Friday, July 20, 2012

What I Learned From a Really Bright Guy Named Rishad Tobaccowala


First of all, I hope I learned how to spell his name correctly.  He deserves that.

Rishad is Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer for Vivaki (part of Publicis Groupe), and he was the keynote speaker at the recent Advertising Marketing International Network (AMIN) conference.  A very, intelligent, mild-mannered, well-read man, indeed.  He gets up at 4 AM every day to study and learn from the Internet -- trends, blogs, news, product announcements, etc.  That's a dedication (and sleep schedule) I cannot match.

The first thing he said: The internet is not about technology -- it is about connection.  Get on and connect, and learn how others connect.

He also stated, "If an ad agency cannot deliver creativity, they should cease to exist."  Creativity is the currency is today's global economy.  Creativity is not copying.  Creativity is to surprise and enthrall.  Creativity is connecting the dots -- often in new ways that resonate with  people and culture.

The new creative palette is the social medium, the mobile medium and the API medium.  We're living in an increasingly data-infested world -- get used to it, he noted.  It leads to data-driven marketing.

He emphasized something we have long preached at Richter7People choose with their hearts and justify the decision with numbers.

He also emphasized "the only way to stay relevant is to change."  That's hard.  I like consistency.  Unless you yourself get better, your organization (marriage, family, club, company, church, etc.) cannot get better, he added.  To which I add a quotation that hangs on my office, and stares at me every day:  "Can we not appreciate that our very business is life is not to get ahead of others, but to get ahead of ourselves?  To break our own records, to outstrip our yesterdays by our todays, to give as we have never given, to do our work with more force and a finer finish than ever before -- this is the true idea: to get ahead of ourselves." (Thomas S. Monson)

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

What!? I'm judging the 2012 CA Ad Annual!?


For some reason I have yet to discover, the editors at Communications Arts magazine invited me to judge their prestigious Advertising Annual competition.  I'm trying to be cool about it, but I truly feel thrilled and honored.  The judging has now begun, and the first two categories -- radio and web banners -- were judged at my office.  In the case of radio, they sent a CD.  For web banners, they sent a series of links.  Here are a few nuggets of feedback:

1)  The radio category had only about 65 entries total.  Apparently a lot of people realize it will be tough to win and therefore pre-judge themselves out of competing.  I was rather surprised about that total.  I had been expecting closer to 200-300 radio entries. 

2)  Most radio entries did not take advantage of the "theater of the mind."  Sad fact.  Many were corny or "under-produced."  Most did not feature new concepts or approaches.  A few possessed genuine surprise and delight value.  There was a couple of nationally known radio campaigns that showed well.  And one not so well-known national advertiser  with a campaign that really slapped me in the face.  I played the campaign a handful of times because I enjoyed it so much.

3)  The web banner category is actually mis-titled in my opinion.  Any advertising that appears on the web goes into that category.  That made judging difficult because you would see a classic html banner, and then view a four-minute mini-movie with incredible production value.  Be forewarned -- if you are entering a banner in this category, it will be very difficult to win.  There were some page takeovers that were rather innovative, however, and competed, from a conceptual standpoint, with the big-budget pre-roll and YouTube videos.

4)  As with the radio campaign, there weren't an overwhelming number of entries -- probably about 75.

Obviously, I can't be any more specific than that.  And when I visit CA headquarters later this month to complete the judging, it should be very interesting to experience the process, and assess whether politics or favoritism plays a big role.  By the way, I'm not allowed to vote on our Richter7 work.  Understandable.  Still, I hope a number of other judges will see fit to give it an "in" vote.