Creative is not a noun...

One of my pet hates of the moment is the propensity for those engaged in professions or pursuits which require creativity to describe themselves as 'creatives'. 

Without doubt, creativity is something we have in spades here in the UK and it's something of which we are, quite rightly, extremely proud. However, the use of 'creative' as a noun in two particular ways give me cause for concern; and, despite the title of this post, my objection is not purely grammatical (although I admit the pedant in me is slightly indignant at the use of what any reputable dictionary will tell you is an adjective in this way). 

The first is a matter of simple self-aggrandisement.  Describing oneself as a 'creative' may sound impressive, set you apart from other, less glamourous, professions; but I have heard it used in a way that insinuates that anyone who is not a 'creative' is either 1) not creative or 2) somehow a lesser being.  In some ways it strikes me as a natural reaction of the arts to many decades of ridicule by the scientific disciplines who have often been viewed with greater respect by the establishment.  However, two wrongs don't make a right.

You may argue that to call oneself a 'scientist' is considered acceptable - and indeed it is (although scientists do not generally describe themselves as 'scientifics').  It is the appropriation and monopolisation of creativity that I object to.  In my view, scientists, artists, designers and every other job or profession can be engaged in creativity.

Perhaps the word 'creative' is being used to describe the multi-disciplinary creative work that many of us are now engaged in, and I do not object to its use in this form, but what I do object to strongly is the use of 'creative' as a way of excluding others.  Richard Florida identified what he describes as the 'creative class' in his 2003 book  'The Rise of the Creative Class', a label which, in my view, perpetuates a divisive approach to creativity in society.  Skip forward to 2008 and there are a slew of management gurus telling us how to manage 'creatives' (e.g. Torr, 2008), handling them with kid gloves as though they are somehow deserving of special treatment.  This is both patronising and pandering.

This leads to the second issue, the use of 'creative' as an excuse for unprofessional or downright bad behaviour.  Just because you are an artist, designer or musician, it does not give you the right to treat other people with disrespect, be lazy, or expect special treatment in the workplace.  Creativity is not an excuse for lateness, rudeness or petulance, and yet I have met people who have used it as such and have trained those around them to accept this behaviour.  Those people who pander to this bad behaviour are just as guilty in my eyes.  

My view is simple - there is no such thing as a creative class - we're all creative people in our own ways, and we are all capable of behaving in an adult, professional and respectful way.

So, if you describe yourself to me as a creative, don't be surprised if I say 'a creative what?'

Another results day, another media frenzy...

So, it's results day again. The same shrill voices decrying falling standards, the pass rates rising, the scramble for places.  It's a familiar picture, and in recent years the agenda for this day has increasingly been set by a media whirlwind, whipped up into a newspaper and bulletin-filling frenzy.  The excruciating sight of groups of young people receiving their results 'live' has become a feature of TV news bulletins, something which is (in my view) as voyeuristic and intrustive as rubber-necking at a car accident on a motorway.

Has it gone too far?  Or is it just symptomatic of our expectation to see every detail of our lives played out on-screen?  After all, these students have presumably agreed to take part in the broadcast of what may be a pivotal moment in their lives.  Have they been seduced by the glamour of the media and the chance of their 15 minutes of fame?  Are they mature enough to make that decision?  If not, where should the responsibility lie?  With the media?  Their parents?  Their School or College?

This raises a series of questions about ethics in the media, personal responsibility, and celebrity. In terms of the media, although there a plenty of positive examples of practical advice and support for University applicants in the national media, the price we pay is the sensationalism of the headlines.  My ethical questions to journalists on this issue are; does the coverage place unnecessary pressure on students (by showing groups of 'straight A' students and highlighting the squeeze on places for example)?  Does this result in unwarranted levels of panic and hysteria? Can this be justified?

Phrases such s 'X has sparked a debate' and 'Y has raised questions about', where the newspaper itself is the source of debate or question, are familiar devices used by journalists to bolster a story, but where are the ethical boundaries in placing enormous pressure on young people at a moment when they are extremely vulnerable?  Should we be concerned about the way the media presents 'results day' - the pantomime of joy and despair, the innumerable 'infographics'?  Like the general election, I fear some of the news media may have taken the interpretation (or manipulation) of statistics around this a little too far - to the detriment of the core story.  But, in a season where 'real' news is difficult to come by, can we blame our national media for seizing an opportunity to sell papers or increase ratings?  Is it demand for this information that is driving the supply?  Who knows.

What I do know is that this year, more than any in the past decade, things really are tough for those students who have applied to university.  The story is genuine, and there may indeed be many students who do not achieve their desired outcome, but there are always choices.  Every applicant has options, and in my view we should be focusing on helping these young people make calm, informed decisions about their future.  The message to the media? Stop the scaremongering and focus on showing all students that, no matter what their results, with determination and hard work they can still achieve amazing things.

How NOT to tweet during a crisis - 5 lessons we can learn from BP

So, BP has appointed a new Chief Executive, and in what was probably the best PR move they've made since the whole Gulf of Mexico oil leak disaster began, he's from Mississippi. Robert (Bob) Dudley certainly has a mess to clean up, and not just in the literal sense.   My view on BP's handling of this crisis in public relations terms is that it has been a disaster of similar proportions to the leak itself.  Although the handling of the issue by BP's communications team has been fatally flawed across the board, I'd like to focus here on their response on Twitter.

Not only were they parodied to the n'th degree by the spoof @BPGlobalPR Twitter account which quickly gained a huge online following , but their reaction to the whole episode was a combination of denial, whinging and ridiculously incomprehensible tweeting in response.  BP seems to have completely misunderstood not just the power of social media, but also the tone of it.

As an educator I love a good mnemonic.  So here are my 5 Hs of crisis management on Twitter (and how BP got them so wrong):


1. Honesty
Pretending that everything is ok when it's not will not win you any friends on Twitter.  Implying that things are moving quickly towards a solution has, in my view, been one of the worst failings of BP's Twitter communications.  Be honest, be open, be upfront and say sorry.  People will respect you all the more.

2. Humanity
Tweet like you're a human being (you are a human being aren't you?). BP's jargon filled 'infotweets' full of incomprehensible 'war on the leak' style language are not in the least engaging.  If you want people to be interested in your tweets it stands to reason that you have to make them interesting, and understandable, and appealing to the humans who will be reading them...

3. Humility
 Don't patronise us please...we're not fooled by the jargon and the 'we know what we're doing' speak; and don't throw your weight around just because you're a large blue-chip with deep pockets.  Trying to get the people at Twitter to disable the spoof @BPGlobalPR account was another nail in BP's coffin, making them appear petulant and too big for their corporate boots.  Respect the intelligence of your readers and try not to keep your corporate ego out of it...


4. Haste
Being quick off the mark is one of the key skills communications professionals need.  If you're not there right at the beginning, establishing your message as the issue emerges, you have little chance of clawing it back.  BP missed the boat on that front and they have been playing catch up ever since.  Be alert, as soon as a potential issue arises, set the agenda.

5. Help
Make sure you respond to replies and messages you get.  Give honest answers and show you care.  You're never too big to care about an individual, and by engaging in a dialogue with those in your online community you build trust and empathy.  Respond to everyone, say thank you, be kind.  It works..

In my view BP have failed, above all, to capture the public mood throughout this crisis, and failed to face the problem head-on.   What do you think? Have they done a good job?  What could they have done differently?  Does it matter?

Facebook's opengraph - should we be afraid of the new digital monopolies?

Watching Mark Zuckerberg deliver the keynote speech at last week's F8 Conference was an uncomfortable experience.  Not least because my innate British sense of embarrassment found the whole 'cool geek' thing cringeworthy in the extreme.  The high-five 'tag-team' handovers were particularly disturbing and self conscious...

Presentation aside, however, this was an extremely important speech.  The man who has 400million Facebook users and their data in the palm of his hand is ambitious.  He has a plan to weave Facebook so tightly into every aspect of our web experience that it becomes impossible to challenge its market position.  We are entering the age of the digital monopoly - Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter are becoming ever more dominant forces in their fields pushing other services aside as they grow ubiquitous - and hence essential.  Is it wrong that such firms should be able to erect ever higher barriers to entry in their industries?  Should access to (and control of) the personal data of so many be trusted to commercial organisations?  Am I being paranoid?

As individuals we give information about the things that make us who we are, freely, in exchange for the ability to participate in the conversation, the privilege of connecting with 'the network' the sense of belonging.  But are we always fully aware of the implications of evealing so much of ourselves to the digital world?

Over the coming weeks and months you will begin to see 'like' buttons appear on all manner of web sites. You will also see your friends faces appearing on these web pages.  What facebook's opengraph means is that whenever a friend of yours clicks a 'like' button on a web site that has included the (very simple, very developer-friendly) piece of code that Facebook provides - you will see their face on the web pages they like.  Equally, if you click 'like' on a page your profile picture will appear.  This data about who and what you like will be public and available.  So should you be worried?

You do, of course, have the option not to participate, but the very simplicity of the the system and the sense that 'everybody's doing it so it must be ok' is likely to encourage many Facebook users to simply see it as an extension of their facebook profile.

I predict a swift and wide-reaching uptake of the opengraph.  Why?  Because Facebook have certainly got one thing right - they've made it easy  for us to participate.  Quick and simple to use, the like button doesn't interfere with our browsing experience and it plays upon our eagerness to define ourselves within an online community by our preferences.  Plus it's oh so simple for even the novice web page creator to apply - for those marketers amongst you,  that's a tick for both pull and push strategies...

Great work Facebook - as a marketer I think you've got a winning strategy.  As a human being and socialweb user, however, I admit I'm concerned.  My fear of having my real identity replaced by an online construct may seem far fetched - and I have to admit that this has been fuelled by reading Jaron Larnier's You are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, a frightening treatise on the erosion of humanity through increasingly restrictive technology.

The bottom line?  I don't know what the future holds but from here it looks as though the online environment will be dominated by a few California corporations and the group of extraordinarily intelligent (and predominantly white male) executives who run them.  Are these our elected leaders? Are these the right people to shape human society in the 21st Century? Has the world even noticed the sheer weight of power we have gifted them? I fear not.

My advice to you?  Think it through before hitting the  'like' button...

Watch Mark Zuckerberg's Keynote here:   http://apps.facebook.com/feightlive/

Clarity, consistency and congruence - the cornerstones of a strong brand identity

I've just been taking a look at Brand New's Best and Worst Identities of 2009 - a round-up of some of the highs and lows of brand identity updates and developments over the past year.  There really are some shockingly bad examples of logo design in there, and some greats, but what makes a 'good' or 'bad' logo?  And, why on earth would a major company like AOL (Brand New's somewhat controversial choice for number 1) spend a fortune changing all of their materials, signage etc when they had a globally recognised logo already?

Brand identity is one of those tricky aspects of marketing that it's always difficult to pin down.  Just like advertising it's hard to measure the impact or value of a brand or logo. Many have tried, and there are plenty of complex models out there for valuing a brand, but these methods are still based on an element of conjecture.  So what does this mean for the smaller organisation trying to establish itself and gain recognition for its brands?

Well, in my view, there are three key aspects to successful branding:  Clarity, Consistency and Congruence.

Clarity - Ensuring your customers can clearly identify you and your brands.  you should be clear about how your different brands fit together and who they are aimed at.  Your visual identity should be unique and recogniseable.
Consistency - All your communications should use your identity in familiar and consistent ways.  Colours, fonts, layouts, furniture, uniforms, sounds, language and anything else that forms the impression your customers get of your company are included here.  Making sure everyone in your organisation is involved in this is vital.
Congruence - This is the key thing to get into place before tackling either of the above.  You need to look at your organisation and decide what makes it special - think of the words you'd like to hear your customers say when describing you, and use these as the basis of your brand personality.  Does the identity you are currently presenting match up to this?  If not you have work to do. 

Sounds simple doesn't it - well in some ways it is - but the really important thing is making sure you get the groundwork right, and for that you may need a bit of professional help from marketers and designers.  Find yourself some good people to work with and you'll reap the rewards in terms of happier, more loyal customers...

M&S, Chocolate knickers, and the UK's 'Christmas Culture'

It seems M&S resorted to a good old bit of British sleaze to add the wow-factor to their Christmas ad campaign this year.  Philip Glenister's demand to see 'that girl prancing around in her knickers' was designed to appeal to the nostalgic, middle-aged male buyer of inappropriate underwear for 'the mrs', but caused a sexism row that resulted in an investigation by the Advertising Standards Agency.  The ad was cleared, but what was the thinking behind this risky strategy for the usually uber-conservative M&S?

The casting of Glenister was, of course, an inspired choice.  His character from Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes reminding us how different life was in the 70s and 80s.  Benny Hill...Carry on films...if it was alright back then, why isn't it alright now?  In my view this is the key to the ad's success - it hits exactly the right note with many of M&S's customers.  The sad thing is that it also highlights just how entrenched our gender stereotypes are - particularly when placed in the context of 'Christmas in Britain'.

Ok, lets break this down a little and take a look at some of the iconic figures of the UK's 'Christmas Culture'.

#1 The incompetent male

We're bombarded with ads at this time of year aimed at men who are portrayed is incapable of buying a thoughtful gift for their partners.  We're all still buying into the stereotype that every man's brain turns to jelly when it comes to gift buying - and how wonderfully comforting and convenient this must be for men.  The pressure is off - you're allowed to rush out to the nearest service station on Christmas Eve and buy your wife a box of Roses because that's all that's expected of you.  The bar is set so low, that Thorntons is considered a result.   If anything this idea is as sexist as the portrayal of the 'prancing' model - how patronising to the many men who do put thought and effort into buying gifts?

#2 The time-starved mum

Another key figure in our Christmas panto is the downtrodden Mum.  She has so much to do in the run up to Christmas that she hasn't a moment to herself.  The most important thing she has to do (of course) is shop. Shop for Christmas dinner, shop for gifts, shop for parties, shop, shop and shop some more.  The time-starved mum is another cultural creation whipped up by advertisers to keep women buying until their credit cards can take no more.

and finally..

#3 The Christmas Fairy

Not only do us girls have to rush around buying food and gifts, but we also have to be the Christmas fairy.  Hair, nails and looking cute in cashmere scarves and furry boots.  We have to be airbrushed Twiggy or perfect Mylene, or look like Noemie Lenoir in our knickers.  Well that's a tall order...but who knows...if we shop at M&S that Christmas magic might just happen...

We're all as guilty as each other of buying into these myths, and who can blame M&S for cashing in?  My personal reaction to the ads was mild disgust, but I'm (hopefully) not their target so that's of no consequence. It was a risk, but a calculated one.  Well done M&S and well done Stuart Rose for going out with, if not a bang, a bit of fizz...

Watch the ad

The Joy of...BMW?

BMW's latest campaign by agency Dare is predicated on the idea that you buy a BMW for the 'joy' of it...hmm... is it me or does this just seem...well...wrong?

Joy in a Jar

The whole concept that 'joy' is at the heart of any decision to buy a BMW seems to jar with their long held positioning based on status and quality.  I know the campaign was originally commissioned for the launch of their new improved Z4 (which incidentally does look so much better than its Batmobile predecessor), but the extension to the whole product range just simply doesn't ring true for me.

Keeping up with the Joneses

People don't buy a BMW for the fun of it.  If they want fun they buy a Mini (which begs the question of whether BMW just applied the campaign to the wrong part of the company..?)  The truth is, people buy a BMW to impress other people.  You may argue; but in your heart of hearts BMW driver, you know it's true.

So why do it? 

Trying to reposition a major brand in one of the worst slumps the car industry has ever seen is a brave move, but perhaps it's seen as a necessity.  Maybe the idea is that we all need cheering up because of the recession, -so buying a BMW is a treat that will make us feel better. The danger here is that you end up with an extremely confused brand proposition that doesn't actually meet the needs of any of your customer groups.  Showing a picture of old beamers at an owner's rally just doesn't have the same charm as it would if they had all been owners of a Ford Capri, and is likely to call in to question the exclusivity that's been a part of the BMW brand architecture for decades.

C'mon - buy a Beamer, it's fun!

BMW seem to have chosen a positioning somewhere between the cheaper brands that offer 'fun' (e.g. Mazda's 'zoom zoom', Vauxhall Corsa's 'C'mon'), and the mid life crisis cars (e.g. Porsche), but who is their customer? What does the joyful BMW driver look like? And can they maintain their price premium in this market space?  Who knows, but sometimes the boldest moves can be the most successful.  You never know, next week when the economy has recovered (!) we might all be going out and buying BMWs in crazy colours for the sheer joy of it...