Mad Men Against The Machine
Last month, I was on a panel at a FutureM "Flying Cars Are Here" event. I talked about robots, which in retrospect turned out to be surprisingly timely: that same week, AdWeek ran "Machine-Built Brands" and AdAge wrote about "Glitch in the Coming Advertising Singularity". The accompanying slides are on Slideshare and are also embedded at the end. Below is what I talked about.
Hi. I run the R&D practice here at Hill Holliday. It’s a really great gig because I get to read science fiction and think about robots.
I can easily name two reasons to turn to science fiction for insights.
One is that some of the kids who read science fiction grow up and go on to making things they’ve been dreaming about.
The other reason is that science fiction, just like advertising, reflects the collective dreams and fears of a particular era.
We fantasize about giant machines laying destruction on entire cities, or brains of metal that farm humans for energy, or a disembodied artificial intelligence that provokes a nuclear holocaust.
On the other hand, you have Rosie the Maid from The Jetsons, a show that launched right in the middle of the Mad Men era, the golden age of American advertising. And if there is one thing that Rosie can tell us about our collective dreams it’s that we really would love a chance to slack on our chores.
A New York Times spread from the early 1980s sums up the duties the humans have been eager to relinquish: "In the distant future robots may scrub toilets, wash the dishes, and mow the lawn. Made to order robots can already be adapted to serve drinks at cocktail parties or vacuum on their own."
Ever since the Mechanical Willie, a robot that Westinghouse unveiled in 1934 and that crooned in a “mellow baritone and manipulated a vacuum cleaner with almost human skill” – ever since then, the civilization has been trying really hard to stick the broom into some else’s mechanical hands.
The broom, of course, is both very literal and very symbolic, a metaphor for all the things humans have long sought to outsource.
A 1978 book called Exploring the World of Robots introduced the world to the "Maid Without Tears", but also mused about the bigger picture of the future where humans are being cared for by a nurturing robotic brain:
"The robot brain will suggest meals for the day. It will order our shopping, finding out from other robots in the local shows where the best buys are."
We wanted a machine that would not only wash our socks and do our dishes but that would also know us so intimately that it would relieve us from deciding which socks to purchase and what food to eat in the first place and let us, humans, concentrate on nobler pursuits.
If we look at our technology dreams that do come true, we’ll see that while they retain the core functionality, their physical appearance is often different from the way we’ve imagined it, dictated by what is commercially practical at the moment. We wanted a life potion and got pills and vaccines. We wanted a magic carpet and got the 31 inches of seat pitch on the economy class. We wanted a “Maid Without Tears” and got a Roomba.
We wanted a machine that would take care of our daily odds and ends, a brain that would help us navigate the abundances of capitalism. We got what we wanted.
Only instead of a white shiny plastic humanoid rolling around a house we got server farms.
We got hundreds of thousands of computers sitting in fortresses of reinforced concrete. They hum quietly and analyze every single choice we make so that they suggest something we are likely to enjoy even more.
What started with “if you like this book, you will love that one” a decade ago now spans a wide range of human choices, from running a family budget (oh, it looks like you are spending too much on food) to finding a life partner (“how about Jelly Penguins who lives 4.35 miles from you?”).
The machines gently guide you towards new restaurants, recipes, exercise routines, business associates, friends, dates, movies, music, potato chips, mutual funds and underwear.
There are many different companies carving out their own niches in the business of making recommendations.
One company, Hunch, has an ambition to help us make all of those decisions at one place.
And then there’s Google that, in Time’s words, is “a massive recommendation engine advising us on what we should read and watch and ultimately know”.
We, the ad people, used to be the ultimate recommendation engine, the ones who told others what to crave, what to buy, who to look up to, what to aspire to.
We told others how to think: Think Small. Think Different. Think Outside the Bun.
We were the ones who defined tastes and influenced choices.
And now all these recommendation services create an extra layer around customers, a cocoon that is becoming increasingly harder to get through.
This year, we as an industry will spend more than two billion dollars on “search engine optimization”, which is to say that we are paying a lot of money to convince the machines that what we have to say is what people actually need to hear.
Two billion dollars is the kind of money that can buy some 800 Super Bowl spots; that’s every single spot in every Super Bowl for the next decade.
And we’d better get used to it. The machines aren’t going away.
Over the course of several recent interviews [1,2,3], Google’s Eric Schmidt outlined the company’s vision for what he called a Serendipity Engine.
Search occurring in the background.
The machine learning from not only your active interaction with it, but also, passively, from your behavior, from the comfort of your pocket as you go about your day.
A brain that suggests what you should do next, what you care about.
Imagine a future, Schmidt says, in which you don’t forget, because the computer remembers.
Imagine this future, and then brace for it.
Study: 3D Ads Remembered Better
Make that ad really pop:
"ESPN used Disney’s Media and Ad Lab in Austin to measure viewer response to its inaugural 3D coverage. It was, for the most part, favorable. ESPN found that cued recall of ads increased from 68 percent in 2D to 83 percent in 3D. Purchase intent went from 49 to 83 percent. Ad "liking" went from 67 to 83 percent.-- TelevisionBroadcast.com
"We don’t know how much of this is due to the novelty of the 3D experience,” said lead researcher Dr. Duane Varan. "We tried to get around that with 2D... but we won’t know the answer to that for a while."
Airport Billboard Tires Kids Pre-Flight
A slowly rotating signboard for FirstBank in Denver airport lends a helpful hand to parents before a long flight by wearing down their kids so that they fall asleep sooner on the plane. Made by TDA Boulder, who just made another airport billboard for the same client equipped with QR codes that link to freely downloadable books.
TDA are the same guys who did this cool signboard that worked as a business-card sharing station for small businesses, among other awesome work.
Filing this under Billboards That Give.
The World's Most Postmodern Halloween Costume
Assuming an identity of a possibility to shape one's identity must be the most postmodern way to dress up for Halloween. Meet a Halloween costume that looks like Facebook's default user profile picture.
Jeep's Twitter Puzzle: Assemble Profile Icons Into a Picture
Jeep is running a game on Twitter and it's a nifty puzzle with a somewhat steep learning curve where you need to follow certain accounts in a certain order so that their profile pics arrange themselves into a complete picture of, say, a waterfall. If you want to play, you should watch the tutorial first and then roll back to the old Twitter interface for the whole thing to work.
If Your Agency Kicks Ass Without Market Research, It's Not Wrong
German Dziebel, a planner with a PhD in anthropology with whom I share a department and an office at Hill (as well as an occasional cracker) and who in the past worked at Arnold and Crispin, has joined the current round of debate about market research with a comment so interesting that I asked him to guest-blog it here. He came back with the thoughts that follow.
“All market research is wrong.”
"Is your market research helping you in achieving your end? If yes it's not wrong."
Behind this disjointed Platonic dialogue, there’s a tell-me-what-you-think-and-I’ll-tell-you-who-you-are situation. Faris Yakob is Chief Innovation Officer at MDC. He recently authored the first line. His detractor is an anonymous Ph.D. student in marketing. MDC owns a majority stake at Crispin Porter + Bogusky, which is the most profitable agency in the network. As an erstwhile planner at Crispin, I witnessed (and enjoyed) the downright neglect for large-scale, serious, quantitative and focus-group-based market research. As Alex Bogusky, borrowing from Steve Jobs, used to say: “Who cares about what consumers think. We should surprise them with innovative ideas instead of tracking their misguided accounts of their own needs and wants.” Well, I paraphrased and beautified it a bit but this is the essence of what he used to say. Colin Drummond, an average-size link in a chain of ever-changing heads of planning at Crispin, used to direct his department to a paper that once appeared in Brand Republic. The paper was called “Why Great Planners Have to Be Dumb.” Great is good, smart is bad. Most recently, Colin, now head of planning at Ogilvy West, tweeted about the new book “Proofiness,” by Charles Seife, that purports to expose, in a populist genre, the faults of statistics.
At that time Crispin’s planning department was 30-(wo)man-strong. So, here’s another apparent paradox: if great planners are dumb and all market research is wrong, why do you need to maintain as many as 30 dumb planners undoing market research? The answer is simple: to staff the brand-new name for planners at Crispin, namely “Cognitive Anthropologists” or “Cogs.” Cogs encompass traditional planners – those who renounced market research to fit Crispin’s culture -, social scientists – those who didn’t find work in overly populated academia – and investigative journalists – “investigative” not in the sense of bold, dedicated truth-seekers but in the sense of investigating consumer habits and writing about them without technical jargon. Again, “anthropology” (from Greek anthropos ‘human being, man’) was picked for its sound, not for its meaning and not by professional anthropologists but by advertisers seeking new ways to market directly to “people,” not “consumers” (Apparently, consultant Robert Deutsch, a self-proclaimed cognitive anthropologist with a background in social psychology, introduced the word to Crispin’s senior management.) Driven by a concoction of imagination, greed, boredom, lies, thrill and insecurities a new bold philosophy of planning was violently born.
One of the observations that I made trying to resolve the apparent conundrum of informed anti-intellectualism is that the denial of market research in theory and practice next to the adoption of an academic moniker “anthropology” accompanied the ascent of Crispin as the hottest ad shop in the nation. Crispin attempted to revolutionize planning by bringing on board practitioners who would gear research to the goal of changing consumer culture (note another shift from “market” to “culture”) around a brand by means of creating entertaining and memorable content, launching new technologies and experimenting with disruptive use of media. Re-positioning the planning discipline was a way to re-invent market research for advertising’s emerging new ecosystem. In the famous words of Red Queen from Carroll’s Looking Glass, “it takes all the running [read: market research] you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that.” (This principle is so great, it even made it into the book of evolutionary laws, thanks to Leigh Van Valen.) It involved a Dionysian influx of humanities and social sciences – bastardized but marketable – into what once was dominated by the Apollonian disciplines of psychology, communications and economics. In a surprising reversal of the Ph.D. student in marketing’s defense of market research, if the abnegation of market research helps you in achieving your and your client’s end, the all-market-research-is-wrong dictum is not wrong. It’s just a different way of using old words: not descriptively, but performatively (pace John Austin).
So, there’s nothing to debate – time to imitate and steal.
“All market research is wrong.”
"Is your market research helping you in achieving your end? If yes it's not wrong."
Behind this disjointed Platonic dialogue, there’s a tell-me-what-you-think-and-I’ll-tell-you-who-you-are situation. Faris Yakob is Chief Innovation Officer at MDC. He recently authored the first line. His detractor is an anonymous Ph.D. student in marketing. MDC owns a majority stake at Crispin Porter + Bogusky, which is the most profitable agency in the network. As an erstwhile planner at Crispin, I witnessed (and enjoyed) the downright neglect for large-scale, serious, quantitative and focus-group-based market research. As Alex Bogusky, borrowing from Steve Jobs, used to say: “Who cares about what consumers think. We should surprise them with innovative ideas instead of tracking their misguided accounts of their own needs and wants.” Well, I paraphrased and beautified it a bit but this is the essence of what he used to say. Colin Drummond, an average-size link in a chain of ever-changing heads of planning at Crispin, used to direct his department to a paper that once appeared in Brand Republic. The paper was called “Why Great Planners Have to Be Dumb.” Great is good, smart is bad. Most recently, Colin, now head of planning at Ogilvy West, tweeted about the new book “Proofiness,” by Charles Seife, that purports to expose, in a populist genre, the faults of statistics.
At that time Crispin’s planning department was 30-(wo)man-strong. So, here’s another apparent paradox: if great planners are dumb and all market research is wrong, why do you need to maintain as many as 30 dumb planners undoing market research? The answer is simple: to staff the brand-new name for planners at Crispin, namely “Cognitive Anthropologists” or “Cogs.” Cogs encompass traditional planners – those who renounced market research to fit Crispin’s culture -, social scientists – those who didn’t find work in overly populated academia – and investigative journalists – “investigative” not in the sense of bold, dedicated truth-seekers but in the sense of investigating consumer habits and writing about them without technical jargon. Again, “anthropology” (from Greek anthropos ‘human being, man’) was picked for its sound, not for its meaning and not by professional anthropologists but by advertisers seeking new ways to market directly to “people,” not “consumers” (Apparently, consultant Robert Deutsch, a self-proclaimed cognitive anthropologist with a background in social psychology, introduced the word to Crispin’s senior management.) Driven by a concoction of imagination, greed, boredom, lies, thrill and insecurities a new bold philosophy of planning was violently born.
One of the observations that I made trying to resolve the apparent conundrum of informed anti-intellectualism is that the denial of market research in theory and practice next to the adoption of an academic moniker “anthropology” accompanied the ascent of Crispin as the hottest ad shop in the nation. Crispin attempted to revolutionize planning by bringing on board practitioners who would gear research to the goal of changing consumer culture (note another shift from “market” to “culture”) around a brand by means of creating entertaining and memorable content, launching new technologies and experimenting with disruptive use of media. Re-positioning the planning discipline was a way to re-invent market research for advertising’s emerging new ecosystem. In the famous words of Red Queen from Carroll’s Looking Glass, “it takes all the running [read: market research] you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that.” (This principle is so great, it even made it into the book of evolutionary laws, thanks to Leigh Van Valen.) It involved a Dionysian influx of humanities and social sciences – bastardized but marketable – into what once was dominated by the Apollonian disciplines of psychology, communications and economics. In a surprising reversal of the Ph.D. student in marketing’s defense of market research, if the abnegation of market research helps you in achieving your and your client’s end, the all-market-research-is-wrong dictum is not wrong. It’s just a different way of using old words: not descriptively, but performatively (pace John Austin).
So, there’s nothing to debate – time to imitate and steal.
Filter Out Content Farms from Search Results
If you search a lot and are annoyed by the first-page prominence of useless but well-SEOed content farm garbage, Google Search Filter for Chrome will let you blacklist domains from appearing in search results.
No You Can't: Megamind Promo in Farmville [Screenshots]
DreamWorks has just launched a 24-hour Farmville promo for its Megamind movie scheduled to premier tomorrow. The promo unfolds along the scenario similar to an earlier campaign by McDonald's: the hero appears on your neighbors list, he owns a farm, and for visiting it you get two items -- a useful crop booster Mega-Grow and a useless floating decoration (McDonald's gave away a coffee speed boost and a decorative balloon while Farmers Insurance balloon prevented crops from withering). The "No You Can't" balloon -- a nod to the iconic Shepard Fairey poster and Obama's 2008 slogan -- is a nice touch that's also ironic in light of yesterday's elections.
As far as I can tell, nothing else on the farm is clickable.
Reuters says you can buy movie tickets from the promo; the link to the tickets is actually outside of the game area and it goes to a tab on Megamind's Facebook page.
Vintage Ads For Social Media
So, not only was there a cell phone in a Charlie Chaplin movie, but it turns out folks in the 1950s already had Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Skype if these vintage ads are any proof.
Scratch-Off Video Game Cards
TRSrockin.com: "Released in 1989, the Nintendo Game Packs was a series from Topps that consisted of 60 scratch-off game cards and 33 stickers from six NES games: Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, The Legend of Zelda, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, Punch-Out!!, and Double Dragon. Each of the stickers had a "top secret tip" for one of the games on the back. Each series of the scratch-off cards followed a particular game, with 10 cards per set. The goal was to uncover certain symbols while avoiding enemy symbols."
- via Vintage Computing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)