Why ideas are like coconuts

“I’ve got a lovely bunch of coconuts
There they are all standing in a row
Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head “

Danny Kaye

For many years The Ad industry has been in thrall of “the big idea”, and being so it regularly points to examples of those that have lead to have produced significant brand success; historically think BA’s world’s favourite airline, and more recently Coke’s Open Happiness.

As the marketing and communications industry struggles to comes to terms with the impact of technological, economic tsunamis and their cultural consequences, the role and importance of the ‘big idea’ is under examination.

Lets start with a quote from David Ogilvy

"It takes a big idea to attract the attention of consumers...Unless your advertising contains a big idea, it will pass like a ship in the night."

Applied specifically to advertising this suggests that the key objective is to gain attention in an environment where the communication is competing against a myriad of other messages.  Being of its time it's based on an interruptive model of advertising, where the so-called ‘audience’ (?) is doing something else and the brand tries to momentarily grab their attention, and generate awareness or better still interest.

There are a couple of issues here:

1.    The world has changed and interruption is acknowledged less and less asan effective means of gaining attention and driving awareness, let alone the new prime objective of ‘engagement’.

2.     Some clients and some agencies don't always recognise what really constitutes a “big idea”.

As far back as 1983 Ogilvy himself wrote,

“I doubt if more than one campaign in a hundred contains a big idea.” 

More than a quarter of a century on it’s likely that that ratio is even worse. Not great odds if you are investing everything on a 'big idea'.

Don’t get me wrong there are still examples of great thinking and execution that deliver what we all recognise as a big idea.  But should the pursuit of such represent the only framework within which we work to deliver solutions for our clients.

A big idea can be seen as a compelling thought that gives a brand a strong sense of self in the eyes of its audience.  But is it always just a ‘creative’ idea?  I think not.

Brands such as Howies, demonstrate that a big idea can be just as much a philosophy of doing business that informs creativity, as a creative expression of such.  And it’s with example such as this that we begin to see that potent ideas come in all shapes and sizes.

“Like any company we require a profit to stay in business. But it is not the reason we are in business. The thing that has not changed from day one is the desire to make people think about the world we live in. This is, and always will be, why we are in business" 

Dave Hieatt

The big idea here is the purpose of the business, which in turn drove the expression of the business through lots of small ideas, each of which helped define this purpose; in product, poetry, online and in a retail environment.

Gareth Kay has some interesting observations about the role and power of small ideas, and puts a strong case for focusing on small ideas to provide brands with momentum and drive them forward. (See his series of posts here)

“Creating brands built around a coherent stream of small ideas makes them stickier and more powerful - being the brand of new news and seen as having momentum and energy is the best leading indicator of future preference and usage.  It also means you are more likely to thrive in a world where 95% of things die”.

He also points out that the costs of trying things is getting lower and lower, which means it’s increasingly better to do stuff and learn from it rather than learning and doing.   

There’s an increasingly strong case for getting things out into the real world rather than spending too long trying to make things perfect. 

This is the iterative approach of Silicon Valley, rather than the crafting process of the traditional ad agency, and one whic agencies are already adapting to with their internal 'labs'.

Turning briefly to the aforementioned Open Happiness platform developed by Wieden & Kennedy for Coke, we could see this as a ‘big idea’.  I think though it is more useful to see it as what John Williams of Grey originally termed as a ‘Long Idea’.

This term sees the idea in the context of time, as an evolving entity, with a narrative.  The introduction of an element of story to the idea, provides more space for the development of different (but still coherent) threads, and provides more space for participation. The launch is just the beginning and the objective is to develop ongoing ideas that enable the brand to enter the lives and culture of its ‘audiences’ (that word again!). 

Maybe a good way of thinking about this is the analogy of a wave energy converter, such as the Pelamis, below.

Each section of the ‘worm’ represents a small idea, and the longer the worm the more energy it produces.

Coke understand this well, as is demonstrated by its presentation at the Cannes Lions earlier this summer.  Their “Liquid and Linked” approach (whose name works nicely with the wave energy convertor analogy) places a new emphasis on dynamic storytelling to connect with people across multiple connection points. They recognise that we live in a multi-dimensional world, which demands deeper interaction.  As they put it:

“This has brought a change in thinking, a change in staffing and an understanding that now, creating valuable and shareable content is the way to build brand love and value for the long term”.

Cannes Lions 2011 - Liquid and Linked Mystique Coca-cola seminar from Dmitry Voskresensky on Vimeo.

This recognition of content’s key role points to way of working where small ideas that are coherent with the ‘Long Idea’, become both the fuel (or the worm sections) providing the brand energy, as well as multiple opportunities for on-going engagement.

Whatever the size and shape of the idea its important that we realise its the start or a part of constant, evolving conversation or story, not a burst of activity then silence for six months.

At last…evidence that Social Media does provide a positive ROI

From the outset and even as  “social media” has gained more and more momentum, there has been a majority of brands that have delayed embracing it because “there’s no proof it delivers a positive ROI” (return on investment). 

To an extent this is understandable given the extent to which the ROI on an investment in SEM is so directly quantifiable.  There are a number of examples of counter arguments to this perspective, some of which seek to respond directly, and others, which encourage us to take a wider view.

The Wider View

Don’t confuse measurable with valuable.  It’s unlikely that many brands measure or consider the specific ROI related training their call centre staff to be courteous to customers, or on a smaller scale the ROI of having a clean reception area – they are a cost of doing business.  But that personal/social interaction is more easily acknowledged as being worth the investment.  We know you’ll get a return from all these types of activity.  They cost time and money.  But they make sense and we do them anyway.

As Albert Einstein said:

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”.

A More Direct View

Look at the financial returns Dell have achieved through Twitter - $6.5m in less than 2 years, plus increased interactions with 3.5m customers.

Look at the UK Xmas No1 in 2009 – Rage Against the Machine’s ‘Killing in the Name’, the success of which was down to a community that almost spontaneously formed on Facebook, to put an end to the sequence of X Factor Christmas chart –toppers.

Then there’s politics…

“A major success factor for Obama’s victory was how Obama’s campaign used social media and technology as an integral part of its strategy, to raise money, and, more importantly, to develop a groundswell of empowered volunteers who felt they could make a difference.”

Source: European Business Review

Sceptics may respond that they are not retailers, or political parties or as big or small as some of the lauded successes in the social media arena – and that there’s no proof it delivers a measurable ROI, that they can relate to.

Well, now there is.

A recent report from McKinsey – “The  rise  of  the  networked  enterprise:   Web  2.0  finds  its  payday” highlights that there’s a new class of company emerging – “one that uses collaborative web 2.0 technologies intensively to connect the internal efforts of employees and to extend the organisation’s reach to customers, partners and suppliers.”

In their latest annual survey of 3249 executives across a range of regions, industries and functional areas, two-thirds of them reported using Web 2.0, up 40% year on year. In nearly half of the companies that use social networking, more than 50% of employees are actively engaged with it.

Crucially, 9 out of 10 of the companies using Web 2.0 report that they are receiving ‘measurable business benefits’. (See Figure 1)

From a customer-focused viewpoint

63% are seeing an increasing effectiveness of marketing (including awareness, consideration, conversion and loyalty).

50% see increased customer satisfaction, and 45% reduced marketing costs.

Figure 1

 McKinsey’s analysis of the relative magnitude of the business benefits attributed by each company to social media enabled them to identify 4 distinct clusters of company.

‘Developing’ - Almost 80% saw a mean improvement of 5% or less across business benefit metrics.  These companies report the lowest percentages of usage among their employees, customers and business partners. Within these companies Web 2.0 is less integrated into their employees’ day-to-day work, and they are less likely to report high levels of collaboration or information sharing.

‘Internally Networked’ – 13% of companies in the survey have derived substantial benefits from deploying Web 2.0 technologies in employee interactions.  Respondents at half of these companies reported that social media was integrated tightly into their workflows. There is good evidence amongst this group that Web 2.0 promotes more flexible working processes internally, with information being shared more readily and openly.  Collaboration across organizational silos is more common.

‘Externally Networked’ – These are companies that have achieved substantial benefits by interacting with customers and business partners via social media tools.  Accounting for 5% of companies deploying Web 2.0, these organizations report that a greater proportion of employees, customers and partners use it, than internally networked organizations. But the internal organisational processes of externally networked organisations tend to be less fluid than those of internally networked ones.

‘Fully networked’ – This elite group of companies, 3% of those surveyed, drive very high levels of benefits from Web 2.0. They reported higher levels of employee benefits and external benefits (amongst customers and partners) than the other clusters.  These organizations have moved further along the learning curve, integration into day-to-day activities is high, and higher levels of collaboration internally and externally are reported.

All well and good you might think, but do benefits translate into fundamental performance improvements?

Figure 2

As Fig.2 illustrates, market shares reported by respondents were significantly correlated to fully networked and externally networked organizations.  McKinsey puts this down to both the benefits of collaborating across organizational silos and of

‘forging closer marketing relationships with customers by involving them customer support and product-development efforts’.

The reported attainment of higher operating margins than competitors correlated with a different set of factors: the ability to make decisions lower in the corporate hierarchy and the willingness to allow the formation of teams comprising both in-house employees and individuals outside the organization.

This suggests that Web technologies can underwrite a more agile organization, which in turn can raise productivity and create more valuable products and services.

The McKinsey report concludes

‘the benefits from the use of collaborative technologies at fully networked organisations appear to be multiplicative in nature: these enterprises seem to be “learning organizations” in which lessons from interacting with one set of stakeholders in turn improve the ability to realize value interactions with others’.

Our Industrialised society has arguably grown and flourished despite the fact that organizations have kept their ‘partners’ and their customers at arms length, whilst at the same time espousing customer centricity. 

At a time when the phrase ‘we are all in this together’ is perhaps a little overused, there is increasing evidence that significant and measurable benefits accrue from dialogues and collaborations that Web 2.0 facilitates. The McKinsey report begins to show that falling behind in creating internal and external networks could be a critical mistake for business leaders.

Does your organization fall into one of McKinsey’s identified types?

What do you think about McKinsey’s conclusions?

Stories of camels and sparkling eyes

I am growing to love the time between Christmas and New Year. Not so long ago, I looked forward to those days between Christmas and New Year when the office was open, and I could convince myself that I definitely needed to go in and catch-up on work. As we grow older, and hopefully a little wiser, we begin to appreciate and cherish the quiet times, whether we spend them with our families or in quiet contemplation - or something in between.

Whilst I am not the most dedicated user of all social media (I can't bring myself to l share my daily experiences on facebook) I am totally enthralled by following the tweets and blogs of those I admire, both in a professional and personal context. This last week therefore has been a combination of family celebration, quiet moments, and lots of (on and offline) reading and video watching.

As the year has come to an end I have been particularly struck by the extent to which many people are aware of significant changes happening in the world at large and in more personal ways. I'm old enough to remember 5th Dimension's " Age of Aquarius" from the 60s, and some of my friends (who know more about such things than I) suggest we are in a period of transition to more enlightened times. In as much as it seems to be part of the human condition to feel discomfort with change, it seems probable that we are in for a bit more of a bumpy ride on our way to something better.
There seem already many signs of a move away from rampant consumerism, towards a more understanding way of responding to the world. Trendwatching refer to some of these under their trend of "Generation G" (which formerly may have referred to greed, but now covers a movement towards increased 'generosity'). As they observe, our desire for companies to care more...
"beautifully coincides with the ongoing (and pre-recession) emergence of an online-fueled culture of individuals who share, give, engage, create and collaborate in large numbers".

The sharing and giving nature of much of the web enables us to continually find sources of inspiration and stimulation. In that spirit, here are few things that I have inspired by the last (reflective) week.
The first ones come from the ever fascinating and challenging TED conference videos.

William Ury, whose main work is helping to resolve conflicts (and he's been involved in most of the major ones of the last 25 years), demonstrates that 'the secret to peace is us' and that we all have a responsibility, as he says, as representatives of 'the third side' to contribute to the process of reconciliation. He calls on us all to help find and bring "the 18th camel" to the world's many difficult situations.




World famous conductor, Benjamin Zander, humorously shows us, through the vehicle of a Chopin Prelude, that by seeing individual experiences in the context of a broader vision we can more fully experience them. He also encourages us to believe that we all have the ability to awaken possibilities in others - to do something that makes others eyes shine. This ability comes with a responsibility to regularly ask ourselves "who am I being" (in this situation, and what is the effect on others around me?)

His Holiness the Karmapa is definitely a man with shining eyes. He reminds us that whilst continual technological advances connect us with an almost infinite amount of information, from the political to the personal, each of us has a responsibility to pay attention to that information an allow it to make a change in our heart and make our motivations more sincere.



Each of these talks I think provide pieces of a puzzle that makes up each of our lives. Maybe we think that we are all solving different puzzles with different shaped pieces, but perhaps all our solved puzzles end up being the same picture, whilst at the same time being part of a bigger one.

Then I read a book that the tweet from Paul Isakson (of one of the planners I follow) pointed me towards. "A Million Miles in a Thousand Years" by Donald Miller, which is a must read for anyone who feels affected or unsettled by any of the 'changes' referred to earlier. It has reminded me that each of our lives is a story, and whether it's a story worth telling is up to each of us.

Donald Miller points out that it's not just that we should react positively and generously to situations and opportunities in our lives, but whether we search out, or create and develop such opportunities. Miller observes:

"we live in a world where bad stories are told, stories that teach us life doesn't mean anything and that humanity has no great purpose. It's a good calling, then, to speak a better story. How brightly a better story shines. How easily the world looks to it in wonder. How grateful we are to hear these stories, and how happy it makes us to repeat them."

Paul has been inspired to put together a presentation on this here. Whilst the book is inspiring in a reflective sort of way, Paul's slides are a call to arms. I urge you to read both.

The stories that William Ury, Benjamin Zander and the Karmapa are telling are worth hearing and re-telling.

Perhaps the choices we make, and the events we are a part of or create, are both episodes in the chapters of our stories, and the puzzle pieces. In the same way we have the choice as to what story our lives tell, we also have a choice as to which pieces of the puzzle we pick up, and which one's we shape ourselves. Maybe the puzzle we are trying to solve is someone else's picture of our life.

Puzzles are easier to solve if we can make our own pieces to complete them, and maybe that is what Donald Miller is calling us to do. But it seems to me, we have to be open to the possibility that these new pieces, which are hearts tell us are a vital part of the solution, may not create the picture we had in our mind when we started.

I for one am eager to find out.

Wish me luck.