2007 February « One Vain Cookie

Archive for February, 2007

Life Isn’t an Algebraic Equation

It’s a statistical one.

So everybody is talking about this “phenomenon” called The Secret. Basically, the concept is that if you think positively, good things will come to you. I have big long ragey rant about what the logistical extension to this says about people who get cancer, live through sexual abuse, or live in poverty, but I am not going to go through that whole thing now. What I want to address is the response I get from Secret fans when I ask that question.

“Well, I mean, I don’t agree with that stuff either — some things you can’t control. I mean, it’s life, right?”

Right. So what you’re saying is that life doesn’t come down to the linear equation.

y = mx + b

The Secret implies that life satisfaction (y) is a result of some variation of b (where you cross the x axis, presumably some standard level of satisfaction) added to some m (slope term) multiplied by x, which is presumably your level of positivity. As you increase your positivity from x to x+1, that level faces its multiplier (m) and increases your life satisfaction (y).

But where on earth is the term that addresses the chance inherent to our existence?

y = B0 + B1×1 + B2×2 + … + Bixi + e

(Pretend those Bs are beta symbols and the numbers and is are subscripted.)

Here we can continue to believe that y is life satisfaction, and B0 is our b from the linear equation above. Our y isn’t purely a result of the x that was positivity, but instead a result of a gazillion x terms, their multipliers, and — most important of all — the error term.

The x terms take into account actual abilities. As much as I think positively about it, I will never be an Olympic athlete. And you know what? I don’t believe for a split second that I ever could have been one, had I even started training at three years old. My body isn’t built for such things. This is simply fact of my existence. Along the same lines, there are people who don’t have that built in ear that lets them become incredible musicians, some people don’t have the minds for astrophysics, and others aren’t genetically created to live to 100. None of these are slights against individuals without these abilities. It’s reality. No matter how much someone may say that “YOU CAN BE WHATEVER YOU DREAM!” that simply is not true. (This annoyance is the foundation of what I like to call American Idol syndrome – god forbid people be honest with each other and themselves and just admit that they aren’t good at everything.) Nor is it pessimistic — it’s reality.

The error term is what allows for chance. Who can say why someone is brutally murdered by a stranger? Wrong place, wrong time? Who can say why someone else wins the lottery? Right place, right time? That’s the error term. That’s what the whole thing forgets.

Here’s the real thing of it: The Secret is utter rubbish. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports their assertion that our thoughts affect frequencies we send out into the world. It’s no surprise that it was inspired by a book called The Science of Getting Rich. It reeks of materialism and greed and — to be frank — profound laziness. There is no easy answer to getting what you want out of life. It requires effort and planning and risks.

Ultimately, being a good person isn’t about getting things back. Life isn’t about dollars and perfect mates and dream jobs. It’s about finding satisfaction in the the ordinary.

5 comments February 26, 2007

Creative is the Old Creative

So if media is the new creative, then I guess creative is the old creative. This doesn’t presume that creative is useless — certainly not. As is obvious, if you don’t have the product that innovative enough in the first place, you can’t play. And if your campaigns don’t at least use some level of creativity, you can’t capture anyone’s imagination in the first place.

So what is the optimal level of creativity?

Certainly, gazillions of dollars go into creative every year. There are ads we love and ads we hate. But the law of diminishing returns is as true here as it is anywhere else in reality — each additional dollar we spend enhancing our creative output increases, say, the user’s experience by X or the user’s willingness to add us to their evoked set by Y. But when you take out everything else and make it equal (ceteris paribus) — treating creativity as the non-fixed variable — at some point, the marginal returns start decreasing.

Once we go beyond that point of optimal creativity, we have hit the wall of diminishing returns. As our total investment into creative beyond this optimal level increases, the total ROI as a proportion of the total investment decreases. Suddenly increasing creativity in our ads by, say, 1% (if something so qualitative could be measured — and, certainly, there’s a way to valuate anything if you just put your mind to it) would lead to, yes, increases in the return on investment, but not increases as great as they would be at the optimal point of creativity.

Thus, at the optimal level, it makes no sense to further invest in increasingly clever taglines, iconography, or spokesbeavers. At that point, the consumer no longer derives increasing utility benefit from your increasing creativity.

Where do you see that point? How do you value creativity in advertising and marketing?

3 comments February 25, 2007

Media is The New Creative

I saw an interesting speaker this week who provided me with a few thoughts that I wanted to remember.

(1) Media is the new creative.
There was a time when the big ideas ran the ad world. Now? Yes, good ideas are essential. But they’re not all. We need more information. What are we getting from ‘em? ROI, baby. And what ultimately defines the ROI? The media we choose to get the message out.

Ten years ago, media was completely different than it was now. Now we have outdoor, print, radio, television, microsites, advergames, restobars, blahdeblahblahblah. There are a gazillion specialty channels instead of a few big networks. Targeting is theoretically easier — and practically more complex, more involving, and more confusing — than it’s ever been. People are overwhelmed by the volume of messaging and getting it right is becoming less art, more science.

Every medium has its own measurement tools, and we are familiar with trying to evaluate GRPs and increase the eyes we require on our prize(s). But the new stuff? It’s under review, but we can’t not be there. Hell, the internet was available even in my wee hometown when I was in high school — but even a few years ago, it was completely different than it is now (hello, crash). Trying to understand clickthroughs and impressions and what they really mean for return is still up in the air — neither scholars nor professionals have yet come up with a solid solution. And don’t get me started on digital signage — it’s so new, I can barely find white papers on its valuation.

So, yes. The incumbent is no longer starring in this show. Media is ultimately what will drive our numbers — it’s just a matter of putting together a formula that defines where those came from.

(2) There is nothing more freeing than a tight brief.
Creatives tend to be really — how do I say this nicely? — challenging. They spend so much time crafting their best ideas that they kind of fall a little bit in love with them. And if cliches have taught us nothing else, we know this: when you love something, sometimes you have to let it go. I don’t want to deal with sulking or moping or general childish attitude when my client isn’t all that into your beloved — albeit not necessarily sense-making — concept.

To be fair, this irritation is also what makes great creative people really freaking good at their jobs. The more attached they are to the ideas that actually do get through the door, the better and more solid these ideas tend to be, and the stronger the project ultimately becomes. So how to combine the good with the bad?

A tight brief.

Creative briefs are a bit of a pain. They’re time consuming, require at least seventeen approvals, and rarely end up really providing much but some administrative work. That said, a really tight brief provides the creative people with direction so solid that they can’t help but fall into the freedom of only being able to create on strategy.

A tight brief doesn’t let the terrorists win.

2 comments February 22, 2007

It’s Official

I have a tan.

I think this means I have done what I set out to do here.

Ange and Jason left yesterday. Booooooo.

See how we got so sad, we couldn’t even look the camera in the face anymore? Aww.

Since it’s about time to go, we’ll just complete the holiday photo bonanza by introducing you to Bernie Murphy.

He’s likely our last local friend. He was moving slowly, bemoaning our exit to be sure.

We’ll be home again tomorrow evening. ‘Til then, you can find me at the beach.

3 comments February 17, 2007

Say Hello to Apricot

After nearly two weeks of trying to befriend this little guy, Dave finally found a pal in Apricot here.

There has been a lot of gecko-chasing (and, yes, the same one — he lives outside of the condo and never leaves), but once Apricot got on Dave’s hand, he liked it there. A lot. It was a good two minutes of holding the little guy up to the walls he so adores before he would leave his newfound buddy.