08.25
One of my favorite blogs to check regularly is The Ad Contrarian (thanks for pointing it out, Ewan). As suggested by the name, posts on the blog regularly take a devil’s advocate point of view on popular trends, like Twitter, or the web in general. I’m not sure how I missed it for so long, but I just recently came across a series of posts targeting one of TAC’s favorite gripes: branding.
Before I go further, let me say that part of the reason I enjoy the blog is because I respect the point of view of its author (Bob Hoffman of Hoffman/Lewis). In fact, I often agree with him. While I understand his frustration over “branding”—I’m easily annoyed by misuse and overuse of both the word and the concepts behind it—I did think these posts took aim at a bit too big of a target. As one commenter put it, he may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Anyway, here’s a summary of one of TAC’s posts and my response. You can follow the links below to see a few more of his posts, and you’ll see I’ve commented on those as well. It’s worth reading everyone else’s comments, too (many enthusiastically agree with Bob’s point of view). Would be curious to hear your stance, as well.
continue reading…
06.19
As a student of cognitive science turned brand strategist, I was especially interested in an old post on Bob Hoffman’s blog, The Ad Contrarian (he refers back to it in a much more recent post, or I probably never would have noticed it), about “Salesmen & Sociologists.”
The point of the post is that “we have substantially exaggerated the power of brands. Most consumers in most categories have little or no brand loyalty.” The author goes on to say that most purchasing decisions are made based on functional differences like price and convenience.
So, as a cognitive science dork and a brand strategist, I have to say…he’s absolutely right. At least about the part I’ve mentioned here. The idea of brand loyalty as something that is complete and infallible is greatly exaggerated. (Although, just after reading that post I saw this. Funny timing.) And even if that level of loyalty was commonplace, which it’s not, it wouldn’t be easy to create without a great product.
continue reading…
05.22
I know, I know. It’s the type of question about Twitter that you’d expect to hear from your parents, or from someone who still gets their news from a newspaper. But it’s a valid question, despite (obnoxious) responses having to do with “ambient intimacy.” Equally valid in my mind is the question of who reads the articles that are so frequently forwarded as links via Twitter.
I was thinking about this the other day when I came across a post by Bob Hoffman, The Ad Contrarian, entitled “8 Recent Observations About Twitter.” Specifically, I’ve been wondering what percentage of tweets are blindly forwarded links, aimed at making the tweeter look interesting or engaged without actually forcing them to do any work. Hoffman’s relevant points are:
continue reading…
04.15
[Originally published on B2B Brand Debate. If you'd like to leave a comment, please do so here.]
* While differences surely exist from agency to agency, “strategist” and “planner” will be used interchangeably throughout this post. The author’s opinion is that the responsibilities implied by these titles involve considerable overlap, but this too is open for debate.
Has anyone else noticed that strategists and account planners are getting a bad rap lately? To see what I mean, check out the show Trust Me, and you’ll see that planners are consistently portrayed as vacuous time-wasters who do little more than provide eye-roll-inducing creative briefs. For a little insight into the source of the show’s point of view, look no further than a recent blog post by Bob Hoffman, The Ad Contrarian, entitled “I’m Tired Of Strategists,” and a second by Simon Veksner, on his blog Scamp, about “Nightmare Propositions.” These two posts popped up almost simultaneously, and underscore doubts—at least among the industry’s “creatives”—as to the importance of strategists and planners.
continue reading…
