The best time for creativity.

A few days ago, one of our professors surprisingly stated that working in advertising is not exciting enough to grab you like it did to him back in the day. I brutally disagree. I think (although it may be a cliché) that this is the most exciting time to work in anything that involves ideas and communication. Call it advertising, branding, content, production, entertainment, digital engagement. Whatever. With the economy being what it is and "consumers" loosing faith in spending, the game just turns more interesting; we have to be smarter about how much we spend in advertising and communications, but we also have tools we didn't have before that enhance messages that go directly to the people we're trying to reach. We have realized that it's not only advertising (what you say) that affects a brand, but the way it behaves (what you do) is as important. Packaging, logos, store displays, retail architecture and design, web design, events, these are all things that are open for creative companies to concept around with. Twenty years ago you made an ad and put it on TV or on a national magazine to reach a small percentage of people inside a much bigger audience. Millions of dollars where unnecesarily spent trying to reach people by the frequency system. Today, nobody wants to spend that much, so we carefully choose the media that's most adequate for the idea and the brand, we make the media part of our communication, it plays a bigger role. So we don't create headlines or TV ads, we create ideas that live anyhwere. Like John Hegarty said when he was here last year: "The best media is the one between someones ears." And today's world enables the use of the mind so much better. You can't get away with writing a great TV ad and walking away like a super-hero anymore. Maybe you'll get an award for it, but you will do a better job when you make that TV ad make sense inside a bigger integrated idea.
It's a more interesting world, more complex, more options, with more chaos and less money. This is the perfect place for a creative mind to work in. I read in Time magazine this morning an interesting article about how with the end of ER this week we close an era in entertainment when big networks with big shows, big ratings and big money ruled. But it opens a door to smaller shows in smaller networks and cable, and this means better quality and filtered content, where your TV options are not only the big names anymore but you have the option of choosing your entertainment by what interests you. Proof of this is not only TiVo, cable and digital TV, but websites like Hulu.
This is the world we are living in today, and it's an exciting time to come up with great ideas for everything that can touch people's hearts and minds. So yes, this is something you can be passionate about.

Hola, hablo español.

Después de haber vivido casi dos años fuera de México y haber escrito este blog completamente en inglés, y después de tomar la decisión de que a partir de este verano me convertiré una vez más en residente de la Gran Ciudad de México, este espacio se convertirá en uno bilingüe. Todavía habrá posts en inglés pero empezaré a incorporar algunos en español y con temas más mexicanos (si, la política es uno de esos temas, ¿qué chiste tendría hablar de México si no hablas de su chiste más grande?)

Por lo pronto, ojalá y gane la selección mañana.

Why CD's matter(ed)

Last Sunday I heard a Depeche Mode song I hadn't heard in years. It was Personal Jesus. Yeah, I know, the typical Depeche Mode song, but nonetheless a good one.
The song triggered a trip down my memories to remember how I got really into the band after buying a CD during a trip to Phoenix when I was about 15 years old (I'm talking about a compilation, the original song was included in "Violator", 1990.)
It got me thinking on how the CD culture, or the album culture, something we are losing if not lost already, was an enhancer of people appreciating and knowing about music. I wonder if generations who start getting into music today will be as musically savvy as past, since they always seem to get a surface glance at bands by downloading only the songs they like and missing out on the album experience.
It got me thinking about how when I listened to the song I instantly thought about that Phoenix trip. Maybe I can't remember when I and where I bought ever album I'd ever bought in my life, but there's not a chance that I could remember at least when I downloaded a certain song.
It got me thinking about how because I bought that album I got into the band and went back and bought their past albums.
I am guilty. Up to this point I have gone mostly digital. I uploaded a large part of my musical collection to my computer and that is now my musical source. But I have to say, the album experience was an essential part of my musical education. And it's something that we cannot afford to loose.

Curious Enough.

I finally went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Maybe a coincidence, that same morning I had a breakfast conversation with a friend about how it's fine for some movies to just entertain. Not all of them have to be extremely artistic and not all of them have to be groundbreaking. Some of them can just entertain. Which is the first thing any movie should do anyway.

In that spirit I went to see Benjamin Button, and I enjoyed it. There's an interesting story (about a man living life from old to young) and there's good acting. Some might say it's a bit long, I agree. But the movie keeps the viewer engaged for the most part.

SPOILER ALERT- If you have not seen the movie, stop reading.

Now there's one thing that the movie is missing. A good ending. Or a better one. It actually has that better ending embedded in the film, except that it's not the ending.
Generally a good ending is based on the fact that the pinnacle of the movie has just happened. After that all you need is a resolution, and that can be as quick as Casablanca or as long as The Return of the King.
I think the ending in this film came when the daughter is reading the postcards Benjamin sent after he left. That was the most emotional part of the film. She's reading the birthday cards and you're seeing the images of him traveling around the world. A good resolution after that could have been when he visits Daisy for the last time, narrated by Daisy herself and finally ending with the fact that they found a boys back pack with a book that had her name on it. And we never see him as a little boy. Actually, that's when the movie lost me, those last 10 minutes of seeing him go younger. We know that, we know he's going to die as a baby, we might as well not seen that and end the movie at the pinnacle. With the boy sequences the audience cools down from that emotional moment. You can even feel it inside the movie theater, the way people react by the end and the feeling in the ambient is not the same as when that emotional moment happens.
A good ending is hard to get, and most movies usually have it in there. It's all about editing or knowing when's a good time to stop.

What I learned from Super Bowl 43.

There's a funny thing about the Super Bowl, it's the moment in which everybody seems to like and care about advertising. Not only that, but it's the moment in which everyone turns into an ad critic.
I've never been a die-hard football fan, I used to follow football much more about 8 years ago, but I still watch the Super Bowl every year. The only difference now is that I actually get to see the "famous" commercials, since back in Mexico we don't get to see the same commercials.
This year I went to a Super Bowl party. But it was a non-ad people Super Bowl party, which I thought could be interesting. It was. I could see first-hand how people react to ads. Real people, real ads. No over-analyzing, no judging, no awards, just reactions that take a second, gut reactions, which I think are the ones that count the most.
This is a dangerous thing, to see what people really like, and maybe even disappointing. You realize that they don't like the same stuff ad-people like, and they like the stuff that we would right away condemn.
Last year, the Brandcenter brought the people from the USA Today Ad Meter to speak, we all realized (and they made it clear too) that comedy is mostly what works at a Super Bowl. And animals seem to work pretty good too. Maybe it's the Super Bowl's environment (friends, TV, beer, guacamole) that makes people pay more attention and hence react better to funny stuff. We would say, "it's the same kick in the groin joke", and it is, but funny enough the Ad Meter was topped by an ad featuring, yes, a groin joke, which by the way was consumer generated. Now, I don't really want to get into the whole "shit, consumer generated advertising is better than..." because it's a quick judgement and even the idea of having a contest to make consumer generated ads to go into the Super Bowl came from an agency.
It reminds me of that FedEx commercial that listed the top 10 things you need to have in a Super Bowl commercial, of course kick in the groin and animals where there (bonus points for dancing animals.)
Everyday we break our heads thinking how to make things different, and every time we see something like the stuff that people like in Super Bowl ads we say it's all been done before and that no one wants to see it again. But in the end we find out that people do want to see it again. And here lies a dilemma, and I don't think we should keep doing the same stuff over and over, but then you realize what people like and... well, are we speaking the same language?


Here's that FedEx commercial.

The Jesus and Mary Chain reborn.

I have not made a post in over two months. It's been a busy semester. And I could not help writing about something this morning, even if it is a short entry (there will hopefully be more over the winter break.)
I don't know how late I am to this band, I have not been up-to-date in musical development in the last months but I just discovered how great Atlas Sound is. And from the fist moment I heard a lot of The Jesus and Mary Chain in them. It's worth giving it a try. If you have you can call me out for not keeping up, if you haven't, do so.

The many faces of irresponsability, part II.

A few months ago, right after Cannes to be more accurate, I wrote a blog entry with the same title exposing the oh-so-talked-about issue of JC Penney’s “Speed Dressing” ad.
Today, after the scandal, we are shocked (well, not really) again to hear the news about a Lion being taken away from TBWA/Paris for an Amnesty International print ad against the Chinese Government (Olympic themed.) The reason? Media buying. Apparently the ad only ran once, with the intention to be entered at the festival. Only that the running date was after the Cannes entry deadline.
Again, the issue of “fake” or “ghost” ads strikes back. Ads that are only produced to be entered in award shows. Agencies have been doing this for years, and now even clients do it. Cannes Lions 2008 “client of the year”, Procter and Gamble, has used award shows to test creativity. The ad dubbed “interview” by Tide (where a guy in a job interview is interrupted by a talking stain in his shirt) was a winner in the 2007 edition of the festival, and had a minimal media buy then, it was until it won the award that the client decided to run it with more frequency until it reached the Super Bowl and became very popular. Apparently P&G did the same thing this year with Crest’s “You can say anything with a smile.” Expect the TV ads to be seen on more popular media after they won awards.
The controversy around “fake” ads only gets worse. Leo Burnett India won a Gold Lion for an ad for a brand that wasn’t even on their client roster, Luxor Highlighters.
Is it enough to run an ad once in a cheap place where no one will see it to believe it’s legit and submit it to award shows?
Saatchi & Saatchi’s ad for JC Penney almost cost them the account. The ad was apparently made and submitted by a production company, Epoch Films, although it credited Saatchi people including ECD Gerry Graff.
How stupid are we as an industry (and our industry is conformed not only by agencies, but by third parties such as, yes, production companies) that in the middle of a credibility crisis from both the public and our clients, we play around with brands just to get an award. Gawker.com makes no mistake when calling advertising an "award-obsessed" industry.
The problem is that we let other people play with brands. In the Saatchi case, Epoch Films is a production company that has worked with them in the past. Probably at some point, either the director or somebody from the creative team had ideas that could “look cool” and not be presented to the client. That is, they're meant to be done for the following things: a) Use it in the directors reel/portfolio, b) Use it in the creatives portfolio, c) Use it in the production company's reel, and d) submit it to award shows. The latter carries a certain amount of risk due to client interference. Now there's two ways to deal with this.

1. Since most awards shows require "approval from the client" for every submitted piece, you can go to your client and say in a very political way, "look, we bust our asses here doing everything you ask us to do, and we have this ad that we took the liberty of shooting, it didn't cost you anything, in fact we split the costs with the production company because they really liked the idea, and we want to submit it to award shows, you only have to sign and run the ad once in the cheapest media space possible."
That client may or may not sign the release, depending on his conscience levels. If the client is honest and smart he'll say "no, stick it up your ass, you're fired, you don't give a damn about the brand, you only care about award shows." Which by the way, is what most clients think about creatives. The other type of client would say "what the hell, I already have you do everything I want, go win your stupid awards, I don't give a damn about them, go kiss each others asses and when you come back I'll have you doing the same stupid stuff that I've always asked for."
2. You can skip the client part, talk to a buddy at the award show or create some fake release form and "ta-dah", you've got yourself a shortlist and most likely a winner, because if you're going through the trouble of creating a ghost ad with no client approval it better be as good as to win something. Then you can have the bad luck Saatchi had when a little thing called YouTube spread the ad online until it reached some guy in Texas who works for JC Penney and went, WTF?
There's a third way, which is never to do ghost ads. But that's stupid isn't it, how would we get those awards?
Our industry can be hugely irresponsible, we play around with brands like it has no consequences. Whether we like it or not, when we are empowered with brands we are given a huge responsibility. And I'm not saying we should do what the client says, but we have to be honest about our job, which by the way is not winning awards. Awards should merely be a consequence of great work, not an objective.
Everybody has bad clients and everybody has to get through them, and a campaign that wins awards despite everything is a million times better than the one created as a ghost. It is a very dangerous thing that with the industry being so unpopular there's people gambling with brands. These actions have consequences.
There is light at the end of the tunnel, go trough this years Titanium and Integrated Lions winners. Go through the work of agencies like Droga5, Crispin, Goodby (who has the policy of not entering work to award shows), and others who care more about good work and less about Lions, One Shows, Clios, et al. Awards are not wrong. They are a necessary thing for agencies seeking new business and for creatives seeking career moves. But an award is no longer enough to judge work, it’s the whole story, where it came from, how it came to be and how it is delivered that matters. In the words of Mark Fenske “Our job is to make clients and brands famous for the right reason.”