ may be mechanism we use to have a rational discourse about advertising so that we can design it, but in practice that is not how it will work when people see it. As important as ” the proposition” are creating associations that attach themselves to a brand through imagery, music,stories and characters.   A lot of people know this. But we engage in a “benign conspiracy” to let the creative people have their way. The ads may work but often not in the way we pretend they work when we are in meetings.

In recent years a lot of work has been done to prove that emotion and fame in advertising work better than rational persuasion (See Binet and Field excellent reviews of the IPA effectiveness awards). This has surely helped Adam and Eve sell their recent work to John Lewis. Rational folk (most clients who have to report to boards, also rational) now have an evidence based case for backing emotion and storytelling over rational propositions ( or at least ensuring that the propositional works is separate but integrated.). But in spite of this many persist with the old rationally based tools for developing the ads. In my experience of teaching this is because many time pressed agency executives have either not the time or the inclination to get acquainted with this large body of work from the IPA

The story I found most interesting is how the idea of advertising as rational and consciously processed came to be promoted by the likes of Rooser Reeves and acronyms like AIDA. It was a reaction against the toxic argument that admen were engaged in subconscious manipulation put about by a muck racking journalist called Vance Packard in his book The Hidden Persuaders. 

The 50s and 60s was a time of paranoia in American life and the last thing the admen wanted was to be associated with skulduggery- or a power that could be put to evil purposes. “Motivational Research” was hot in the 1950s. It purported to uncover our subconscious drives but it became a dirty word. The admen closed ranks and colluded in the idea that everything was above board and if any manipulation was going on it was just a form of creative charm magicked up by the creative teams.

Understanding that communication works in lots of different ways and that no one theory is complete is Paul Feldwick’s theme.

It is a good warning against endism as well. The arrival of a new technology or new medium ( such as the internet, or mobile or the Internet of things) always causes some pundits to announce the death of the old way of doing things and a new beginning with new rules.  Paul anatomised this mentality as The Year Zero Narrative and i have heard it a lot among digital folk over the past 10 years. It takes the form not of argument but assertion that ad agency people “just don’t get it”, that “people have fundamentally changed” and are “empowered” and so communication works differently. Now, I think that it is true that there has been radical democratisation of power that has changed the culture and context in which brands operate. Brands do need to offer value to “the empowered” more than before – mobile apps, good service, click and collect delivery etc etc. So there is a big change in behaviour and use of devices and services.

But this is not the same as saying that there has been a fundamental change in human nature and how we process information.

TV advertising is in rude health. Yet it is worth recalling that digital evangelists (about 10 years ago)  predicted the death of “Interruption” at the hand of empowered people using the web and the likes of Sky+ to avoid ads. So perhaps we still like well told stories with wit, characters and music and are prepared to entertain well designed commercial messages.

Calling this “interruption” was a way of dismissing it by giving it an unattractive label. It is an assertion.  But it is not an evidenced based argument.

If you believed the pundits 10 years ago  we should all now be suffering from a form of collective attention deficit disorder – yet we now like multi episode boxed sets. I have just spent several days worth of my life in immersed the world of Breaking Bad. Perhaps it is a reaction. All hyped trends have counter trends.

The Year Zero narrative also is practiced by people who have an interest in the dismissal of the established way. So the next time we read that everything has changed in the communications world at the hands of (say) mobile brandishing millennials or the internet of things we should pause and remember

1) The eternal latin/Italian question “cui bono?”

2) Nobody successful sold out a conference by saying not much has changed


The Ofcom annual report on the UK communication market  2014_UK_CMR 2 is a treasure trove of data

These data on the rapid growth of Tablet ownership – even among the over 55s- set me thinking about how it might change culture-rapid mass behaviour change normally makes waves





Some thoughts

Tablets-At last a device for pleasurable browsing

Smartphones are great for more functional transactions and checking Facebook- but not really for browsing. Laptops are seen by many as work tools. You wouldn’t really want to sit up in bed and browse YouTube on it. But tablets make the whole web experience more like the promise. Fast broadband means an end to irritating buffering and slow downloads at home. 4G, increasingly, delivers broadband on the move.

Multimedia online magazines- video with everything

You can see the signs of this future now. Online media brands (which may still betray their origins in print) are becoming multimedia brands for all ages. MailOnline is a good barometer of change: it has always understood that its audience is attracted by images and personalities rather than text and now most stories feature video too. Check out all their celeb stories on any given day and the team at MailOnline will lever in a video even if the relevance to the story is a tad tendentious. I reckon they fancy some of that pre-roll advertising that has done so well for Youtube (In fact Youtube call this trueview and argue that it is superior to pre roll as you choose to watch).

Youtube embraces all ages

Most videos on YouTube are still pitched at the young. But now Jamie Oliver is committed to developing his you tube channel – and he appeals to all ages from grannies to kids. If you want to know how to do something – from mending a washing machine to doing your hair in the style of Game of Thrones to making lasagna- then there is probably a video about it. Young people know this already but older people are learning fast.

Prediction:senior Zoellas soon

In just a few year mums and dads learnt to Facebook like their kids. I expect the oldsters like myself to start vlogging like their kids. Who will these mature vloggers be? The mums and dads of the new young generation of vloggers are candidates as are a whole host of well-known faces “off the telly” who are hungry for a boost to their career and profiles. Or it might be oldsters we have never heard of before – after all, 3 years ago Zoella was an unknown. Or all three.