We have a competition going on in here. Come up with a great idea that we can put on the ipad and commercialise within the healthcare sector and win the sodding thing.  We thought we’d extend it to everyone. So it’s simple. Send us in your ideas; however straight forward and the best idea submitted wins the ipad. The best way to start is probably to answer the question “what if you/ we could…” It needs to be relevant to what we do, supporting and communicating healthcare and medicines to people, but that’s as tight as the brief gets. We’ll do the judging, we’ll decide who wins, and the judge’s decision is final. Normal competition rules apply; see here for the legal stuff, names of winners published on request etc. Competition closes on the 18^th July so get those grey cells working.

To enter leave a comment here, or send your thoughts to beapart@hivehealth.com.

Competition rules available from http://hivehealth.com/privacy/

I can understand this portrayal of what we do as airy-fairy-nonsense. Last night I tried to explain branding to our old IT guy Tony, who errs on the side of functional to say the least.  He just wasn’t convinced. Despite wearing Nike, carrying blackberry, and swearing by Persil, outside The Blue Posts it became apparent that I was never going to convince him on any decision making other that rational. It was the source of some frustration and much cider. But then he loves Carling because its tastes better than any other lager. (A belief I am still staggered by)

Returning to the bankers, it’s possible the view of the man in the (city) street is of the Gucci loafer wearing, Hoxton types, designing for an hour a day in-between their table fussball games that they really object to. I think also it’s the thought of a group of individuals earning  ”footballer wages” (sic), miles always from any market forces that further angered these guys. These guys just didn’t get what it’s all for. Yet when you speak to them about ads – these seem to be a result of some higher power – that clearly has never been near to a fussball tournament or infantile hand shake.

We need to dissect the elements of creativity, how a piece works, which elements are working  which need work. Assessing ideas requires words borrowed from an emotive/artistic dictionary. Which is why a collection of (daft) terms surrounds us and why often this collection of terms makes very little sense to the un-initiated.  We are immersed in tone, value, emotion, function, all elements of an idea that does something to its viewers. Perhaps this is “not the sort of thing anyone believes for a nanosecond in the real world”. but it’s a reality of our life we need the words to do the job.  I have a feeling that these are totally important to us, it’s their public outings that tend to persuade non – industry bods that what we do is just nonsense. Looking around the 5,000 member Facebook group – “Don’t tell my mum I’m in advertising – she thinks I play piano in a brothel” perhaps sums it up. A good indication of the shame those in our industry feel. Perhaps?  Perhaps not?

Why we shy away from just telling it like it is I don’t really know. Basically all that stuff we talk is for one real aim – to better connect in some way with an audience. The creation of an idea is about savings, it’s budgetary. Really it is.  Whether you are a planner, creative or suit, the business is about efficiency. We just seem reticent to tell others that by doing it this way we connect cheaper. We find ways of developing  relationships with audiences and brands that would otherwise cost more. Agree or disagree, I am not sure why the industry continues to be scared of this – hire us we will save you money seems a blinding recessionary position.

Simple as that.

Ps. No rhyming slang has been used in this blog.

D: That ending. Were the giants really coming?

M: No.

D: I think they were.

M: It was the old bill. 200 of them coming to chuck him out.

D: Then why did the trees shuffle so much?

M: Maybe they were morris dancing.

D: It was the footfall of the ancients.

M. Gutsy scriptwriting. Ambiguous.
D: Raw.

M. All nature and roots. Rooster was the only one with roots, even though he was getting moved. He was immoveable.

D: He needed the giants to save him. He was human.  Couldn’t express himself. Couldn’t love his kid properly.

M: Limping around, cough getting worse…

D. Couldn’t jump Stonehenge.

M: Council says no.

D: He was losing hope in the end, bleeding away. As hopeless and human as the rest.

M: But bleeding like the lamb of God.

D: Rare blood.

M: Expensive. I wonder what type?

D:  Wood nymph.

M. (Examining his veins) Do you think my blood could be worth 600 quid a pint?

D: We should get down to the donor place.

M: Yeah, one lunchtime.

D: That needle is very, very large.

M: Square up to it dude. Be the Rooster.

D: Giving life to others!

M: Giving drugs to others.

D: They don’t give you drugs in the blood donor caravan, just tea and a biscuit.

M: No-one was coming to save him. He couldn’t walk away.

D: He would be toppled, break off at the roots. He couldn’t save himself.

M: But he saved the goldfish. And he would rise again like the lamb.

D: Restore the clean and green, like the poem.

M: Burn down the new builds. Call his mates over, drink more.

D: Ah, how beautiful to be English.

M: You’re South African.

D: People were attracted to him but they were scared of him.

M: Because he could tell the future.

D:  Then you admit, the magic was real.

M: Ambiguous.

D: Magic, terror, drugs.

M. Realism. Ugly. A modern plague.

D: Do you think they use the same goldfish every night?

But, on the upside, this emphasis on impact, interaction and beauty can lend itself to a more easily navigable and digestible information environment. For example, this. It’s a visual, interactive representation of the scientific evidence for popular health supplements. 5 minutes playing with this app reveals more about the evidence base (or lack thereof) for health supplements than 5 days on PubMed. And it looks nice too. I like it.

Last year saw me being surrounded by more art than ever before and inspired by some extraordinary artists.

Did you see the Antony Gormley exhibition at the Hayward last year? I never went in, but loved each walk over Waterloo Bridge, seeing another isolated statue hidden on a roof top. Inspired, we launched our first Web 2.0 patient site with a mannequin installation around the client’s head offices. Andrew has magnanimously offered to let us keep one here at National House. Thank you so much!

Lichenstein’s Pop Art inspired another great campaign. Characters whose communications were limited to thought bubbles, became the patient voice in the HIV campaign we built.

We’re now working with a famous animation artist in New Jersey – my favourite bit of the day is our lunchtime review meetings. It’s a true art-science collision project. Left Brain. Right Brain. Love it. Satiates eye-hunger like nothing else.

It features a lovely list for those of us who want to be more creative, in art, in business, whatever.

1. Ignore everybody.

2. The idea doesn’t have to be big. It just has to be yours.

3. Put the hours in.

4. If your biz plan depends on you suddenly being “discovered” by some big shot, your plan will probably fail.

5. You are responsible for your own experience.

6. Everyone is born creative; everyone is given a box of crayons in kinder garten.

7. Keep your day job.

8. Companies that squelch creativity can no longer compete with companies that champion creativity.

9. Everybody has their own private Mount Everest they were put on this earth to climb.

10. The more talented somebody is, the less they need the props.

11. Don’t try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds altogether.

12. If you accept the pain, it cannot hurt you.

13. Never compare your inside with somebody else’s outside.

14. Dying young is overrated.

15. The most important thing a creative person can learn professionally is where to draw the red line that separates what you are willing to do, and what you are not.

16. The world is changing.

17. Merit can be bought. Passion can’t.

18. Avoid the Water cooler Gang.

19. Sing in your own voice.

20. The choice of media is irrelevant.

21. Selling out is harder than it looks.

22. Nobody cares. Do it for your self.

23. Worrying about “Commercial vs. Artistic” is a complete waste of time.

24. Don’t worry about fin ding inspiration. It comes eventually.

25. You have to find your own schtick.

26. Write from the heart.

27. The best way to get approval is not to need it.

28. Power is never given. Power is taken.

29. Whatever choice you make, The Devil gets his due even tually.

30. The hardest part of being creative is getting used to it.

31. Remain frugal.

32. Allow your work to age with you.

33. Being Poor Sucks.

34. Beware of turning hobbies into jobs.

35. Savor obscurity while it lasts.

36. Start blogging.

37. Meaning Scales, People Don’t.

37. When your dreams become reality, they are no longer your dreams.

I might paste this into my NY resolutions. Beats the hell out of “go back to the gym”.

In is woolliest form prosumption is useful when we are developing materials for a sub group of consumers when you just can’t follow the traditional; write/art direct/code/build, test, review and rebuild approach. Whether than be for time or budget reasons.

Prosumption is the mixing of  consumer and the producer to produce a new hybrid – the Prosumer. In what (another new word for me this week) I now know to be a portmanteau – a blend of two words and their meaning.

Reading around what I thought was a new internet thing. I find it’s almost as old as Ian, and much older than I am. In 1972, Marshall McLuhan and Barrington Nevitt suggested that technology would drive the consumer to become a producer (‘democratisation of media’ -  I hear Gemma (AD at AMV) shout). In the 1980 book, the term was coined by a futurologist named  Alvin Toffler who predicted this coming together.

The approach results in individuals working together blurring the barriers, between need for something and capability to provide it.

The conclusion of much of this work is that once mass market saturation and standardisation have brought us all happi(ish)ness, the market evolves  to initiate a process of mass customization. Giving consumers exactly what’s wanted with the assumption that this delivers a risk free relationship and a guaranteed happy customer.

Pretty interesting? It does make you think that once we all have perfectly tailored good, where will we go next? Ultimate rebellion should see us go full circle and start buying goods at George at ASDA perhaps?

Anyway fairly standardised fingers are crossed here. We hear Wednesday this week.

PS. I am really trying to avoid puns in headlines. Really sorry.

When I get a week with more than a days worth of travel I make sure I have my bag (the new and awesomely well designed Eastpak Pacer available at their delightful Carnaby St. store) packed with a business read.

This week What Would Google Do? Has been my company. I think Google is probably one of only a few organisations we could seriously ask this question of, without answering; ‘be smug and self satisfied’. Its changed business, moved the rules of market places, and I hate the word but I think a paradigm has shifted. Ahhhhhhh!

Anyways, the book looks at the economy, demand and supply and the whole long tail economics thing that we are all familiar with. But the section that shouted out at me was a statement that has prompted something I think we might try.

Jeff Jarvis, author of WWGD, and made famous for Dell Hell, says that in this world of interconnected customers- kill your ad agency. We produce ads, so get your hands off that door knob and cancel the cab. I think Jarvis is referring to the behemoths, the ‘advertising is at the heart of what we do’, 30 sec TVC are the only love guys, you know square glasses and a 7^th floor pool filled with  moccachoccachino.

With this blood on your hands, he suggests re-engineering the model, (please remember to wash bloodied hands prior to handling models) and making customer service the only focus. He shouts at us to consider this the new marketing. For us to strive for the best and let the interconnected market place champion this awesome service. Let the buzz create and drive your brand. In a market where interconnectness is a bit wonky – then I guess you could encourage it. This is what got me thinking.

It’s a good read, I barely remember Doncaster, and it made me wonder whether we could create a way for our clients to assess us publically, after every job, so that we could share the real us, the experience,  and move away from the powerpoint us. Perhaps it could grow and all agencies could be part of this showing the experience of working with them.

I would love a point of view from anyone who uses agencies out there. Is this feasible? Would it be worthwhile? Could agencies bin their ad spends, and rely on a platform of service visibility?

PS. Want a real example of  this new interconnected world? Now this blog has been published, search for ‘Eastpak pacer’. I’m there – bigging it up  Google P1, 6 down. No need for an ad – just a quality product, provided faultlessly with me and my opinion. How cool is that as a demo?

These mornings are a feast of fun for us in the office, a usually calm, collected and considered Ian, can barely contain his overnight simmer. He positively is busting for a chat, and Jas and I can almost feel him ready to boil over.

Anyone who encounters Ian will know it’s pretty hard to get a rise out of him (I can lay claim to managing to do this almost once – in an incident, involving my 6^th Nokia N95 in 2 weeks and a pint of cider. Although Vodafone’s dismal approach to customer service is co-culprit)

This need for an outburst lasted all through our first-thing-Friday People meeting until he could take it no longer. No AOB? BANG. The topic of this rare eruption?  Innovation, advertising agencies, the nature of conceptual creativity i.e. the ability to do a different more connective ad, versus innovation – the ability to provide solutions our clients are not expecting. Jas shouted INCOMING and we all hit the deck.

What stuck me – is the clear struggle Ian was having with wanting desperately for the industry, or more specifically agencies to grow up and evolve and stop boring each other with tales of clients, late adoption blah, blah (anyone still awake?), With the pleasure he was getting from seeing innovation being falsely encapsulated by an obsession with the ad, what goes into an A4 page, and whether illustrative style, or a bloody banner can be seen as ground breakingly progressive. blah blah blah.

I think what we were viewing can encapsulated by the term Schadenfreude. In fact I know it is because I have just spent ten minutes on Google trying to spell it. I was eventually able to confirm this is the case and that the term definitely isn’t German for pork chop.

I think one could argue that Communications holding companies buy ‘established innovation’ i.e change that’s margin friendly. Be that agencies that show high levels of creativity, an unusual regional speciality, or  integration model. It certainly was the case with the three I have been under (although I can only speak for healthcare). Their model is set up to buy novel agencies at the top of their game, and make sure that they keep doing what they are good at, never deviating too far from a formula that got them purchased. No risks and certainly no investment without return.

I was told that the agency world’s approach to innovation was ‘bloody stupid’ by a clever  guy, Craig, I often sit  next to at the  Company of Cutlers in Sheffield. He put it a bit like this; his world; the stainless steel industry is split into revenue from commoditized and specialist products. And all the players in the market know this. (To me it’s a bit like artwork, design, traffic and the sexier agency products services). They know that the commodity business is always under margin pressure and threat (when was the last time a page of artwork cost £400?). And they know that the specialist products migrate to becoming the commodised ones (conceptual writers at medical writer rates).

Sheffield steels answer to this reality is to set up R&D, cap the maximum margin and devote the remaining resource to innovation, partner with academia and the great and the good to push constantly what drives ultimate value – providing services and products that are first to market. Find ‘unused to’ products that meet existing needs but do so either more efficiently or in better way.

Given this I couldn’t figure out why agencies don’t have R&D. Why don’t they someone tasked with research, with finding new ways of solving established problems.

Is it because 20% margin and 4 out of 5 on the annual review is fine, and innovation requires investment and less short term returns?