Posts from — July 2008

When ‘The Hindu‘ newspaper went in for a major design change, there was less debate than I hoped. Leading, kerning and the merits of different typefaces are a part of the daily fabric of life in advertising and design. However, it occupies only the fringes for an audience that consumes it in everything from packaging to books to billboards. Typography inspires awe in those who understand the power of the written letter to transform and persuade. Major world brands – from Marlboro to Coca Cola or IBM are all irrevocably tied to their typefaces. They are the face, the signature on which millions of advertising dollars are spent every year.

‘Helvetica is a feature-length independent film about typography, graphic design and global visual culture’ – in a description from the film’s website. In the 50th anniversary since it was designed, the film traces the use of Helvetica in a number of media and chronicles the impact it has made – staring out from a subway platform or describing an exhibit in a museum or nestling in the pages of a book. You have probably read it hundreds of times without being aware that it was all this particular typeface. Power can be innocuous.

With 4GB, 10GB and 20GB hard disks, people are carrying around in their pocket the equivalent of entire studio selections.

There was this reference saying that 1000 songs or 4GB was the ideal storage size for personal use. Say you listened to 10 songs a day, it was enough for the next three months before you had to play a song again (This is, of course, presuming that people will listen to their selection in an orderly fashion)

This is where I think the remote control syndrome kicks in. When you had five channels to watch, you watched . When you have 100 channels, you surf. The remote is used more as a tool to avoid boredom. End result? You end up with ‘content overload’ and nothing is satisfying. It’s like coming into conversations midway and exiting before anything substantial is said or listened to.

Take chatrooms for example. It’s like a cacophony of voices, except that you don’t hear them. Trying to pick one lucid thread of conversation is impossible. It’s like looking at jumbled lines of text on interminable pages and pretending it is a conversation.

My first impression did not favour the ’skin props’. Suddenly, Chennai looked a lot ‘less cluttered’, especially at Gemini flyover.

All those who were optimistic about the consistent growth of this media and invested in expensive digital printing equipment need every idea for temporary compensation of revenue.

I say temporary because after the next elections … who knows…:p

Three years ago, I picked up an absolute winner. A water generator called Humidous that ‘makes’ 26 liters of pristine water from the atmosphere everyday. Enough to meet all drinking and cooking needs of a family. Chennai is a hot, humid city right round the year – with the ground water exploitation at over 85%. The water that flows in taps is brackish, salty and it leaves a fine white sediment on cooking vessels. Logically Humidous should be selling out as soon as they make the machines. Now comes the completely unbelievable part.

All those who can afford it buy drinking water cans. Bottled at some indeterminate location, under questionable hygeine and manufacturing standards, ‘mineral water’ is the product of choice. When Humidous was launched three years ago, the first reaction was disbelief. How could a product plugged into an electrical socket, with no water connection produce water? The first thing people looked for was a water pipe leading into the machine. Filtration is understood as a technology. Get muddy or salty water, run it through a membrane or a filtration system and you could get clean water. But if the source was the atmosphere, how could it work? Isn’t the atmosphere polluted? How can water extracted from it be clean, even if there was a four stage filtration process? The fact that drinking water now comes from far more polluted ground sources does not even register.

Even a desperately needed product takes time to build a legion of believers. A+B is never equal to A+B. Simple equations in math are complex equations in human desires. The transition from need to want is a layered, start-stop process. Read the Dyson story because there are no fairy tales in marketing.

A few years ago ads during prime time television were an interesting mix. We had fun watching the cola wars. Sighed over the suave, well manicured Raymonds men. Giggled over Salman Khan saving the world in his Rupa (or whatever) vest. Went ga ga over the ‘Daag ache hai’ Ariel ad where a little boy bashes up a puddle of dirty water and gets totally messy – all to bring a smile on his weeping sister’s face. But now…what’s up with all these big spenders?

Prime time is now inundated with me-too mobile phone ads. And…what totally surprises me…the chewing gum and bubble gum ads. The ‘tera dil roshan’ ad took us by surprise when it fist came – but now one just groans and switches channels the moment it comes on. But the ones that chew my brains are the bubble gum ads. From babool to babbaloo! The ugly babool superhero comes and saves pesky kids from unnecessary perils. Babbaloo has a bunny that’s oversmart and annoying. Left to me I would be happily surfing when these ads come on – but hang on…I’m forced to watch these because they fascinate my 4-year old.

Will we viewers ever be saved from this monotony? I for one am waiting for the bubble to burst. Fingers crossed.

Buildings in India are just as chaotic as our streets. Might is right. There is no place for order and logic. A business facing the road puts up the gaudiest sign imaginable. Every signboard has to have an in-your-face quality. Subtlety is not an option. The next sign looms over and above the first occupant in size if not in scope – sprouting like weeds over a concrete landscape and defacing street facades. Free space is meant to be occupied in every way possible.

Only buildings with sheer walls of glass have halted the sign wars. Concrete can be hammered and nails pounded into any part. Glass unfortunately, does not offer the same ease. The new IT parks and office high rises have tamed the beast, for the time being. But wander into any of the old areas in a city and chaos rules. Right from Broadway in Parry’s to Ranganathan Street in T Nagar, signs tower all the way to five and six floors. It is impossible to use them to navigate. They are meant only for the company that puts them up. Jutting out at every conceivable angle, thumbing their noses at civility.

In every economic downturn, the advertising agency feels the first chill. Budgets get chopped, consumers get tight-fisted and markets mope. The tumbling dominoes affect everyone. At a time like this, what is the best way to grow? The question is not academic. The best solutions emerge when business is pushed against the wall for answers. Complacency is not an option in these circumstances.

What should luxury goods manufacturers do? Imagine selling Hummers when fuel prices are rising by the week. Only a downturn reveals the depth of managerial expertise available in store. It’s hard not to follow the herd. This study shows how advertisers who continued to advertise during the lean years emerged on top after the recession. The bright side – great deals on media, staying on the consumer’s mind and signaling that this brand triumphs over tough times.
The easy way is to go the way the wind blows. Making excuses is any day easier than achieving results.

It’s an unequal relationship, the one between agencies and clients. The refrain is that ‘Clients are the ones spending the money and they wield the whip’. When campaigns deliver expected results, everyone involved is happy. The finger-pointing and blame begins when results don’t match expectations. There is an oft-quoted line from a mythical client – I know that 50% of my advertising is wasted. The problem is, I do not know which 50%.

When a campaign does not perform, its not 50% wasted, its 100%. Cannes Lions do a lot for the portfolio and the ego but precious little for the brand. For anyone who scoffs, a simple question. Why do agencies enter entirely different campaigns for Effies and Cannes? If the thinking that goes into every campaign is meant to benefit the brand, there is no reason to have left brain and right brain award ceremonies. Why is there such hypocritical emphasis on winning awards that celebrate creativity and so little for work that drives business?

In this blog post Grant McCracken asks a very valid question. Why don’t agencies consider themselves consultants and charge for their intellectual effort? Becuase a lot of work is involved. It’s easier to get creative to solve a brand problem rather than do the math and the analysis to arrive at a stodgy requirement that does not get the creative juices flowing. Especially when the brief leans towards an Effie kind of solution vs the flights of fancy of a Cannes Lion. The day agencies ask themselves how they can be more effective rather than more creative, clients will change their value perceptions of agencies.

Google recently debuted an experimental feature that lets users vote ‘up’ or ‘down’ search results . So, if I find that a certain result answers my query better, I vote it up. Just like Digg, which Google is now buying for $200 million, according to Techcrunch. I think this allows the same distortion as click fraud. If I have a vested interest in promoting a certain result, I figure out a way to click several times on it. While Digg looks very laudable as a concept, compare its front page to Google News , New York Times, BBC. It looks like it was put together by a gossip-starved teen. Like reducing the New York Times to the level of the Sun. Great for attracting a certain kind of reader but lousy when looking for a sense of balance. Digg works on the Lowest Common Denominator principle. Write hot headlines, show mutilated or unclothed bodies and people will click away to kingdom come.

The crucial thing here is control. If Google gives users a lever, they will use it. Right now they click in and out of a result without bias. Google has just given them an opportunity to bias and distort the end result. Let’s say a search on ‘global warming’ throws up a polluting company’s website. The company will do all it can to vote it down, so that it never features on that search in future. There are times when it is wise to give people a chance to choose. This is not one of them.