Kate's posterous

Insert bad cat pun here

Screen_shot_2010-09-09_at_13

I love this new ad from IKEA for two reasons: 1) letting 100 cats into IKEA is an idea that I think is worth talking about and 2) anyone who's ever owned a cat will connect with the idea that cats are the most discerning members of the household when it comes to home comforts (and also the most creative in finding comfortable places, see above: cat in lampshade)

Watch it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/09/ikea-ad-cats

Uniqlo's Lucky Counter

Screen_shot_2010-09-06_at_15

I think this is an interesting idea: The more tweets about the item, the lower the price. I like how it's collaborative and how sharing is key to the mechanism.

The downsides to this for me are as follows:

1) The items aren't anything I need or want - Uniqlo is a 'staples' shop, so it'd make sense to promote the items that most people need in their wardrobes - not pink/green vnecks or ugly puffa jackets
2) I think most women will be with me here when I say that I try and avoid buying things that my friends own, because I want to dress in my own style/avoid looking like I'm 'copying' a friend (the greatest sin of the playground)

But, you know, props to Uniqlo for constantly putting out a stream of interesting digital ideas. It seems like every couple of months they're doing something new.

Social media monitoring and response: does the Daily Mail have a point?

Big-brother-logo-101

Another day, another histrionic Daily Mail article. Only this time, it's about what I (and what most people reading this) do for a living: companies using social media for business, specifically companies monitoring for negative comments about their products and services, and responding. If you've not seen it already, the Daily Mail's take on this is that it is Big Brother-like, invasive of privacy and even immoral.

I've seen the link go around on Twitter already, with the opinions of the tweeters implied: that this is typical Daily Mail scaremongering hyperbole, that the Daily Mail have missed the point. To an extent, I agree - and while I don't want to imply that I think that the article is an accurate gauge of how the nation feels about this issue, I think that it has raised a point that we might not have considered: that although social media networks are often public, they feel like a personal space to many who use them. And although I think it's commendable that companies like BT are searching for users with problems so that they can help to resolve them, not everyone will see it that way. To some, even if it's well-intentioned, it will seem like any other unsolicited marketing communication - except perhaps more invasive, to those who'd only considered social media to be their own small personal patch of the internet, or to those who aren't tech-savvy enough to be familiar with their privacy settings.

I'm not saying by any means that these companies should stop - just that it's important to be aware that not everyone sees social media like the social media professionals do, or how companies do - and it is particularly important if we're seeking to change opinions, soothe anger and ultimately win people round to our way of thinking.

Storms in teacups

Teacup-stack-shop0506-de

I would think that anyone reading this has heard about the Paperchase
scandal; if not, here's the quick version: Paperchase sold merchandise
with a design which was suspiciously similar to an independent
artist's work; the artist spoke out, the reaction was amplified by
others (notably Neil Gaiman), Paperchase are sorry and have released a
statement. It is this statement that is causing me to post this now.

The last sentence is what interests me: "It is worrying that such an
allegation can create such reaction and again, Paperchase apologises
for any ill-feeling caused."

I'm just as surprised as Paperchase seem to be; my first reaction is
to think that surely they've been living under a rock if they're not
aware of how this sort of thing can spread. After all, they work in a
successful business selling products which enable people to
communicate and create - and the storms in social media teacups are
all about communicating and creating. But on the other hand, I think
sometimes we forget that social media is not the world (shocking, I
know).

This in turn leads me to think: are those of us in social media doing
enough to communicate to those who don't participate or hear about
Twitter storms? I'm inclined to think that sometimes we operate in
bubbles; we shout loudly and think that just because people CAN read
what we say in blogs or on Twitter, that they ARE reading. Sometimes,
it's clear that they are not. We might be doing a great job in
communicating among ourselves, but maybe we need to be better at more
widely communicating the importance of what we do. Instead of a storm
in a teacup, we should be letting everyone know that there's a tea
party happening right here. Breathless comments to blog posts such as
"this really could make or break the company!" (in reply to the
Econsultancy post about Paperchase) betray the fact that some of us
are actually pretty deluded when it comes to the concept that what we
say on Twitter may have a limit in its reach.

Creators of "Career Women Make Bad Mothers" ad say: "WE'RE SORRY"

 
An apology has been made for the Career Women Make Bad Mothers ad, by its creators.
 
"Our intention was to provoke discussion. We believed that both the poster and the content of the Britainthinks website reflected this. We accept we got this wrong."
 
You know what? I don't think they're entirely sorry. I don't write that meaning to doubt the sincerity of their intentions in apologising, as I'm sure they regret causing offense or making any individuals distressed. However, when the time comes to analyse the campaign, I suspect they'll actually be very pleased at what that execution has achieved, and not sorry for it at all.
 
Ostensibly, the campaign is about what "Britain Thinks". But it's not about thought - it's about action. Ultimately, the brief (as far as I understand it) was to demonstrate that outdoor advertising is effective - and the aim was to use those posters to get people to visit the website. Given the reaction to the campaign, I bet their traffic figures demonstrate that this has been achieved. It's almost certain that they couldn't have done this without "Career Women". I started to write about how "Career Women" was a total failure if the campaign was to get Britain to think, but I quickly realised that I was missing the point. The real point is that they have evoked an emotional response (outrage) to achieve their primary goal - so who cares how much Britain has thought?
 
The end will probably justify the means, for them. Whoever reports the results to the client probably won't be sorry.
 
 
N.B.
 
Robert Campbell, half of the creative team which are responsible for the ads, posted in another blog post:

"I was talking to a child psychologist the other day. They said that any parent who spends more than 55 hours a week at work including travelling time is probably a bad parent. Doesn't matter what sex you are." (http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/campbelllacebetablog/archive/2010/01/04/good-fathers-make-bad-employees.aspx)
 
I wonder what would have happened if the line was "Career men make bad fathers"? We don't hear that one every day.

Lady Gaga, Creative Director for Polaroid

Explosive-lady-gaga

I just found out, via Brand DNA (http://branddna.blogspot.com/2010/01/picture-this.html) that Lady Gaga has been hired by Polaroid to be Creative Director for a range of its products.
 
I'm a big Gaga fan so will be excited to see what she develops (photography pun intended). I'm also a big fan of the idea of brands using the creative talent of celebrities, rather than just their faces and names. Sounds like Lady Gaga is actually planning to do stuff:
 
“The Haus of Gaga has been developing prototypes in the vein of fashion/technology/photography innovation--blending the iconic history of Polaroid and instant film with the digital era--and we are excited to collaborate on these ventures with the Polaroid brand. Lifestyle, music, art, fashion: I am so excited to extend myself behind the scenes as a designer, and to as my father puts it--finally, have a real job."
 
I hope that this collaboration produces more exciting stuff than the typical celeb/brand creative endeavour (i.e. the "fashion label")

Using sexism to prove advertising effectiveness

0_115_175_http_offlinehbpl_hbp

Perhaps I'm playing right into their hands by being offended by this, but the Outdoor Advertising Association have launched an ad campaign with the strapline 'Career women make bad mothers', in an attempt to prove the power of outdoor advertising. Posters with the slogan will go on buses and billboards nationwide in order to demonstrate that the medium works.
 
Don't make me laugh - this is all about the power of bigoted statements, not outdoor advertising. I'm certain it will get people talking, but how does it prove that outdoor would get more people talking than any other method? This idea is hardly a new one, how do you measure how far it's provoking thought rather than just reminding people of a well-worn controversial Daily Mail topic? And why target a particular group which has already been maligned enough by critics? And where, Outdoor Advertising Association, is your proof? Do you not have any mothers in your office?
 
Another execution, ‘1966- It won’t happen this year’ manages to be controversial yet not directly and personally offensive about someone's life choices. Why couldn't they keep it on that sort of tone rather than lashing for the jugular of working mothers? No doubt they'll pat themselves on the backs when people get pissed off about it - without thinking about any of the consequences.
 
So what do you think?