Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

thus opens the thought laboratory
























I recently found Say Everything in the half-off section of Strand, and just wanted to say that it's a fantastic read so far. Granted, I'm only about halfway through the thing, but it's definitely a read that drags out some thoughts.

I'll save any sort of synopsis for another time. But one of the biggest thoughts that's been floating around in my head has been the idea of experimenting with your online voice.

As a creator. As writer. As a curator. As an innovator. As a planner. But most importantly, as an individual.

Although the book fills in the details of an often-overlooked blogging history, my mind can't help but spot my own story juxtaposed on each dramatic tale. It seriously made me think about how I've involved myself in the changing blogosphere over the past decade or so. Starting with LiveJournal, playing around with WordPress . . . and eventually moving on to bigger and better things.

Probably the greatest attribute of blogs (and with other things, like twitter/etc since the introduction of blogs) is the license of thought they give people. There's something very powerful in that innate automaticity. Something we as people can learn from, and something we might be able to extend to the brands of the world.

But anyway.

Here I am, still ranting about things online all these years later. Although I seem to have a pretty good idea of what my voice sounds like (test, test), I would argue that no one truly understands everything their voice can do (or has done) for the world.

Enter some dabbling in the online world of verboseness and excessive self-expression.

Without getting too far off-course here, I wanted to take a moment to sort of broadcast a self-assigned project/goal/expectation thing I've agreed to take on:

I'm going to be clicking "publish" each day in September. With whatever thoughts I have to share.

Why, you ask?

Simple. I believe our voices should be used in laboratory-like settings as a way to showcase our thought processes. It's something I feel very strongly about, but I think it's something that everyone could improve upon. Thinking, voicing, sharing, etc. All very strong ingredients in powerful communication, and I'm pretty sure concocting a lab-like context will produce some sort of great end-product. Not sure what it'll be, but I can feel it in my gut. (If I knew what the benefit would be and could clearly communicate it, I probably wouldn't need to dedicate a month of my life to voicing up.)

This thought laboratory concept isn't new for communications, though; it seems to be popping up all over the place. BBH, Jerwood Space over in London, Ajou University, Havas Group, MIT, etc. All really great stuff. What can we learn from them?

I'm not entirely sure what'll happen over the next month, but I look to Russell for another great example of this little experiment -- thoughts are forked over, and other thoughts follow. It can only be great, right?

Well, anyway. I just think it's a really great project for myself. One I'm happy to take on as I seek out some sort of next step in my planning life.

'Til tomorrow, cheers.

image c/o thatwasmyfoot.my-expressions.com

Monday, July 13, 2009

combination of ideas



















There's a certain collectivity in advertising that isn't quite as pervasive in other fields.

Here's an anecdote that might illustrate what I mean (without flat out saying it, of course): My family has started to understand basic advertising speak in the way that international children do when they dive into their first taste of the American school system after growing up in another country -- the need to survive kicks into high gear, so language becomes less and less of an obstacle.

When I start to mention BBDO or DDB or WK or OMD or PHD or KBP or GSP or BSSP or . . . well, TBWA, I've begun to get chuckles these days instead of head nods of encouragement. Why the chuckles? Well, they've picked up on the humor that sits on the surface of advertising nomenclature: every agency name follows the same pattern. And when you have enough of them, there starts to be some overlap. And the overlap, my friends, is where the humor lies.

But why is it funny? I'm too blasé to notice, of course, but it's interesting -- if not coincidental -- that so many groups of men (and yes, they were mostly men) came up with the idea to build a business around original ideas. Original thinking in a sea of sameness. Certainly interesting

But taking a step back, I think there's something worthwhile to consider for those in the business, as well as those not in the business. Although entrepreneurial enterprises continue to pop up around the world due to individual endeavors, advertising has developed a pattern of grouping some minds together, throwing a flag in the ground and starting work on "creative work."

(Don't let the passive aggressive quotations sway you away from my point; I've used them here just to show how common that phrase is throughout industry speak.)

When it comes to ad agencies, there's a unique habit of combining the best minds to create even better ideas, even if they seem to be replaceable and arbitrary on the surface of the matter.

That's a really, really great thing to have by your name. (Or names, rather.)

I've been intrigued for a while with the punctuation that agencies chose to use in their names. Some use "&" to connect names (or initials) whereas others use "+" . . . and still others use "/" . . . or used the other way "\" as is the case with TBWA. Recently, I've seen a resurgence in simply using commas, which is nice . . . although those agencies might be chastised in the industry for lack of symbolic creative connectors. But whatever floats your boat, I say.

So what does all this mean, and why is it so important to ramble on about? It's simple.

If there exists an industry that has such a deeply rooted history of combining minds to creatively solve problems, why are we not continuing to evolve that industry? The fact that we value other thoughts so much stands as probably the industry's greatest strengths. So why is there not a continual pursuit for new or better ideas?

And I don't mean new or better advertising ideas.

Arguably, there might be an answer to this question in the nature of teams. Teams combining, taking sides and battling over clients becomes a dirty, dirty game . . . and there are teammates jumping ship, there trades, there's cheating, and there's controversy over how much the other team is spending on half-time snacks when the annual budget can only afford orange slices and gatorade. (Apologies for the extensive soccer metaphor -- hope you could follow the nuances, though) Essentially, teams can be very good, but when the game goes on as long as it has, things can begin to go bad.

So I think it's time we start a new game. One that pins teams against each other in healthy competition, and one that brings different sorts of people and perspectives together.

In advertising, the goal should ironically not be advertising. Advertising problems can no longer be solved with advertising solutions. Everyone is losing that old game as we speak. We need to recruit people who favor design solutions, business solutions, technological solutions, social solutions. But most of all, there needs to be an understanding of the people solutions if we're going to get anywhere.

Winning games right now is fine. I'm happy to hear about victories in the field. But as we move forward, we should think about how awesome the game might be if we bring new people on board. Instead of resting on our laurels, let's play a really, really good game.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

things i believe but cannot prove

A great planner/blogger/inspiration recently listed 10 things he believes, but cannot prove. Good for him, I say.

And to commend his brave and honest efforts, I will do the same. Here's my list:

(1) Colleges actually have a thin layer of film surrounding them thus creating a bio-dome or physical bubble; there is not simply a metaphorical bubble, actually.

(2) Everyone has something very closely related to a security blanket.

(3) Lasagna was initially referred to as 'ambrosia' before being widely consumed by mortals.

(4) The more one knows about brands, the more help one can offer to non-brand things in life.

(5) Beer, wine, tea and coffee have some relation to earth, wind, fire and water, respectively.

(6) Syracuse tour guides are born to be liars, and under-reporting annual snowfall and inhumane weather conditions is merely an exercise of character for them.

(7) Siloed media agencies will not last very long by themselves. And the same is true for digital shops.

(8) Everyone has a capacity for creating beautiful design, but life presents distractions, obstacles and veils to hide behind.

(9) The best musical artists are reincarnates of each other, with a few forest animals interspersed in the shared biographies.

(10) Listening is 10.5 times more valuable than speaking. And writing things down is only about 5.4 times more valuable.