[ photo courtesy ]

The SXSWi write-up continues (albeit slowly, as the whole work thing and pitch mania is slowing the process somewhat!):

The panel was entitled ‘Plan B: Can an Ad Guy Bring Bike Sharing to America?’ but in his opening preamble Alex Bogusky said actually, his presentation was really about ‘the art of sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong’, and the bike sharing was just an example of what can happen when you do.

Others have posted their own write-ups of the panel here and here, and you can listen to the podcast of the panel here, so I shan’t double up by recounting a blow by blow account of what Bogusky said – but rather take a few of the points he raised as springboards for a few random thoughts and musings. Also a warning that the below has very little, if anything, to do with bike sharing. So I’d suggest reading/listening to the aforementioned accounts if you want to find out more about Bcycle. This is my take on a few of the points raised, and my own thoughts about some of what was – and notably wasn’t – said:

Sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong

Firstly, the art of sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong. That resonates hugely, as I’d say it’s one of the central principles that guides what we do at Naked. We don’t fit neatly into a box – so we’re invariably poking our noses into what other people would consider to be ‘none of our business’. And honestly, yes we do ruffle some (often quite a lot!) of feathers. But very often, we wouldn’t be doing our job if we weren’t. Frequently a client comes to us with a problem that they can’t crack, and more often than not, a major stumbling block is that the various internal stakeholders are doing things the way they’ve always done them – within their own internal silos, doing what’s expected of them without straying into anyone else’s territory. And the agencies are doing just the same. The marketing department have responsibility for briefing and managing the media, advertising, PR, digital, and other associated marcomms agencies. So the media agency gets their media budget and plans the media. The PR agency does their bit, the creative agency make the ads and so on. But the person in charge of customer service experience, or call centre management, or after-sales service, or in-store, or staff training, all sit off in separate departments and ne’er the twain shall meet.

So the often so-called integrated activity is at best matching luggage within the marketing communications, but invariably totally divorced from all the other ways the brand communicates. And yes, ‘comms’ is not just another word for ‘advertising’, the script at the call centre, the packaging, the way the after-sales service is dealt with – it all communicates something about the brand so it’s all comms. But very often no-one’s joining the dots. So when we come along to try and find creative communications solutions for tricky business problems, and we start diving into these areas, it’s frequently seen as us sticking our noses where they don’t belong. You deal with the marketing and we’ll deal with everything else thank you very much.

But unless you do stick your nose where it’s felt not to belong, the change that’s needed invariably doesn’t happen. And frankly if you’re content to just sit in your box without challenging the status quo, if the status quo isn’t working, you’re not doing your job.

Joint Ventures

The other area I found particularly interesting was really what Bogusky didn’t say. The whole Bcycle scheme was positioned very much as a labour of love, originating from a deep and enduring love of bikes, and the overwhelming desire to bring something like the Velib system to Denver, without the strings attached (the Parisian system is funded by JC Decaux as part of the contract for the out of home advertising throughout the city). Now, although I’m a cynical old crone, I don’t doubt any of this. The guy is clearly absolutely passionate about bringing bike-sharing to the US, and obviously driven by the desire to make this work.

But it’s not a purely personal endeavour. Bogusky himself used the words ‘joint venture’ when talking about the agency’s role in the scheme, and so while this may undoubtedly be driven at its heart by passion and desire for change vs profit, it’s also surely a useful dry run for CP+B to test the water for future joint ventures.

They obviously wouldn’t be the first to do so. The most exciting and innovative advertising agencies are looking to future proof themselves by exploring new models for generating revenues beyond simply churning out ads. Anomaly IP is hugely exciting. As is BBH’s ZAG. Or some of the latest stuff from Droga 5. And yes, not all of these have been / will be storming successes, but such is the nature of trying new things. Some stuff doesn’t work. But you learn and move on, and you’re in a better place to make stuff that does work. Certainly a much better place than those who’ve sat with their fingers in their ears, hoping they could carry on as before, clinging on to those ever dwindling TV margins.

So I took the opportunity in the Q&A to ask Bogusky whether he saw joint ventures playing a key role in the future of advertising agencies. And his answer was cagey to say the least. He essentially dodged the question by saying that he tried not to think more than 15 minutes ahead, and that video on the web was probably going to be huge so advertising agencies wouldn’t have to change a great deal.

Hmm. Needless to say I wasn’t the only person who found this answer somewhat evasive – as several people came up to me afterwards all saying something like ‘wow he totally dodged the ball on that one – I sure as hell don’t believe him for a second’. And so on.

I’d be hugely surprised if CP+B didn’t think that JVs were a potentially huge part of the ‘creative’ agency of the future. And honestly, if everything good you’ve ever done has been about sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, instead of using your creativity to just advertise other brands, why wouldn’t you be looking to create brands – and to get a share of the pie?