There’s a primary school rule that haunts every copywriter I’ve ever met.

It makes us tear out our hair in debriefs, bang our heads against the table in meetings and, worst of all, bore our art directors to tears with passionate rants about language.

The rule is this: “Never start a sentence with and.”

Here’s a fun thing to do.

Read that rule, out loud, to a copywriter near you. Watch as their eyes roll towards heaven, their face reddens and they start furiously defending and. It really is the single most frustrating thing you can say to a writer.

See, copywriters write to sell.

We’re not putting together a formal business proposal, writing a thesis or doing a Grade 2 test where it would be inappropriate to start (or end) with and.

We’re writing to convince someone to take action – whether it’s to buy a can of soup, vote Green or take out a home loan. In this environment, starting with and is one of the most powerful ways to add drama to our writing. And emphasis.

And pacing.

There’s no word like it for really adding some punch to your writing or making the important bits really stand out.

Actually, until this morning I thought it was the rule itself that was incorrect (or just old fashioned), but it turns out I’d simply forgotten the definition of a sentence. If Grade 2 is as far back for you as it is for me, here’s a refresher:

A sentence is a group of words that includes a subject and a verb and expresses a complete idea.

So truth is, we’re technically not breaking any school rules by starting with and. Because the ’sentences’ that start with and, but or because are not strictly sentences. They rely on you having read something before them. They don’t express a complete thought. So they’re just phrases.

And there’s no rule (Grade 2 or otherwise) that says you can’t start a phrase with and.

xk

Like this piece? Think Kate’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing her here

If you’ve ever had a chat with a 5-year old, you’d have noticed they ask ‘why’ a hell of a lot.

Why is the sky blue?
Why don’t plants have eyes?
Why is that dog sniffing that other dog’s butt?

So perhaps I never grew up, because whenever I hear a marketing ‘must-do’, the first thing I ask is why.

Take ‘the power of integration’ for example. We all bang on about it, but why is it so important.

A text book (or your boss) would define integrated marketing as:

A data-driven approach that focuses on identifying consumer insights and developing a strategy with the right mix of channels to forge a stronger brand-consumer relationship.

Yawn.

Much more exciting to look at the ‘why’.

Let’s start with a snapshot of the science that sits behind the method.

It’s called the multiplier effect.

Simply put, when your target market sees, hears and interacts with a campaign in multiple channels, the impact of your message intensifies. So they understand it quicker and in greater depth.

The old adage ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ has been debunked by psychologists.

In fact, it’s just the opposite. We not only pay more attention to a message or brand the more we see it, we become predisposed to like it. So show your audience the television commercial, hit ‘em with some press, get them interacting with your brand in social media, maybe throw an outdoor billboard at them on their way home from work. Their recall will improve because the information is being processed at a deeper level.

Integration also helps you get a fuller message across. Some media lends itself to information, whilst others are better for emotional engagement. By combining media you can include both.

So that’s why integration is a good thing.

On to the ‘how’.

Experts say the key to optmising the multiplier effect is – surprise, surprise – creative.

‘Creative links’ and varied designs strengthen the effect. So to achieve the multiplier effect there must be strong creative links between the different media channels you’re using.

This doesn’t mean taking a still from the TVC spot and whacking it on a billboard.

No, no. It means working with the basic creative idea of the campaign and using consistent visual cues in each channel. This reinforces the advertising content. Because the more we humans see something, the more connections our brains make and the more we remember!

So next time you’re working on a campaign, use the multiplier effect to your advantage.

Why not?

Cheers,
Chantelle

Like this piece? Think Chantelle’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing her here

Ahh Guerilla marketing, it’s all good fun ‘til someone loses a passport, gets arrested, fined and faces legal action.

As you’re probably already aware, the FIFA world Cup is in full swing in South Africa. But what you might not be aware of is the 36 women thrown out of the Holland game, questioned, arrested, fined and threatened with jail time. For wearing orange dresses.

Personally, I don’t think many people can get away with wearing tangerine, but surely this is a case for the fashion police as opposed to the actual police?

Not if you’re FIFA.

You see while a lot of us in adland regard big sporting events as a chance to do some tactical advertising, the organisers of these events are getting increasingly tired of advertising smart arsery muscling in on the official action.

A good bit of eye-catching tactical mischief can not only get a client on a tighter budget in front of an audience of millions, but also gives the impression of a brand with a sense of humour.

FIFA, however, doesn’t appear to have a sense of humour. What they do have is lawyers.

They’ve already released the hounds on Bavaria, the Dutch brewer who distributed the offending dresses. And to be fair, Bavaria already have previous form – four years ago in Germany at the 2006 World Cup, a bunch of Dutch supporters ended up watching a game in their underwear after they were told to surrender their Bavaria branded lederhosen.

In April FIFA stopped local low cost airline Kulula airline from advertising itself as “The Unofficial National Carrier of the You-Know-What.” Clearly this time they mean business.

One could argue Bavaria should have known better.

And the world is watching, in 1997 at the International Rugby League World Cup in France, during the Ireland v France game, underwear brand DIM deployed the DIM DIM Girls as ‘cheerleaders’ in the crowd. Dressed in their undies they obviously got quite a lot of attention. And got on the wrong side of the IRL.

The next IRL World Cup is in 2011. Dare the Dim DIM girls run the risk of having to hand over their outfits at the gate?

Question is, will this be the event that’s going to turn a bit of tactical advertising into something of, well, a home goal? It certainly ups the ante. I doubt it’s going to stop agency creatives from coming up with the ideas – after all, creatives do get a perverse sense of glee at messing with anything they know they shouldn’t. But are the previously brave clients going to be quite so cavalier? The appeal of a cheeky bit of guerilla advertising will lose a lot of its shine if the resulting law suit sends your company broke.

However it plays out – one thing’s for sure, this story, not unlike the World Cup itself, is gonna be worth watching.

d

Like this piece? Think Dave’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing him here

I have a confession to make.

I’m obsessed with crumple zones – you know, the weak points at the front and back of your car.

See, before crumple zones were first introduced in the 50s, car safety was all about designing cars to be stronger.

Tougher.

Able to take a crash like John Wayne could take a punch.

Problem was – doing this may have helped the car to better withstand a crash, but it meant the occupants took the full force of the impact.

So we should all thank our lucky stars that Mercedes engineer Béla Barényi started thinking passengers would be safer in a car that could absorb the kinetic energy of a crash. Instead of following the thinking of the time and developing a tougher, stronger, more John Wayne-like car, Barényi designed one to be weaker.

Brilliant!

The weak points at the front and back of the vehicle would crumple in a crash, absorbing energy to protect the passengers.

Now you may argue that this thinking wasn’t a big deal – after all, it’s based on high-school physics. But high-school physics had been around much longer than the automobile and nobody else seemed to make the link.

Barényi’s thinking was revolutionary.

And here’s what keeps me up at night:

What else are we looking at from the wrong angle?

What else are we trying to make stronger, when we’d be better off making it weaker?

What conventional thinking should we be putting to rest? Or at last challenging?

60 years ago, conventional thinking said that to make a car safer, you had to make it stronger.

20 years ago, conventional thinking said that nobody in their right mind would trust someone they’d never met on the other side of the world to honour a sale made over the internet. eBay turned that thinking on its head and paved the way for other micro-commerce sites like Etsy and Amazon’s marketplace.

Today, conventional thinking still tells us that you must never bastardise a logo, yet Google’s very successfully done the complete opposite. Not only has it not damaged their brand, it’s built them a fan base!

And just last week, thought-leader Seth Godin made a post about working fewer hours, not more, to compete more effectively.

So what other conventional thinking should we be challenging?

Love to hear your thoughts.

xk

Like this piece? Think Kate’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing her here

Popular mechanics
When I was 21, I used to get around in an illegally low jet black ‘67 Falcon. It ran 10 inch rims on the back, had a chrome scoop sticking out the hole in the bonnet and gear drive which combined with a straight through exhaust made it sound like the test lab at Boeing. Neither my parents, my neighbours or the cops were impressed.

Me and my mates thought it was the bomb.

I used to spend as much money on tyres as I earned, I was a regular at the Calder Park street drags, at the Sandown Park V8 touring car races and the NASCAR events at the Thunderdome. My Dad would probably tell you no good came of this misspent youth. I beg to differ.

At the time I thought it was both big AND clever to go as fast as I could whenever and wherever I could. To me a red light was just another invitation to drop a burnout soon as it went green again, in fact I have a nasty feeling there’s a hole in the ozone layer that can be directly attributed to me and that car.

But one day my mechanic set me straight. He ran his own sprint car team, just country speedway sort of stuff, but a race team all the same – so I listened to him.

Anyway after one of my somewhat regular visits to fix something I’d broken he told me about the 90% for 90% rule.

It applied to his team then, and it applies to all of us now.

The 90% for 90% is as obvious as it sounds, you go fast, you stay on top of your game, close to the leaders, but you don’t give it 100% until you can see the finish, you keep that 10% in reserve until you really need it.

Whether you’re pushing yourself, or whether you’re pushing your people, expecting to get 100% for an extended length of time isn’t thinking long term. Run anything at 100% from the get go and it will fail before you’re halfway done. Trust me on this.

So if you’re on the ragged edge right now, ease back, focus on what’s important, get it done and get it done well, but hold that bit back for the final lap, because when you need it you’ll be glad you did.

Like I said, obvious really, but sometimes we just need a reminder.

d

P.S. Fletch, tell your parents I’m sorry it was me doing donuts in your court that night.

Like this piece? Think Dave’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing him here

I’ve got a gripe.

And it’s not one of my usual gripes, like when Foxtel IQ ends my recording of Big Love ten minutes early, or when my hairspray runs out while I’m getting ready for a big Saturday night out.

Nope, it’s far more irritating than any of that.

It’s the inexplicable hysteria surrounding one 13 (or 14 or 15) year-old boy with a signature blow wave and an odd affiliation with Usher.

His name, for those of you who haven’t already caught on, is Justin Bieber. And he’s a Canadian-born pop star who came to fame after his mum posted a video of him singing on YouTube.

He’s had a couple of hits. And even I’ll admit they’re pretty catchy. But it’s not his music I have a problem with – it’s the ridiculous effect his image is having on young girls.

Just the other day, his only Australian gig was cancelled because a stream of thousands of frenzied teenagers – who had spent their night in a camp on Sydney Harbour – rushed uncontrollably towards the concert venue causing various injuries and hospitalizing around 8 girls.

Of course, teenage hysteria is nothing new – you only need to look to Beatle Mania for proof of that.

But here’s where I draw the line.

A 3-year-old? Crying over a boy?! She’s got the rest of her life to be heartbroken, childhood should be sodden with blissful ignorance.

Being ad folk, we all know that JB isn’t to blame for all this nonsense. He’s just a product of a much bigger, much scarier marketing machine.

Which brings me, finally, to my point.

Are these guys operating by some code of ethics? Are there any rules in place to protect kids from being sucked into pop-marketing guff?

If not, there should be.

They did it for junk food and video games. So why not protect young children – like that 3-year-old girl – against the head-honchos at the record companies who’ll sell anything, it seems, to make a dollar.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Stef

Like this piece? Think Stef’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing her here

The fun theory – Designing for social change.

In the first of many posts that I will write about designing for social change, I thought I’d show you the fun theory.

This is just one of the theories that is not only aimed towards promoting change, but one that highlights how simple and fun change can be.

Humans are, by nature, scared of change or find it too hard to bother. But what happens when you get creative about ways to influence people? What’s the best way to infiltrate society to become motivated to change? Can we design a strategy to promote change?

Introducing the fun theory.

This is a campaign and website supported by VolksWagon that is dedicated to the idea that something simple and fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better. Be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that it’s change for the better.

If you wanted to inspire people to use the stairs instead of the escalator what sort of a strategy could you come up with?

Can you make people use the stairs by making it fun?

Here’s one such example that uses the fun theory and gets great results.

And watch how the fun theory can give parents some peace.

So the next time you want to influence change, whether it’s getting someone to switch to your product or service or simply just convincing a child to keep their room tidy, think about how you can make it fun and simple.

Ellie

Like this piece? Think Ellie’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing her here

The Tipping Point in action

One of the most fascinating videos I have ever seen has hideous camera work and a God-awful soundtrack.

You’ll be tempted to turn if off after 2 or 3 seconds, but this one rewards you for sticking with it for the full 3 minutes and 6 seconds, because it shows something we mostly only ever read about.

A tipping point.

For those who haven’t read Malcolm Gladwell’s book, the tipping point is the moment where a product, service or an idea suddenly becomes  popular. It’s described as ‘the level where the momentum for change becomes unstoppable’. It’s the brand that was unknown yesterday and is now on everyone’s lips.

Like Twitter.

It tipped after being featured at the 2007 South by Southwest Interactive Conference. Before the conference, the number of tweets a day was 20,000. During the conference, it jumped to 60,000, and now it’s up around 3 million tweets a day.

Or the ‘Twilight’ series, which was first published in 2005 to the delight of teenage girls, but now seems to be on everyone’s bookshelf and, with the movie release, has entered popular culture and spawned terms such as ‘Twilight Moms‘.

But back to the video (below), taken at the Sasquatch Music Festival in 2009.

While everyone sits and chats on picnic blankets, a lone man (very possibly under the influence of something illegal) starts a crazy little dance and is quickly joined by his mate. At that point their idea – ‘let’s dance’ – is not something anyone else wants buy into. Most ignore them, some look a little embarrassed for them. But these two are having a grand old time while the crowd just sits and stares.

Now it’s gotta take guts – or hard drugs – to swim against the current like these guys are.

In front of hundreds of people they’re flying in the face of the status quo. They’ve just launched a new idea and nobody is quite sure what to make of it. And we humans tend to prefer the safety of numbers. Socially, it’s much safer to do what the majority of the crowd is doing.

But look at what happens at the 1:20 mark.

Another 8 people join the group.

This idea just tipped.

Now in that group of 8, there was very likely one brave (and popular) soul who not only decided to get up and dance, but convinced 7 of his closest friends to do so too. No longer are we watching a couple of weirdos dancing in a field, we’re at a small dance party. And that clearly makes all the difference.

At 1:30,  people are running – literally running – to join in.

At 1:50, the dancers have taken over from the picnic blanketers. Get up and dance, little fellas, or you’re gonna get trod on.

At the end of the video, at least 100 people are on their feet, waving their arms in the air. We’ve gone from a few picnickers on blankets to a swarming, dancing crowd.

New ideas work this way too. They don’t necessarily take off immediately.

We have a quote on the wall here, readying: “Don’t worry about people stealing your idea. If it’s truly original you’ll have to ram it down their throats”.

But if you get the right few people behind it, it’ll take off faster than you can believe.

xk

Like this piece? Think Kate’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing her here

In the brave new world of social media where the fan and the brand are now on the same level, but the multinational computer company releases the hounds on the little Aussie supermarket for having a stylised “w” that looks a bit like an apple as part of its corporate identity, the matter of who owns your brand and how you police it becomes a very grey area.

Now, I’m nothing if not unoriginal (I even stole that line), but even I don’t want this to be just another blog about big brands and how they ought to lighten up a bit.

So I’ll keep it small.

Personal even.

Natalie Imbruglia being that person.

In 1998 she had a massive global hit with the song “Torn”. It sold a million copies in the UK alone (that’s copies kids, not downloads), it was in the US Billboard chart for 14 weeks and won both ARIA and MTV music awards.

Even today it’s still the song most readily identified with her. You’d think she wouldn’t want anyone dicking around with that.

Yet in 2005 English comedian David Armand did just that, in character as ‘Johann Lippowitz’ – an Austrian interpretive dance artist – a performance of his mime to ‘Torn’ went viral and was seen around the world. And to be fair it is very funny. But it’s borrowed interest (like all the stuff I get from Wikipedia) and it’s hardly doing anything for Brand Imbruglia is it?

What to do then?

Sue? That’s what Apple would probably do, have the legal department to get medieval on his ass.

Turn a blind eye? Coca Cola did that with the Facebook page that was started without their permission, it now has 4,129,366 fans and they have left control in the hands of the pages’ founders, they even occasionally supply content. True story.

But Imbruglia chose to do neither. She embraced it. In 2006 at the ‘Secret Policeman’s Ball’ the Amnesty international fundraiser, she got up and performed alongside Johann Lippowitz. The audience loved it, how could you not? She had shown in one single act that she was not just a big enough person to be able to roll with the punches, but big enough to take back ownership of the song again.

I think it’s brilliant.

Apple, watch and learn.

d

Like this piece? Think Dave’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing him here

Every now and then, you hear about someone who’s gone out and had a corporate logo tattooed on their body. It’s usually incentivised by the company who stands to benefit from the exposure. Sometimes they offer money. Or a lifetime supply of whatever it is they produce – like one guy who had ‘Peri Peri’ tattooed on his thigh for unlimited free Nando’s. Then there are people who just sell the space to the highest bidder – like one girl from the US who tattooed ‘goldenpalace.com’ on her forehead for $10,000.

You couldn’t pay me enough to have that thing on my face for the rest of my life.

In fact, I’m generally against putting any kind of branded tattoo on my body – even if it’s temporary. Up until now, I’ve thought it was tasteless.

But then I came across this gorgeous range of temporary tattoos that have been released by Chanel. They’re unlike any I’ve seen before – because they’re not just promotional tats, they’re fashion accessories.

You can buy the full set from any Chanel cosmetics counter for around $90.

At risk of sounding like a sucker, I’m keen to go check them out. And I’m sure I won’t be the only one.

They’d look so cute with the outfits I plan on wearing to upcoming music festivals, which might come as a slap in the face to the festivals’ corporate sponsors.

Because while those companies fork out the cash to have their own brand of temp tats given away, Chanel will be achieving the same level of exposure – and cashing in at the same time.

Stef

Like this piece? Think Stef’s full of it? Let us know by adding a comment or emailing her here