When it comes to building a global campaign, most people will naturally think of visual and copy content – expressing the universal truth with locally relevant images and articulating the global messages with copy that resonates with the local audiences. But telling the brand story isn’t just about what images and copy, an aspect of a global campaign that not many people invest in is how the brand “sounds”.
I am not referring to designing just a sonic element or trigger that appears in the campaign – the Intel’s “Bong”, the Nokia’s “Grade Vals”, or Motorola’s “Hello Moto”. These are valuable addition to the execution that could add memorability and longevity to a campaign, but they are not enough to help communicate the emotional side of the brand message. Consumers have also entered into a truly connected world where the use of sound cohesively across all touchpoints – online, offline, events and a diverse form of customer interactions. The sonic branding has to act as the glue for communications across time, territories and touchpoints, locally and globally.
The recent manifestation of the HSBC’s “Together We Thrive” global platform perhaps have done just that. A series of commercials have been launched communicating the message of “shared prosperity” (inspired by the Chinese name of HSBC 滙豐) and the diverse nature of the brand, building on the visual identity that the outdoor campaign kicked off last year. To allow the core brand message to be flexed in each local region, a bespoke piece of music has been composed, created by Jean-Michel Jarre, that allows endless local interpretations expressing intricate nuances.
Orchestrating a global campaign requires great leadership and vision from the top, and complete collaboration at the local level. Music can be a shared “language” that everyone can contribute and build on.
On an execution level, music, rather than just an add-on to an idea, can also become a platform to support multiple activation between customers and the brand. I am looking forward to seeing how this will develop in the coming months.
There’s no doubt that the role of creatives has changed dramatically. This year, we have seen evidences that companies of all kinds are seeking a different kind of creatives to fit to the changing model that they operate in. WPP has announced their repositioning as a “creative transformation company”, one of their new focuses is to help clients in “omnichannel” commerce and marketplaces. Global marketers, such as Unilever, Adidas and Coty, want a simpler, faster, more joined-up approach by bringing some of the key talents, including creatives, closer to the brand.
The new breed of creatives is now being sort after not just by traditional agencies (or agency networks), but consultancies (dare I say “cagency”), media agencies, media owners, co-creation partners, and in-house.
But instead of thinking the role of creatives have changed because of the changing landscape of the business, I think that it’s the other way around.
The advertising business hasn’t changed fundamentally. We have.
Creatives no longer think, plan, collaborate, produce the same way as we did before.
We think holistically
While the overarching big idea is still the soul of it all, the choice of media and how they interact with each other has become increasingly important.
Today, the real craft is not just to take a complicated idea and reduce it to a long form TV commercial, but to make sure the message builds up throughout the consumer’s journey. What motivates us is no longer just creating that one single piece of masterpiece but constructing the intricate relations between each channel.
Having a holistic view of user experience is increasingly requested from creatives, as we are the ones who should be mastering the “how” and “why”, not just the “what” of communications.
Taking that to one level, the ultimate satisfaction comes from knowing that the idea can also be reinterpreted in different culture and market fluidly and with such richness that the impact multiplies. In order to do that, we often don’t work within a traditional creative team structure – we collaborate with creatives across any discipline, often across borders.
We act fluidly
We respond to a brief by understanding the business problems and come up with creative solutions to make that happen. The traditional format of a creative brief that limits executional possibilities no longer works, as our real challenges are creating non-traditional solutions, rather than limiting to a narrow brief.
We no longer tie ourselves up to specific titles. Copywriters are more than just crafting messages with the power of words, but the ability to tell stories through whatever means, and visualise how messages can we carried over to another medium. Anyone who judge copy just by looking at it on one single medium do not understand how real copy of today works.
We have a purpose
Brands need a purpose. Creatives do too. If Nike’s purpose was just all about making great shoes, then there won’t be a space to “dream crazy”. And the idea to keep the brand relevant by reinforcing the brand value of giving people a brave voice through an ad featuring Colin Kaepernick, among other strong-minded athletes, would never have seen the light of day.
Seeking out the right purpose to apply on our clients’ brands is becoming one of the skills that creatives should have. It’s not about just any purpose, but mapping and matching the relevant ones for the client takes genuine creativity. In a way, we transform the mundane selling into something redeeming and enriching.
We keep changing
Will 2019 brings to us a whole new angle of changes? Will the in-house creative team models continue to work (we are already seeing how Intel’s in-house function has scaled back, and Unilever is looking doubtful over the negative impacts on creativity). Will increased involvements of technologies such AI and VR means creativity and our opportunities will become broader, and our scope will be greater to make an impact for brands?
Things are changing and will continue to evolve. There is no such thing as a static model now. What changes have you experienced so far? I like to hear from you.
Advertising is a reflection of our times. It always has been.
Advertising of brands, like music and movies, can be a social message in itself. It influences how we look, what we eat and sometimes how we see ourselves.
So when brands join force with another global and cultural phenomenon, such as sports, it can be even more powerful.
Brands want to be more “human”, and are a lot more open-minded to have a point of view. They understand in order to do this genuinely they need to allow people to have a voice.
Athletes understand their roles in the society and are more authoritative than ever to choose what brand they like to use as a platform to allow them to have a voice, and represent their values.
But in a commercial world, brands have a lot to be accounted for.
Brands have every pressure from the shareholders to invest only in messages that guaranteed sales growth.
Brands have every right to avoid associating with sensitive political issues.
Brands have all the reasons to communicate a message that appeals to “everyone”.
Thank goodness Nike is not such a brand.
The recent Nike campaignmakes no direct reference to any political viewpoints, but by featuring Colin Kaepernick (among Lebron James, Serena Williams and a slew of other athletes), the association to his protest against racial injustice, and decided to kneel rather than stand for the national anthem before a 2016 National Football League preseason game is clear.
What’s so compelling about the Nike message is not because it’s charged with one of the most sensitive political messages at the moment, and confronting face to face with one of the most controversial leaders in American history, it’s the pure fact that this is so true to what we know about the brand – someone who has the courage to speak his/her mind, and giving people of any background the space to expression theirs.
Not every brand can do this though. Any brand who hasn’t got that long established history of credential and integrity, will come out feeling sheer opportunistic.
The clever approach of Nike is that it does not have to express a single point of view but just create a stage for the broad range of people to express the breadth of their standpoints. In the process, bring people of many different backgrounds together.
It makes the brand feels more human, an advocate of freedom of speech rather than siding with one point of view.
True, after the news went viral, it pulled waves of both support and backlash, even boycott. The brand’s shares dipped in reaction to the news. But on the other hand, the campaign also received millions of dollars of media exposure. Perhaps all these have fulfilled the brand’s calculated cost benefit analysis, in communicating the message of an inclusive world for all.
Even if some people don’t agree with what you are saying, they will appreciate that you have the courage to say it and speak up.
Perhaps it’s really time for brands to believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.
The increasing popularity of using pictures and video to share on social media is driving a huge trend for using moving images to tell the brand story.
Speaking at an event in June this year, Facebook’s Nicola Mendelsohn endorsed this trend and said she would put money on Facebook “becoming all video over the next five years.”
No wonder clients want videos – lots of them.
Consider these stats:
Facebook grew to 8 billion average daily video views from 500 million users in Q3 2015. The jump from just 4 billion video views per day in Q2 the same year was massive.
More than a third of Snapchat’s daily users create their own “Stories”, broadcasting photos and videos as chronological narratives, and users are watching 10 billion videos a day on the application, up from 8 billion in February this year.
The time people now spend watching video on Instagram has increased by more than 40 percent in the last 6 months.
And that’s just a glimpse into the burgeoning popularity of video content.
Interestingly, we’re not just watching more video, we are becoming more discerning about it too.
We expect videos to offer a more immersive experience – for example, the 360-degree videos that let us move around and explore a certain space, and interact with responsive elements. The 360-degree video from Expedia, created by 180LA in partnership with Tourism Australia, lets viewers lead their own exploration of the dramatic land- and sea-scapes of Australia. Since making its debut on YouTube in June, it has already gathered more than 3 million views.
Tourism Australia makes the best use of immersive videos
We also have a totally different perception of “quality” for videos. Instagram used to be less aesthetically forgiving than Vine, but I think the line is going to be blurred.
Then comes personalization. Amazon has just started dynamic video ads as a pilot, using browsing data to decide what creative to show prospective shoppers on the fly and tailoring itto individual users’ interests.
The media, more than ever before, is becoming the message. And it is constantly evolving. Even the greatest creative will fail if it is not delivered via the latest and most relevant visual format.
The Video Revolution
There are countless forms of video content. At one end of the spectrum, you have the most practical eLearning or product videos delivering informative / educational content, while at the other you might have highly engaging, entertaining and stylized content that tells a brand story. Then there’s everything in between. All forms of video content serve a very different purpose and certainly take a very different type of talent to create and produce.
In addition, every channel demands a different format and creative approach in reaching a high level of engagement. And as every brand is likely to adopt a multi-channel strategy, we are going to see more and more services dedicated to curation. Brands will need to have a central hub overseeing the creation of videos across all touch points and bring them all together. After all, in the eyes of the consumers, the different types of video content should all be channelling the same brand.
So, what type of video content is suitable for your brand? What are the latest trends? Let’s take a look at some of my recent observations.
Long Form vs. Short Form
The common belief is that short videos, with text overlays instead of sound, are becoming more popular. They grab attention quickly and, when designed appropriately, they can produce an instant emotional response.
However, that doesn’t mean long videos won’t work. It’s all down to the creative idea. Brands now understand that if the content is engaging and rewarding to view, consumers will be willing to seek out the longer form.
Gautam Anand from YouTube APAC recently remarked on the trend for longer video ads in the region. The most popular ads from 2015 averaged more than four minutes. Four of the top ten YouTube videos were more than 5 minutes in duration. The single most viewed ad, from Malaysia Airlines for the Chinese New Year celebration, is a majestic 12 minutes long!
Sound vs. Silence
Voice-overs, when produced cheaply and unprofessionally, can wreck even the smartest and most beautiful content. Worse than being ineffective, they can actually damage the brand. In this case, silence is definitely golden.
Another reason why videos for social channels are increasingly being created without sound is that, in many cases, people are in locations where they can’t consume the audio. Savvy brands ensure their idea resonates even with people who haven’t turned their speakers on.
“Tiny Magic” Videos from Lostmyname can be fully enjoyed with no sound
As video consumers become more discerning, the bar for quality video is raised higher every day. Even the humble screen text is enjoying a renaissance. It’s not just about adding functional subtitles or uninspiring supertitles any more. Visualizations and overlays are getting more sophisticated all the time, raising consumer expectations, and therefore requiring us to plan ahead, to include them as part of the storytelling rather than an afterthought.
Local vs. Global
Can video content really go global? Just because you can (technologically speaking), it doesn’t mean to say you should.
If we know how crucial it is to draw emotional responses from consumers, we know that we have to reach them not just locally, but somehow personally. Does anyone really still believe this can be achieved with one version of one video that has not been even adapted or localized?
Inevitably, global brands do have finite resources, so it can be hard to create different content for every platform. Not to mention tailor-make it for each market with its different language and culture.
The key is to think global from day one – to take a brand’s core assets from the beginning and consider how the local audience will consume them. This will allow you to think about how to tailor your content for different platforms, and how certain assets can be shared for global releases.
Localization of video content has come a long way from the days when subtitling or dubbing were the marks of a successful international brand. As an example of just how far, take Coca Cola, who recently launched Coke TV in the UK and Ireland. Instead of globally developed TV ad campaigns featuring global celebrities, the channel is aiming to target young local audiences via YouTube. Fronted by two YouTubers, Dodie and Manny, each episode will be based around the themes of gaming, sport and music. The appeal is obviously very local (or at most regional). It will be interesting to see if Coke TV rolls this tactic out globally.
CokeTV GB
CokeTV France
One thing is certain – for video content to go global, pre-production and planning are essential. Great videos, like any other content, demand the time-honored ingredients of success: a deep understanding of the consumer, superlative storytelling, and inspirational creative work. If you can combine that to deliver stories to people in each market in a new, exciting, and locally relevant way, then you will have won them – and quite possibly won the world.
Coca-Cola recently announced their “One Brand” strategy. A series of changes affecting the advertising campaigns for the portfolio of brands, and the detail packaging design alignments were announced. This shift from brand-specific advertising will see the brand uniting all four distinct brands – classic Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero and Coke Life, logically under one master brand marketing banner: The Coca-Cola family. The objective is to drive synergy across the portfolio.
The overriding tactic is that Coca-Cola is the only thing the company will position and give meaning to, and underneath it will sit different product variants. Each variant will be equal in the overall portfolio but “won’t have a meaning attached to them.”
Coca-Cola continuously ranked at the top in the world’s global brand rankings over the years. In 2013, according to The Best Global Brand from Interbrand, it slipped from the top spot after 13 years to third place. Perhaps it was the “wake up call” for the brand. But was the dilution of brand strength really due to its diversification into campaigns for individual product variant?
The strategy was an outcome of recent consumer research, which revealed that 5 out of 10 of consumers don’t know what differentiates each product in its portfolio. For example, people don’t know that Coke Zero has no sugar and no calories. Consumers are also unclear about the different between Coke Zero and Diet Coke.
Coca-Cola considered the company’s efforts to build personality behind its individual brands has become an obstacle to consumers’ understanding of the products.
Building meaning in the communications will not affect consumers’ understanding of the product. A brand under the brand halo itself could become an identity in its own right, as opposed to just being seen as one of the variants. I believe the heart of the matter is when the “meaning” is not connecting with what the product represents, then it ends up a waste of effort.
Product differentiation is increasingly hard for brands operating under portfolio brand strategy. From FMCG brands to service brands, the fragmentation of brand messages often causes confusion in consumers’ mind. When HSBC launched the “Personal Economy” platform for their “Premier Account”, was it distinctive enough to help consumers to clearly differentiate among the “Premier”, “Advance” and “Business” accounts? Do consumers clearly recall the commercial starring Jude Law was for Johnnie Walker’s Blue Label? What about the differences among Red Label, Black Label, Gold Label Reserve and Platinum Label? How does the whole range connect with the brand message of “Keep Walking”?
The list goes on.
In the case of Coca-Cola, should the “Open Happiness” platform be given an even bigger playground with universal appeal? Or should it be changed to a more rational statement such as “Choose Happiness”?
The “One Brand” strategy will be executed on campaign level and on product level, and will affect agencies working within the framework. Some of the changes can be summarised as:
The newly evolved brand tagline “Choose Happiness” will be launched in Great Britain before moving to the local markets globally. It will be hugely interesting to see how the tagline could be adapted.
New brand campaigns will focus on the brand idea of happiness and optimism and will roll out in Great Britain, Ireland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Nordics and Spain.
All advertising campaigns from May in Northern Europe will feature all four products, with the lower and no sugar Coca-Cola variants presented in the final frames of all Coca-Cola TV ads.
Although all four variants will feature in future campaigns, Coke will be able to spotlight or “hero” whichever variant is relevant to the campaign, through visual representation and strategic executions.
Individual campaigns for individual product variant will be scrapped. That includes some of the newly launched campaigns such as “Regret Nothing” for Diet Coke.
Brand message will suggest there is a “Coca-Cola to suit every taste” by more clearly communicating product differentiation rather than personality – to enable consumers to make informed choices.
On the product level, some of the strategic changes include:
New packaging will see each variant being given the “same design” and set of characteristics, such as the iconic Coca-Cola script, ribbon and layout.
The “Cola-Cola” trademark will be made larger and more visible, with more presence of the iconic red colour.
Text will also be added to the front of Coke Zero, Coke Life and Diet Coke to enable consumers to better understand the range of products and the distinctive attributes of each. On the front of Coke Zero cans, the descriptor “zero sugar – great Coke taste” will be strategically repositioned in the foreground.
There will be an introduction of colour coded front-of-pack labelling showing fat, saturated fat, salt, sugar and calories.
All these design changes are aiming to create a more visual “common identity” across the brands. The more unifying set of characteristics that the brand shares.
We are already seeing some of the new ads hitting major touchpoints.
In brand advertising, the big change can be seen in the latest global print campaign starring Marilyn Monroe and Elvis in celebration of the 100 anniversary of the brand’s contour bottle.
In product-as-hero communications we see a deliberate attempt to present the range in equal light. But will the execution help the different product characteristics come to life when “product truth” are being communicated in a much more straightforward way? Or will the lack of “meaning” turn the ads into something better fit for corporate presentations? The result is yet to be discovered.
New strategy brings new collaborations
At the end of the day, any new strategy won’t succeed without collaboration across the board. Here are some of my predictions:
Communicating product truth for each product variant is important but cannot be done without the support of a meaningful brand message. Product message needs to be connected with the brand’s umbrella message.
It’s not a choice between logic and magic, but a balance.
On a positive side, I think the strategy will be instrumental in paving the way to a more efficient and single-minded global campaigns. But this will only be achieved through rethinking how the brand campaigns are created and implemented across each product in the portfolio.
Doing it well, it will allow the brand to innovate into the future with a single voice, and do it in a way that doesn’t require the brand to invest in creating a new entity every time – a much more flexible approach in accommodating product manifestations.
I can also see there will be a need for tighter collaborations among the creative agencies handling different channels. Leadership will probably be driven centrally, where collaborations among agencies are encouraged and well facilitated.
The lead creative agency, on the other hand, needs to spearhead the development of the big brand idea, and create a strong creative platform on which messages of individual brand in the portfolio can build on. More important, creatives need to think of media-neutral platforms and not media-centric ads. Each agency needs to put their egos aside and completely understands the DNA of an idea and be able to expand it beyond any boundaries of a specific media.
For a global brand with local connections and meanings, any new creative platform needs to offer each country an opportunity to interpret its own “moments of happiness” and the brand’s role in those. The brand should tap into local talent to add to the effort to their marketing programs through joint global initiatives.
It’s Chinese New Year on February 19. The Spring Festival is regarded as the most vibrant gift giving and shopping season in China, and therefore one of the major push for many leading brands. Many global advertisers follow the same old formula year after year, while others try to break away from the norm and do something different.
Pepsi curated a “crowd-sourced video” inviting consumers to submit 15-second videos via Mei Pai 美拍, a local mobile video app, to form a tribute to family reunions. The crowd-sourced final cut video will be eventually simulcast on the big screen in New York’s Times Square, symbolically bringing something local to a global stage. At the same time, the “Bring Happiness Home” themed promotion will deliver over 2000 postal parcels to help the mothers in the remote mountainous regions get through the cold winter days.
Apple, on the other hand, had taken this opportunity to unveil their first TV commercial produced specifically for the China market.
It has been an epic few months of localization activities for Apple. Recently they have opened five new stores timed right before the Chinese New Year. Four of the stores are in brand new cities for the brand including Zhengzhou, capital of central China’s Henan Province, West Lake in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. In each location, they have strategically partnered up with local artists such as Wang Dongling and painter Yangyang Pan to co-create signature murals inspired by each city for the local store.
The TV commercial for Chinese New Year has been met with mixed criticisms. Directed by Ann Hui, best known for her films surrounding the topics of social issues, and cinematography by Christopher Doyle, a key collaborator in many films by Wong Kar Wei. However, you can hardly trace their signature style in the production. One of the main reasons, perhaps, is because they had to follow the tight guidelines imposed on the production – it has to be “consistent” with the global version. The story bears an almost identical storyline to a commercial entitled “The Song” released in the United States over the Christmas season in December 2014.
US “The Song”
China “Old Song”
Even though it is by large a just a localized version, but at the very least, there is a strong and relevant proposition. The storyline cleverly positions the brand being the bridge between the younger generation and the old, and technology plays a role in connecting the emotions across generations.
Different brands tend to adopt a different approach to localize brand messages for local market. In the old model, creating the localized version often involves so many levels at the client side. Depending on the category of the product, it could involve anyone from the local marketing team, the regional marketing team and of course ultimately the global brand team. During the process, any form of innovative thinking will be filtered, reduced, modified, tweaked, abandoned, shot down, reinterpreted or misinterpreted.
Any creatives who had worked within international network agencies on global brands will know the challenges. Fortunately, some global brands are now doing it differently.
Apple now adopts a centralized approach – global ideas being conceived centrally, while implementation and production being done locally. Local content are developed following the global guidelines. Pepsi has adopted a more locally driven approach, leveraging current consumer trends that resonate well in the local market. While brands like Microsoft, they have established processes such as “global-readiness audit” to make sure the ideas and executions can travel well.
No matter which strategy you decide to adopt, one thing is for certain – if you want a cohesive global brand at all, you do need to think global at the time when the idea was conceived. The key to success is to create a truly global platform, which could be so fluid that it allows local interpretations without losing its integrity.
Most global brands prefer the 80-20 ratio of global-local content – to adopt 80% of the content centrally and globally, and allow local market to reiterate and adapt 20% of the content to enhance local relevancy. I personally advocate the 70-20-10 model in which 70% of efforts focus on delivering quality global communications riding on universal truth, 20% on pushing the boundaries to contextualize it with local nuances, and 10% on ideas and approaches which are unproven but could transform the marketplace in each local market.
Which model works best for you highly depends on how you structure the global-local team, and where you put the right kind of resources.
It’s also not easy to motivate creatives to get all excited to work on adapting global ideas, but you can create the space and environment to allow creativity to grow. Here are a few tips:
Human insights trump cultural ones. Avoid merely dressing up the global ideas but rather go deep into the reasons why, because that’s what true consistency is all about.
Nothing should stop you from creating something that is uniquely local; using very native expressions as long as underlying it there is a meaningful concept that everyone understands.
Construct a platform that local teams can “build on it” fluidly and not wasting their time to think of how to make it work.
Give anyone on the ground the tools and resources to thrive in scale. Be brutal in keeping the platform intact and trust your own instinct.
Consensus is not about everyone agreeing, it’s about everyone being heard and the rallying around the best answer. Never go for the lowest common denominator.
You can’t tell creative people to be creative, but you can let them.
We ought to be excited when we saw this video. Commissioned by Adidas, designed to be coincide with the World Cup season, it featured an artistic interpretation of the brand’s ongoing “All In or Nothing” proposition. It’s the perfect example of brands creating cultural properties in the world of branded content.
Entitled “Work Relation”, the three-minute film captured the first ever re-staging of the iconic 1970s performance of the same title by Abramović and her partner at the time Ulay. In the statement from Adidas, they described it as a performance that “focuses on commitment, teamwork and the strength found in togetherness – reimagined through the lens of the 2014 FIFA World Cup”.
As part of the World Cup themed content, it was not the usual celebrity fuelled spot, nor did it deliver yet another manifesto type of script. It was actually a surprise in many levels. The collaboration is one – not a lot of artists are willing to let commercial brand take such a big part in their original piece of art. Timeliness is another – Marina Abramović is currently staging a premiere of her new durational performance at the Serpentine Gallery London.
Yet there is a certain kind of uneasiness about the film.
Perhaps it is the unnecessary placement of the product in the performance.
Perhaps it is the deliberateness of the set up. (In the reenacted piece, eleven performers reference the total members of a football team.)
Perhaps it is the over rationalization – or over simplification – of the idea of teamwork.
The “human chain” passing the stone by hand was described to be “the most efficient method”. “The chain has the most endurance. The chain stays forever.” says Marina in the voice over. We all know that the human chain is, in fact, not exactly teamwork, nor can it be called collaboration. It depicts the most primitive form of assembly line work. Each person in the human chain has the identical skill, not complementing each other. They might collectively accomplish a “task”, but they will never be able to innovate.
In the video, the eleven performers were recruited from “varying walks of life” and probably have never trained with each other before. That is a fundamental key element in any collaboration, and is not being represented in the piece.
In a true collaboration, differences between partners mean that one plus one will always equal more than two.
Teamwork is often chaotic and messy. And it may not always last. But it is the most enjoyable, and the only way to be creative.
If we choose to be rational, we can analyse it forever. But debates, discussions and active engagement from the consumers are what brands really want nowadays, especially if brands want to become cultural properties of the world. In one of the interviews of Marina Abramović in the book “Live Art and Performance” (published in 2004), she pointed out the need to “elevate” the public in order for them to experience art:
“…They (the public) have to make this radical step of not being an observer anymore, or a passive thing, but being participants. It’s essential, they have to be creative to finish the work.”
May be that’s what the best content should be – being open-ended, let the consumers interpret it themselves and own a piece of it. May be that’s the point.
Great global ideas do not come about easily. There is always the challenge when an idea works really well in one market, but does not resonate with the consumers in another. There is also the misconception of consistency and the danger of adapting global ideas for the local market without taking into consideration of the context, focusing more on the similarities and not the differences.
Traditionally, the narrow definition of a great global idea means the ability to adopt the same message and adapt it for the local market, maintaining ‘brand consistency’ and maximise cost savings. While this is still true in the broad sense, it is no longer enough. Not only the guiding message needs to be adapted, or transformed, to connect with local audiences, in a connected world, the way that the message is ignited is also likely to be different.
A recent campaign of Coca Cola was a good example.
The ‘Share a Coke’ campaign was first started in Australia (originated by Ogilvy). Overnight, the much loved, but often overlooked, Coca Cola changed the logo on the bottles to 150 of Australia’s most popular names. It took the entire country by surprised.
The strategic thinking behind the campaign was that for a big global iconic brand like Coca Cola, people don’t find it ‘personal’ enough. The campaign was so successful that it was subsequently launched in markets including Brazil, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and the UK. This year, the China team (working with Leo Burnett Shanghai) adapted the campaign by applying local creativity. Instead of showing people’s names on the bottle, they put the very local and colloquial ‘nicknames’ that are fondly used by Chinese among friends.
A quick recap on how the idea has been transformed in different countries:
Australia – the original:
UK: (similar execution for the Netherlands and Belgium)
Greece:
China:
The result is an authentic execution building on local culture and nuances. Not only did the idea travel, but they also managed to adapt it creatively for each local market, so that the consumers felt that the idea was created natively for them.
Each market also had their own way to connect with the people. In Australia, the campaign was activated by an interactive billboard at Kings Cross in Sydney, taking advantage of the digital technology and transfer people’s names instantly through SMS messaging. In China, widely recognised as a mobile-first market, an app was designed to facilitate sharing of the chosen ‘nickname’ to people’s friends via social networking platforms.
Interactive outdoors billboard in Australia:
An app created for the China market:
Such creativity blurred the boundaries between origination and adaptation. I call it creative solutions.
This is the kind of creativity that every successful global campaign requires. Miles Young of Ogilvy Group commented recently that with budgets under pressure, clients aren’t prepared any more to have advertising developed in every one of those markets by local agencies. I also think that a shared brand vision globally can deepen the cohesiveness of the corporate culture internally and maximize the power of collaboration.
I came across this campaign earlier this year. It was created by Print Power Europe, advocating the effectiveness of print media in the multi-media environment. Like any organisation exists to protect the role of a specific media in the integrated marketing world today, the message single-mindedly focuses on the effectiveness of the media, communicating the notion that print often demands the ‘full attention’ of the reader.
However, this is of course just one side of the story. When was the last time you were not being interrupted by a push message appearing on your mobile while reading the newspaper? Or have you ever read something interesting from the newspaper, and quickly tweeted it in 140 characters?
In fact, any single media attempts to operate in silo is surely going to fail. The Print Power Europe also acknowledged that digital integration is central to the success of the print media.
But newspaper and magazine advertising now offer that interactivity with the use of QR codes, Augmented Reality and Near-Field Communication. This digital integration is now central to the success of print media and offers the marketer a host of opportunities to engage with their customers in a number of new and exciting ways.
The challenge today is not only because of the multi-screen media consumption habit of consumers that caused huge disruptions to any specific media, it’s also much more difficult to make a strong business case if we frame contributions of one single media too narrowly – and not from the entire customers’ journey.
What we have started to see happening is cross over interactions. Twitter had successfully reminded the advertising industry about their close relationship with TV viewership, their 140 characters actually could be a good fit as and when the consumers’ eyeballs are glued to the TV screen.
In the context of print media, we also see innovative partnerships. Here are just two of the recent examples:
Enhanced Lexus print ad:
By inserting an iPad screen under the print ad, it transforms a print ad into multi-media visual sensation.
Independent+ Powered by Blippar:
Through ‘visual discovery’ pioneer Blippar app, the enhanced Independent content is enriched with videos, pictures, story updates and all sorts of interactive engagements.
The original page:
Scan with Blippar which triggers additional content:
Instant access to constantly updated online content:
As everyone is talking about ‘mobile first’ when it comes to digital strategy, we are in fact just touching the tip of the iceberg in its potential. I am so looking forward to seeing how the creative folks can think of even more innovative ways to create interesting partnerships with traditional media channels; and how such ideas could be implemented for brands on a global scale. It’s a constant and never-ending iteration, and it’s only going to get better.
There are certain debates that seem almost impossible to have a conclusion.
…Left brain versus right brain.
…Is advertising an art or a science?
…Is technology an enabler of creativity or in fact leading to predictable solutions?
…Data versus creativity?
With digital media gaining credibility through archiving highly measurable results, marketers are convinced that ‘Big Data’ will be the number one item on the CEO’s agenda in 2013.
On the other hand, creative folks continuously argue that data kills creativity. In a recent conference organized by Thinkbox in the UK, top creative directors and planners expressed their concerns that creative ideas are often ‘over analysed and pasteurised’.
In the US, leading creatives from interactive agencies even think that ‘data driven creative equals mediocre creative’, since it only encourage risk avoidance. Data does not equal to insight.
At Spikes Asia 2012, a panel of media professionals advocated that ‘data-led creativity is more than just hype, it’s the future’.
While at the Cannes Festival of Creativity 2012, a session hosted by Adobe was entitled ‘Is data killing creativity?’
The strong themes coming through from the session were that a balance needs to be achieved between the two. Data can identify the questions, but creativity must answer them and data must NEVER replace instinct.
Which side are you on?
The answer? There is no black and white conclusion.
What I believe is that data will only gain increasingly important and be considered as part of the tools to verify future direction and strategy. We will all be given much more access to data in more forms. Click-through rate, engagement rate, video playtime, the lists go on and new buzzwords being invented everyday.
When was the last time you attended a presentation either from creatives or strategists, that not a single data was mentioned as support of any argument?
However, data is not always the most powerful piece of evidence that can effectively strengthen any argument. As simple and straightforward as these little ‘evidence’ promise to be, if not used carefully, can create more problems than they solve. Of course there is also the critical cultural differences, what works in one culture does not necessarily mean the same data will apply in another market.
As creatives, instead of fighting against it, we should be more inclusive. We should interrogate it, understand the context around it, learn how to read data and use it wisely. We should also know how to interpret it in the context of the culture and adapt it to make it relevant for the specific brand and local market. Use data as raw materials to transform into innovative campaign platform, like the recent Topshop campaign I have talked about in previous blog. Elevate big creative ideas to ‘smart creative platform’ drawing on insights from data.
Planners, on the other hand, should make sure we are not relying on what had been a hit and success as evidenced by historical data, for that will only lead to me-too creative ideas. We need foresights not mere hindsight.
In one word, it’s teamwork.
At the Advertising Week Europe conference next week, there will be a presentation by Yahoo on the ‘Power of Personalisation’. Let’s see how we can use data to fuel creativity rather than killing it.
Louie Chow 
You must be logged in to post a comment.