Mike Arauz's Blog – The Archives

Every project should start with this question.

In what ways do you want things to be different for your brand as a result of this? How do you want things to be different for your business after people see this ad? What are you hoping people will do after this experience that they aren't already doing?



What specific valuable outcomes are we trying to achieve?

Specific as in crystal clear, unambiguous, jargon-free, and measurable.

Valuable as in likely to improve the client's business. (You may not always know for sure how valuable something will be until you try it. You have to be open to risks, but, you should at least have a well reasoned hypothesis that what you're attempting will prove to be valuable.)

Outcomes as in observable products, new behaviors, or changed perceptions - as in something happened.

How often do you get your client to answer this crucial question before you start working?

Sure, sometimes you think you know what they want. You might assume that you know what they want. You might intuit what they want. But, do you actually get them to say it out loud? 'Cus that's the only way you know for sure that you understand each other.

Too often projects happen without questioning why or for what purpose until it's all over.

The reason why answering this question is so crucial is that it sets the stage for everything after it. Checking this box at the start of the project makes everyone happy.

The creative team knows what they need to do.

The client knows how to hold the agency accountable because they know what metrics indicate success or failure. (When metrics are defined at the start they can be used to guide the design and execution.)

The agency knows how to hold the client accountable because everyone knows what the client asked for.

For an 8.5x11 size image click here
For an 11x17 size image click here

via encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_of_the_Internet (kinda NSFW)

Print this out and hang it on the wall in your office. 8.5x11 or 11x17

Love them or hate them, agree or disagree, offensive or not, these are the rules that guide one of the most powerful, prolific, and creative communities on the entire web: 4Chan (definitely NOT Safe for Work)

Some of these rules are unique to 4Chan (e.g. 41. Desu isn’t funny. Seriously guys. It’s worse than Chuck Norris jokes.) Many of them, however, are universal. They're rules that can help us accept the ways that the web rules us - not the other way around. They're rules that celebrate unrestricted - often disrespectful in the best and worst ways - collaboration. They're rules for an environment where there are no mistakes because everything's a mistake, and when you start by assuming that everything is eventually a failure you realize that you no longer have any excuse not to take risks.

These are also the guiding principles of a highly competitive community; these rules guide a group of people who have come together on the web and want to defeat every other group of people on the web. They know better than anyone that your competition on the internet is everything else on the internet.

Nora Kittie Geiss wrote an interesting post on the Interbrand blog, a reminder of what brands can learn from remix culture. This passage stuck out to me:

Each individual’s experience is its own unique remix. A constant intake of information and content; a subconscious “re-cutting” that sorts what’s important or interesting from what doesn’t matter; a prioritization that defines what each individual remembers, commits to, talks about.

Even more than subconscious re-cutting, I'd say that deliberate conscious remixing is also a way of discovering meaning in a sea of information. Remixing can be more than just a personal expression, it also acts as a utility that helps us separate the signal from the noise.

A couple weeks ago, Alex Leavitt wrote an incredibly comprehensive exploration of the Hitler's rant remix meme on the Convergence Culture blog. The remix takes a critical scene from the film Downfall about Hitler's final days at the end of WWII (more info here on KnowYourMeme). By now you're sure to have seen one of these pop up somewhere, most recently this one where Hitler responds to the iPad announcement:



In this particular version, the creator identifies the important shortcomings of the iPad, e.g. no camera and it's stuck with AT&T. It both expresses the disappointment that so many Apple fans were sharing on blogs and Twitter, and it also clarifies and pinpoints what's important about the new device's tech specs. For the right person, you could just watch this remix instead of Jobs' official announcement, and you'd know most of what you need to know about the iPad.

The reason why this Hitler scene has become the king of remixes (arguably), is that it's such a perfect vehicle for expressing outrage - and outrage is a really good way to communicate shared values. If we're outraged about the same things, then we probably care about the same things.

We use these Hitler remixes to communicate shared values with our interest communities. We use it as a way to point out what's important to us. And both the creation of the remix, and the sharing of the remix, strengthens bonds between individuals who appreciate its point of view.

Read Bud Caddell's latest addition to The Library of Agency-of-the-Future-Prognostications: Who says the future needs an advertising agency? Between the post and the 50-some comments it's one of the most clear, comprehensive, and thoughtful summations of the industry's evolution that I've come across.

After I read it, one word was echoing in my brain: Networks.

The difference between what everyone has been doing, and what everyone needs to do is networks. We no longer create messages and experiences for groups of individuals; rather we create integrated experiences across all media environments that are specifically designed to serve and empower networks of connected people.

Bud describes an emerging creative capability that he sees as a viable future service: Platform Builders. I'd go further. I think that all groups of people who come together to offer creative services to companies in order to help those companies communicate with people about their products or services, need to organize their ideas around a deep understanding of the communities of connected individuals who are drawn together by their shared values, goals, and interests.

We've already seen some successful forays into this kind of work. The perennial favorite: Nike+. And everyone's favorite social media success story: Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.

But, our appreciation of these types of experiences has been limited by our perception of the digital space. We see ideas like this as digital ideas. We see these as good ideas "for digital."

Guess what? Everything is digital. There is no offline.

Click for full-size image


All experiences now occur in the context of a self-authored digital network of personal relationships.

There is no longer any interaction that an individual may have with a brand, company, product, or service that disconnected from all the people they know, and the people that share their interest in that experience.

Therefore, every creative organization in this business needs to learn how to create integrated experiences across all forms of media that thrive within networks.

This is a much bigger idea than I can cover in this single post. It's exciting to me, though, and I'll be sure to revisit it over the next few weeks and months.

And in the words of Mr. McGuire, "There's a great future in networks. ... Will you think about?"

[Editor's note: This blog post has been given a shamelessly incendiary title in a heavy-handed attempt to provoke a little discussion.]



As Google becomes the most well known and most used digital technology brand in the world, their company motto - and probably the closest thing they've got to a brand positioning statement - "Don't be evil" is no longer specific enough to give people a sense of what Google's brand means in their life.

Among all the hoopla about the big advertising event last night (I think there might have been some kind of sports thing going on too...?), was the news that the most popular website on the internet, Google, decided to spend $5-6 million on a TV ad promoting their already hugely dominant web search service. As much as anyone may have enjoyed the spot itself, I think that a lot of people had the same question that me and the people I was watching it with had: Why does Google need to waste any money on a TV ad during the Super Bowl?

I continue to believe that Google is quickly going to replace Microsoft as the most popular personal computing operating system; they're invading through the mobile device. As mobile devices become our primary computing devices, Google will become the dominant operating system. And this new market position presents a slew of new opportunities and challenges for Google.

So far, the Google brand has been built on branded utility. They provide one phenomenal service, Search, and an array of other extremely competitive and useful tools and services (YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, Android, Docs, Reader, etc.) all at no monetary cost to the user (just let Google watch you use the internet : ). And this model has been one that most smart brands have started to chase in the past couple years. Don't just interrupt, make yourself useful. Add genuine value to your customer's lives in everything you do, and in every experience you create.

Ironically, Google has only ever had this kind of approach to branding, and now finds itself missing the more fuzzy aspects of a well-rounded and well-loved brand. What are its core values? What's important to Google, that a potential fan would identify with? What kind of emotions bubble up when someone thinks of Google? Why would you choose Google over Apple? What is it about Google, as opposed to Apple, that makes someone say "I'm a Google person"?

Google is going to have to come up with good answers to these questions. And I think it's wise for them to start experimenting now.

The ad that they ran last night during the Super Bowl, and the other search ads like it, are an interesting foray. Their strength is that they remind people of the personal emotions and investments that are part of the Google experience. The ads' weaknesses, on the other hand, are that they keep Google as something that can mean anything to anyone; Google is whatever you think it is.

Can a brand be successful, if every person who uses it has a unique perception of what it means? And if so, then where's the community?

I've got plenty of questions. Hopefully, you've got some answers. What do you think? Comments welcome.