Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Part 1

An edited extract from an interesting article in here on brand messages (for that matter, any message sent out) getting thru to or lost on the audience:

“…

So why do we say we hate so much advertising, and yet there are clearly ads that inspire us? Is it just a quality thing, or is there more to it than that? Partially I believe social media and the ready availability of news, views and entertainment has shifted how we categorize what we are seeing. Increasingly we consciously or otherwise and mercilessly sift the streams of all the content that presents itself to us into two categories: noise and signal.

SkipAd

Noise is the stuff that clutters up our day, that interrupts and annoys and where we see little worth. The ads…loud, imposing, uninteresting selling. It has many of us reaching for the mute button within seconds, or hitting Skip Ad as soon as we can on the videos we watch online…

Much is made these days of our shortened attention spans, and that our ability to concentrate is now 0.5 seconds shorter than that of a pet goldfish. That, some commentators rush to explain, is why marketing increasingly doesn’t work…

Signal is different. It’s the stuff, from a range of sources, that we choose to form an opinion over. It does more than inform us. It entertains or provokes us. It makes us proud or angry…increasingly it’s this content that forms our talking points on a daily basis through sharing, commenting or liking …examples: two babies bouncing on a Powerfit machine, Jean-Claude Van Damme straddling a Volvo truck, the latest Air New Zealand safety video, TED talks, box sets of our favorite TV series and so much more…Signals are what people share, because they’re made up of items that are conversation drivers, because we agree with them or not, because they’re trending, because they amuse us or they bring us together in some way. And the format of that content is becoming less and less important. It may be an ad. It may be an interview. It may be gossip…

Jonah Berger, in his book Contagious: Why Things Catch On, argues that we are drawn to what affects us and to ideas that we remember and that we believe others will be interested in. He suggests six factors: 1) Social Currency – we’re fascinated by things that are remarkable, literally, in the sense of worthy of being remarked on…They are only as interesting as their ability to rise above the surrounding noise 2) Triggers – this one will be no surprise at all to marketers. We like things that we can remember easily and where the associations are well known, because they act as shortcuts (acronyms) for life. You say “Kit Kat”. Everyone around you gets “have a break”…3) Emotion – similar to social currency, in that we’re drawn to things that affect us…The emotions that a group share around an idea—for or against—can be a powerful cohesive factor 4) Public – these are the ideas that are easily replicable and that gain strength as they are adopted. Think of the Ice Bucket Challenge. They work because they enable people to share in an activity and at the same time provide their own interpretation 5) Practical Value – this, says Berger, is the news that makes living easier. It’s why YouTube is so popular – simple, visual, practical and 6) Stories – again, no surprise to marketers. The power of shareable narrative is now well established. Increasingly brands are looking to stories rather than just “spots” to weave a longer more intricate view of why they matter and the value they add.

We all look at Berger’s list, and, four years on, I don’t think there are any surprises here. And yet turn on the television and in your average commercial break, it’s getting harder and harder to find advertising that has any of these qualities…There are very few good stories. It feels to me that brand owners have failed to see that they are competing in a new context, and that media presence is, by default, noise—unless a brand makes specific effort to make it more than that…

Part 2

Here’s a success story (in an edited extract) from our own backyard appearing in here:

Ever witnessed a television brand not talking about any impressive features – such as high-definition picture quality, surround sound audio system, movie theatre-like attributes – in its ad film?

Have you ever seen an ad campaign for a television brand where the protagonist is a visually challenged person?

Well, chances are you haven’t!

For the first time, Samsung has dared to take an unconventional step, and stirred the emotional quotient of viewers, rather consumers, with its latest ad film ‘#SamsungService’. The home appliance major has launched an ad campaign as part of its initiative to take customer service to the doorsteps of consumers, in both urban and rural India. (In October last year, the television manufacturer launched 535 service vans to ensure timely service to customers in the remotest corners of the country) … With this, Samsung’s reach will extend to customers in over 6,000 talukas across 29 states and seven union territories.

The enormous success of the film is owed to a taut narrative with an element of surprise backed by a fine performance of the cast. The new campaign showcases the journey of a Samsung service engineer, who undaunted by rough terrain, reaches a house in a remote hilly area to repair a television. The story retains a certain freshness and induces a ‘what next?’ feeling though this theme of bridging distances has been already milked by telecom co’s (and perhaps by a few others) some years ago. The film ends with the visibly content engineer leaving the house as the voice over is played, “Rishtey nibhaney ke liye kabhi kabhi thoda door jaana padta hai. Isiliye Samsung service vans jaati hai desh ke kone kone tak” (At times one must venture a little further than usual for the sake of relationships. That’s why Samsung service vans go to every corner of the country). A simple yet stirring message that we can readily relate to even outside of its Samsung context in myriad ways in our daily lives amidst family and friends!

The four-minute-long film, neither overtly mushy nor tear-jerking, which was released on December 30, clocked in a whopping 18 million views on YouTube in the first couple of weeks and 103 million+ views till date…Yes, a 4-minute+ clip in times when companies are struggling to achieve even a 15-to-30 second stickiness!!

Watch here:

https://youtu.be/779KwjAYTeQ

End

 

 

Credits: Conceptualized by Cheil India, the film directed by Anupam Mishra, and produced by Crazy Few Films. Dhruv Ghanekar composed the music, while the song played in the background sung by Mohit Chauhan.

Source: Articles from brandingstrategyinsider.com/2017/08/how-brands-can-convert-noise-to-signal.html and afaqs.com/news/story/49662_18-million-views-in-6-days-Samsungs-4-minute-film-gathers-digital-moss

 

 

Design Thought

tom-david-kelley_M2htHmH4m

 

End

Floods

End

 

 

 

Source: DumpADay.com

George Buckley

These words come in at a time when reality perceived to be very complex and no one claims to have all answers. Today organizations are said to prefer smart and empowered individuals homed in flatter structures to command-driven ‘tools’ embedded in deep hierarchies.

Reality is better served, one would think, by a middle ‘gray’ with a place, time and degree for either approaches..

Perhaps Buckley made the observation in a context that wasn’t included.

End

 

 

Source: managementtoday.co.uk

Sanmargam

unfortunately, remains unwritten. If only Lt Gen Krishnaswami Balaram (1927 – 2010) had put his pen to paper in his life time. Then as an army officer given to action and a practitioner, perhaps writing a book was not appealing to him.

BALARAM Report My Signal PVSM

I heard about him only a few days ago in my evening gup-shup session – an hour-long chit chat about this and that – in the park with a small group of seniors presently in US like me spending a couple of months with their sons and daughters. My source among them is S, a gentleman long retired from employment in the estate maintenance department at Kurukshetra University in Haryana. The anecdotes he shared with us about KB who was then the vice-chancellor of the university piqued my interest I decided to look him up on the net.  What I got was quite scanty. Not unusual – after…

View original post 1,151 more words

Some have all the luck!

China 1

2

China 3

China 4

End

 

 

Source: net

and the sticks too.

From Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by  Daniel H. Pink via Delancey.com (lightly edited)

 “…

“Behavioral scientists often divide what we do on the job or learn in school into two categories: ‘algorithmic’ and ‘heuristic.’ An algorithmic task is one in which you follow a set of established instructions down a single pathway to one conclusion. That is, there’s an algorithm for solving it. A heuristic task is the opposite. Precisely because no algorithm exists for it, you have to experiment with possibilities and devise a novel solution. Working as a grocery checkout clerk is mostly algorithmic. You do pretty much the same thing over and over in a certain way. Creating an ad campaign is mostly heuristic. So are designing new software, inventing new products…

“During the twentieth century, most work was algorithmic — and not just jobs where you turned the same screw the same way all day long. Even when we traded blue collars for white, the tasks we carried out were often routine. That is, we could reduce much of what we did — in accounting, law, computer programming, and other fields — to a script, a spec sheet, a formula, or a series of steps that produced a right answer. … The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. estimates that in the United States, only 30 percent of job growth now comes from algorithmic work, while 70 percent comes from heuristic work. A key reason: Routine work can be outsourced or automated; artistic, empathetic, non-routine work generally cannot.

“The implications for motivation are vast. Researchers such as Harvard Business School’s Teresa Amabile have found that external rewards and punishments — both carrots and sticks — can work nicely for algorithmic tasks. But they can be devastating for heuristic ones…

Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus. That’s helpful when there’s a clear path to a solution. They help us stare ahead and race faster. But ‘if-then’ motivators are terrible for [complex conceptual problems]. As experiments show, the rewards narrowed people’s focus and blinkered the wide view that might have allowed them to see new uses for old objects.”

…”

 

End