I don't often read Campaign, but this really sat nicely with my Sunday morning cup of coffee.
"Agencies don't often look for inspiration from pack designers. But the best pack designers are brilliant at making deft little regular changes to treasured packs so that, while never seeming to change, the packs never get any older. That's an extremely unselfish skill; they're not using the brand's money to say, look at me! But then the best brand custodians have always been unselfish people."
I brazenly tweeted something about messaging a couple of weeks ago.
And, probably rightly, Ian and Will called me out on it. Twitter's not necessarily the best discussion medium and I know this is one of those me-versus-the-world things, so I'll do my best to stumble through an explanation why in this post. Be warned, it probably gets a bit worthy.
I sort of have a problem with the word "messaging".
There's something about it that makes me want to brush my teeth after I've said it. But I feel perfectly fine about "message" or something much more prosaic and amateurish like "copy" or "the words". I'm not saying those are necessarily viable alternatives or anything. They just sit easier with me.
There's a couple of (related?) levels to this I think. The first is purely semantic. Messaging sounds like it was grown in a petri dish somewhere, contrived and grafted onto a piece of visual communication. It's one of those marketing neologisms that just feels too abstracted for my liking. It's not like you'd find one human being passing on "a messaging" to another. It's not The Messaging by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five. That would be weird.
Whereas message seems a bit more genuine, in a weird kind of way. And the others have a touch of naivety about them. They just feel more human. Of course, whether you call it messaging or a message, it's the same thing. I'm not kidding myself. It's still from a brand to a person, in order to stimulate a purchase or use, or to attempt to ensure loyalty. The only difference is charm, I suppose. Like when planners talk like people and not like a cliche of themselves.
Which is the neatest way I can find to bring me on to the other level. Messaging feels a bit like it belongs in the more we speak/you listen, disruptive world of advertising. Not to say the whole disruption thing doesn't still exist. Of course it does, it always will to some greater or lesser extent - it's just that we're better off aiming to engage as well as disrupt. Because there's lots of ways of having a dialogue or other interaction with brands. You don't need me to tell you what they are.
But I've still sat at a table in meetings where people say things like, "Then users do a behaviour." Which, while it doesn't entirely preclude conversation, doesn't really feel in the spirit of a value exchange.
If you're a brand seeking to join in a conversation I think it benefits you to think as human as possible. You just understand the interestingness or usefulness you bring to people better that way. It doesn't mean your brand is human...but it does mean it's something like aspiring to the quality of a fictional character.
For me, if your brand is trying to be as human as possible, the language you use in the planning and making of your product/service/comms really matters, because it reveals how you see your relationship with your consumers. And a trace of that, no matter how small, will be visible in all your public touchpoints. So to think one way and try to talk another doesn't really work.
Well, that's how I feel anyway. Down with messaging. Long live the message.
Because if The Specials had recorded a song called A Messaging To You Rudy, it would have been rubbish. *shuffles off sheepishly*
So this is something I think I've barely blogged about since I started up here about a year ago: the fact that I work for a charity.
This credit crunchy time is interesting for brands generally. And charities obviously get affected by people feeling strapped for cash. That £2 a month is one of the first things to go when you're trying to find savings on your personal or household outgoings.
But at the same time charities set out to have a positive, transformative effect on the world, so they need the support as many people as possible. So what can they do to ensure they take as many people with them to prevent cancer, save the human or end cruelty to children? I'm no expert, but I've just found myself pondering on this sort of thing recently. So here's my take.
First thing. An experience or product of some kind that treats your supporter like a consumer. Something that emotionally rewards them and virtually and/or physically manifests itself in the life of that person as an expression of your values and their relevance to them. Give them a platform to be themselves. I loved Adopt a Word from I CAN, for example. It gave me the chance to own something intangible, and spin out a few obvious material goods I could use to say something about myself. I know, it's obvious, but there aren't that many charities that do this.
Second, and more importantly, a big idea. Lotsofinterestingpeople are exhorting brands in various to stand for something bigger. And I don't see why charities should be any different.
How and why? Aren't charities already supposed to have a vision of something bigger? From what I can see, it's easy for lots of them to lose sight of it. Lots seem to confuse their cause (or maybe that's their day-to-day business) with the big idea that they stand for and defined them in the first place. In fact, they are often so preoccupied with talking about the need for support, they ten to express themselves in a negative way. They rarely talk about their vision.
I've been banging on to anyone at work who will listen how Cancer Research UK don't talk about cancer, because in people's minds, that's a metonym for death. So they do the opposite. They own the idea of life. More charities could do a lot better (I think) by focusing on the idea that's the opposite of the problem they set out to solve.
So (in my humble opinion) it's not the need to be addressed that should be at the heart of what they say. It's the belief in a better world.
Now I also know that some have repositioned themselves in interesting (and expensive) ways - but failed to translate the visibility it gains them into extra support.
But if those new creative platforms have created a much stronger sense of identity, can they really be wrong? Maybe it's the same old way they ask for support that's actually broken?
(Pic courtesy of this person.)
Scamp published something interesting earlier this week.
It's about how emotional advertising tends to be more effective than rational messaging. There are plenty of interesting presentations, blog posts and other opinion to be found on this idea. Like this, for example:
If you extrapolate from (or is that delve into?) happiness, and (fairly logically) end up thinking about interest and relevance, you get into Mark'sterritory too.
All of these things make excellent reading, I think.
I've just spent a couple of days in a two-day brand workshop with some big-name agencies who serve different bits of the business. And I have to say, I'm feeling disappointed.
True, some of that is about how I performed.
But I've been in similar things before and, by their nature, they can be a bit hit and miss. To be honest, I rate a lot of the creatives I met. They had some good ideas. I was more disappointed with the direction we received - in that it sometimes felt as though we were herded quickly through a couple of gates. Personally, I'm all for a bit of polite heresy, but it never really felt like anyone really said, "Astonish me".
So, all in all, I'm feeling a bit disillusioned. And I'm doing stuff to get my gaze off the floor. Another name change is clearly due.
From tomorrow, better new than never is dead. draw the line lives (for as long as it decides to).
I don't often read Campaign, but this really sat nicely with my Sunday morning cup of coffee.
It's a preoccupation shared by 
If you extrapolate from (or is that delve into?) happiness, and (fairly logically) end up thinking about interest and relevance, you get into 
