PART 1: The Creative Process and Tools.

It’s now been over a quarter century since the Mac was introduced, complete with the hoopla that surrounded the 1984 Ridley Scott ad that we’re all familiar with.

Since then, technology has played an ever-increasing role in how concepts are executed and sometimes (unfortunately) generated. On the positive side, technology has allowed us to quickly see exactly what an idea could look like in its final form, made creating final art more efficient, and made digital projects a possibility. But on the negative side, tech has made it way too easy to put the execution ahead of the concept - giving us ads that look polished but are actually devoid of a solid idea or marketing backbone.

The Creative Process

What does this process look like now compared with pre-mac times and what changes came about with technology advances? Let’s compare the three stages of the creative process: Problem, Concept, and Execution.

Problem

The process still starts with an objective, strategy and usually a specific marketing problem that the client wants us to solve. Technology didn’t change this stage too much.

Concept

Concepting used to be a combination of Copywriting and Art Direction — a process replete with frustration, inspiration, bar napkins, carriage returns and chicken scratchings.

Did the Mac change this stage of the process?

More than most creatives care to admit. It is just so easy to quickly make a “first look” look like a final, produced version. Our challenge is to make sure the concepting process still resembles the picture above while using the computer to realize the vision.

Execution

This has changed so much since pre-Mac days. Although some traditional tools are still used to realize the concept, concept executions get done on a computer.

Treat Technology Like a Really Good Pen.

If we use technology as if it were a high quality Rapidograph (remember those?) and not an idea generator we should be OK - as long as we make sure our concepts focus on solving marketing problems first and, only then, kick-butt creatively.

COMING IN PART 2: Creatives beware - accountability, discipline, and measurability are not the devil.

Well, let’s start with online video in general - how popular is it?
According to Universal McCann, 74.2% of US Internet users watched online video daily or every other day in 2008. And, Nielsen measured that in May 2008, people spent 4.5 minutes per day watching online video. Video content is only a click or two away at Yahoo, Google, You Tube, etc., so it should come as no surprise that…

A whopping ¾ of the internet viewing public watch at least some video on the web daily.

But what about video in email?
Can you include video in your next email? What about webmail? HTML5?

The simple answer is -  not really…
But maybe we’re asking the wrong questions.
Maybe the question that should be posed isn’t “How do you embed video in your email?”, but rather “What are the current best strategies for getting my video delivered?”

An incorporating solution - not quite video in email but a viable solution
The easiest and most foolproof way is to include a still poster frame into the email that has a big play button on it and links to a web version of your email. People click on the video play button and then are transported to the same creative on the web - but with an autoplay version of the video. The user experience will be almost identical to if the video was actually playing in the email.

And what about other options like…
HTML5
There are some promising developments in HTML5 which has a <video> tag. But it doesn’t have acceptance yet.

Animated gifs
You can convert your video to an animated gif, but these files are weighty, blocked by many email clients and companies - and still don’t look like real video.

Webmail
Webmail clients like yahoo mail, and gmail won’t play video.

Does it work at all in email?
Actually Apple Mail, entourage 2008, and the iphone will play video. But these have a pretty darn low marketshare.

So to sum up…
A quick tour of the web shows just how ubiquitous video has become and how important it is in many companies’ online marketing efforts.

But to transport a video experience to your email marketing efforts, it is still most reliable to drive the user to a web page that plays the video. But that may change soon.

Sock Puppets and Bursts, it’s not either or.

Conventional wisdom states that mixing “branding” with response in one communication creates communication that neither generates response nor enhances the brand. So advertisers typically take a silo-ed approach to their branding and response campaigns.

Unfortunately, that mentality produces communications like these from Honda and its dealers:

Both the branding spot and the direct mail piece were obviously created by professionals. So, why would they be so completely different in tone, feel and objective? And, WHY does that mailer suck so completely on a design basis?

I’m sure there is a piece of data that proves that the DM pulled blah, blah response, etc. And I know that my brand awareness has increased from the brand ad campaign. But, hmm, I still haven’t gone and dropped the cash for that new car.

Neither project worked as hard as it could. Here’s what’s wrong with both:

The Honda TV spot can work harder to move me to action, without making viewers devalue the brand, even if it’s just a simple call to action or reference to Honda’s website (or better yet a landing environment that
seamlessly takes people responding to the ad to the next level of purchase). And, the DM piece could still generate reader interest without looking like a monkey designed it with a pile of typefaces at his disposal.

Response marketing can engage without offending anyone’s sense of style and quality. And image advertising can promote action without demeaning the brand it promotes. Sometimes it’s just a matter of working harder to get to that sweet spot.

Marketers, and the companies that hire them, can do better.

Karl Goin, Wayfinder Response Creative Director