UPS and Logistical Love Redux

It’s been almost two months since I posted my first observation of the UPS brand repositioning. Sadly my first opinion hasn’t changed. If anything, it’s been reinforced through repeated viewings of subsequent creative efforts by the package delivery industry’s version of Avis. The ‘love’ thing still rings semi-generic, uplifted by the outstanding production values of each spot. They almost make you forget the idea driving them.

“We love logistics.” makes me pine for the demonstrative ‘Whiteboard’ campaign by way of Richmond’s Martin agency. Instantly and uniquely recognizable for both brand and benefit. OK, like many others I kept shouting “Get a haircut” every time I saw a spot, but, let’s not forget that the campaign became so iconic it was even spoofed on Saturday Night Live and in dozens of YouTube parodies . Talk about becoming part of America’s social fabric… not bad one of the color wheel’s tertiary colors. The campaign made the UPS brand position of partnership and simplicity a powerful one. “What can brown do for you?” Miss ya.

UPS “Logistics” commercials work hard and look good demonstrating the functional aspects of the lengths to which they’ll go to demonstrate their love, but it all still comes off as a generic exercise in creativity. I even imagined a FedEx logo in place of the UPS shield and everything made sense as a campaign for FedEx, sans the love. Unique brand position? Not in my book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6Q3x1yV_8

Why explain in excrutiating detail (a brown smart car, even) what you spent the entire last campaign simplifying? It’s as if UPS was saying “We make it really, really simple, but look how complicated it all is and see how hard we all work to make it really, really simple for you! And it’s all because we love what we do!”

AND… we do it internationally!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwSL5roKHRA

Love ya Brown. But you’re giving me lessons in logistics that I already know. And that love thing, sorry. I like logistics.

I’ll keep you posted should things change.

Original Concepts and The Stock Execution.

I’ve seen the following unfortunate situation unfold countless times for nearly a decade in advertising courses I’ve taught : A student will come up with a highly engaging, on-strategy, traffic-stopping campaign idea for a creative assignment. Then, execute it with visual images that are as well matched and powerful as Lady Gaga singing opera.

Sure, a well composed photograph from one of the many stock photo websites looks great in a layout at first glance. But, upon closer examination of the ad and its concept, the image often does more to blunt the idea than amplify it.

Imagine if there were a website that offered stock concepts. Think ‘Corbisideas.com’ for instance. Type in  “Funny, toothpaste, whitening.” Hit search and bingo!!! A page full of creative ideas ready to go. Now imagine coming to class and seeing another student’s work with the same idea from the same site. Royalty-free concepts???

Now I’m not denigrating stock photography. The quality and selection of photography by way of a “click” has become quite impressive. And royalty-free stock has long since shrugged off the perception as generic and common. Full disclosure… many of the outstanding images we see in advertising, both online and off, use stock photography. And to great effect. As a result of today’s shrinking ad budgets, stock is often the only viable solution.

The point I’m making is this: a concept that’s highly original deserves nothing less than an image of the same quality. Your photograph may be original or taken from stock and Photoshopped until its origin is unrecognizable, but you should settle for nothing less than a final execution for a wicked concept that’s wicked as well.

Remember this… when you finally get that interview with the Creative Director of an agency you’d kill to work for, the last thing you want to hear during a review of your portfolio is “Is that picture from ThinkStock or Corbis?”

Art Direction or Graphic Design. Who leads?

Who’s more needed, necessary and valuable in toady’s creative environment? The AD or the GD? In my opinion it’s neither. Or rather both. Versatility and broad creative-solving skills are the best way to stay relevant and valuable in the marketplace of ideas.

More and more online and offline media are becoming mashed up. More online media outlets are popping up everyday. Consumers shape-shift from social community to social community with increasing rapidity. All of this requires creative skills that can adapt ideas – big ideas – to whichever medium is called upon to create a connection to the consumer ad the communities they form.

Design and advertising have formed a creative alliance thanks to the Internet and social media.  Let’s call it designvertising.

How duct tape became post-it notes

Current advertising campaigns driven by big ideas are about as plentiful today as plug-in stations for electric cars. Geico’s the one big exception that comes to mind. And it’s no wonder they’re an endangered species. Ideas, really good, honkin’-big ideas that take a brand “on their shoulders” and powerfully position them, are seldom recognized or truly understood by today’s crop of marketing mavens. Hey, it’s a tough balancing act making that sales chart grow in the right direction and keeping the bloggers from flaming your product at the same time.

Warning: 20 tweets and a well-liked fan page do not a big idea make.

Fortunately, there is still a real need today for big ideas that adhere like velcro to your brain. Great ones do that. They take a product, make it water-in-the-desert desirable and create a rabid community of brand lovers. They drive brand leadership and bottom line sales. And they spawn legions of imitators. And they’ve been doing it long before the Internet. The stickiness of Bartles and Jaymes and Miller Lite’s “Less Filling/Tastes Great” campaigns (Google ’em) are good examples of iconic, powerful concepts from the late 20th century.

In contrast, Apple’s recent “Mac vs PC” campaign may have been memorable and entertaining but upon closer examination reveals itself to be an excellent example of an execution substituting for a concept. And so is the original iPod television campaign. Visually compelling? Absolutely. Great product demonstration? Dead on. Strategic? Yep. Big idea? Uh-uh>

And when it comes to ideas don’t confuse consistency with concept. Progressive Insurance relies on their sales concierge, Flo, to deliver their brand message but I challenge you to tell me what their big difference is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRecos7TcA0

When they do surface, big, duct-tape-sticky ideas barely have the time to drive brand equity or positioning in today’s viral, solar-flair-hot, crash and burn, social media online environment. Instead, replacing them is an avalanche of lukewarm, interchangeable, post-it note ideas. Hardly sticky. Easily forgettable. A classic case of quantity over quality. Like technology inmates running the idea asylum. Think Transformers II.

Think it’s a crazy point of view? Well, this big-idea aversion is even infecting some of the big NY agencies. The recent exodus of top several creative directors from top New York shops underscores my point. Most recent is the departure of BBH New York Creative Chief Kevin Roddy. Here’s what he had to say in a story that ran in last week’s ad age: “Creativity used to be put on a pedestal, and I don’t think that’s the case anymore,” he said. “Creative people have become more of a commodity, and I think that takes the wind out of them. The creative ego is a very important thing, because it drives talent. But it’s also a very fragile thing.”

The big idea is dead. Long live the big idea.