Creative clashes: crowdsourcing or writing by Committee?

I attended a debate last week, organised by IABC Belgium called 'Communicating the EP Elections: the SeXy factor' (The capital X is theirs, not mine). The panel consisted of a moderator and 4 people: one was Stephen Clark, the Director for relations with citizens at the European Parliament (again, his definition, not mine) who has been responsible for the video which launched the EP elections campaign last September: the one with the slogan 'Act, React, Impact'. The other three panellists were from the communications agency 'Old-Continent' which has produced an alternative video on the elections, called 'We are not sexy and we know it'.

I have written about both videos when they came out (here and here) so no need to dwell on them again. But I am writing about it now because, some months on, on the eve of the real campaigning phase of the elections, the official video has had more than 8 million views and drawn a wide variety of comments. Mr Clark was there to talk about it and defend it in front of a critical audience of communicators. And he was sitting next to the producers of a video that, with little money and no time, was created precisely as a... how shall I say it, better alternative to the official one. Maybe it's just my love for controversy but I was hoping for some strong truths about EU communications. And I was very curious to hear what the minds behind the two videos had to say about...each other!

To be fair, Mr Clark did say he wished he could have produced a more fun video; "I would have never been allowed to use the word 'sexy', never mind the word 'shitty'" - he said, pointing out all the constraints of working for a huge multinational institution (from bureaucratic procedures to endless rounds of comments and approvals). I can totally understand how nightmarish it must be to make everyone happy. But my understanding ends here.

It ends because he continued to defend the video as a great new product while at the same time saying  we should wait for the next ones as they will be even better, shorter and snappier; because he mentioned as a major achievement the fact that Greek national television is broadcasting it often - could it be that it has no money to fill the airtime? - and that the comments outside the Brussels bubble were much more sympathetic - especially in the South - than the ones here in town. Really? My impression, admittedly gathered in an unscientific way, was that outside Brussels very few people understood what that video was about, while those who did found it depressing and vague. But then again, I might have spoken to different people.

Talking of different... what really surprised me was Mr Clark's enthusiasm for the main slogan of the campaign, 'This time it's different' - which, by the way, I thought had been replaced by the Act, React, Impact alliteration, but I stand to be corrected. It's a very personal thing but I find the sentence really bad. This time it's different? Is it because we are in a crisis? Is it because we are going to have a EP full of populists? Yes, it's different: it might be the last election, if we are not careful! Ok, probably not, but you get my drift. Plus, the slogan implies an involuntary admission of irrelevance, as if previous elections have been totally unimportant; as if it was understandable that before - before what actually? - nobody bothered to vote, but this time...it's different. Sorry, but it just does not work for me. A simple Google search of the sentence would be enough to see how effective it has been so far...

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the debate a lot. Actually, it was more like a Q & A session with Mr Clark than a proper debate, as the Old-Continent group talked much less, but was also asked fewer questions. Still, I had a great time: it's always fun to hear experts talking about two of my favourite subjects - the EU and communications - and to get an insiders' view on all the shenanigans surrounding the production of communications material for the institutions.

Plus, there was one piece of good news: the Old-Continent team announced that it's going to produce a new video, and is looking for inspiration and ideas from all of us for the first collaborative election campaign ad ever created. Hurray, but no American accent this time please!

Waiting with anticipation to see how this new video will compare with the new official ones.

My Christmas present? Lots of videos, what else?

As the holiday season (gosh, how politically correct of me!) is fast approaching, I have a very nice Christmas present for you all. It's a collection of videos, some more recent than others, that have been produced to raise awareness on issues and campaigns and that, for one reason or another, have struck a chord with me. They are all very different in style, format and objective. But what they do have in common, is that that they all show how beautiful, powerful, controversial, effective and courageous the visual medium can be.

Which one do you like best?

One of the most successful campaigns of 2013:




Celebrities always work:




As do moving coloured maps:




This is an ad but the message is powerful nonetheless. And why do the good ones come so often from South-East Asia? Remember this one?:




A nice idea, well executed:




Will Greenpeace ever cease to provoke? Does this work?



And before Santa gives up and retires, let me wish you a lovely Christmas.

Time for some answers and to reflect. And a video, of course.

My lovely reader(s) and friend(s) (one and the same?) have been asking me questions related to my near obsession with virality and effective visual communications.

Question number 1: is there a magic way to ensure that a video goes viral? No, there is not. You can try to follow some basic rules that might increase the chances, but 'virality' is never guaranteed. I am pretty sure that if you look at the top 20 most viral videos of all times, only few were made with the calculated intention of becoming 'viral'; they just did. There is however a way to make sure your video is good and effective which brings us to..

Question number 2: does having a lot of money increase the probability of success? Not really. It helps in the production and hence increases the chance that the video will be well-executed. But success is another thing.

Question number 3: is it all about emotions? Do I need to make people laugh or cry? Emotions play a big part in the success of a video. You are much more likely to share something that has hit you in some way. Whether you couldn't stop laughing, or started crying like a baby.

Let me be very clear. There are videos made with no specific objective in mind. For example, you filmed something funny or sad by chance; you wanted to try something out; you have cute kids or pets and love filming them, and so on. These are the majority of videos that go viral. But when there is a specific objective, emotions will only work if the video has, how shall I put it, A POINT. I know it sounds almost tautological but believe me, it is not.

What I mean is that if you decide to produce a video, have some money, and someone willing to help you do it, the first question you need to ask yourself is: "What do I want to communicate with this video? Why am I doing it?". If the answer is not convincing - for you first and foremost - then, you can have plenty money and emotions, but your video will not be effective. Let me put it this way: a video can be nicely produced but if it's unclear why it has been produced than it's a waste of money and time for the viewer, never mind the producer. And, you know me, I always have a little example:



On YouTube, below this video it says: How many rights have you spotted in this video? Excuse me? Is this a way to get people to watch it again and increase the views? Way too complicated. There are no emotions, it's true, but it is quite well done. Who doesn't like a nice domino - although I have seen better ones - and the Brooke Shields look-alike, but sorry..what is the point? To explain to EU citizens they have rights, or to spend the remaining communications budget before the end of the year?

Question number 4: can a video be fun and effective without being superficial? This is the typical question of non-communications experts, now working in the communications department of a company or an institution, but engineers or some such by training. For these people, the problem with videos, but also with communications more broadly, is that it does not allow you to say enough, which means that you inevitably end up being superficial. While understandable, the question is flawed. A video needs to be clear. But simple and superficial are not the same. You cannot say everything you want, but you will be able to say what matters.

And here is my favourite - I swear I have been asked. Question number 5: how important are the images for a good video? If this question makes total sense to you, then you better stick to MS Word as your communications tool. How important? They are key. The images should speak for themselves and that is also why the video above does not work very well. The main reason why video can be so powerful is the amazing force of images and text, often with music, all working together. Images and Music = a slideshow. Music and text = a song. Text = a book.

As we are approaching Christmas, I owe it to you to mention also an uncomfortable, personal question. (Don't get your hopes up, nothing too exciting).

Question number 6: 'your blog is nearly two years old; you have watched countless videos and criticised just as many. But how many have you produced? Shouldn't you put your money where your mouth is?'  I have to confess that sometimes I do fear I might have lost the touch...

But does one lose touch for these things? I guess, that is maybe true for all that is practical, especially with technology changing so fast. I remember when the older producers and reporters were talking to me about shooting on film and not on video....I found it all quite tedious, but the relentless change of technology is slightly disconcerting. And hence I do understand now why they felt the need to point it out. So yes, technology changes and you need to adapt if you don't want to stay behind.

Insight and judgement on the other hand, no, you can ever lose. And on top of that, I believe most of have a gut feeling that makes us share and like what works, and ignore what doesn't. Of course all this is a personal thing. But so too is the huge bundle of human emotions that will make something powerful, beautiful, visual, funny or shocking. But still, perhaps I should put myself to the test....another one to add to the list of New Year resolutions?

The Alternative (do you mean cheaper, better, lighter?) European Elections campaign.

Have a look at this video, a cooperation between the web series "Eurobubble" writer Yacine Kouhen and "Old Continent" communications agency: spot on messages, and more to the point than some videos on next year's elections, coming out of the institutions. Why do I like it? Because it's trying to be fun and light while remaining accurate. Because it does not try to please everyone. Because it's visually interesting but short. And all this, I bet, with a relatively small budget.

Well done!

Love the disclaimer "This is not a message from the European Parliament" Really? Don't say.

Just a small question though: why an American sounding voice-over?

A digression? Well, actually....

Brief digressive question: how come there are so many beautiful and effective Thai commercials? I mean, why not Chinese, Indonesian or Indian just to remain in Asia?

Well, anyway, talking about the power of visual communications...not really digressing that much I guess....enjoy.

Lower roaming charges? Don't thank the Commission!

Will go back to country branding soon, but now I need to talk about something that really pissed me off.

As well reported by the EU media - and by some European broadsheets - roaming charges (and especially the ones for data download) have gone down, again, the 1st of July; this is because the European Commission has reviewed once again the rules about European mobile charges and has achieved further price reductions. Data roaming is now 91% (yes 91%!) cheaper than it was five years ago.

You should be happy, not pissed off, you will say! Yes, I am super happy about the reduction. I always found roaming charges in Europe quite ludicrous. What I am really NOT happy about is the fact that the way most people heard about this news across Europe is through commercials of their mobile company announcing some incredibly generous new tariffs that would allow everyone to roam cheaply in the old continent. AAAAHH! Most companies have been opposing and lobbying against changes in roaming tariffs for years! They have lost their battle and now.....what do they do? They take all the credit!  Mind you, of course they would do that! They are smart!

Here are just a couple of ads - not really edifying - to show you what I mean:





But where is the big across-Europe campaign that says that it was actually the EU that forced them to do so? One of the few understandable and incredibly appreciated new pieces of legislation; a rare piece of good news; one that should have been used as an example of what the EU does for its citizens; certainly one which was worth investing or re-directing some money to communicate, maybe producing an ad that could set the record straight; but no, instead... it's down to mobile companies!! Give me a break! Even excluding the big spender idea of making a TV ad, how about the online presence? There are some news reports, documents, a press release and yes, a couple of videos.

 A weird video of a cartoon strip and a grandmother (453 views):



And the unmissable commissioner (I guess the slight resemblance to the grandmother of the previous video is purely coincidental!) in one of her many talk to camera interviews – in fact the video is one year old, after the first reductions - (1959 views):

 

 The impact? You be the judge.

 What a missed opportunity. Better go back to country branding!

Videos as a tool for country branding: two case studies (Belgium and .... Switzerland!)

It finally feels like summer and I will soon go off on holiday. The few posts before my departure will focus on a slightly different theme. Don't worry, it's still all about Europe, communications and videos; but the summer weather made me want to leave the European quarter of Brussels just for a while and look at...the whole of Belgium! And beyond! I want to look into European country branding! Why? Mainly because of a new video made to promote Belgium. The video, two actually, have been heavily criticised as they are considered too old fashioned, full of clichés and badly executed.

Here they are. One is aimed at potential tourists, or, as they say, at the general public:

 

And the other at potential business investors:

 

I am not sure whether the criticism was the same for both videos. I can certainly understand it for the first one. But understanding does not mean agreeing. Old fashioned? A bit maybe. Clichés? Yes for sure, but frankly this type of videos will almost inevitably contain clichés because they are trying to attract tourists - i.e. people who do not know much about Belgium. So, any surprise that all the famous sites are on show? Where should they have filmed? In Charleroi? And of course there will be chocolate, beer, frites and mussels: what else? Pizza? As for the execution, it is indeed a bit conventional (and quite long actually) but, again, you need to think at the target audience: non Belgians, and not necessarily social media, computer or animation buffs, which means a totally different group of people from the one criticising it this much. Maybe they should have chosen a different name (it is not exactly beyond expectations) and the music is pretty bad. Independent of the target.

Having said this, I really don't understand nor agree with the criticism if applied to the second video. True, it's quite straight forward but, unlike for the first one, the title is more appropriate because it told me interesting things I did not know; and I live here.

But talking more generally, are these videos effective? Is this a successful way to do country branding? What are the key ingredients? Is it necessary to stereotype? Do you need to be controversial? Remember the Danish one that was so criticised that had to be pulled? That one too played heavily on stereotypes and it went viral only because people thought it was a true story.

Can you afford in this day and age to be 'conservative' as the Belgians have done? And how would you measure success? An increase in country visits or high levels of criticism hence notoriety?

Let's look at a successful country - I guess in more ways than one. Last year, Switzerland was number one on the Country Brand Index. So, where are the effective Swiss videos? I found two that can be compared to the Belgian ones. The first is well filmed, although, as clichés goes, we are up there with the Belgians.



 But the second that looks at the business side of tourism is just so fantastically Swiss.


It's a spoof of a news coverage of an important tourism fair. The thought that not all the people interviewed probably understood they were being made fun of, cracks me up. So does the fact that they had to write 'funny' above the title on the video page of the Swiss tourism website, just in case someone took it seriously and thought they were being slightly unprofessional, to say the least. Unprofessional in Switzerland? NEVER!

But it's more than 9 minutes long  and I am afraid it's too much. Ironically both videos are trying to be funny which is not necessarily what you would expect or associated with the Swiss. So, I guess they should be praised for it. But does it work?

My feeling is that Switzerland is number one because it is Switzerland, not because of its more or less successful attempts at being funny. What do you think?

And this only got me started on country branding!

Saving lives with 'likes'? UNICEF 1 - Facebook 0?

I will leave the EU in peace this week, and let them negotiate TTIP. Someone pointed out that it is an unfortunate name for an Agreement that has not yet been reached. I agree actually. Virginia, stop it.

Anyway, I saw an interesting campaign idea a couple of days ago. It somehow links to the comments I made on the Kony 2012 campaign months back. This one is a UNICEF Sweden campaign.

Together with the UNHCR, I find that UNICEF is one of the few UN institutions - or maybe should I say institutions in general?- to have understood and well interpreted the power of visual communications. Their campaigns, partly because children are at the centre of the organisation, are very often incredibly moving and effective. This one, though, is particularly well done because it makes you think not just about children, but also about our own behaviour, as target audience of the campaign. First you have the powerful TV commercial showing a 10 year old boy who says that his and his brother's life will improve because the Facebook page of UNICEF Sweden has more and more  'Likes'. Sadly surreal but very thought provoking.

 Here it is (think about children):




And then there is the funny part of the campaign with three online clips showing someone trying to pay with 'likes'.

Here is one of the three (think about yourself):




These clips are OK. The characters could be funnier - or maybe they are to the Swedish audience - but the idea is good and anyway it is beside the point.

This campaign makes a not so subtle criticism of all those initiatives that want you to like, click and share for free from the comfort of your chair. Initiatives that, often, do not achieve much or change anything. The fact that online tools are a great help when it comes to reaching as many people as possible, does not alter the fact that, in most cases, what is really needed - and even more so in this time of crisis - is money. The quirkiness of this one for me is that the results of this campaign will be, yes, more donations, but also inevitably many more likes on the Facebook page of UNICEF Sweden. Or will it? Quite surprisingly the Facebook statistics seem to imply that there was a huge buzz the weeks following the campaign launch a month ago, but that there has been only a marginal increase in likes.

Pure coincidence or has the message gone through?  

How about this for an effective video?

A couple of days ago I was invited to attend a seminar in the press room of the Council of the EU. Entering the building brought back memories of my days at the BBC, when I was spending the day running around trying to get  more information and interviews on what the Council was discussing, desperately aiming to finish the piece in time for broadcast. There was no running this time. But, unlike most of those occasions, when I left the building this time I felt I had just been part of something very interesting, surrounded by thought-provoking speakers. 

The title of the seminar was "Public communication in the evolving media landscape: adapt or resist?" . Apart from the fact that everyone seemed to agree that government and institutions need to adapt rather than resist, there was a great variety of views and perspectives on the role and relevance of the Internet in general and social media in particular when it comes to communications. 

From an analysis of the psychology of the social media revolution, through mentions of Tomasi di Lampedusa, famous saying ''everything will need to change if we want everything to remain the same', to a speaker that compared (quoting an American professor) the internet to a dishwasher - it simply helps you doing things you always did, but in an easier way. 

But there was one moment that really struck me. Mischa Coster, a Dutch psychologist, was talking about the triggers and the emotions that push people to like, share, talk about things they see online. One of these emotions is loss aversion. In this context, he referred to the campaigns that most governments have developed to push smokers to stop. After showing pictures of the most commonly used i.e. health warnings and photos on packets of cigarettes, he asked us to look at this video:



I had tears in my eyes. I just couldn't help it. I thought I had seen it all and knew enough about videos and 'manipulation' not to be so moved. But I was wrong. What I find amazingly powerful of this video is that there is no mention of smoking at all, until the very end, but what you see are the possible consequences of smoking in all its dramatic manifestation. And without any doubt - the audience at the seminar all agreed- this is so much more effective than the health warnings on cigarette packs. (A little joke to cheer you up: do you know the one of the man that goes to buy a packet of cigarettes and, once he has it in his hand and has read the warning, gives it back to the shop owner saying: 'I don't want the one that says Smoking Kills You, give me the one that says Smoking hurts the ones around you, please!' Says it all on how successful warnings are, don't you find?)
Anyway, back to the video, it's true that being a parent and an ex-smoker, I probably represent the perfect target audience, but still, I could not have found a better way to show how powerful a video can be. As my sister said though, there should have been a disclaimer saying that the boy was not hurt during the making of the film because he does looks really, really upset. 

The institution that should not make you yawn...

Of the many institutions and agencies of the European Union, there are a couple that have always stood out as the ones that nobody really knows much about, don't seem particularly useful, and still receive big budgets. I know it might be an unfair description, but I am not questioning whether they actually do something useful, I am only arguing that what is done is not perceived as useful that is not saying the same thing. But as 'perception is reality', the difference becomes slightly blurred. Anyway, all this long introduction to say that, just to mention two that popped into my mind, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee clearly fall under this category.

Let's leave the Committee of Regions to one side for the moment (or maybe forever..).

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is - as you all know, right? - 'a consultative body that gives representatives of Europe's socio-occupational interest groups, and others, a formal platform to express their points of views on EU issues. Its opinions are forwarded to the larger institutions - the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. It thus has a key role to play in the Union's decision-making process'. I am not so sure about this last sentence actually, but if you look at its role - in this current anti-European climate - it seems an incredibly important body. It might have started as the liaison office between the Trade Unions, Employers Federations and the EU, but it has now a wider remit. It aspires to be the channel European citizens use to reach the larger institutions and the way for the EU to communicate and open a dialogue with European civil society. Is this not key at the moment? It is for me but, nonetheless, there isn't much talk about the initiatives the Committee is carrying out and the communication it does on such initiatives is not generating enough interest, if one excludes the people and the organisations that are directly linked to EESC projects. But, at least from a visual perspective, they are doing some pretty good things (yes, I did say it, so you see I am not always being negative?). A couple of examples.

This week the Committee has awarded the Civil Society prize, a prize that aims to 'reward excellence in civil society initiatives' in Europe; the three winners (from the UK, Portugal and Sweden) were captured in a video (6 minute-long) that described very well what the organisations do and hopefully can inspire others to start similar projects in their countries.

Here it is (and don't get put off by the still image of the EESC president!):



Another initiative that from my 'visual' angle is great is the Europe Past Forward video competition: amateur video producers are asked to send in a 2 minute video on what it means to be a citizen of the EU.

Here is the animated trailer for the 2013 submissions (56 seconds): original, good animations and, how can I put it, non-EU?



And finally, to give you an idea of the kind of videos that are sent in for the competition, here is the 2012 Belgian winner: simple, effective idea.



Are these not great ways to connect to European civil society? Maybe the theory is that the less power you have in the EU, the more creative you can be (discuss). Still, ten points for trying to be daring! Why then, when you mention the EESC (and of course if one uses the acronym it's even worse!), you get yawns in return?  

Love me gender, force me through..

Back to Europe and my favourite subject: how to communicate - and possibly visually - what matters to European citizens. A topic that has come up lately in the news and not only here in Brussels is that of women and work related matters; both in terms of the existing salary gap between men and women and in terms of the under-representation of women in boards of companies. On this last issue, the feisty commissioner Viviane Reding - responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship - has made a controversial proposal for a Directive that sets an objective of a 40% presence of the under-represented sex (better be safe, just in case someone were to find a women-only board and starts complaining!) among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges. The Commission has approved the proposal last week. It remains to be seen whether it will ever make it to through the Council and the Parliament and how watered down it might end up becoming, but nonetheless the idea has sparked a big debate, with men and women on both sides of the argument.


The ECB governing council- spot the woman if you can!

I have always had my doubts on quotas (a friend of mine said she does not like the idea because quotas apply to milk and not to human beings! Maybe it applies also to milk-producing human beings?), not because I don't believe that there should be more women in company board (and mind you, not just the ones listed in the stock exchange - have a look at the lovely family photo of the European Central Bank governing council!) but because I felt that imposing percentages would inevitably create resentment and it could have the perverse effect of proving that women are not as good as men, if some companies were to hire the wrong person for a job only on the grounds of gender.

But then I changed my mind.

I went some time ago to an interesting conference that was called 'The State of the Union - Revitalising the European Dream - a corporate view' and was completely struck - and not only me by the way- by the absence of women, the majority of company representatives at the conference being old-ish men in grey suits. Revitalising the European Dream? Who are we kidding? The shrimps on the buffet tables looked more fit for purpose! Did the organisers simply not care to have a slightly more balanced list of speakers or did they not manage? Then I found a very revealing quote by management guru Richard Pascale: “Adults are more likely to act their way into a new way of thinking than to think their way into a new way of acting.”

Now, my view can be summed up like this: 'I don't like them, but they work!'
And talking of something that works, I found two videos produced by the Commission on women and work issues. Great videos, clear messages, effective delivery and attention to details (look at the way the woman in the gender pay gap one, who gets treated so badly, acts as if it were sad but normal, a really nice touch). So it is possible you see? Another proof that visual communications can be effective while at the same time remaining pretty simple. A bit like...quotas, actually.

Here they are:

The Dirty Truth

Who said that international organisations cannot make great, strong viral videos? (Click on the link below -not the picture -  and do allow your webcam to be on if you have one!!)



http://www.nowwatchyourhands.com/