Following on from Louann King's Listening initiative - here's a useful guide to facilitating being heard.

As part of advocating for diversity we have to make one another feel like we belong and be prepared to invite ideas and conversations from everyone in the business.

Diversity is more than just redressing the terrible inequity of gender (etc) representation and reward - it is about producing the best ideas to compete in the market. That means a small team like ours has to nurture one another's views and help each other get better to do better.

What do you think? Is this a helpful model?

As part of ongoing research (a.ka. time wasting) I came across this fascinating series from the makers of VOX videos on the web. It addresses the rise of interest in food as genre on social platforms.

You might find them interesting and entertaining - filled with tips to propel your Instafame - or there might be clues embedded for developing programmes for clients.

There are four episodes, they're short and worth a look.
​
>DM

Tech. Facts sell tech, right.
Not in this case. Apple, once again proves its capability to move the conversation from the head to the heart. 
This charming spot is packed with 'information', but none of it relates to speed or other performance related parameters you might expect. We see the Apple pencil being used with the new iPad (we kind of deduce that it's the new iPad - because Apple only advertise the next thing) - which unlock the creativity of the kids having a ball doing their homework - experimenting, exploring the world around them and creating… there a joy to the whole shebang. 
And, let's face it - consumers can see the details on the eCommerce site . How modern.
What do you think of the spot?

We had our ceremony to let go of bad habits. Burning talismans of terrible behaviour. The fire department were on standby but stood-down. The high priest of productivity preached his invocation to the gods of goodness and a searingly good gin cocktail quenched the fires of frustration and futility that feuled 2017.

From the embers rose Richards replacement list bestowing behaviours to be appropriately appropriated by BrandWorlders.

BrandWorld 
Things for us to live by in 2018

Better…by a little…on every project.
Radiate…energy and enthusiasm.
Authenticity…is everything
Now…is the time to do that task
Do Work…that surprises everyone
We…not I
Own a problem…if you see it.
Restless…with the status quo
Listen…more than you talk
Do what you say you're going to do

There's a school of thought that argues you should not disagree with someone if you want to persuade them of your point of view. There's a case, made in a book called Yes, And… that you should amplify the goodwill by amplifying a sense of agreement and collaboration.

The authors of Yes, And… come from Chicago's Second City improv comedy club. "The theatre troupe presents ensemble-based, improvisational comedy. Its actors team up to co-write every performance in spontaneous collaboration. Second City also teaches its cooperative, improvisational – or “improv” – techniques in its corporate consultancy work. Nissan, Motorola, Google, Nike and other firms send employees to study its improv collaboration, fast responses and active listening methods. As hierarchies prove increasingly less effective and businesses grow more fluid, only the most nimble and creative will prevail.

  – Improv springs from two words, “yes, and.” When someone offers an idea, respond “yes” to welcome the concept. Then say “and” before reacting. This attitude opens your consciousness to infinite possibilities. Saying “yes, and” means exploring every idea that arises, including ideas in danger of being “judged, criticised and rejected too quickly.” This lets you explore potential new paths without self-consciousness, fear or embarrassment. When people say “yes, and,” they can work together openly."

The video above asserts another perspective on the use of language to persuade. It may seem contrary to the proposition above, but it's interesting and worth considering. How can you use 'but' and 'so' to make a persuasive case. I've been watching this guy's videos off and on for years and often find them useful - interesting how he has evolved his presentation over time.

​DM

You can read an abstract of the Yes, And book here:

Ikea have made this genius ad for their nursery furniture. (Thanks Rachael Weaver for the heads-up) .
Featured in a women's magazine; readers are enouraged to put a drop of urine on a panel. If their pee has the hormonal marker for pregnancy it activates a special offer printed on the page, but only visible when the chemical reaction occurs. 

You might think it is a vaguely disgusting idea (it is). But it is also brilliant. Competitive (a retail offer), relevant (women who are pregnant will need cribs and other paraphernalia) and distinctive (very).

The idea has a combination of the very mundane and real with the novelty of being provocative and different. it also joins the dots of salient messaging, creates a memory through active experience and positions Ikea as a brand in touch with the reality of their customers lives. 

Whilst it crosses the lines for some people - it might seem in poor taste to some -it is also a simple acceptance of biological function - along the lines of the Moon Cake Bakery story we discussed previously.
The lines of decency change constantly (why this summer I even noticed women showing more than their ankles at the beach). Sometimes we need to adhere to conventions and sometimes we need to take the risk of nudging boundaries. In the environment of Family Health Diary, for example, our relationship with consumers, established over 20 years, might give us licence to stretch boundaries and offer clients a competitive advantage - using our brand as a buffer.

What do you think?

• Are their taboo areas that are more imagined than real? 
• Is our product relevant and on the cultural zeitgeist?
• Are their experiments we could operate with clients to find out where the boundaries are (like talking about death or intimacy)?

Join in…leave a comment.


Footnote:
Not long ago advertisers would never have dreamed of using the expression 'bugger' in an ad.
Then, in a blaze of insight and creative genius, Toyota and their agency Saatchi & Saatchi created an ad where things went wrong in a farm that relied on the Toyota Hilux to perform many of the jobs that farmers would immediately understand and townies would find fascinating (like pulling cows from creeks). When things didn't quite go according to plan the farmer would laconically intone…'bugger'. The kicker comes at the end when the huntaway dog is called to get on the back of the ute but mis-times and ends up splayed in the mud. Dog says 'bugger'…Genius ad that almost immediately became a part of the vernacular,…and lowered the bar for vaguely sweary language (ads typically are held to higher standard than the programming around them).
As a foot note the idea that the Hilux is utterly reliable - even when things go wrong was never spelled out.

One of the most significant areas of opportunity for BrandWorld  in the coming months and years is to address the issues of an ageing population. It is one of the greatest concerns for governments and policy makers all around the world - and, ironically, one of the least for the advertising industry.
We have talked about this often through the years (believe me it was one of the first topics we discussed 20 years ago and even toyed with a concept called 'Ageless' - back then I was 35, it might be time to actually do something).

There are far more dimensions to the issue than health. In fact, when you look at the report below, you will see that improvements in health have been built on over a century of steadily improving social conditions, technology and things like diet (or access to affordable, good quality food and water). 

One of the take-outs is to see populations in the round, as whole and integrated beings, rather than simple caricatures - in a post-demographic era, where we have access to granular data, defining people even as 'personas' is no more valuable than using astrological signs to plan.

This is a primer - there are discussions to be had…

 Source: The Economist July 2017 
(edited for context - DM)

At the Desert Trip Music Festival in California last October the performers’ average age was just one year below Mick Jagger’s (73), he called the event “the Palm Springs Retirement Home for British Musicians”. These days mature rock musicians sell: the festival raked in an estimated $US160m.
​
There are many more 70-somethings than there used to be.
In America today a 70-year-old man has a 2% chance of dying within a year; in 1940 this milestone was passed at 56.
In 1950 just 5% of the world’s population was over 65; in 2015 the share was 8%.
By 2050 it is expected to rise to 16%.

Rich countries are greying more than the developing world (except for China, which is already well on the way to getting old); the share of over-65s in the OECD is set to increase from 16% in 2015 to 25% by 2050. This has knock-on effects in older age groups too. Britain, which had just 24 centenarians in 1917, now has nearly 15,000.

A combination of falling global birth rates and increasing lifespans will increase the “old-age dependency ratio” (the ratio of people aged 65 or over to those aged 15-64) from 13% in 2015 to 38% by the end of the century.

This could lead not just to labour shortages but to economic stagnation, asset-market meltdowns, huge fiscal strains and a dearth of innovation.

The IMF predicts spending on pensions and health care, which already makes up over 16% of GDP in the rich world, will rise to 25% by the end of this century if nothing is done.

Much of the early increases in life expectancy were due not to people living longer but to lower death rates among infants and children, thanks to improvements in basic hygiene and public health.
From the start of the 20th century survival rates in old age started to improve markedly, particularly in the rich world, a trend that continues today.

More recently, life spans—the estimated upper limits of average life expectancy—have also been increasing. Until the 1960s they seemed fixed at 89, but since then they have risen by eight years, thanks in part to medical advances such as organ replacements and regenerative medicine.

The UN estimates that between 2010 and 2050 the number of over-85s globally will grow twice as much as that of the over-65s, and 16 times as much as that of everyone else.

Warnings about a “silver time bomb” or “gray tsunami” have been sounding for the past couple of decades, and have often been couched in terms of impending financial disaster and intergenerational warfare.
Barring a rise in productivity on a wholly unlikely scale, it is economically unsustainable to pay out generous pensions for 30 years or more to people who may have been contributing to such schemes only for a similar amount of time.

The longer, healthier lives that people in the rich world now enjoy (and which in the medium term are in prospect in the developing world as well) can be a boon, not just for the individuals concerned but for the economies and societies they are part of. The key to unlocking this longevity dividend is to turn the over-65s into more active economic participants.

Making longer lives financially more viable requires a fundamental rethink of life trajectories

This starts with acknowledging that many of those older people today are not in fact “old” in the sense of being worn out, sick and inactive. Today’s 65-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age.

In most EU countries healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigour and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed (though not all academics agree).

Yet in most countries the age at which people retire has barely shifted over the past century. When Otto von Bismarck brought in the first formal pensions in the 1880s, payable from age 70 (later reduced to 65), life expectancy in Prussia was 45. Today in the rich world 90% of the population live to celebrate their 65th birthday, mostly in good health, yet that date is still seen as the starting point of old age.

This year the peak cohort of American baby-boomers turns 60. As they approach retirement in unprecedented numbers, small tweaks to retirement ages and pensions will no longer be enough.
A radically different approach to ageing and life after 65 is needed.

The problems already in evidence today, and the greater ones feared for tomorrow, largely arise from the failure of institutions and markets to keep up with longer and more productive lives.

Inflexible labour markets and social-support systems all assume a sudden cliff-edge at 60 or 65. Yet in the rich world at least, a new stage of life is emerging, between the end of the conventional working age and the onset of old age as it used to be understood.

Those new “young old” are in relatively good health, often still work, have money they spend on non-age-specific things, and will run a mile if you mention “silver”.

They want financial security but are after something more flexible than the traditional retirement products on offer.

They will remain productive for longer, not just because they need to but because they want to and because they can. They can add great economic value, both as workers and as consumers.

The old idea of a three-stage life cycle—education, work, retirement—is so deeply ingrained that employers shun this group and business and the financial industry underserve it.

What’s in a name?
History shows that identifying a new life stage can bring about deep institutional change. A new focus on childhood in the 19th century paved the way for child-protection laws, mandatory schooling and a host of new businesses, from toymaking to children’s books.

When teenagers were first singled out as a group in America in the 1940s, they turned out to be a great source of revenue, thanks to their willingness to work part-time and spend their income freely on new goods and services. Such life stages are social constructs, but they have real consequences.

Making longer lives financially more viable, as well as productive and enjoyable, requires a fundamental rethink of life trajectories and a new look at the assumptions around ageing.

Longevity is now widespread and needs to be planned for. The pessimism about ageing populations is based on the idea that the moment people turn 65, they move from being net contributors to the economy to net recipients of benefits.

But if many more of them remain economically active, the process will become much more gradual and nuanced. And the market that serves these consumers will expand if businesses make a better job of meeting their needs.

The most important way of making retirement financially sustainable will be to postpone it by working longer, often part-time.

But much can be gained, too, by improving retirement products. The financial industry needs to update the life-cycle model on which most of its products and advice are based. Longer lives require not just larger pots of money but more flexibility in the way they can be used.

Benefit pension schemes (as we know them) will become a thing of the past, people need to be encouraged to set aside enough money for their retirement, for example through auto-enrolment schemes like KiwiSaver.

It would also help if some of the better-off pensioners spent more and saved less.

They would be more likely to do that if the insurance industry were to improve its offerings to protect older people against some of the main risks, such as getting dementia or living to 120. Many people’s biggest asset, their home, could also play a larger part in funding longer lives.

And for the oldest group, increasingly there will be clever technology to help them make the most of the final stage of their lives, enabling them to age at home and retain as much autonomy as possible. Perhaps surprisingly, products and services developed mainly for the young, such as smartphones, social media, connected homes and autonomous cars, could also be of great benefit to the older old.

The most obvious thing that needs to change for the younger old: the workplace. Again, there are parallels with young people. Working in the gig economy, as so many of them do, may actually be a better fit for those heading for retirement.
 

Advertising has long been a place of tub-thumping and hyperbole:
"We're the best…"
"There's been a breakthrough…"
"It's the second coming of Christ…"
And then (after Marlboro fags suggested giving up smoking)…this:

"On McDonald’s yearly ‘McHappy Day’, the brand donates proceeds from sales of Big Macs to aid children with cancer. On November 10th, Burger King in Argentina contributed to its competitor’s cause. Every Burger King in the country refused to sell Whoppers and redirected customers to McDonald’s so they could buy a Big Mac instead (thereby aiding McDonald’s charitable initiative). Though Burger King’s campaign was a bit cheeky – customers were told to go to the ‘place where they don’t flame-grill their burgers’ – they did help their competitor sell more burgers than they ever had on McHappy Day. And McDonald’s even thanked its rival off-the-record.

Burger King took this opportunity to showcase two sides of its brand personality. Firstly, it proved its empathy and selflessness by sacrificing its own sales to support a charitable effort. How could anyone not get behind that? Secondly, the brand put on a massive show of confidence. Because what it’s saying to customers (without saying it) is, “we’re fine sending you to McDonald’s, because you will like our burger more and you will come back!”

And yes, this is a marketing stunt. But what a stunt. Think about it: Burger King stopped selling their flagship product for entire day, at all its stores in Argentina (109, to be exact), then they directed hungry customers to a competitor! Kudos to whoever was brave enough to pitch this idea. Now take a moment to consider what your business is brave enough to sacrifice for a worthy cause?"

When we are talking to clients about their brands, we should also remember that they are selling products to real people (who don't consider themselves to be 'target audiences'.

It seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?
But today's marketing environment is a complex and dynamic arena.
Philip Morris have run a press campaign in the UK with the headline: 
Our New Year's Resolution: we're trying to give up cigarettes

The BBC reports:

"It is part of the company's drive to achieve a "smoke-free future".The owner of the Marlboro brand has also written to Prime Minister Theresa May asking to be allowed to print information about quitting and switching on its cigarette packs.
However, anti-smoking campaigners described the campaign as a "PR stunt".
The text of the advertisement runs: "Our New Year's Resolution: we're trying to give up cigarettes".
It goes on to encourage smokers to go to a new website containing information about giving up smoking or moving on to alternatives to tobacco.
It also says Philip Morris will:

• Offer to support Local Authority cessation services where smoking rates are highest

• Seek government approval to insert, directly into its cigarette packs, information on quitting and on switching;

• Expand the availability of new, alternative products in the UK.

The advert says the company has spent £2.5bn on develop smoke-free alternatives.
Asked why, if Philip Morris was so keen to go smoke-free, it did not simply stop making cigarettes and switch over to alternative production, a company spokesman told the BBC: "We are trying to go smoke free as fast as we can. If we just stopped selling cigarettes tomorrow, others would sell them in our place.
"In the UK, smokers are well aware of the dangers of smoking but what they want is more information about their options to quit smoking or switch."
'Smoke-free'In the UK, Philip Morris markets several alternatives to cigarettes, including, including a heated tobacco product, Ioqos.
It also owns the Nicocig, Vivid and Mesh e-cigarette brands.
"We believe we have an important role to play in helping the UK become smoke-free," said Peter Nixon, managing director of Philip Morris in the UK.
"The commitments announced today are practical steps that could accelerate that goal. We recognise that never starting to smoke - or quitting altogether - are always the best option.
"But for those who continue to smoke, there are more alternatives than ever available in the UK."
'Money to burn'However, Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity Action on Smoking and Health said the "offer to support" local authorities was nothing more than a donation, which is not allowed under World Health Organization guidelines.
"As Philip Morris well knows the government isn't allowed to accept 'donations' from the tobacco industry," she said.
"However, it does show that the industry has money to burn. Rather than making donations, it should be forced to pay the government more of its enormous profits."
In July last year, the government set out a plan to make England, in effect, smoke-free in the next few decades.
The new Tobacco Control Plan aimed to cut smoking rates from 15.5% to 12% of the population by 2022, paving the way to a smoke-free generation.
In his letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Nixon said: "We strongly support the government's clear ambition to create a smoke-free generation."
The Tobacco Control Plan "was a major step forward in recognising the vital role that e-cigarettes and other alternatives to cigarettes can play in achieving that goal", he added."

What are the opportunities and implications?
- Could BrandWorld work with a tobacco company to promote less harmful ways of consuming nicotine and encouraging smoking cessation?
- What would be the ethical considerations?
- How might we go about it without alienating other clients.

Can the Tobacco industry be trusted?
According to Dr Robert Cialdini in the book Pre-Suasion, a revolutionary way to  influence 
and persuade in the late 1960s sales of cigarettes were in a three year slide in the US, down 10%.
So, what did they do?
They canned their TV advertising. In congressional hearings the advocated government ban cigarette advertising? Since 1971 the airwaves have been smoke free.
It wasn't altruism and acknowledgement of the harmful effects of cigarette smoking (you know, the cancer thing). 
So, WTF?
As it happened there was a quirk in the FCC regulations - The Fairness Doctrine applied to 'all important and controversial topics'. It required that anti-smoking campaigners be given equal time to present their counter arguments. 
But it only applied to TV and radio.
Initial tobacco companies increased their spend - which increased the volume of counter argument.
Then the  tobacco companies changed their media strategy to Billboards, Magazines and placement in movies. 
Sale increased. 
They had literally silence their critics.

What do you think?
Comment below or chat in the hallways…

Is this a response to a real need or a way of skimming cash from wealth worried well?
Are their transferrable ideas for mainstream health centres?
I like the idea of a subscription service - and the use of AI and constant streaming of data to the doctor via sensors and connected devices.

"Very few studies have been done about the impact of A.I. on health care, let alone the impact of smartphone apps. Can high-tech flourishes really overcome perennial doctor challenges like poor patient compliance? “Using a fancy, sleek thing to check your weight instead of stepping on a scale, that’s nice, but I don’t know whether it makes a difference,” Dr. Mitesh Patel, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School who researches the impact of wearable devices on health outcomes, told me by phone. “The patients who really need these reminders, the patients who really need to be motivated, are not the patients who are going to join this service. The people who have low motivation don’t go. It’s a Catch-22.”

​​https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-apple-store-of-doctors-offices