First let me confess unabashedly, that I am no Obamaphile and I am not at all moonstruck with Obama and his so called "celebrated by liberal media eloquence".
I supported McCain through out this campaign and I still believe that McCain might not be as silver tongued as the erstwhile senator from Illinois but he is a guy with a far greater depth of character.
Now, this is not to say that Obama's character is under a lens. Just that Obama is defined more by his vaulting ambition and elocution (you can read that as circumlocution!) than his character...
But Obama constantly reminds me that he is the kind of politician you can not ignore.
He comes across as intelligent, at times effusive but never seeming to lack a sense of purpose.
I have watched his numerous interview and seen him giving those speeches to throngs of supporters- and trust you me, it is very difficult to catch this guy off guard..
But I have always felt, that Obama diligently cultivates a kind of public persona that has often hidden Obama the person.
I am sure, Obama the person will have the same neurotic streak, same vulnerabilities and same insecurities that every human has.
And that is why out of all the speeches that Barrack has delivered, I really like the ones where he has spoken from the heart....(by the way modern historians will tell you that he is already the president who will go down in history as "the teleprompter president"!)
And one of these speeches he delivered at Philadelphia on March 18, last year.
Now, is that relevant now?
I think yes.
Race relations in US have the same complexity to them as Hindu Muslim relations in the sub continent.
And I have really loved the way Obama and his political advisers took these complexities head on and rather than carping about ushered in a whole new paradigm of political thinking.
They branded it as "post racial politics".
I guess, for a world that has gone younger over the last few decades but at the same time is grappling with never before seen problems like global warming, poverty and healthcare, looking towards the future and endeavoring to craft it is a better option than fretting over the past.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Great Idea- Open source code but with whom lies the authorship?
I have been constantly told a lot about the might of the media purveyors (both media content creators and media inventory buyers)and how this might is growing...
One of the oft discussed themes at most of the advertising and marketing seminars these days is how media guys are getting more creative, how they are literally encroaching on the turf of "the creative idea" and how the creative use of media is as big, if not bigger, as the Big Idea itself..
Some debates have a tendency to masquerade differently in different ages.
And I reckon this question too is not new. To me the Creative Idea is the central strategic principle that goes ahead and engages with the consumer.
The media environment within which this idea plays itself out is an executional element, albeit an important one.
No matter how brilliantly one crafts that executional element, it will continue to remain an amplifier, and never become the core principle.
And all this debate is akin to the old debate of what is important, the strategic idea of the execution of it.
I guess, that despite all the pushes of the panic button the creative agencies will continue to own the connection with the consumer, because they will continue to create the central engaging principle- The Big Creative Idea.
But, yes they would need to acquire a deeper understanding of how consumer process media content and information.
I envisage Channel Planning coming back in a big way in the communication agency culture.
To me this debate is reconciled by one agency called Crispin, Porter and Bogusky.
They have one great idea and they really merge it seamlessly well with their media understanding, especially new media understanding.
Some of the other most loved campaigns of recent times Dove, Axe and works by Fallon especially for Cadbury's and Sony also have the same lineage.
Just have a look at their work with Burger King, BMW Mini and Dominoes.
Here is something that they released last year and the work got recognized and awarded.
One of the oft discussed themes at most of the advertising and marketing seminars these days is how media guys are getting more creative, how they are literally encroaching on the turf of "the creative idea" and how the creative use of media is as big, if not bigger, as the Big Idea itself..
Some debates have a tendency to masquerade differently in different ages.
And I reckon this question too is not new. To me the Creative Idea is the central strategic principle that goes ahead and engages with the consumer.
The media environment within which this idea plays itself out is an executional element, albeit an important one.
No matter how brilliantly one crafts that executional element, it will continue to remain an amplifier, and never become the core principle.
And all this debate is akin to the old debate of what is important, the strategic idea of the execution of it.
I guess, that despite all the pushes of the panic button the creative agencies will continue to own the connection with the consumer, because they will continue to create the central engaging principle- The Big Creative Idea.
But, yes they would need to acquire a deeper understanding of how consumer process media content and information.
I envisage Channel Planning coming back in a big way in the communication agency culture.
To me this debate is reconciled by one agency called Crispin, Porter and Bogusky.
They have one great idea and they really merge it seamlessly well with their media understanding, especially new media understanding.
Some of the other most loved campaigns of recent times Dove, Axe and works by Fallon especially for Cadbury's and Sony also have the same lineage.
Just have a look at their work with Burger King, BMW Mini and Dominoes.
Here is something that they released last year and the work got recognized and awarded.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Ray Ozzie Wants to Push Microsoft Back Into Startup Mode
This is something that Wired came out with last year in October.
So why am I sharing this now?
For the simple reason that this is still very relevant..
Suffice it to say, that I simply do not agree with over enthusiastic screams that Browsers are going to be the next platform, that too at the expense of the PC (as a platform...)
Yes, the browser computing environment is richer and has really come into its own in the last three years, but I guess, consumers would still toggle between cloud networks and their own PCs.
Read on , lest I bore you too much on this...
Ray Ozzie Wants to Push Microsoft Back Into Startup Mode
Posted using ShareThis
So why am I sharing this now?
For the simple reason that this is still very relevant..
Suffice it to say, that I simply do not agree with over enthusiastic screams that Browsers are going to be the next platform, that too at the expense of the PC (as a platform...)
Yes, the browser computing environment is richer and has really come into its own in the last three years, but I guess, consumers would still toggle between cloud networks and their own PCs.
Read on , lest I bore you too much on this...
Ray Ozzie Wants to Push Microsoft Back Into Startup Mode
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, August 7, 2009
Insights and USPs-Is our consumer understanding configured by ultra-reductionism?!
I have been going through a lot of consumer facing campaigns off late.
Brand Films, Corporate Communications, Movie promos, Newspaper editorials and what have you....
A casual analysis of all those communication pieces that have been well received by the consumers seem to indicate that the way the consumer is understood and his/her responses measured is remarkably different than what s/he would otherwise want us...
Why do I say that?
Nothing disturbes me more as much as the penchant and this almost blind pursuit of some agencies for something that used to be a cliche and is now becoming a farce...
They call it "insight"
In the last two years I have had the chance of meeting and interacting with a lot of global practitioners of the craft of marketing and consumer planning.
Barring a few almost everybody is of the opinion that trying to pigeonhole all the marekting thinking as having emerged from an insight is oversimplification at best and irresponsible at worst...
I have personally looked at a handful of consumer categories, and almost all of the key Insight platforms have been taken by Brands..of course over the years...
Similar is the situation with this thing called the USP...
In an age of Brand parity, I find it quite imaginative when somebody tries to peddle the product on tha basis of a USP.
Yes, some categories by their very dynamics (consumer tech for instance, high end automobile for instance, for categories that are very much design led) can have a genuine product based USP every now and then...
Some people might turn around and say that emotional USP is still valid...
I tend to agree, but I think an emotional USP is better defined as "the unique POV of the Brand to which the consumer subscribes"
Brand Films, Corporate Communications, Movie promos, Newspaper editorials and what have you....
A casual analysis of all those communication pieces that have been well received by the consumers seem to indicate that the way the consumer is understood and his/her responses measured is remarkably different than what s/he would otherwise want us...
Why do I say that?
Nothing disturbes me more as much as the penchant and this almost blind pursuit of some agencies for something that used to be a cliche and is now becoming a farce...
They call it "insight"
In the last two years I have had the chance of meeting and interacting with a lot of global practitioners of the craft of marketing and consumer planning.
Barring a few almost everybody is of the opinion that trying to pigeonhole all the marekting thinking as having emerged from an insight is oversimplification at best and irresponsible at worst...
I have personally looked at a handful of consumer categories, and almost all of the key Insight platforms have been taken by Brands..of course over the years...
Similar is the situation with this thing called the USP...
In an age of Brand parity, I find it quite imaginative when somebody tries to peddle the product on tha basis of a USP.
Yes, some categories by their very dynamics (consumer tech for instance, high end automobile for instance, for categories that are very much design led) can have a genuine product based USP every now and then...
Some people might turn around and say that emotional USP is still valid...
I tend to agree, but I think an emotional USP is better defined as "the unique POV of the Brand to which the consumer subscribes"
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Taking Technology to Governance-Countries like India really need it.
Just recently, I was reading this report that posits that between 1980 and 2006, the productivity of American Businesses went up substantially, owing to the deployment of technology.
Now, it is undeniable, that technology has been the singular transformational force apart from globalization that has made the world we live in, so dynamic.
No wonder that after the enterprise sector, the consumers have cosied up to technology.
All this while, aware citizens would always question, why technology could not be applied with as much gusto to the government sector.
As Eric Schmidt said at this year's Aspen Ideas Festival, that he sees no reason why all the government meetings can not be posted online, with all the names of the participants, key ideas discussed and conclusions reached.
Everybody agrees that it will foster much needed transparency and accountability at a cost that is nominal.
What surprises me is that again the developing countries, (especially democracies like India) have lost the initiative to developed ones like the UK and the US.
Nevertheless, pls have a look that Tim O Reilly made at the same venue-they are calling it Gov 2.0...
Now, it is undeniable, that technology has been the singular transformational force apart from globalization that has made the world we live in, so dynamic.
No wonder that after the enterprise sector, the consumers have cosied up to technology.
All this while, aware citizens would always question, why technology could not be applied with as much gusto to the government sector.
As Eric Schmidt said at this year's Aspen Ideas Festival, that he sees no reason why all the government meetings can not be posted online, with all the names of the participants, key ideas discussed and conclusions reached.
Everybody agrees that it will foster much needed transparency and accountability at a cost that is nominal.
What surprises me is that again the developing countries, (especially democracies like India) have lost the initiative to developed ones like the UK and the US.
Nevertheless, pls have a look that Tim O Reilly made at the same venue-they are calling it Gov 2.0...
Aspen ideas Festival Talk on Gov20
View more documents from Tim O’reilly.
What do you want to be "Most Trusted" or "Most loved"?
One of the things that has occupied a lot of board room time, is the question that as a marketer where do I, peg my brand on the perceptual landscape of my consumers?
Now, research typically throws two kinds of options- Brands that are respected/trusted more than they are loved (they call it the "most respected/trusted brands") and Brands that are loved more than they are respected/trusted(they call it the "most loved brands")
But curiously so, it seems that a Brand can not occupy both these perceptual spaces at the same time...
Now, whys should that be so?
May be it is because, Trust and Love are two distinct values, at least in the minds of the consumer.
I remember having worked on Sony, with one Sony executive telling me that one of the global conundrums that the Brand wrestles with, was that despite years of bringing out good products consistently- products that were really ahead of the curve, consumers still thought of Sony as not youthful enough.
They trusted the Brand but in the list of most loved Brands it was still not up there.
Contrast this with a Brand in India- we have one Brand that has consistently being ranked as the "most trusted" and that is Colgate.
And I dont think Colgate executives have sleepless nights over this. Colgate to me is one Brand that has made a conscious choice to be on the trust end of the spectrum than on the love end...
But Sony and Nokia are different. In the last few years we have seen them consciously try to straddle both the spaces.
But I guess this ain's possible.
It seems that being most trusted/loved is the "accomplice of the market leader". Market leaders typically will be scoring higher on the trust and respect co-relates and challenger Brands on those of Love's.
This conundrum gets doubly complicated if the market leader has a huge heritage as well..
But what confounds me is that Nokia despite being a young brand, (I mean it really came into its own only in the late 90's) could never be as loved as say, Apple or Blackberry...
Just watch this video, Nokia thought of the Smart phone platform much before Apple or Blackberry was on the scene...but still user communities found the latter far more "cooler" and "loved" than Nokia....
Now, research typically throws two kinds of options- Brands that are respected/trusted more than they are loved (they call it the "most respected/trusted brands") and Brands that are loved more than they are respected/trusted(they call it the "most loved brands")
But curiously so, it seems that a Brand can not occupy both these perceptual spaces at the same time...
Now, whys should that be so?
May be it is because, Trust and Love are two distinct values, at least in the minds of the consumer.
I remember having worked on Sony, with one Sony executive telling me that one of the global conundrums that the Brand wrestles with, was that despite years of bringing out good products consistently- products that were really ahead of the curve, consumers still thought of Sony as not youthful enough.
They trusted the Brand but in the list of most loved Brands it was still not up there.
Contrast this with a Brand in India- we have one Brand that has consistently being ranked as the "most trusted" and that is Colgate.
And I dont think Colgate executives have sleepless nights over this. Colgate to me is one Brand that has made a conscious choice to be on the trust end of the spectrum than on the love end...
But Sony and Nokia are different. In the last few years we have seen them consciously try to straddle both the spaces.
But I guess this ain's possible.
It seems that being most trusted/loved is the "accomplice of the market leader". Market leaders typically will be scoring higher on the trust and respect co-relates and challenger Brands on those of Love's.
This conundrum gets doubly complicated if the market leader has a huge heritage as well..
But what confounds me is that Nokia despite being a young brand, (I mean it really came into its own only in the late 90's) could never be as loved as say, Apple or Blackberry...
Just watch this video, Nokia thought of the Smart phone platform much before Apple or Blackberry was on the scene...but still user communities found the latter far more "cooler" and "loved" than Nokia....
Are we living in the age of "Populist advertising"?
I understand that with so much of punditry that goes around in advertising, there might be passionate criticism about what I am going to write...
I am sure that everybody of us would rate Vodafone as one of India's most "loved" brand...and in the last few years that I have had my own interface with Indian advertising Vodafone (erstwhile Hutch) ads have been the most talked about piece of communication both with the so called, "advertising know-alls" and the common folks we label as "consumers"...
Now, some of the brands with an evolved sense of marketing, will draw a line between "being respected" and "being loved"...(More on it in my next post)
But, which ever side of the fence, one chooses to sit on, the classic principles of communication state that, any advertising must also position the Brand..
Yes, it has to be engaging and entertaining, but it must position the Brand..
And when I take this scale, some of the most loved and popular advertising does not live up to it....
The classic example is the "Zoo-Zoo" piece from Ogilvy. Great ability to bust the clutter, greatly engaging and yes tremendously memorable, but does it position the Brand in the consumer's mind? I am skeptical...
Having said that, there seems to be this huge paradigm shift towards this kind of advertising where the communication is one great piece of earth shattering entertainment...but slightly tenuous thrust on Positioning.
And I guess, if there was any one agency that kind of began this shift was Fallon London with its iconic Guerilla.
Now, some of us might turn around and say that Guerilaa did position Cadbury's as "the giver of joy" but I guess, this was done by the post buzz that the TVC generated rather than the TVC itself....!!!!
I am sure that everybody of us would rate Vodafone as one of India's most "loved" brand...and in the last few years that I have had my own interface with Indian advertising Vodafone (erstwhile Hutch) ads have been the most talked about piece of communication both with the so called, "advertising know-alls" and the common folks we label as "consumers"...
Now, some of the brands with an evolved sense of marketing, will draw a line between "being respected" and "being loved"...(More on it in my next post)
But, which ever side of the fence, one chooses to sit on, the classic principles of communication state that, any advertising must also position the Brand..
Yes, it has to be engaging and entertaining, but it must position the Brand..
And when I take this scale, some of the most loved and popular advertising does not live up to it....
The classic example is the "Zoo-Zoo" piece from Ogilvy. Great ability to bust the clutter, greatly engaging and yes tremendously memorable, but does it position the Brand in the consumer's mind? I am skeptical...
Having said that, there seems to be this huge paradigm shift towards this kind of advertising where the communication is one great piece of earth shattering entertainment...but slightly tenuous thrust on Positioning.
And I guess, if there was any one agency that kind of began this shift was Fallon London with its iconic Guerilla.
Now, some of us might turn around and say that Guerilaa did position Cadbury's as "the giver of joy" but I guess, this was done by the post buzz that the TVC generated rather than the TVC itself....!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)