Only Children Can See This Important Message

 This standout work shows you can be smarter and targeted in traditional formats in an age of digital engagement.

"ANAR Foundation manages in Spain the european unique phone number 116 111, to attend children and teenagers under a risk situation. On this telephone number, only for minors, they can find the help they need in a totally anonymous and confidential way. But, how can we get our message to a child abuse victim, even when they are accompanied by an adult their aggressor?"



This standout work shows you can be smarter and targeted in traditional formats in an age of digital engagement. I can't help but think Grey uncovered a powerful insight that told them that the people who need help most (children) could also help themselves if they were informed. Following that assumption, did they see the opportunity for advertising to become more relevant, even functional, by digging for a meaningful behavior change (self-informing)?

The Future of Purpose-Driven Brands

In the March 4 Advertising Age, Rance Crain takes aim at purpose-driven ads, speculating that the approach of some marketers like P&G and Pepsico have not seen a sales lift by doing purpose-driven marketing, and therefore, marketers should dump it. Crain suggests that selling has become too “tacky” and that being purpose-driven seems to assuage the guilt of marketers. He also outright suggests that the approach elevates craft over the sales department.

Now, having worked on P&G, Unilever and Pepsico brands in the past, and been subject to their brand keys, brand agency leadership models and so forth, I can objectively tell you that these marketers have never given up, not once, on the simple fact that they exist to sell products and that all of their energies should be focused on that. However, these companies are doing what they always do best--and that is to follow the consumer. Being purpose-driven is a good response to changing times because no chief marketing officer worth his or her salt knows they can lead the consumer purely by selling. We've seen the statistics--consumers (and employees) want to buy and be loyal to companies that care about their well-being. They want brands that don't ravage the earth's resources. They want to recommend and advocate for brands that properly position shopping and consuming as having consequences.

What Crain fails to do is to acknowledge that purpose-driven marketing is one spoke of a larger business movement that begins in the supply chain and extends far beyond point of sale into a company's over-all behavior in the marketplace--all with the aim of adding value. Look at it this way, if corporations are people under the law--then they better start behaving like good neighbors if they want to be a recognized member of a community. The shared value approach developed recently by academics has influenced Nestle to the point that they literally re-wrote their mission and are investing in the communities that produce their product’s ingredients. On the agency side, there has been a new crop of shops focusing on brands and social change, including a well-known PR firm has launched a global practice focusing on the field. And at my firm, for nearly 30 years we've helped brands tap into their power to improve lives. So we’ve witnessed firsthand the tremendous benefit brands receive when they create real change. 

Ask an advertising executive if they want to work on brands that inspire them and make a palpable difference. And you're not likely to hear back, 'nah--I just want to sell stuff.' The industry itself has woken up to the fact that advertising can play a bigger role in the lives of consumers beyond shopping. The 4A’s recently announced a contest to "advertise" the industry after research lead them to the insight that most consumers believe advertising has the ability, even opportunity, to change the world for the better. At the SXSW Interactive festival this year, no fewer than a dozen panels were focused on the intersection between social good, technology and branding, with the support of top brands, innovative start-ups and marketers looking for new techniques like the ones my panel presented on about how branded documentary and social storytelling affect change.

Crain's view will seem fair if you haven't seen the impact of a campaign that moves people to make wiser decisions about their health (the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids), or the lives improved by more conscious capitalism (1% for the Planet). It’s a view that proposes brands exist to do one thing, and one thing only, sell. We need more of the top marketers and voices of this movement to speak up and demonstrate that companies create value to consumers, companies and communities are not trendy, they are catching up with a consumer who is already demanding the best behavior of brands.

Joel's SXSWi Picks!

SAT March 9

1130am
Introducing the Giving Graph

Hilton Austin Downtown, Room 616AB

 

1230pm

Make Me Care: Digital Storytelling to Affect Change

Austin Convention Center, Room 5ABC

 

330pm

Al Gore on The Future

Austin Convention Center , Exhibit Hall 5

 

SUN March 11

 

GoodXGlobal (11am to 630pm, Austin City Hall)

On Sunday, March 10, 2013, GoodxGlobal will host a first-ever day of events at SXSW Interactive dedicated to the local and global power of technology for social good. Hosted at Austin’s City Hall, the inaugural GoodxGlobal will convene local and international nonprofits, social entrepreneurs and startups for a day of programming, while also supporting expanded representation from Africa and other developing regions.

Presented by the World Food Program USA, Social Good Summit Austin, United Nations Foundation and global non-profit tech company Ushahidi, GoodxGlobal will explore how both domestically and internationally, digitally and physically, innovations in technology are transforming the face of communication, funding and ultimately, the human condition. The event is made possible by partners Edelman and Constant Contact, with additional support from sponsors Water For People, EffectiveUI, ONE Campaign, DAI, GOOD, Lifeway Foods and Partnership for a New American Economy.
 

ALSO...

 

11am

Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business

Austin Convention Center, Ballroom D

 

 1230pm

 Cory Booker: The New Media Politician

Long Center, Dell Hall

 

1230pm

Behavior Change as Value Proposition

Austin Convention Center, Ballroom A

 

330pm

Big Data Democracy: The Rise of Analytics

Wanderlust

5pm

How to Make the Internet Care

Austin Convention Center, Room 5ABC

 

MON March 12

 

930am

Death by Demographics: Killing Off Your Ad Budgets

Austin Convention Center, Room 12AB

 

11am

Measuring Social Change & Media: Beyond BS (workshop, requires RSVP)

AT&T Conference Center, Classroom 204

 

330pm

A Conversation with Steve Case

Austin Convention Center, Exhibit Hall 5

 

5pm

Sparking Social Change with Content Integration

Austin Convention Center, Room 12AB

 

 

 

 

SXSWi - Do it like a local

For the 2nd time, Flow Nonfiction drops DO IT LIKE A LOCAL, a killer guide to SXSWi 2013, this time with special guest Top Chef Paul Qui!

Measure Twice, Cut Once

In an era of big data, its easy to lose sight of goals when you can measure everything. What data is more important? Which data drove the decision/purchase/vote? What was the value of the contribution? Were we effective?

Addressing these questions is more important than ever because its easier to falsely correlate success with other movements in the broad amount of data we can collect. And yet, we all know that clients are spending the least amount of their resources to measure. And we know that agencies are willing to get away with letting them. In fact, we don't want to know most times. Even folks doing long-term behavior change are guilty of this--saving lives is a great metric, but if you can't say how and why so someone else can replicate it or improve upon your strategy later, you're doing yourself a disservice.

I like organizations that get serious with the numbers, that resist the urge to sweep them under the rug, postpone the meeting or pass the buck until they get audited. New York's The Robin Hood Foundation has taken a ruthless, ultra-transparent approach to measuring effectiveness called "Relentless Monetization." Their aim is to spend philanthropic money (donations) wisely--that means correlating every red cent to a measurable impact.  And not sloppy metrics like "job saved" or "schools built." Nope, they put a price on success.

In a contrarian manner, The Robin Hood Foundation uses counterfactuals--that is they estimate how much good they could do without the help of the donations. In this way they are able to make more effective grants. A counterfactual thought occurs when a person modifies a factual antecedent and then assesses the consequences of that mutation. A person may imagine how an outcome could have turned out differently, if the antecedents that led to that event were different.




Michael Weinstein Counterfactuals Video from Robin Hood on Vimeo.

The Future of Planning is Behavior Change

So I'll let you in on a little known, but publicly available secret. The government wants you to change your behavior. Behavioral economists have heavily influenced the recent Presidential election in the US and even the UK's new government. But what behaviors? Well, there's voting, quitting smoking, paying your taxes, saving, and a myriad other host of societal issues that the government wants to nudge its citizens to do on a daily basis, primarily through policy and program design. Turning to guidance of behavioral scientists like Dick Thaler, James Fowler, Dan Ariely, and Todd Rogers, governments are re-examining how to use the power of our social connections as well as our own predicatably irrational behavior to influence us. No, there's no sinister agenda here, its basic economics. We don't save enough, we eat poorly, we buy things way beyond our means. Human beings are wonderfully, messily, inconsistent, poor decision-makers, and that's costing us and the government, a lot of dosh. So the search has been on to set a new policy-making path for government, one where they take a more liberal paternalism approach to our well-being.

This has enormous implications of course, for the field of communications and marketing. As a planner I've spent most of my career searching for elusive insights to inform storytelling to persuade people to buy things. Most recently, I've shifted my intent to focus on persuading people to do things for the common good--that is, I've added a social mission to my work. But I find that the old ways of doing my job just don't apply. I don't want to sell malaria nets. I don't want to sell you on the horrors of childhood obesity.  I don't want to perusade you to vote. I want to change your behavior, for the long-term.

Now, I've preached again and again to my students at NYU and junior planners, "it's just advertising, we're not doctors or lawyers or cops out there saving the world, so don't take it so seriously." But when you start talking behavior change, well, that's a whole other ballgame. Suddenly we have to seriously consider the messages we're making, the ethics, and the outcomes. I'm not alone in thinking that planning as an advertising discipline, is going to have to find a new basis in reality. Gareth Kay and Mark Earles are thinking the same thing. Its partly because the pseudoscience of advertising isn't working anymore, and its also because we've gone so far down the rabbithole, that there is no other more desirable outcome for communications but behavior change. You can only fix the "low-calorie" or "stain-resistant" or "finer fit" dilemmas of product advertising for so long before you become more concerned with the lives of the consumer than the profit margin of "extra-light" or "lightly-toasted" stuff. To put it simply, shifting from persuading people to changing their behavior is inevitable. And we're not alone. Companies and brands have done the math. Our western bad habits are making us bad investments. That's why the concept of "shared value" is so valuable to Nestle, and "performance with purpose" is getting Indra Nooyi's butt kicked on Wall Street. The truly visionary companies realize they have to change the behaviors of their markets and suppliers for the better, or those markets won't be around to sell to in the future. Its no longer us vs. them, but us AND them, that figure in their long-term profit projections.

While I can't say that this approach is right for every brand, agency or planner, here's the thing. I'd encourage you to put aside your Malcolm Gladwell for a moment and start reading the real work of practicing psychologists and behavioral economists right now. These fellows go deep, to the academic level, and they research, they test, and they learn, they also peer-review. No bit of thinking is guaranteed or fool-proof, but if you say your an expert at communications, you better damn well know how people behave and why. If you need proof that this is where planning is heading, go online and watch Rory Sutherland (ex-IPA chair, Vice Chair at Ogilvy). He'll give you a crash course if you stick with him long enough, and he'll lead you down the rabbithole to the great thinkers in this new area and endgame for communications. It may be years before we figure out how to use this stuff in our daily work, but it will take lots of planners at different types of agencies figuring it out, and sharing. So in that same spirit, here are some resources to get you started. Yeah, I know its a lot of reading, but if you're a planner that ain't no thing.

Nudge
The Victory Lab (and any writings by Sasha Issenberg)
Mindspace
Connected 
Judgement and Uncertainty
Predictably Irrational
The Paradox of Choice
Gut Feelings
Herd
I'll Have What She's Having
The Art of Choosing
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

And I've created an Account Planning Playlist here with hundreds of hours of video on the state of planning and the concepts behind behavioral economics and behavior change for you to browse.

I would be curious to see how CRM planners will feel about these concepts, after all, who better understands the application of the science of choice to advertising?

Social Proof Or Something Else?

Underpinning the powerful concept of Positive Deviance (a behavior change tactic), is "social proof," which works on the premise that when someone just like me does something, I’m more likely to try it myself. However, this video also demonstrates that social learning "cascades" quickly from a few early adopters to hordes of new dancers. Its like a trend curve come to life here (an example from a previous post). Why the cascade? Well, there's less perceived risk if everyone's doing it right? And the risk here is the risk of looking stupid, which clearly the very first dancer appears to be when he's dancing by his lonesome. But consider this, has the risk really been mitigated just because more people are doing it? Instead of one person looking stupid, its now lots of people looking stupid. But something changed, right? Something else has taken place when the cascade commenced and suddenly more and more people joining up changes the acceptability of the stupid action. The aberrant behavior becomes a new norm. Voila.

So what's my point? If you want to be stupid or brilliant or change the rules, find a few other people around you who are stupid too, and invite them in, the rest will follow quickly. You can't change the rules on your own, but you can do it with just a few fast followers. Conversely, negative behavior norms only need a few fast followers too before it cascades, so there's something to be said about the heuristic, "nipping bad behavior in the bud."

The Astronaut Meme in Advertising

In further proof that the behavioral economists and uber-planners like Mark Earls have it right, people are irrational, great copiers and rather unoriginal, witness the Astronaut meme circulating thought the collective unconscious of the advertising industry at the moment. There are no less than 3 major campaigns in the market that promise to send you to space, either literally or figuratively, from Toyota, Red Bull and Axe (Unilever).

 

But is there anything wrong with copying? Hell no. Its perfectly reasonable to spot a good thing and copy it. I do find it funny however. Lets look at when this meme has emerged. It comes when Obama has basically defunded and deprioritized space exploration in America, taken it private and dashing the hopes of young engineers in America. I mean lets face it, if you were a young girl, bright in engineering who had just finished space camp, would you rather be an Astronaut for NASA or an Astronaut for IBM? The meme also comes when American confidence in government, and major institutions of all kinds is at an all time low (see this poll). And it comes at time when technology has become commoditised, lowering the barrier on what's possible by the individual, not the government or collective.

The surprise of Felix Baumgartner's sponsored jump into space came as a pleasant surprise...Oh yes, I could go into space if I wanted to, or if I had enough sponsors. How capitalistic. The Toyota campaign however, seemed to talk to a spirit of self-reliance--and the practicality of choosing a RAV-4 when well, everything else in your life is going to pot. It's a "smart" wish at a time when we wish the world was more inspiring, predictable, safe, fun, well...just "more" of what's better than now (which is just a bit depressing). And the Axe ad campaign is the most escapist of all the fantasies. Axe will train you, then drop your butt off in space, presumably making you more attractive to women, a hero. Brilliant, if the world is beating you down and you can't get a date, here's a brand that can help.

One can't help imagine what the meme would look like if it were in the hands of a Chinese ad agency, or maybe an Iranian one? In fact, we have such an example, because surely China and Iran are doing just about everything for propaganda's sake these days. Iran just "lofted" a monkey into space as a prelude to their first human-manned space flight. Its incredible, its as if they're saying, we're civilized too, we can do it, just you watch. If you're an Iranian, its safe to say you're about as depressed as an American at the state of things, and so why not, space flight is a good fantasy to have as well.

What's absolutely interesting though about the meme and its circulation around the globe is the way it is entering our consciousness and playing out, revealing more about our lack and apathies, than our true hopes and dreams. Astronauts in ads or propaganda doesn't really sell the optimistic future anymore, rather it throws a blanket over reality, and perhaps that is where our marketing efforts should concentrate, not on bailouts or weather ballons, not on Sharon's EKG or Clinton's chances at running, but on the small, everyday good things that we can do in our lives, things that are already going well or getting better, that could use some copying, some meme-ing so they too could spread about the world and maybe show up in an ad or two. Surely ad execs can find some good real behaviors worth copying? It strikes me as simple, the planner and the creatives, didn't really work hard enough to answer the brief. They looked to the base qualities of their brands and the base instincts of their audience, and phoned it in. Well, maybe they 're as depressed as the rest of us.

Remarkable Times Remarkable Work

The last few days have been remarkable. We saw the second inauguration of an African American to the Presidency of the United States, the 50th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech, and the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. I'm quite proud to be living in these times, and working at an agency that has played a role in celebrating these important movements. Here's the trailer for a new campaign celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade for Naral Pro-Choice America aimed at empowering and recruiting a new generation of women to the cause. Its remarkable work by 40 great photographers capturing the faces and voices of a new generation.

For the full film and experience, go to Choice Out Loud.

Wardrobe Malfunctions and Obliquity

The other day I had a very important meeting with several CEOs who were tackling a major social issue together. I was going to share research that could really spur them into action. I went to bed early the night before, got up early, ate well, reviewed the presentation again. I was early to the meeting, and I wore my best suit. Just a few minutes before I was going to enter the meeting, I decided to hit the restroom...I wanted no distractions during the crucial presentation. Again, this was important meeting. Wouldn't  you know, but as I zipped-up my fly, the zipper got stuck.

Ok I said to myself, I did eat pretty well during the holidays, but this is a friggin Paul Smith suit, the zipper should work. I didn't panic, I tried to jiggle the zipper. It broke.

Ok I said to myself, the zipper's broke, but its not that bad, I just have to pop it back in.  I didn't panic, I tried to pop it back in but I didn't know how to do that.

Ok I said, I can fix this...I'll just calmly go out to the lobby, and ask for a safety pin. Which I did, and that's when the administrative assistant said the CEOs were ready for me. I didn't panic, I asked for the safety pin, retreated to an office figuring I had about 30 sec. to clip my pants. I laughed, "this is kind of like a bad movie, a funny bad movie." The safety pin was just to damn small, and "hmmm, why are my hands shaking?"

That's when I started to panic. I asked for and received a very large safety pin, which I clipped on, and looking down, realized that I looked ridiculous. I had made the problem worse because the silver pin might as well have been a neon sign pointing at my crotch. I started running through scenarios....
1) I could leave, just bail, there was enough coverage that I would not be missed, I wasn't CRUCIAL to the meeting.
2) I could go in without the safety pin, but how was I going to go around and shake hands with my fly wide open?
3) I could....

Just then my scenario planning was interrupted by the admin staff who suggested I try one of their loaner suit jackets on. If it was big enough, I could close the jacket and it would cover my crotch. Hallelujah it seemed I would be saved!

Ok I said, I'll try the jacket. Even though it ruined my finely English-tailored image, I was willing to compromise here. And now I was definitely late. The jacket was too small and didn't do the job. Now I really panicked. That was it, scenario 2, 3, and 4 were off the table and I was just going to bail. I sighed with disappointment. The very reason I moved to DC and took this job was to make a difference. I've presented to CEOs plenty of times before, but never on an important social issue. I tried to console myself with the fact that there would be other opportunities.

And then my pity party was interrupted once again by the admin staff with a suggestion. "Why don't you take your jacket off and hold it in front of your pants as you enter the room, and then just sit down quickly."

The simplicity of the solution was astonishing. I felt like as if a Zen master had rapped me over the head to achieve a moment of clarity. I thanked the admins profusely and entered the meeting all smiles. The meeting went well and I left later with no one the wiser except my colleagues and the staff.

As I sat listening to the CEOs debate strategy, I couldn't help but analyze my wardrobe malfunction. Certainly the episode had something to teach me. I realized that while I was bravely trying NOT to panic, to stay calm and rational, it was my own perceived rationality that was nearly my undoing. I kept trying to attack the problem directly even though I was unprepared to solve it. Let's see how.

1) I wasn't a tailor, and 2) I didn't have the resources, but I blindly kept trying to solve the problem on my own. 3)  I didn't really ask for help, when I did, I asked for the solution that I thought was right--the over-sized safety pin--and I was wrong.

It turns out that the best solution came when I gave up control over the situation and let others in to collaborate. Also, solving the problem required "going around", or taking an indirect route. And finally, it required native knowledge.

The admins in just two recommendations solved the problem. First the coat, then my jacket should be used to cover my wardrobe malfunction. In fact they came up with an even more elegant solution. When I picked up my folio, they suggested I just use that and keep my coat on for the meeting.They completely bypassed trying to fix the zipper itself. This is an excellent example of obliquity. Economist John Jay expresses  obliquity as the principle that complex goals are best achieved indirectly. 

"Obliquity is necessary because we live in an world of uncertainty and complexity; the problems we encounter aren’t always clear – and we often can’t pinpoint what our goals are anyway; circumstances change; people change – and are infuriatingly hard to predict; and direct approaches are often arrogant and unimaginative."

I arrogantly assumed I could solve the problem without the help of the admin staff--who surely must have come up against wardrobe malfunctions in the past. Whatsmore, the staff knew the layout of the boardroom and thus knew that I could enter relatively easily, with a very short trip to my chair to lower the risk of my inadvertently exposing myself. But I will never forget the turning point in my own behavior that gave me the confidence to go ahead with their plan. The admin said to me, "Joel, leaving may be the smart thing to do, but you'll really regret later that you didn't just go in now." The admin realized that I couldn't see the big picture, that the wardrobe malfunction was actually a rather minor thing, and easily solved. In my various attempts and failures, I was behaving predictably irrational and thus on the verge of depriving myself of a very valuable opportunity.

So, what are the lessons here that strategists and planners can take away from my wardrobe malfunctions?

First, if you are in the business of problem-solving, get help, its very unlikely that you're the expert, and sometimes you only have to look around to realize you're surrounded by experts with native knowledge based on prior experience.

Two, the best solution maybe an indirect one, where you attack the problem by NOT taking it head-on, but instead shaping your solution around the context of the problem instead of the functional mechanics of the problem.

Three, problem solving requires an objective outsider's POV on occasion. Rationality is subjective and while you may think you are providing a well-considered solution, you may in fact be behaving quite irrationally and need a reset (my zen moment). And that this is likely to come from someone else observing your challenge. This is a simple forest-for-the trees approach.

Incidentally, I did admit to being rather embarrassed about the whole thing, but not until AFTER the proper solution presented itself. Another indication that I was behaving irrationally--I wouldn't humble myself to ask for help. I believe this was because I was going into a room full of CEOs. What if it had been people with less status, say a room full of mechanics or the very admins who helped me? I think I was influenced by who I was going to see to a degree that I thought I would display the confidence of a CEO in solving the problem. You know, this happens when you prepare yourself to impress someone. You adopt what you perceive is their attitude and behavior a little. And therein lay my downfall, because no good self-respecting CEO would do what I did. They would survey the landscape, examine several routes before acting to avoid making the situation worse, ask for or command help immediately, and preferably from an "insider" with native knowledge. Or at least I LIKE to think that's how a CEO would behave.

For more on the principle of obliquity, see below: