creative learning

An entertaining look at why we need to put more emphasis on creativity in education:

Thanks to newhighscore for sharing the clip, and to phil for bringing it to my attention.

escaping the spiral

One of the most enduring themes of the past decade has been the decline of traditional industry models.

Record companies and newspapers have been the biggest losers, yet demand for the ‘products’ these companies deliver has risen dramatically during the same period.

The two trends seem to be in conflict: how can something experiencing increased demand simultaneously lose its value?

Has classical economic theory come totally undone?

Let’s take a closer look.

All-consuming

As recently as the 1990s, a music collection of  100 albums (about 1,500 songs) was something to be admired, taking pride of place across a whole wall of the living room.

Today, even cash-strapped teenagers carry that much music in their pocket everywhere they go.

But still we crave more.

Numerous new services attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for a fresh and varied playlist – Pandora and Spotify are obvious examples.

Yet almost none of these seem to be making much money.

It’s the same story for news.

As technology has advanced, instantaneous, ubiquitous news updates have become the norm, and we’ve become so used to these ‘info fixes’ that we even experience symptoms of withdrawal if they’re taken away.

Demand for news hasn’t just grown; it’s exploded.

So why are news agencies disappearing at an inversely proportionate rate?

What’s going on?

From the outside, the reason appears very simple: these industries have become too caught up in what they think people are buying; not what those people actually want.

The music industry is still obsessed with selling albums, because that’s been their core offering for decades.

Of course, at the time of their inception, albums were a highly efficient (and profitable) distribution medium.

The same goes for newspapers.

But, as Dave Trott points out, people don’t buy the media.

They buy the content that those media carry.

And if they can find that content more efficiently (and cheaper) elsewhere…

A false equilibrium?

Despite initial appearances to the contrary, the trend of rising demand and falling profit in these media-based industries is actually in keeping with classical economic theory.

The model suggests that people will tend towards the most efficient satisfaction of their needs: that they try to maximise the benefits they receive, while simultaneously minimising the associated cost (in terms of money, time, effort, etc.)

As Adam Smith posited in 1776,

“…what every thing really costs… is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

He went on to assert,

“What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it… is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself.”

Let’s look at those two statements in context:

1. From the consumer’s perspective, the cost of acquiring music and news content is not a pure price consideration: factors such as the effort needed to acquire and consume the product, as well as opportunity cost, are equally important;
2. The worth, or value, these products deliver is hard to measure, because the benefits they deliver are usually intangible (except where unique access to news provides a financial benefit to the consumer).

The key issue in these industries is that people suddenly have access to identical value at a much lower cost.

So what changed?

What are people buying?

People don’t buy media; they pay for access to content.

But if that content is available for free, why would they choose to pay for it?

Free access to music has been around for years via radio; the main issue has been a lack of listener control in the playlist.

The only legal alternative has been to pay for the privilege to listen to what you want, where you want, when you want, by buying albums and singles.

But given the costs involved in this alternative, another popular solution has been to acquire an illegal copy.

Piracy is nothing new; it has affected the music business since it began.

However, until recently, the quality of an ‘original’ was always noticeably better than that of a cost-effective copy.

The advent of digital formats like MP3 changed all that. Today, people can quickly and easily create a copy that is identical to that which they would get if they bought it from the original source.

The problem for the record companies is that there is literally no difference in the quality of pirated content.

Furthermore, the industry’s continued protectionist approach to ’selling’ music means that it’s often actually easier to find pirated copies than it is to find the original*.

Returning Adam Smith’s concept of ‘real cost’, this means that people have fewer and fewer reasons to pay the cost associated with original content; the only remaining motivator is conscientiousness.

Meanwhile, the situation with news is even starker: the industry itself has trained us to believe that news should be free, through ad-supported models such as CNN or freesheets.

When people have been so used to legal access to free news content, it’s easy to understand their current reluctance to move to services requiring payment – particularly when services like the BBC continue to offer free access.

Bene-fit for purpose

The only sustainable hope for these industries is to rethink what they’re actually offering.

The process is actually very simple:

What do people really want?

Where is it most relevant to them?

How can we deliver it to them and make a profit?

The critical step is to move away from thinking about how to improve the existing product, and to focus instead on identifying and understanding the benefits people seek.

New news

Why do people crave news?

It might be for a variety of reasons:

It provides information that helps us make decisions about our own lives (Will it rain tomorrow? Is there a crazed gunman on the run downtown?);

It offers a common topic we can talk about with others;

It shares opinion and that stimulates our minds and provokes further thought of our own;

It entertains and stirs emotion;

Perversely, it helps us put our lives in perspective, reminding us that “there is always someone worse off than yourself” (this is the only reason I can find for our continued obsession with ‘bad’ news).

However, none of these things belong to conventional news channels.

Indeed, most of those channels exist because they provide an audience for advertisers, and, arguably, they’ve never been truly focused on the audiences themselves.

Where would these benefits be most relevant?

What could we do to deliver it to them then… at a profit?

Change the tune

The task with music is a little more difficult, because it’s intangible and transient.

What exactly is music, and why do we love it so much?

What benefit does it provide?

It’s a question that has many different answers, because music means different things to different people in different contexts:

Sometimes it’s an all-consuming experience, like a concert;

Often, it’s something we use to define our personalities;

Sometimes it’s a means of escapism (like ‘cocooning’ on a crowded subway);

Sometimes it provides a reassuring background distraction;

Like fashion, it’s something that’s constantly evolving and fresh, providing us with something to talk about, and offering us things to look forward to.

I’m sure you can think of many more benefits (why not share them in the comments?).

Deliverance

It’s safe to assume that people’s desire for new music and fresh news will continue to grow.

As such, musicians and journalists are not – contrary to media scaremongering – on the verge of extinction.

The only thing that’s likely to disappear is the existing media model.

So how will we access these benefits in the future?

Much as I hate to inflate an already over-hyped solution, I believe the answer is ’something social’.

Services where people already go to seek similar benefits – to talk to people, to find out what’s new in their world, to seek emotional stimulation – are the most obvious places for them to seek music and news benefits too.

I believe we’ll see an increasing number of social services combine these offers in their bid to become our ‘one-stop shops’ for all such content.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t include TV and movies too.

Services such as Facebook have a great opportunity to became the de facto source for news and new music, although I suspect it will be a new, as-yet unheard of successor, who’ll bring about this next step in the web’s evolution.

So what’s new?

I suspect that, although you’ve nodded your head a few times during this post, you don’t feel there’s anything revolutionary in its content.

But that’s possibly because, in this simple format, it all seems obvious.

And I think that’s the problem: perhaps it’s so obvious, we’ve been missing the forest for the trees.

But, the good news is, the solution is very simple.

If we focus on the benefits that people seek – the real value that they perceive in the things they consume – then we have a chance of delivering it to them at a profit.

Sadly for some, it may be too late to save the mass media model, but the rest of us have a real opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

Thanks to Willsh for setting this thought process off with these lovely posts: one, two.

good vs evil

Most people believe that good will triumph over evil.

This optimism is a core tenet of humanity.

Indeed, it’s so ingrained that we often assume that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ will be easy to tell apart – like night and day.

Sometimes this is the case; some crimes can never be justified, while some acts are universally welcomed.

However, much of our world view dictates ‘good’ from ‘evil’ on a purely subjective basis.

For example, religion will likely always remain a matter of individual opinion.

The same is true of culture.

There’s little doubt that globalisation has led to a degree of homogenisation of attitudes and behaviour, and we’ve lost much cultural variety along the way.

But this is nothing new; the Greeks and the Romans are perfect evidence that even the strongest and most influential ‘civilisations’ rise and fall.

This is because culture and ideas are subject to the same principles of evolution as biological species: only the fittest survive.

And as with biology, the key to continued survival is genetic diversity.

This means we must draw from as many influences as possible, but at the same time, ensure that we do not distill everything into a single, homogeneous result.

I was reminded of this while watching a fantastic TED talk from Dan Dennett (below).

He approaches the topic of cultural propagation from a philosophical angle, but there’s a clear relevance to advertising and planning in there too.

For me, the abiding lesson is that our individual cutural and moral perspectives are never ‘good’ or ‘evil’.

They’re simply subjective perspectives.

rethinking right

There’s a common premise in advertising: the client is always right.

It worries me.

Being ‘right’ is a perspective, not an absolute

To some extent, clients will always choose the right answer.

But clients are people, and they have their own goals and ambitions.

And therein lies the problem.

What’s right for them, and what’s right for their brands, aren’t necessarily the same thing.

It’s the ideal excuse

“Let’s just give the client what they want.”

Sometimes, doing what the client wants is the right thing for the agency and its client relationship; you have to choose your battles.

But using this defense before we’ve proposed a better solution is just lazy.

It’s not easy to persuade someone to do something different to what they want.

But if we can prove – objectively – that our solution is more appropriate, we have an obligation to push that solution.

We’re failing in our commitments and our promises to our clients if we don’t.

Justify your love

Neil points out that the most common reason clients don’t go with the best answer is because we haven’t explained it properly:

Let’s face it: you just haven’t persuaded them that it’s a good enough idea.

Or worse, they think it is a good idea, but they don’t trust you enough to implement it without screwing it up.

In such circumstances, we need to rethink our approach.

Take time to identify their concerns, and also what they think makes an alternative better.

If it’s just a question of subjective taste, let it go; questioning someone’s taste is rarely constructive relationship-building.

Your task is to demonstrate objectively – i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt – which solution is best for the brand’s current context.

If their argument is based on valid rationale, but you’re unconvinced by the current articulation, identify ways to build on it.

It’s critical to remember that success isn’t about getting your idea into market; it’s about getting the best answer into market.

And if you still believe your solution is better, you need to prove why it’s in their personal best interests to believe you.

Who are you talking to?

Remember that your client is the first audience you need to persuade, and as with any other communication, success is always about them.

Show them how the best idea for the brand will also help them achieve their individual KPIs, and they’ll probably warm to it.

The trick is showing them why your right answer is the right answer for them too.

Then you can both be right.

keep watching

More wise words, this time from Winston Churchill.

the right track

Something occurred to me while reading this superb presentation from David Gillespie.

Media platforms are very similar to platforms in train stations.

It’s important to be on the right one, but only insomuch as that helps you get somewhere else.

Sometimes, choosing the wrong platform will take you somewhere a long way away from where you wanted.

But you can easily change the platform without changing the journey or the destination.

And so it is in advertising.

Platforms are just the start.

It’s the journey to the destination that matters.

David’s got a load of other good stuff on his blog – go take a look.

perceptions of value

A great talk by Rory Sutherland on the value of advertising:

“Rory makes the daring assertion that a change in perceived value can be just as satisfying as what we consider “real” value; his conclusion has interesting consequences for how we look at life.“

UPDATE: TED have posted a transcript of the fantastic Q&A session with Rory that accompanied this talk – take a look here.

Quote taken from the TED site. Many thanks to Dave Trott for introducing me to Rory’s speech, and to Anjali for alerting me to the Q&A.

maybe it’s you

Neil has just shared a wonderful list of things you need to ask yourself before you’re even allowed to think about saying “my client doesn’t get it.”

His third point really struck me [I've changed the wording a bit for context]:

The client refuses to ‘do’ your idea, because you / they have never tried it before, and it’s unproven.

But let’s face it: the problem isn’t that the client is risk averse.

It’s just that you haven’t persuaded them that the idea’s good enough.

Or worse, they think it is a good idea, but they don’t trust you enough to do it without screwing it up.

The list summarises many questions we should ask ourselves on a daily basis.

Go read the rest of it here.

the self-select few?

Monday’s feed your curiosity post got lots of visitors, and many of them clicked through to the featured sites.

I was really pleased about that, because the post’s purpose was to share their great content.

However, somebody made a really interesting observation:

“I looked at those blogs you linked to. They were all really good and all, but their blogrolls all link to the same sites. They all seem to reference each other too. Are you all part of some secret club? Is this just a clever ruse to promote your particular way of thinking?”

It’s true.

We’re all linking to each other.  We’re all connected on twitter too.

I’ve always seen that as a good thing: the evolving group discussions help to sharpen my own thinking.

The community aspect is very important too.

But is this ‘clique’ healthy?

Does it really improve our thinking, or are we in danger of becoming a homogeneous planning ‘cult’?

It would be great to hear your thoughts.

learn something new every day

There’s always something new to discover and explore.

The best education never ends.

Inspired by a comment on yesterday’s post