Funny what you can find in your pocket


Like this ripped out notepad page. On it are random notes from a talk by Swedish neurophysiology professor Martin Ingvar and this is what they say, from top to bottom, left to right:

“The best senders are the ones who also have the best receivers” (r/t thought: applicable to both people and brands)

“Our reward system is still the same, with the same demand for instant rewards even when we don’t get them => anxiety, frustration”

“Choosing is always about cutting stuff out, never about adding it”

“Mirror neurons… We are hard coded to sync our mood with that of our environment”

“Motivation = the difference between how things are and how they should be”

“The brain’s social system (=observing other people) => How things should be”

There seems to be a lot of wisdom in there and I guess my plan at the time was to develop some thinking around it.

Ah…plans. Bless ’em.


What Marx got right (in spite of everything)


Image by agitprop

On the middle classes, as quoted in The Economist’s special report on “The new middle classes in emerging markets”:

“Historically it has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations…It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals…The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country…All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life-and-death question for all civilised nations…In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes…National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a world literature. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.”


Damn! Just what I suspected


Image: The essence of our current planning model, based on the metaphor of the market as a party

“That old planning exercise of asking who the brand would be at the party is no longer relevant. To connect today, marketers should be asking what their brand would do if it learned they had only one year to live.”

This is John King, Director of Innovation at Fallon, talking about the backdrop to their new agency philosophy, which they have eloquently named “Generosity” (subtitled “Modern branding is Learning To Give Instead of Take”). And of course it’s brilliant.

Apart, perhaps, from the fact that it’s an unforgiving whack in the head at the planning model I’m currently employing. I even used to be pretty proud of that ol’ model of ours; it’s simple and intuitive yet captures the essence of what you need to lay down in a communications strategy.

But I had a feeling this was coming. I haven’t been happy with Cocktail (that’s the model) for quite a while now and, courtesy of Mr King, it’s time to give it a decent burial. All that’s left is to figure out what should replace it.

Maybe I should call it “The Bucket List Model”? Hm, I could be onto something.


“Bucket list” = A list of things to do before you die.

Digital, Planning

The Seven Digital Sins of Planning

Here’s a little piece I scribbled together for the Urban Lifestyle Report. Actually, it was a while back but now that I have this blog I might as well post it here too. In part because I think the ramblings that follow still hold true and in part because – hell, it’s a quick fix as good as any for my guilty conscience about not having posted here as much as I had planned to (yup, I’m a planner without a plan, shame on me).


The Seven Digital Sins of Planning
One planner’s personal take on a brave new world.

If you’re a planner and not confused these days, you must be poorly informed. That pretty much sums up the current state of planning and I think there are basically three reasons for it.

One is the fact that planning has spread its wings and taken off from its British bosom, landing in faraway places with a different ad industry heritage and culture. Although I’ve heard lately that they’re getting just as confused back in the nest as elsewhere. But that’s another story.

Another is that as planners we sometimes have a habit of confusing, or at least ”complexifying”, things. We love throwing ideas around, theorizing, asking why, digging deeper, talking, writing and discussing topics such as, for instance, the future of planning. Just look at the abundance of planner blogs. But that, too, is the subject for another article.

Then there’s the third reason and of course that reason is the internet. It is generally assumed that the net has turned everything on its head and made all things traditional obsolete. That it’s a paradigm shift, that the “old model” is broken and that digital represents the dawning of a new era in human history. And, naturally, that ought to have huge implications for planning. Right?

Not necessarily.

Or let me put it this way: the other day a fellow planner told me that one of our foremost duties as planners is to cut the crap. And there’s a lot of crap flying around in most discussions about the internet. So here we go, a very personal list of seven not quite deadly but still rather poisonous sins that any planner doing digital should keep in mind – and preach to their surroundings.

Sin 1: To treat the net as a channel

Just like there are still people who believe the world is 6,000 years old there are still people who believe that the internet is just another media channel. It’s not. It’s a world in itself. Or a city. Or whatever other metaphor you think does the job. The point is that it has most of the same properties as the “real” world: you work, play, socialize, shop, get your kicks. Since you’re reading this report you might think all this is common knowledge by now, but it’s not.

Sin 2: To see Nike+ as the rule and not the exception

From the above follows that in terms of advertising on the net, it consists of little more than the equivalents of TV spots, print, direct mail and other traditional media. This becomes painfully obvious when you consider the fact that campaign sites, banner ads and search make up the overwhelming majority of all internet advertising. In other words, the net has become just as traditional as “traditional” media. And despite all the hype truly new thinking is as rare online as it is offline.

Sin 3: To think that people want to talk about brands

So why is it that Nike+ is about the only genuinely new idea that comes to mind when thinking about the internet and advertising? Because it’s brilliant? Of course. Because it captures the social power of the net? You bet. But it could also be because it’s really not advertising. It’s product development and – even more interesting from a net point of view – a conversations starter. Too many companies are too concerned with figuring out how they can tap into existing net conversations instead of realizing that the only viable way is to create something new worth talking about (and it’s not the brand per se).

Sin 4: To assume that consumers want to be active

On the one hand the most repeated mantra in favor of the internet as a marketing environment is that it enables interaction between the brand and its audience. On the other, the 90-9-1 rule states that 90% of the people using the net just consume content, 9% sporadically add content of their own and 1% do it on a regular basis. In short, most netizens are pretty passive, which holds even more true for marketing on the net. The basic human urge to sit back and be entertained or informed without lifting a finger hasn’t suddenly gone out the window. Emotional engagement, well, that’s another story. Then again, great advertising has always engaged people emotionally.

Sin 5: To overestimate the importance of planning

If you take a look at what actually does get sent around and discussed on the net by people who are not in the communications business themselves you quickly come to two conclusions: that it’s seldom sophisticated flash sites and often good old film spots, and that what activates people is still strong ideas. Sometimes there’s a solid, insightful strategic idea lurking in the background, other times the strategy is so simple your mom could have drawn it up. So as a planner, don’t let all the talk about the complexity of the net trick you into thinking strategy work for the net has to be complex. Cases in point: Dove Evolution, Sony Balls, Cadbury Gorilla, Skoda Cake.

Sin 6: To think that the fundamentals of planning have changed

Which brings me to my next point. Planning has always been about four things: intelligence, insight, ideas and inspiration. Intelligence in terms of information as well as the sense to turn information into knowledge (“intelligent use of intelligence data”, as someone put it). Insight into brands, markets and, above all, what makes people tick. Ideas that are worth listening to. And inspiration for the creative team. The internet has made a lot of this work easier but it hasn’t changed the basic premise for it.

Sin 7: To view the world in terms of new and old instead of good and bad

Finally and most importantly, do refrain from falling for all that rubbish about ”new media” and ”old media”, ”new models” and ”old models” or ”new” and ”old” anything. The relevant scale for any human endeavour isn’t ”new or old” but ”good or bad”. Beethoven still rocks. Hitchcock still scares. And Apple’s 1984 is still a great ad that would do the job just as well in the internet era. Period.

To sum up, the ”brave new world” of the internet is neither a dystopia nor a utopia. To any good planner, at the end of the day, it’s just business as usual.

(Dan Landin is a planner at ad agency Åkestam Holst and he’s not as grumpy as he sounds. In fact, he thinks the internet is the greatest thing since chocolate ice cream.)

Projects, Zeitgeist

Charity 2.0

I know. It’s frightfully corny to attach “2.0” to anything these days. But I’m working on a project at the moment where it kind of makes sense to do just that, at least some pedagogical sense.

Either that or I’m just a corny guy.

Anyway, here are a few slides trying to capture how charity work and our attitudes toward charity are changing. Still work in progress.


Yeah, that’s right, just what you needed: another blog

be honest

Image: http://www.frankchimero.com

According to Technorati’s most scientifically calculated estimate there are exactly a trillion billion gazillion blogs out there. But don’t fret. At the risk of coming across as obnoxiously self-centered (then again, show me the person who starts a blog who isn’t), this blog is not for you.

No, it is, unsurprisingly, for me. For when I encounter something I like and wish to record. For when I sit down at night and gather my thoughts. For when my daytime frustration level hits the roof and I need to vent it all. For when something crosses my mind that I need to get down on paper but that just isn’t quite suited for the blog where I normally write, at www.akestamholst.se (which is almost entirely in Swedish; another reason to start this blog).

And maybe, just maybe, for when I have something to share that just might be interesting to someone else. Perhaps even to you.

So by all means, welcome. Please don’t let me scare you off. Don’t get me wrong – I’m really glad to have you here. It’s just that I didn’t expect it.

And if you do decide to stick around, the posts you can expect to find here will mostly revolve around the topics of advertising (in a broader sense), account planning (whetever it may be), social media (if “media” is the right term), neuroscience/psychology/sociology (all that stuff about how we function) as well as the odd observation from out there in the world.

Or not. We’ll see.

The only thing we can say for certain is that when blogging, as in life, there are no mistakes.