Would you Adam+Eve what agencies call themselves these days?

October 5, 2010

The Assembly has just won the global account of big-four auditor Ernst & Young. Apparently, it produced a better ‘toolkit for accountants’ than anyone else. Ah well, you nod sagely, it’s obviously a B2B account – dull as ditchwater; no wonder it’s been won by an agency no one’s ever heard of before.

But you’d be profoundly wrong. In fact the pitch was highly competitive, handled by the AAR and featured about a dozen of adland’s finest – including BBH, Engine and Miles Calcraft Briginshaw Duffy (MCBD). Perversely, The Assembly is probably the one name that wouldn’t trip off your tongue if you roll-called the whole longlist.

Sterling Cooper: When names were just names

Which brings me to my point. The Assembly is one of a crop of new agency names that vie with each other for esoteric distinction – but jeopardise their USP by being obscure and unmemorable. If the current name-game puzzles me, it must surely puzzle clients too.

How has this rash of self-indulgent agency nomenclature come about? Once upon a time it was oh-so-simple. Agencies were people businesses that recommended their brand through the charisma and usefulness of their founders. So, in the mists of time, we have J. Walter Thompson, Lord & Thomas, Ted Bates, Young & Rubicam, Ogilvy & Mather.

By the sixties, creativity has become the extra magic ingredient in the shingle. It put the Bill Bernbach into Doyle Dane, or for that matter the Draper into Sterling Cooper. Then in the seventies and eighties (a very British thing, this) comes the apotheosis of the planner: Boase Massimi Pollitt, Bartle Bogle Hegarty and Simons Palmer Clemmow & Johnson. It was rare that anyone tore up the rulebook. True, there was the odd alien intervention such as Mojo from Australia; and of course the inimitable Andy Law, who founded St Luke’s. But wackiness came at a steep price. Mojo quickly lost its, and Law was a lot less successful in his next incarnation, which by its very name set itself up for a fall. Boymeetsgirl became Boyleavesgirl after Law quarrelled with his creative director Kate Stanners, and she quit.

You’d think this might be lesson enough for eager young entrepreneurs, but no. Today weird names have become the orthodoxy, and I’ve no doubt it has something to do with digital fragmentation and the increasing difficulty of framing the creative challenge.

Now, I’m all for imagination as long as it means something. Mother, Adam & Eve, yes (doh, it’s all about creativity). Glue: clever idea, sticking it all together. Saint@rkcr/y&r, sort of: bit of a mouthful though. Th_nk? No th*nk you: however pithy, it’s a sub’s nightmare; don’t ever expect a write-up in the FT. Lean Mean Fighting Machine? Looks a bit tame and flabby now it has been fired by Coke (see Andy Law above). 18 Feet and Rising? P-lease. How are we to know this is an obscure allusion to the excessive height of the agency’s three founders – and, even if we do, who cares?

And so on. Which brings me back to The Assembly. Actually, for all its superficial resemblance to a political convention or a Pentecostal sect, the name is not without relevance to the agency world. It reflects a pooling of creative talent. I quote from the CV of one of the founders: “The Assembly’s membership includes 12 Executive Creative Directors and 10 Creative Directors of some of the world’s most creative agencies, London’s foremost women’s artistic collective, a Harvard and MIT professor of culture and consumption, the creative duo behind cult Italian and Swedish fashion brands, the ex-manager of The Rolling Stones, the PR person for rock stars and presidents, a couple of renowned urban artists, one of the world’s most acclaimed architects and the man behind one of the most influential style websites, to name a few.” Phew, manage that if you can.

Such, though, are the complex, chaotic demands of creativity these days. No wonder agencies are suffering from an identity crisis.

About these ads

Advertisers mull the hidden costs of child-proofing the web

September 1, 2010

The extension of the Advertising Standards Authority remit to corporate websites and social media content has not come a moment too soon.

The self-regulatory principle – and therein, the ability of advertisers to deflect calls for an unwieldy statutory alternative – is only as robust as its weakest link. And this was a very weak link – so flimsy that unscrupulous malefactors within the industry could, and did, drive a coach and horses through the CAP code. Since 2008, the ASA – which enforces CAP – has received more than 4,500 complaints about online content abuse. To which the lame – but unavoidable – rebuttal has been: that’s not our affair.

No doubt as billed, the new CAP code revisions comprises some of the most ambitiously scoped regulation in the world. The devil, of course, will be in policing the detail. There are at least two areas of concern here.

Punitive sanctions are notoriously more difficult to enforce online than they are with strictly regulated traditional media. The ASA has shrewdly enlisted Google’s help (Google is also supplying seed-corn capital to prime the pump of wider regulatory coverage). Among its options are to remove paid-for search ads linked to persistent offenders and, if necessary, to escalate the pressure by inserting the ASA’s own “name and shame” search ads opposite the offending site. This, of course, does not have the same force as an outright ban.

More subtle is the issue of scrutinising what constitutes code-breaking content and what does not. Nowhere, it seems, in the newly revised code is there a precise definition of “marketing communications”. Possibly for good legal reason. The boundary between self-promotion and “free editorial comment” is often a difficult one to draw. Nevertheless, the penalty in not defining it precisely will be a slow and – for the sometimes unwitting perpetrators – painful and expensive learning curve while case histories are built up. I doubt that the six-month induction period before the new restrictions are fully implemented will be long enough for the industry to get up to speed.

Let’s look at a rather alarming example of the depth of industry ignorance. ASA chairman Chris Smith, taking his cue from David Cameron’s warning about the sanctity of family values, portrays the revised code as having “the protection of children and consumers at its heart.” Coca-Cola recently, and notoriously, fired it digital agency, Lean Mean Fighting Machine, over a Facebook promotion for Dr Pepper that badly miscarried. No doubt the agency thought it was being smart and edgy when it inserted a cryptic reference to hardcore pornographic movie Two Girls One Cup into the copy. But the reference was wholly inappropriate for the 14-year old girl who ended up reading it – and whose mother subsequently blew the whistle on Coke’s irresponsible behaviour. Coke fired the agency and apologised fulsomely. But the chilling thing was Coke clearly had no idea what the reference meant, and no idea what its agency was up to. If an advertiser of this sophistication can make such an elementary blunder, what hope is there for everyone else?

The upshot of these revised regulations will be to promote a host of new hirings. At the ASA, to sift through the prodigious number of case studies generated; and at advertisers and their agencies, to monitor the new boundaries of acceptability.


Coke mired in legal wrangles over Glaceau Vitamin Water and Dr Pepper

July 26, 2010

Dr Pepper isn’t the only Coca-Cola brand to cause offence to consumers. Glaceau Vitamin Water is now facing a federal class action in the United States, which could end up costing the corporation millions of dollars and considerable damage to its reputation.

Glaceau is notorious for its “irreverent” (for which read “silly”) and cynical posturing. But that’s not what has landed Coke in deep water, or not overtly. Some folk evidently believe Glaceau has been peddling phony health benefits when, in reality, it is nothing more than sugar water with a few vitamins thrown in. In other words, far from preventing “age-related eye disease” (as the brand has claimed), its only durable side-effect is to make you fatter, if you consume enough of it.

The stakes are higher than they seem. Success for the plaintiffs would make Coke appear little better than a huckster apothecary hawking snake oil. But it will be years before we know the result – in all probability.

While on legal matters, I hear things have turned nasty at Coke over the Dr Pepper digital foul-up. Lean Mean Fighting Machine, the agency responsible, has resorted to lawyers after Coke decided to terminate its newly-won Diet Coke account without (as LMFM sees it) adequate financial compensation.

UPDATE 27/7/10. Legal fisticuffs have now ceased on the Dr Pepper/Diet Coke accounts, with LMFM and Coca-Cola agreeing to go their separate ways.


The Curse of Cannes strikes again

July 19, 2010

They’ll shortly be calling it the Curse of Cannes. Win a gong at the International Advertising Festival and sooner or later you’re bound to bomb.

First there was the Old Spice Guy, who waltzed off with the film grand prix, only to walk slap-bang into a controversy over the brand’s lacklustre sales performance.

Now Lean Mean Fighting Machine, the first UK outfit to have won the Cannes interactive ad agency of the year award, has come a cropper with one of its major clients, Coca-Cola, after an embarrrassing foul-up over a Facebook promotion. I doubt that they will be remaining on terms for much longer.

Coke has had to pull the internet promotion, featuring its Dr Pepper brand, after it was accused of enticing children by making reference to a pornographic movie. From what I can understand, users had to give the company access to their Facebook status boxes, which then filled them with silly (but largely harmless) messages designed to give their internet mates a bit of a rise.

All went well, with over 160,000 people signing up, until a certain Mrs Rickman noticed that the profile of her 14-year-old daughter had been updated with a direct reference to a hardcore pornographic film, Two Girls One Cup (aka Hungry Bitches). Perhaps hardcore doesn’t do it justice: coprophagic fetishism would be a polite description of its main theme. Unfortunately for Coke, Mrs Rickman is an adept of social networking site Mumsnet. Result: uproar and a hasty pledge by Coke to can the promotion and mount a full-scale investigation.

Even then, Coke couldn’t get it right. To quote Mediaguardian:

‘She was offered compensation of theatre tickets for a West End show and a night in a London hotel.

“Fat lot of use to me, we live in Glasgow,” she said.’

Coke has admitted the nominal responsibility (with the extraordinary claim that it had approved the offending reference without realising its true significance). But I suspect it won’t be taking the blame.

For that we must look to LMFM, an offshoot of Tribal DDB which was set up six years ago and is chaired by advertising luminary Paul Bainsfair. You can’t be too careful with internet promotions. Someone is always watching over you. Even so, it was unusually bad luck for an agency which only won the account in spring – after it devised a successful April Fool’s Day ad for Coke. This time, the joke backfired.

AND IT GETS WORSE. I gather Coke, under the guise of reviewing its overall digital media strategy, is now considering sacking LMFM, full stop. Only this week, it landed the digital ad account for the Zero brand. For more insights into Coke’s ineptitude over its LMFM hiring see Jim Edwards’ post on bNet.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 415 other followers

%d bloggers like this: