This groovy website www.hayesdavidson.com/skyline/ allows you to plonk buildings willy, and indeed nilly, into the London skyline. The only thing I would add is a Godzilla option to destroy it all but that’s just me.

Via Adland TV

To anyone who’s read my previous posts it will also come as a surprise that I would be praising a rail company, but believe it or not here it comes…

Just before Christmas I had to make an urgent trip from London to Essex. I arrived at Liverpool Street station, checked the departure time of my train, shovelled a big wedge of cash into the ticket machine and just as my tickets printed out the automated departures and arrivals board lit up in a frenzy of flashing lights as one-by-one the trains changed from ‘On Time’ to ‘Cancelled’, ‘Bus Service’ or ‘Delayed’. Mine was cancelled. The tickets, still warm from the printer, cowered in my clenched fist.

I then embarked on the most excruciating train journey of my life. Both the outward and return journeys were subject to cancellations, delays, lack of onboard refreshments due to a broken boiler, overcrowding and general displeasure.

On my return I set about drafting a letter of complaint to the train company responsible, National Express. Seeing as there has been a lot of talk of will they/won’t they mergers with Stagecoach recently I wasn’t holding my breath in getting a positive response to my request for a full, and immediate, refund.

As Christmas set upon us I received a letter from National Express to inform me that they had read my letter and would attempt to come back to me within 6 days. Actually, it was more like 15, but hey, it was Christmas and who’s counting? I was stunned to receive another letter the other day profusely apologising for the ‘unforgiveable’ experience I had had to endure that day on the train, and explaining the reasons for the delays/cancellations but in a tone that was more apologetic and responsible than blame-ridden and bitter. Neatly tucked in the folded letter were vouchers for rail travel (on ANY network in the UK) for not only the full return fare but for the full fare + 25%.

Now, I’m not too sure whether it should be a big cheer for National Express per se, or a big cheer for the cranky insistence of a grump like me, but regardless, I thought the communications tone, and the ‘above and beyond’ value of the vouchers were a great example of a brand’s ability to create a positive experience out of a bad one. Well done National Express.

The answer from @hjonesy (that’s our Helen) was as profound as it was immediate: it’s a social experiment; something to try to see if it works. And I think she’s hit the nail on the head.  This isn’t about music. This isn’t about the X-Factor, Simon Cowell, wee Joe, or some funny fellas in hoods. It’s about the most seismic shift in consumer behaviour that has happened for a generation, that has started in earnest in 2009.

If there is one thing that we are to remember 2009 for it must be the rise of social media and its ability to empower people, en mass and as individuals, as never before. For providing the opportunity for a single voice to express an opinion and for that opinion to join with others that are similar; growing, developing and coagulating as more and more join in, until their presence can no longer be ignored.  Until their presence is so great that it becomes more significant than the subject that inspired the first voice to be raised. Until the desired and necessary change occurs.

Think Jan Moir. Think Trafigura. Even watch Gordon Brown on TED (no, do). In 2009 we have passed the tipping point at which the balance of power shifts from corporations and institutions (the brands) to the people. It marks the point at which brands have to start to think and operate differently. The point from which no organisation can ever be forgiven for putting itself first and for not taking its responsibilities to its audience, or the wider world, seriously.

Now, the RATM movement isn’t quite the real thing just yet. As Helen says, it’s an experiment rather than a genuine desire for a Christmas No.1 of one type versus another. It’s wrapped up with the irony that the real winner is Sony BMG who have both artists on their label – some will argue that the ‘enemy’ ends up winning after all. But that’s to miss the point. The enemy here isn’t Sony, or Cowell. It’s the old way of doing things. The past. And, in 2009, it’s been defeated.

I’m looking forward to 2010.

When Tiger Woods made a statement apologising for “not being true to my values” he revealed the depth of his fraud. Just how ‘true’ are those ‘values’, Tiger? Given the extent to which he is now known to have flaunted them, clearly they are not true at all. Tiger, your values are the things that define your behaviour, not the things you think sponsors want to hear. You can’t just say them, you have to live them. If you are consistently doing bad things then you have bad values. Simple as that. When you’re aware of your actions (he wasn’t sleepwalking) to claim your values as anything else is just yet another lie.

Harsh? No. Prior to the scandal in 2001, Enron’s publicly stated values were “communication, respect, integrity, and excellence”. When their deception became apparent their Directors went to jail and corporate accounting practices were changed forever. That’s what can happen when you lie about your values. You might argue that Enron, as a big business, is different. Except that it isn’t. Tiger Woods career earning surpassed the $1 billion mark earlier this year – that’s big business enough. The vast majority of that $1bn is made from sponsorship deals and the size and scope of those deals is, in part at least, based on those same ‘values’ that Tiger claimed to have, but didn’t. The deals get renewed and extended because the public respect Woods for the values he appears to project. Which we now know are a con. Of course in Tiger’s case, he hasn’t broken any laws (apart from a minor traffic offence) so he’s not going to jail. But it’s a form of branded deception nonetheless.

But in the short term, at least, Woods may survive this. His sponsors may be too timid to drop him. But his ‘values’ will be forever changed. If he continues to claim the lie then his appeal to the public and to sponsors will spiral downwards and his longer-term propects are certainly less good. Although were he to be honest at this point and declare his values for that they really are, then perhaps he could even end up prospering even more.

After all, it turns out he’s way more fun than we thought.

So yesterday via Twitter I received two identical tweets from the same ‘company’. Being a little more specific, one form the ‘official’ Twitter feed of that company, the other from the ‘personal’ Twitter account of the MD of that company. I say personal, however in the profile he states that he is MD of X…. so in my book, that counts as a representation of that company is a ‘pseudo corporate’ feed. So, two identical tweets, sent from the same ‘company’, to the same individual, me, in the space of a few seconds.

Now if that happened with email, to which I had subscribed, i.e. which is permission based, as is Twitter… I’d be annoyed and think ‘what a stupid company’. Well the same thing happened with those tweets, I thought ‘what a stupid company’. Just because they are short, possibly less intrusive than email, it’s still really dumb to send identical messages over different accounts when you have the same person subscribing to both accounts on the other end! We wouldn’t do that with email would we? And as the business that did this was, surprise surprise, a social media agency (ROFLMAO)… that makes it, as we say on the Internets, an EPIC FAIL.

So, to an extent you have to say ‘bless’, let’s face it a lot of people working in social media, on the face of it, aren’t that experienced in the grand scheme of things, email is for old people right? But more seriously it points to the fact that platforms such as Twitter, even when combined with some of the 3rd party corporate tools, are still massively lacking in maturity and functionality to run at the same level of ‘permission’ and accuracy as email or more traditional direct communications. To my knowledge, (I did say this was ill-informed) no tool exists to manage Twitter subscribes across a companies multiple accounts in the same way as email (i.e. with really thorough, get prosecuted if you mess up, list and subscriber management… yes I get that Twitter is a little less complex in that if you unsubscribe that’s that, to an extent). If it does I get the impression many companies aren’t using it. As far as legislation goes, again I’d welcome an update on this… however, if the law doesn’t hover channels such as Twitter in b2c communications, isn’t it about time it did?

But there is another category of films – films that are so bad, they’re good. To celebrate these ‘car crashes’ of celluloid, we stupidly decided to set up a club – a bad film club – an opportunity to have a drink, a laugh and revel in the acting horror.

Each month we will be showing a ‘special’ screening. Our opening film was no exception having become an internet and cult legend. Here is our resident film boffin, Robert Ball‘s assessment of what has been described as ‘the ‘Citizen Kane’ of bad films‘: The Room…

You are tearing me apart Lisa!

The Room (2003)
There are films during which you can feel the obsessive precision of a master craftsman at work. The films of Kubrick, David Lynch or Hitchcock. The Room is their terrible dark twin. Whereas truly great films are perfect in every detail; framing, pacing, screenplay, visual and sound design, The Room is monotonously, heroically unperfect. In every last detail. All of the time.

The star, producer, director and probably caterer of this meandering debacle (Tommy Wiseau) gives himself the plum role of Johnny – a benevolent, teetotal philosopher and adopter of street kids. He is misunderstood, betrayed, and cuckolded in turn by those around him. He cuts a tragic figure. In fact it’s possibly the most tragic screen performance ever committed to celluloid. Imagine Christopher Walken wandering lost after near fatal electro-shock therapy in one of Cher’s old wigs reading a pile of Clinton Cards through a mouthful of cold porridge.

The rest of a central love triangle is, quite literally, rounded out by a femme fatale (shot from such consistently harsh camera angles and in such cheap dresses that she looks like a pound of pork sausages spilling out of a Christmas cracker) and the handsome best friend (A walking piece of MDF with a beard). And talking of cheap furniture, The Room looks like it was filmed in an MFI showroom. During business hours. Which perhaps explains the characters that randomly appear out of nowhere only to look confused and and wander off again without serving dramatic or expositional function.

So, take some terrible acting, a screenplay written by a horny teenager (two stomach churning sex scenes occur in the first ten minutes that feel about as erotic as watching a giant snail trying to fondle his sister), cheap sets, a handful of stock footage, production values that would shame a school nativity and this is the result.

And I’m just scraping the surface. A thin veneer of mere awfulness covering depths of ineptitude studded with pearls of unrewarding crap just waiting to be discovered. The worst film ever made? Perhaps. I’d give it six out of ten.

But in this case, no such conversations need take place.  That’s because the drawing has been produced not by a well-remunerated corporation, but by a child. It is the work of nine-year-old Florence Jackson, from Bristol, who was one of 17,000 children who entered a BBC Blue Peter competition to design the new coin. The media, the public, most (not all) designers, when they know that it is designed by a child, will soften their eyes and celebrate, rather than criticise its flaws. And, even if they missed the press release, no one’s going to be in any doubt about its youthful provenance because the design is so obviously juvenile. Crude, puerile and naïve her art may be, but in the context of such a competition these are exactly the criteria that the competition judges would have desired. Indeed, I am confident to assume that many more accomplished submissions will have been rejected for being too good; not childlike enough. This competition was never about the quality of the design but what it is that the design represents.

This highlights a crucial aspect of human judgment that applies to design and much more widely beyond. It’s the reason why brand consultancy is not only the most important discipline in the marketing mix but a critical component of modern business strategy. It might even help us to define what “brand” means. Yep, I’m making a big deal of this one, because I think Florence has hit on something important here.

To up the ante a little from 50p, let me ask you a question about another piece of art. If the Madonna of the Pinks that hangs in The National Gallery turns out, as some suspect, not to be by Raphael but a fake, is it worth less than the £22M it cost to buy? Philosophically, the painting could be said to exist in two parallel universes. One, where it marks a brave and progressive watershed in the history of religious portraiture that inspired not just art but generations of social history. Another, where it is simply a derivative work by a talented, yet insignificant forger. Physically, the two universes of the paintings collapse into one – its tangible attributes are the same. Intellectually, they are forever apart.

Old Masters may be an extreme example but the point is this: we judge things not for what they are but for what we think they mean. To truly understand something we need to look beyond its tangible qualities and consider its intangible attributes too. We seek to explain what we see (hear, touch, taste, or smell) by giving it a back-story – a meaning beyond the physical experience it provides. The Madonna of the Pinks is not just a well-executed painting of the Madonna and child but a landmark moment in art history. Florence’s coin is more than a badly drawn picture, it represents the hope, potential, and the carefree joy that only a child would have the courage to see, yet to which all adult human beings aspire.

Don’t just take my word for it. This aspect of human intellect is a fundamental philosophical concept. In the 4^th Century BC, Aristotle defined hypokeimenon, literally meaning the “underlying thing”, as the quality that sits behind a thing’s physicality and persists through any change. In the 13^th Century John Duns Scotus described haecceity, literally “thisness”, as the quality of a thing that differentiates it from another with identical form (where its form expressed in generic terms is called quiddity, or “thatness”). Neuroscientists have explored these concepts in their analyses of how the human brain makes decisions, examining the complexity of the relationship between rational and emotional processing. Some, like Chris Frith, even suggest that rational decision-making is an illusion created by our own brain to defend us from the incomprehensible reality of our truly irrational selves. The scientific and philosophical facts are clear: things are not as simple as they seem.

And this helps us explain what a brand is. A brand is the complete set of criteria upon which the human brain decides. (Note that lower order mammals don’t use ‘brands’, just sub-conscious instincts; they don’t ‘decide’.) Brands are a complex interdependency between rational and emotional propositions where each works to shape and explain the other. They are about hypokeimenon (essence), haecceity (differentiation) and quiddity (experience) and touch not just logos and marketing but every aspect of what an organisation thinks and does. It follows then, that managing a brand requires profound and holistic consideration, with the intellect and imagination of a deeply enquiring mind. If we are to believe Chris Frith, then it’s the most important thing that any business should consider, overriding all the rational considerations that businesses typically prioritise in their plans.

Of course some philosophers (the empiricists and phenomenalists) disagree with this point of view. For them, a thing is no more than its tangible self: The Madonna of the Pinks is just paint on canvas, worth no more than, say, 50p. They would consider a conversation about brands to be an exercise in vanity and a waste of money and time. Such people should be introduced to Florence. Sometimes it takes the perspective of a nine-year-old to help you open your eyes.

The Partners has once again teamed up with Richard House Children’s Hospice, heading back into the City to flex their fundraising muscles with another fantastic event, the Richard House five-a-side football tournament.

Aimed at naturally competitive City workers the idea highlights the rivalry that exists in the office and encourages them to bring that to the pitch. In total 20 teams competed with Baker McKenzie becoming the champs in a stunning 3-0 win.

The Partners has designed a logo, posters and other promotional material for the five-a-side event.

• What’s the best way for me to get in touch regarding a placement?
  Contact a studio, ideally with a name of someone specific and provide three to four examples of your best work with a CV.
• How many placements do you give per year?
  We have 24 slots throughout the year, lasting four weeks but we can occasionally allocate for longer or shorter periods.
• What’s involved in doing a placement?
  We treat you like one of the team, not a visitor. We throw you in at the deep end with lots of different tasks and try to get you involved in many different projects. Scanning can’t be avoided and we have high expectations for tea-making but in general we get you designing, but more importantly we get you thinking – it’s why we got you in in the first place! A placement is your chance to shine, so don’t be shy. Ultimately, we want to miss you when you’re gone!
• How much does it pay?
  Although we expect you to do it for love, we pay £200.00 per week.
• Do placements turn into jobs?
  Rarely, unless we’re really really busy and you’ve been doing such a great job that we couldn’t bear to let you go.  But, in general they provide us with a chance to consider you as a potential future member of The Partners once you’re finished. (We like to think of it as road testing).
• How long do your projects take to finish?
  It varies, speedboats and cruise liners…
• How many people work at the Partners?
  In our London office we have around 40 people – designers, project managers, creative directors, strategic consultants, partners, some freelancers, oh and a dog.
• Is it all work and no play?
  Definitely not. We have a summer barbecue, a Lock In, a Christmas party and pub quiz every year, not to mention the reception turning into a pub every Friday evening…
• What’s your favourite typeface?
  Don’t be so geeky.
• Any general don’ts?
  Lie (it’s a really small world)
  Point out weaknesses
  Moan or badmouth anyone
  Pester or be pushy
  Seem desperate or over explain your work
• Anything else?
  Make sure that you check that the designer that you are contacting still works there and you spell their name correctly!
  Spell check any letter that you send!
• Do you have any interview advice?
  Arrive a bit early so you’re not in a flap. Pack your stuff well so it’s easy to reveal. Be enthusiastic and look interested. Don’t be surprised if you don’t see the person you expected. You may also have to go back over your work with some else who’s been called in. Don’t expect an on-the-spot offer (although it can happen). But most importantly, be yourself.
• Are there any books that you would recommend?
  Plenty but some of the oldies are still the best. Here are three:

  A Smile in the Mind – written by the much-loved founding Partner David Stuart, A Smile in the Mind is an classic example of getting ideas rather than just style into any design project, while still having some fun – (we called this book the ‘designers bible’ at uni – Kev)
  
  Problem Solved: A Primer in Design and Communication – by Michael Johnson – Problem: you can’t buy a book about problem-solving? Solved: you can now.
  
  The Art of Looking Sideways – By the late Alan Fletcher, it is a testament to visual awareness which Alan himself describes ‘a journey without a destination’.