I'am a Creative Planner, Writer and Ideaspotter from Hamburg, Germany. I have a german written blog on (transmedia) storytelling, marketing, experience design, cultural studies and creative coaching: creativeglasses.blogspot.com.
On posterous I share various pieces of information and things I like. It's without concept and for inspiration only.
I love the chart about School Thinking and Real Life thinking!!!!
<div style="width:425px;text-align:left" id="__ss_1971227">Design Thinking for Startups - Are You Design Driven?<div style="font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;">View more documents from Amir Khella.</div></div>
There are a few things I like most about this presentation:
<div style="width:425px;text-align:left" id="__ss_2580397">How to brief social media as part of an integrated campaign<div style="font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;">View more documents from Sebastian Garn.</div></div>
The German youth-magazine Bravo has published their annual youth-study. They have examined how teenager interact with brands in Germany.
The most surprising insight: Nintendo is the favourite brand of female teens in Germany.
<div style="width:425px;text-align:left" id="__ss_93694">AAAA Future Of Planning Zj<div style="font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;">View more documents from Zeus Jones.</div></div>
Interesting: The second episode of the SPUR-Series on planning features a comparisson to the movie industry. I thought about it too while watching the first episode: http://creativeglasses.posterous.com/is-planning-impotent-0
Is Marketing a Strategic Resource or a Procured Commodity? is must-read-article by Randall Rothenberg. He writes on the historic war between two different views on marketing and the business modell of ad-agencies. There are two business-models for ad-agencies at the moment:
Randall argues that relying only on the first business model will put agencies in danger of becoming indistinguishable in the long run - even with better targeting and measurement.
Because if business history is any guide, the procured-commodity experts will get it right. The "digital media trading solutions, "algorithmic audience targeting platforms," "networks of networks," and "demand-side exchanges" will make a difference.
But when technology succeeds in driving the cost of reaching the perfect audience down to zero, what are you left with? Everyone with the same low costs, the same perfect efficiency, for doing the same exact thing ... and nothing unique to say or do or offer to consumers.
The real value of advertising lies in the creativity to improve products and services. To proove this statement Randall look at the history of adverting from the beginning of the last century until now.
My favourite quote:
Mr. Hoffschnagel, you and I are practical men. I don’t need to tell you that advertising is not an end in itself. Neither is selling. The end, Mr. Hoffschnagel, the true objective of the manufacturer and dispenser of products and services, should be the efficient and economical delivery to the consumer of precisely what the consumer wants and needs: what the consumer needs to buy, I repeat, not what the manufacturer needs to sell him. In any functional relationship between producer and consumer, advertising and sales expenditures are just so much frictional loss; in the ideal setup, which of course we can’t even approximate under present conditions, released buying energy would be substituted entirely for the selling energy which you now spend breaking down ‘sales resistance.’ My task, therefore, is to redefine and reinterpret your relationship with your customers; not to pile up sales and advertising expenses… but to cut them. What do your customers want from you? Service! What do you want to give them? Service! Not advertising – the less advertising the better – that’s just so much friction and loss. But service! The end, Mr. Hoffschnagel, is service!
James Rorty, Advertising Expert, around 1930
(Link via Jeremy Abbett. THANKS!)
I found an interesting article on qualitaive research on the copernicus consulting blog: The essence of qualitative research: “verstehen”
Now if that thing is, say, kitchen use, then stand back! You’re not an Iron Chef, you are a Platinum Chef! You have spent hours inside kitchens of all shapes and sizes. You know how people love them, how they hate them, when they’re ashamed of them and when (very rarely) they destroy them. You can tell casual observers it is “simplistic” to think of how many people have gas stoves. No, you tell them, it’s not about how many people, it’s about WHY they have gas stoves! It’s about what happens when you finally buy a gas stove! It’s about….so much more than how many. Welcome to the world of verstehen.
Sampling Methods in Qualitative and Quantitative Research<div style="font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;">View more presentations from Sam Ladner.</div></div>
Fast Company writes on 5 Ways Design Thinking Can Raise the Collective IQ of Your Business
I like No 4:
PowerPoint is the enemy. The kind of discourse associated with Power Point presentations, with bulleted observations marshaled in support of an argument, tends to be team divider, not a unifier. “What organizations are good at is debating,” said Jeanne Liedtka, a professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business. “Debating very rarely leads to real solutions.” That’s because debates tend to revolve around data and examples drawn from the past. Design thinking should be about future possibilities.
Tim Brown's book 'Change by Design' (http://tiny.cc/g4KME) has inspired me to draw this map.
In his great book he explains the innovation process by describing the rooms (for inspiration, ideation, implementation) in which innovation happens.
PSFK.com and Redspur feature an interview series on planning on psfk.com. The first episode is about the role of planners in agencies and the frictions between planners and the creative staff.
While watching I asked myself: Would the frictions between the creatives (art-department) and the smarts (planning-department) end, if both acknowledge the other's work as creative?
I like to draw the comparison to movie making: Three people are essential to the production of a movie: the producer (the money), the director (the art) and the script-writer (the brain). The script writer does the research, decides on the theme, outlines the plot and the emotional impact. Perhaps planner should position themselves more as 'advertising-script-writers ' and not as researchers and smart-asses who leave the doing to creatives. This means that planners need to take more responsibility for the doing. They create a campain's theme and plot which the creative staff brings to life. The producer, the director and the actors will gather the fame however - like in the movie industry.
