Tim's posterous

Various thoughts on a life in advertising and marketing

Thoughts on Seth's "Defining quality" and the Paradox of Project Briefing

Today's post from one of my favorite thinkers hints at the Paradox of Project Briefing. 

(Mr. Godin is in a tight race in my mind with David Brooks' "The Social Animal.")

Marketers call on artists (i.e. Writers, Developers, UX specialists, Animators, Producers, Project Managers, etc.) to help promote goods and services. As Mark Fenske said, "Advertising is art in the service of business." 

Let's focus on the "call," the start, the point where the scope of the problem is defined -- before work begins.

This is the period of thrashing, of asking questions and more questions that the best practitioners do upfront. Because, in order to deliver quality, we need to determine what we all mean by the term. Godin's exercise gets to the point on multiple levels:

It turns out that there are at least two useful ways to describe quality, and the conflict between them leads to the confusion...

Quality of design: Thoughtfulness and processes that lead to user delight, that make it likely that someone will seek out a product, pay extra for it or tell a friend.

Quality of manufacture: Removing any variation in tolerances that a user will notice or care about.

Project Briefing often stumbles here. Are we to focus on promoting the design of goods and services, or manufacture of the same? Or if our project is utility, then the crux is in the design/archtitecture or building of the experience.

The paradox of defining quality, in terms of project briefing, is focus. "Ad clutter" might just as well be defined as marketers shoehorning Design and Manufacturing attributes into the same headline. 

Every project has a scope of work to be defined. Every project has a period of time in which the work will be produced. Every project has a budget. "Quality" then rests in what the project emphasizes -- Scope or Time or Budget. Which one prevails?

(Original link to Godin's post quoted above:  http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/07/defining-quality.html)

Google+ and focus

It is difficult to be all things to all people. 

It is difficult to focus, to deny options.

As Google+ expands, and millions of us complete yet another user profile, explore and muse its potential, I took stock of how I use the World Wide Web of things. 

I am not sure what I will use Google+ for, and perhaps that's the point, for now. 

Facebook has become really useful to me to celebrate birthdays, notice other people's humanity (or lack of), and get inspired. And it acts, in some cases, as a poor replacement for email. Facebook is not a business tool for me, yet. It constitutes a magazine of content created, curated and published by people I know and know about. Facebook is a pulse. 

Twitter, and to some extent, Foursquare, have become ego manifestation tools. And when I'm bored, they're not bad for discovering inspiration. For me, Twitter serves as a means of two-way communication only rarely, despite the utility of TweetDeck and Hootsuite. At times, Twitter plays a "pulse" role in my life but rarely. Facebook seems to have acquired that role, again, for now.

LinkedIn serves as a record keeper, a reference tool. It is almost entirely a business tool in my use. I like this focus, and appreciate the ways in which LinkedIn's content (e.g. employment records, referrals) and functions (e.g. "Who's Viewed Your Profile") insist on and bolster that singular focus. 

Neither Facebook, Twitter or Google+ seem likely to provide the platform upon which the next great book, movie or song will be created. Though, they'll act to promote whatever is created. They might, through the newness of interactive technologies, enable the next great experience (however you want to define that). I will be interested to see if and how Google+ incorporates YouTube. Seems like live video and events could turn + into something more distinct than another Facebook. 

At any rate, Google+ will be good for whatever we all decide it is good for. Our collective actions will inspire its inevitable focus. 

Prepping for ABQ: Start w/ Godin's "realization/opportunity" challenge

I recently accepted a speaking gig with the New Mexico Ad Fed for June 21. It's exciting to have motivation, beyond enthusiasm, to review and dissect all the insights I've accumulated in my Evernote and Instapaper accounts. We are what we read; we present from what's swirling inside us. These two recent posts (excerpts below) from Seth Godin act as an excellent diving board for my ABQ topic: "Today is the day." I'm going to talk about how marketers and agencies can staff, operate, compensate and produce more effectively, given the post-internet economy. 

Godin sets the stage, thusly:

The realization is now

...we're realizing that the industrial revolution is fading. The 80 year long run that brought ever-increasing productivity (and along with it, well-paying jobs for an ever-expanding middle class) is ending.

It's one thing to read about the changes the internet brought, it's another to experience them. People who thought they had a valuable skill or degree have discovered that being an anonymous middleman doesn't guarantee job security. 

The sooner we realize that the world has changed, the sooner we can accept it and make something of what we've got. Whining isn't a scalable solution.


As a small agency CEO, as an industry trade association president, I struggle with the practicalities of this changed, very current, world. What and who to value? Where to most effectively apply time? This age is a rush and a distraction. What it is not is what has come before. I know I can't manage my 15 people like I managed larger agency teams in 2000. They're too empowered, to begin with. (Which is awesome.) So, I'm past denial. I'm embracing the void. 

Godin suggests:

...Right before your eyes, a fundamentally different economy, with different players and different ways to add value is being built. What used to be an essential asset (for a person or for a company) is worth far less, while new attributes are both scarce and valuable.

¡Note!  Like all revolutions, this is an opportunity, not a solution, not a guarantee. It's an opportunity to poke and experiment and fail and discover dead ends on the way to making a difference. The old economy offered a guarantee--time plus education plus obedience = stability. The new one, not so much. The new one offers a chance for you to take a chance and make an impact.

I think the ability to experiment—with lower barriers to entry, with greater reality—is the most critical difference between yesterday's marketing marketplace and today's. We can more easily afford to fail, and ought to be encouraging hurtling headfirst all the time. The cost of failure is a lot lower than it used to be. 

Godin continues with succulent encouragement:

In 1924, Walt Disney wrote a letter to Ub Iwerks. Walt was already in Hollywood and he wanted his old friend Ubbe to leave Kansas City and come join him to build an animation studio. The last line of the letter said "PS I wouldn't live in KC now if you gave me the place—yep—you bet—Hooray for Hollywood." And, just above, in larger letters, he scrawled, "Don't hesitate—Do it now."

[Original link:  http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/04/the-opportunity.html ]

I'll post other articles in preparation for ABQ. If you've got connecting thoughts or observations, I'd love to have them. 

Thinking about Seth's post: Perfect vs. interesting

One of the reasons why Seth's observations have a lot more resonance today than, say, 15 years ago, is the (sudden) ubiquity of worthwhile alternatives.

Seth Godin writes:

Perfect vs. interesting

There are two jobs available to most of us:

You can be the person or the organization that's perfect. The one that always ships on time, without typos, that delivers flawlessly and dots every i. You can be the hosting company or the doctor that might be boring, but is always right.

Or you can be the person or the organization that's interesting. The thing about being interesting, making a ruckus, creating remarkable products and being magnetic is that you only have to be that way once in a while. No one is expected to be interesting all the time.

Fedex vs. Playwrights Horizons.

When an interesting person is momentarily not-interesting, I wait patiently. When a perfect organization, the boring one that's constantly using its policies to dumb things down, is imperfect, I get annoyed. Because perfect has to be perfect all the time.


15 years ago we couldn't stream any song we wanted, whenever we wanted, into a car moving at 80 m.ph. down the interstate. Or do that, plus map our position in real time using the same device providing the music—a device smaller than George Costanza's wallet.

Today you can form a corporation, build a retail empire and start taking in real money in mere minutes, from a coffee shop. (Why aren't you?)

The point isn't to fault perfection, or place being interesting over standardization. Perfection is just as necessary in the marketplace as Interesting. The point is, today, Interesting is much more viable than it used to be. Interesting can be sustained and find audiences much quicker and more easily than used to be possible. 

In many ways, it's maybe even easier to be more perfect at being interesting today than it's ever been.

SXSW, Part 1 - All Hat 3

Plenty of people told me, before heading to my first SXSW, that attending sessions was useful, but the conversations in and around the convention where what truly mattered. 

How true. 

A few days into this experience, what I remember most are the fruitful interactions with the gang I first met at Blogger Social 2008, or have had the pleasure of hosting for CATFOA in the Twin Cities. We are human, after all. Our evolution is not fueled by sitting in conference halls, necessarily. 

Many thanks to Richard, David, Geoff and the team at Chevrolet for hosting AllHat3—and for the chance to reconnect and refuel with so many wonderful people. 

(download)

Reaction to Seth's Blog: Making a straighter ruler

Today's perspective from Seth Godin is tricky at face value. He writes:

Making a straighter ruler

It's not easy. It's hard to get straighter than straight.

Over time, processes that seek to decrease entropy and create order are valued, but improving them gets more difficult as well. If you're seeking to make the organized more organized, it's a tough row to hoe.

Far easier and more productive to create productive chaos, to interrupt, re-create, produce, invent and redefine.


This reminds me of the 80/10/10 premise: For example, the first 80% of a task takes three days. The next 10% of the same task also takes three days. You've just spent six days. Now the final 10% takes an additional six days. All in, the task required 12 days with the most work focused on the last 10%.

If you're focused on craft or on process, that makes sense. It's about refinement. "Half of writing is editing," someone smart once said.

But Godin's last statement throws a wrench. 

Project managers, craftspeople and those in the refinement and repeatability/scale business aren't supposed to be interested in interruption, re-creation, and chaos. Or at least, not interested in the stereotypical definitions.

Within the microcosm of that last 10% lies opportunity, not just the shackles of staying on task. It is artistry with the finer brush, the sharper tip. Another way of interpreting Godin's point is to maintain a spirit of inspiration to the end, especially in the difficult last 10% of the task.

The most important question

Why?

Why are we funding this project?

Why are we having this meeting?

Why does the product have to ship on the 23rd?

Why must we build this site in PHP?

Why am I angry about what they just said?

Why is "Why?" the most important question?

Because it opens doors. 

Asking "Why?" extends opportunity.

I saw this happen tonight, during Everyday Improv IV class at the Brave New Institute. (I highly recommend enrolling there, by the way. The faculty is smart, classes are provocative and you walk away with useful insight.)

Over and above the balance of elements you control in any improv scene...

~ Emotions (yours and the other actor's)
~ Context
~ Physical action
~ Dialogue 

...sits the powerful fuel of "Why?" 

Asking "Why?" insists exploration occur—to provide a possible response, a course of action.

And for that reason asking "Why?" offers hope—because the conversation, the scene, your thought process must take at least one more step, leap or turn.

Asking "Why?" shows respect—by way of acknowledging what is, what has just been said.

So asking "Why?" can build trust—by way of demonstrating listening while seeking further illumination.

Every business meeting ought to begin with "Why?" If you could only have one question answered in a creative briefing it should be "Why?" The biggest challenge to composing a business plan that propels the idea forward is "Why?" 

When in doubt; When bored; When excited; When repulsed; When furious—open more doors, give yourself the gift of opportunity. 

Ask "Why?"

Why ad campaigns are always finite

A few weeks ago Ana Andjelic came to Minneapolis as the first speaker in the 2011 edition of the Conversations About The Future Of Advertising speaker-series. (You can watch her presentation here.) At dinner afterwards, we began wondering about the foundations behind "finite" ad campaigns. In some circles, the very word campaign is dead because it connotes less than conversational practice.

Why are advertising campaigns still constructed, staffed and delivered in finite terms if the future of advertising and marketing hinges on conversation? On interaction? On relationships?

Maybe it's as simple as this:

>Federal law and accounting practices require corporations to account for operating expenses (e.g., marketing) at least annually

>> Just as shareholders expect annual returns (and devour reporting by the second)

>>> Therefore, marketing budgets are allocated annually

>>>> So, contracts between agencies and marketers are most often defined with very specific definitions of time, roles and deliverables

>>>>> Meanwhile, media budgets are fixed to specific time periods with an end date 

and

>>>>>> Agency employee salaries and benefits are defined on an annual basis.

{Is it any wonder} 
why we default to finite practices when budgeting, staffing and producing advertising campaigns?

We aspire for the ideal, un-ending definitions of conversation and interaction but structure all the arrangements in rigid terms.

{A possible solution} 
might evolve from the realm of budgeting and planning used in the old Hollywood Studio model, where talent was paid to be "on call" — as well as from the customer service call-center model which exists for the purpose of waiting for conversations which might never happen. 

Both examples were and are accounted for annually, of course, and definitely work towards measurable results — but also operate with the assumption that money will sometimes be spent when nothing happens, and that's okay. 

A winter day in Minneapolis - City of Lakes Loppet

If you've got ice, make sculpture. Or at the very least, ski on it. I took a stroll on Lake of the Isles today while they prepare for and run time trials for the City of Lakes Loppet--an annual cross country ski race with the requisite juried snow sculpture competition. What? Your city doesn't celebrate the cold like this?

(download)

RE: Inglorious Basterds Film Clapper Outtakes by Geraldine Brezca

"Something that makes a great film into legend is when time reveals layers of entertaining stories behind the filmmaking..."
via laughingsquid.com

I paid my $8 to see Inglorious Basterds in the theater -- money entirely well spent. 

What likely sustains this great film, however, is something as commonplace as the act of announcing each take for editorial continuity. 

As Peter Sciretta explains at Slashfilm, "the clapboard operator usually employs the International Radio Operator Alphabet (example, scene 21a would be “scene twenty one alpha” and scene 140c would be “Scene One Forty Charlie”)" to organize or "slate" each take. Film editors refer to this information to organize hours of potential footage. 

On set, this act is as routine as to be an almost inconvenience. Yet Director Quentin Tarantino's 2nd AC and Clapboard/Slate operator, Geraldine Brezca, brings her own character to the task -- ultimately elevating a routine work process to something worthy of its own DVD chapter and who knows how many online posts like this one.

The lesson? 

Don't just assume the act of making the film/product/service is enough. Make the act of making the film/product/service worthy of consideration much later down the road, sustaining the value of the effort.

(By the way, that's infamous Director of Photography Bob Richardson with the white hair, not Geraldine.)

"45 Kaboom!"