True Detective - Title Sequence

I’m finally getting round to watching True Detective, I’m only up to episode 3 so far, and really enjoying it. Suffering a little from all the hype I feel, and involving themes that seem to have been covered in some other recent films and tv shows. But I’m only at episode 3, so can’t judge it fully yet. 

What I can comment on is the title sequence, which is really striking. It easily passes the test of ‘pause any frame and it looks like a beautiful image’. Seriously, I dare you to find a bad frame in the whole sequence, there isn’t one. Art of the Title has done a fantastic job of giving a very detailed breakdown of the sequence, and an interview with the Creative Director Patrick Clair.

So this is short and sweet – just a link to the sequence and some of my favourite frames from it

Why isn't Content in Twitter's Strategy Statement?

Ever since I read Good Strategy/Bad Strategy by Richard Rumelt I was struck by how simply he would pull apart a strategy and call it 'bad strategy'.

This quote stands out as the starting point to build a strategy:

If you fail to identify and analyze the obstacles, you don’t have a strategy. Instead, you have either a stretch goal, a budget, or a list of things you wish would happen.

It is critical to identify the real problem you face and this can be a challenge itself, especially if the leaders in the company can't agree on what that problem is.

In the film Moneyball (2011), Brad Pitt's character, Billy Beane, realises what the real problem is with his team, and has to force his insight upon his management to give them a real strategy.

This scene brilliantly shows what he's up against, with everyone just going through the motions of 'what they've always done' to solve the problem of replacing three of their best players. The real problem is that they have a fraction of the Yankees budget so building a team the way that the Yankees would, results in just getting leftovers every single time.

Beane managed to push his strategy through, and they built an unlikely team.

After a slow start they went on to win 19 consecutive games, tying for the longest winning streak in American League history.

Beane had clarity over the real problem and knew he had to find a way to overcome it to compete with the wealthier and stronger teams.

That's how to build a strategy.


Twitter's Strategy

Reach the largest daily audience in the world by connecting everyone to their world via our information sharing and distribution platform products and be one of the top revenue generating Internet companies in the world.

This is not a strategy statement. It is a mixture of (muddled) vision and a loose financial goal of generating revenue (not even profit!). There's strange grammar and it feels like a committee all had input into it.

Another quote from Rumelt's book comes to mind:

Mistaking goals for strategy. Many bad strategies are just statements of desire rather than plans for overcoming obstacles.

Twitter's statement is much more like a list of goals vs a clear strategy.

Good strategy works by focusing energy and resources on one, or a very few, pivotal objectives whose accomplishment will lead to a cascade of favorable outcomes.

Ben Thompson said on a podcast recently that Twitter's strength is that it knows the interests and passions of people on the platform. As you (the user) curate your own list of people/companies/subjects to follow, this provides a bigger insight for Twitter's advertisers than Google's or Facebook's. Why? Because Google, in a general sense, knows what you're searching for. Facebook, also in a general sense, knows who your friends and family are and what you share/like with them. Twitter is about your interests. Interests are powerful as that's what drives you. Searching about a nearby restaurant on Google, or Liking a picture of a friend's baby is nothing compared to knowing what people (and subjects) you have chosen to follow and interact with in an always-on state.

Twitter has the potential then, to provide advertisers with much more valuable data of its user base and therefore offer better targeting, better ROI for its clients and become a very attractive proposition for marketeers.

I'm not in a position to know how technically Twitter can do this, I'm sure that is what they are doing on some level in the way they now serve ads. But by solving this, and making it work like magic for users and advertisers with parity, they'll then start seeing dollar bills pour in.

Here's my crack at Twitter's strategy statement. As it tackles advertising head on, I admit it wouldn't be the most public facing statement, but it's not really for the public. It's for people that work at Twitter and the shareholders.

Connect people to their passions and interests and serve them promoted content which is relevant, authentic and valuable.

It mentions content, advertising and it fits in a tweet. It shows awareness of the problem it has to overcome - to generate revenue (and ideally profit) and not piss off its user base.

It echoes what Google's aim was with AdWords too, which was to have the paid advert be the BEST search result for the user. It wasn't to be an interruption, it was to be the best and most valuable information you needed. This feels like the best strategy for advertising in general!
Whether it is entertaining, shocking, educational, informative - advertising which provides inherent value from its content and the relevance of when it was delivered to you, will make you click/view/purchase, make the brand generate a sale and generate revenue for the platform which connected these dots. It might even make you like the brand!

The strategy could also say "Treat our audience with the respect it deserves and only push tweets into their feed that feels authentic to them".

It's fascinating to think how great content from advertisers served to the right audience on Twitter's platform could be the route to financial success. Getting advertisers and agencies to make the great content is the next challenge.

Know the problem. Make everyone aware of it. Then fix it.


What's the difference between an ad and content?

"There's no line between advertising and branded content, no straight line anyway," said Jennifer Golub, creative director-exec director of content at TBWA content arm Let There Be Dragons. "It's more of an ambling brook."

Cannes Lions, 2014

I noticed two nice pieces of work from Philips today, both creatively very thoughtful and visually well executed.

As both are produced in an entertaining and non-intrusive way, they leave you with warm fuzzies for the brand and products. (It has definitely made me feel more positively to Philips and these type of adjustable lightbulbs!) There's no hard sell of cold features going on here.
Show don't tell.

It is interesting to take these two examples and throw them into the 'content vs ad' argument, with one clearly being more content, and one slap bang in the grey area of the two.

To start, the 90 second ad for Philips hue (it actually reminds me a little of some John Lewis ads). Much like John Lewis ads, this does sit on the fence between content and advertising. This particular execution does veer into the content argument though.

AFTERGLOW looks absolutely incredible and is very much content, whilst actually promoting a longer film which goes live on Philips' website on 19th October 2014. (You can imagine Sony would've killed for this film during their 'Colour' Bravia marketing phase).

But why does the 'hue' ad feel like it could be both? Is it because it's beautifully made, with an interesting narrative to see how light in our home has changed (or not) through time? Is that enough to make it content? Even though its focus is the product? The product is in every frame, and shown in a 'normal' use case. AFTERGLOW also features the product throughout, but in a way that 99.9% of customers never will. It is not just this factor.

Only this week I read an article on AdAge which was expressing the struggle Cannes had (and is probably still having) in defining what content actually is. I'm sure this is a debate which won't be easily solved, but at Cannes they settled with this:

...content was interpreted as something culturally relevant that people invite or seek out.

That is certainly a sensible approach, but that still doesn't make for an easy categorisation.

With this in mind you could categorise the Philips 'ad' for Philips hue as content, as people would enjoy seeing how life has evolved at home in the recent decades. I myself was curious enough from the title of a blog post and a still from the ad to click through and watch it. Much like how people sought after watching the Epic Splits video from Volvo, as it became culturally relevant through millions of people watching it and sharing it.

I like to think that, video 'content' can come in any form or execution. A 6 second Vine, a 30 second TVC or a 12 minute YouTube video. But for me it has to have some (or all) these qualities, and I think the more you have the finer the work:

  1. Don't be an interruption
  2. Have value
  3. Be relevant
  4. Be authentic
  5. And do at least one of these --> Inform, educate and entertain (Stolen from Reith's BBC Mission)

  6. Some of these are obviously open to interpretation, but you have to be ruthless with them and put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience - does it deliver on any of these? By virtue of achieving some of these, you accomplish the others - so it is something of a self fulfilling list. But all the best advertising that does this can certainly be classed as content. And before the era of YouTube/online advertising, we'd all sit and watch stuff like this - the 100 Best TV ads - check out this from 2003...

Are any of these classic ads content?

I think so.

Perhaps it just boils down to story, does it contain a well designed and executed story, rather than just slamming audiences with features or prices?
Story will certainly add value, and it will be far more engaging than one without a story - you just have to ensure it is relevant and authentic to the brand and the audience. It's not so simple.

We are storytellers, right?

(Nods to Petapixel & Gizmodo/Sploid & AdAge)

John Muir Forever

Crazy idea that John Muir's legacy is stupid.

To Christensen and others, however, Muir's notion that immersing people in "universities of the wilderness" — such as Yosemite — sends the message that only awe-inspiring parks are worth saving, at the expense of smaller urban spaces.

Critics also say Muir's vision of wilderness is rooted in economic privilege and the abundant leisure time of the upper class.

Gawker (surprisingly) fires back a great response.

Conservation of natural land is a gift that keeps on giving. Even if the poor of today are unable to enjoy our national parks, their children and grandchildren may be able to. The parks will still be there!
...
To the extent that John Muir's legacy is the awareness of the importance of conserving natural lands, it is as relevant as ever. (Go to any beautiful natural area that is being rapidly developed into condos and chain stores if you have any doubts about that.) Preserving the legacy of John Muir is not dangerous. Abandoning it is.

Via Gawker
Photo by me