Awesome, fantastic YouTube vid on the evolution of digital technology and its impact on people around the world. Researched by Karl Fisch, Scott McLeod, and Jeff Bronman. Originally tweeted by Tom.
I had originally planned to write my first post on Brands Among Many about college advertising curriculum and their lack of professional resources. I emphasized how colleges are out of touch and a 4.0 GPA coupled with leadership positions doesn’t guarantee you anything on the creative side of advertising and by anything, I mean a job. I also pointed out that there are vast differences between a business or engineering major and an advertising major.
In advertising, agencies don’t seek out interns, which explain why out of the hundreds of companies at a career fair you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single ad agency present. In addition, most of the advertising internships are unpaid- other majors wouldn’t even think of an unpaid internship. Lastly, schools offer loads of professional resources to help prepare students for every major, that is, except advertising. We have no idea what we’re getting ourselves into and truth be told, the college chapter of AAF only prepares us so much.
Aside from all these pitfalls, colleges offer an experience essential for art directors and writers. In the midst of homework or studying, I often hear students ask, “When will I use this in life?” If you’re a political science or english major, you’ll probably never need math. If you’re a business major, you’ll probably never need science. And if you’re an engineering major, you’ll probably never need humanities. In advertising, a well-rounded college education creates not only a large wealth of knowledge, but life changing experiences you can pull from when creating a campaign.
To excel in this industry, the best thing a college student can do is live it up. Go out to party on a Tuesday to see what type of people actually party on a Tuesday. Meet international exchange students and try things that wouldn’t normally interest you like a root beer pong tournament hosted by the fundamentalist Christians. Try that weird Korean restaurant named, Emo’s and go to the obscure foreign film playing down the road. Break rules, do illegal things, (I’m talking about stealing a road sign or something, not exposing your genitals) and play Edward Fortyhands. Take an astrology class, a yoga class, and attempt to take a chemistry class. I hate to sound like I’m preaching here, but step outside your comfort zone.
All this stuff is going to be beneficial. Heck, you can write about your cool experiences in your resume or portfolio. Anything to show you have been around the block gives you a leg up, plus it doesn’t even have to be advertising related. As long as you present your experiences in a creative way that shows off some chops, you’ve got a piece for your portfolio. These experiences will be essential when you’re interviewing and when you have to relate to the, oh so important, target market. It may even help you land a job with W + K via WK 12, an experiment disguised as an ad school, which recently accepted twelve grad students based on their unique experiences and backgrounds, not necessarily their skills. If all else fails and none of that helps you, at least you have a bunch of cool stories to tell people while you bag their groceries.
I kid, of course, so here are some pieces of advice to keep in mind if you find yourself at any generic university as an advertising major:
We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.
Yep, here we go again, quoting movie lines to make a point about branding. Hey, not my fault if Ed Norton has a way with words (Not sure what scene I’m referring to? Have a look here.).
So, the question is…are we? As marketers (advertisers, branding gurus, digital desperadoes, call yourself what you will) we sell ourselves on our expertise of many areas. Sure, we call it “marketing” or whatever, but when it comes down to it, we’re selling our understanding of human nature (psychology), our ability to tap into that in a manner that will gain attention (creativity), the potential of that message to have an impact on the people we’re talking to (strategy), our ability to sell our ideas through to the client (salesmanship), how well we can actually create what we’ve said we can create (production), and a slew of other bits and pieces that we encounter along the way.
That’s a lot of “expertise” – a lot of different minds – that comes together to be successful at this thing we do. That’s lot of points along the way for something, even the smallest point, to go slightly awry. It’s no wonder, then, that we might occasionally get caught up in our own heads. It’s easy for us to get excited and see the potential behind an idea that makes perfect sense to us, based on our background, but has little meaning or resonance for the “average joe”. It’s easy for us to get caught up in the excitement of buying back our own fat asses.
This begs the question: how much of what we do, especially digitally, actually reaches out into the “real world”? How many of the soccer mom’s in Wisconsin engage in the newest methods of digital communication – the mechanisms that we often consider the forefront of the digital revolution?
Consider this: just the other day I found myself explaining Twitter to a project manager at a popular traditional “hot shop” that we’re partnering with on a current project. If she didn’t know what Twitter is, can we expect the masses to encounter a message that we propagate using it as a distribution tool? Probably not.
Perhaps more importantly, though: do they have to? If the mechanisms that we’re using to reach the influentials are successful, does it really matter if the soccer mom hears directly from us? Isn’t that the point of targeting the influencers - so they’ll spread our message to the masses? Aren’t the social media tools that we use to spread our gospel really just weapons in our arsenal that can be used to reach the specific people we want to hear about our cause because we know that they’ll help spread the word?
Or more simply put, are we buying or are we selling the fat asses? And do we have the gumption to accept the voice of reason and understand when we’re getting caught up in our own heads? I don’t expect a simple answer. It will vary by company, by project, by client, by concept.
But as soon as we lose awareness of the question, we lose our ability to control the answer. And once that’s gone, we’re just another cog in the fat ass economy.
As I was writing up a post for our sister site, ThingsAmongMany this morning, a thought hit me regarding branded art partnerships and their prevalence in advertising…
The lines between art and advertising have been a blur for as long as either has existed. The cycle of one borrowing from the other, borrowing back has been a never-ending process that has spurred both amazing breakthroughs as well as bitter fights – just look at the popular case of Sony vs. kozyndan. But lately, the notion of branded artwork has made a jump to the forefront. Scion commissioned popular artists to contribute to their Want 2 B Square campaign. Microsoft has made similar efforts for their Zune and Xbox branding. A slew of other brands that seem to allude me for the moment have also jumped at the trend.
The latest I’ve noticed, and perhaps the best use of branded artwork that I’ve seen to date, is a recent effort from Green Works, a brand that creates plant-based, environmentally friendly cleaning products. Green Works commissioned British graffiti artist Moose to create a 140 foot long mural in San Francisco’s Broadway tunnel. The catch? Moose doesn’t work with the standard spray paints and wheat paste. His work is called reverse graffiti.
Invented by Paul “Moose” Curtis, a then kitchen-hand in Leeds, reverse grafitti is the process of creating artwork on a surface by cleaning it. Not quite clear? Have a look at Symbollix, Moose’s agency for creating branded works of reverse grafitti or watch this vid on the San Fran project:
Of course, branded artwork has a downside sometimes as well. It’s often considered “selling out”. It associates a brand with a specific artist’s work and often creates an image for the brand that it simply can’t live up to. Of course, those brands can afford to pay for that image and the artists are agreeing to its use (most of the time). What do you think? Should the trend continue?
Noticed a tweet by the crew over at Imperial this morning that stirred some thoughts:
Oddly enough, this short little statement does an excellent job of encompassing much of my interest and my progression through the industry (though slightly out of order). I started as a marketing major in undergrad, moved on to the creative side of advertising, and have now found myself inching closer toward product development as the opportunities have allowed (and hopefully will allow more in the future).
So the question, of course, is “what’s next?”…
As times have changed and the mechanisms for delivery have fragmented and spread, “the industry” has struggled to keep up. In my experience, the connection between strategy and creative is tenuous at best. So is the connection between creative and the medium. Add the prevalence of new technologies – both technologies that help the delivery of a branded message as well as those that help the consumer to avoid those messages – and suddenly it seems that “tenuous” might be a generous offering. Realistically speaking, we haven’t cracked the formula on the first three. But that’s never stopped us from jumping toward something new in the past, has it?
What will that be? I have no idea.
What should it be? How about working to perfect the understanding of what we already have?
The television-driven model is well into its death throes – in fact, it might already be dead if there were more openness toward embracing the future. It’s only our refusal to admit that what we’re used to isn’t necessarily right anymore that’s holding us in the past.
It is changing though. Brands are finally realizing that they don’t have to spend multiple millions of dollars producing television spots to see results.
Don’t believe me? Have a look at Kellogg who’s planning to cut commercial filming by 10-20% next year. For a company that makes 350-400 television commercials a year, that could cut as many as 80 spots from the production schedule in 2009 at a savings of $1M for every 3 commercials.
Product development is an area where most agencies are barely scratching the surface. Case in point: at my last ad agency job, I threw out an idea for a new package design for one of our clients that aligned perfectly with the 10-minute diatribe that the strategy team had just presented. The response:
That’s package design. That’s outside our pervue.
Um…NO. How is anything…ANYTHING…that has to do with the brand we’re working on “outside our pervue”? Until that mentality is shunned by agencies, product development won’t have a place within their walls. Instead, it will be pioneered by the small, seldom-heard-of companies that focus directly on that niche in the market. And they’ll have free reign until someone can step up to challenge them.
So, to answer the question…
Product development is a nearly untapped market for our industry right now. And it will remain that way until the agencies get their own houses in order. Until we can rethink the marketing and advertising sides to align to the realities of the modern market. And who will be king? The one who can do just that and then make product development a serious part of their repertoire. Let’s get now right before we worry about what’s next?
Fantastic list with an awesome story behind it to boot…
How to Work Better by Fischli/Weiss (1991)
“Taped to the wall of my studio is an A4 photocopy of a short ten-point manifesto by Fischli/Weiss entitled “How to work better”. I don’t know who put it there, but it has been in place for at least three years. It’s a tongue-in-cheek work using a motivational statement, which is a piece of found text they subsequently enlarged and had painted on the exterior of a building as part of a public commission. I sometimes show it to students at the beginning of slide lectures, and always point it out to assistants who come to the studio. I like it quite simply because it acknowledges their awareness of the idea of practice rather than production”.
via ego technique
Anyone in the creative communications industry deals with this at some point…
The brief has been boiled down to an actionable idea. The creatives have brainstormed, thrown away, started over, scribbled, and sketched until they’ve finally come up with the one: that “holy grail” idea. The sole response from the CD [after shooting down the last dozen ideas] is a simple yet resounding “Fuck yes…”
Finally, with a sketchbook full of elaborate diagrams (charting the sale of laundry detergent by connecting the Theory of Relativity to the Google Search Algorithm), everyone calls it a night, basking in the sublime knowledge that the tough part has been thoroughly dispatched.
But it hasn’t. The hardest part has actually just begun.
