I am a Ukrainian. The contradictions of marketing a real guerrilla.

There is something perversely contradictory about feeling manipulated for a good cause. 

Did I watch this video when so many posted it? Yes I did. Did I share it? Of course I did. The situation in Ukraine is just horrible and unacceptable. But is this the only reason I shared it? Perhaps not. I was, just like thousands of others, taken by the video for all the same reasons videos go viral. What do I mean?

Try, if you are able - and I know it's not easy - to put aside what is actually and tragically happening in Ukraine. Now look at the video again. You will see a very pretty girl, real sounds of 'battle', with a low drone music. You will see shots of violent clashes and you will hear her talking - with a broken voice - about wanting to be free. All the ingredients are there. 'Guerrilla marketing'. Literally.

And now bring back in what is going on in Kiev. I challenge anyone, after having read and seen the news in the last couple of days and weeks and having seen this video on any social network, to then decide not to share it.

But I am wondering: notwithstanding the fact that what is going on in Ukraine is far, far more important than any attempts at using known techniques to get our attention, why do I have a deep sense of unease at the thought that had it been a normal looking, 50 year-old, unemployed man telling me those same things, I might not have shared it? Isn't it a good thing to use all available means to get people interested in what is happening on the EU's doorstep? On the other hand, am I really so sure that the video of the 50 year-old Ukrainian would not have gone as viral?

Difficult questions, that will require a lot more thought before getting a decent answer. And hopefully, by then, the pretty young girl - and the 50 year-old unemployed man - will have returned home as Timoshenko has been released and a new government and early elections appear on the horizon.

Getting the voter to the polls. The mystery face game "Guess Who?"

Do you remember when I said - only a week ago actually - that the person in the European Parliament, in charge of relations with the citizens had said that we needed to wait anxiously for the next video produced for the upcoming European elections?


Well, it turns out the wait is over. Here is one of the outstanding visual productions that will push the disgruntled potential voter to the polling booth in a jiffy.



You did not want to bother voting? I am sure you want to now! Your vote counts. Your opinion counts. And, if you click on the mystery face game 'Guess Who?' screenshot above, you can hear all sorts of insightful opinions from people that supposedly are just like you, but actually they are not, in a language that is not yours - but the subtitles are!- on issues you may know little about but should definitely have a view on. One in favour, one against.  A bit like the video on the nuclear energy debate. The difference is that the latter is visually beautiful and made me think, whereas this one made me want to cry. I guess it's all about sparking emotions.  

Deep down, I am still hoping this video was not the one Mr Clark was referring to - as it came out 3 weeks ago and was produced for the Commission's audiovisual department and not the Parliament. Because, as someone said, "we must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope". That, in a nutshell, is me and European communications. Thank you, MLK.

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.

A ridiculous Bill Gates: viral or just counter-productive?

If you are a Twitter user I am pretty sure you will have seen at least one of the many Bill Gates-sponsored tweets on his third annual letter 'Gatesletter.com' - I have seen the digital version but there is a printed one too.  Anyway, I have seen one of such tweets at least 3 times in one day (and I did not spend that whole day on Twitter).

Why am I writing about this? Because it's a marvellous example of a number of things:

1) I don't even want to know how much money it cost to have a Tweet so widely and frequently distributed for a whole day, and surely money is not really an issue for Bill Gates. But it's a fact that I saw it, opened it and read it which I might not have done had it not appeared on Twitter. So, how shall I put it in a very original way? Money talks and....pays.

2) The letter - the digital one at least - is very well done. You can disagree with the content (Gates and his wife Melinda are trying to take apart three myths they claim block progress for the poor) but the way in which the arguments are presented is incredibly clear and attractive. There are beautiful graphics, video interviews and great photos - I particularly like the ones comparing big cities decades ago with how they look today. It's super easy to share it, in part or as a whole, to move from one section to another and you can read it in six different languages. True, it's quite a long letter, partly because it  has all these other elements that make it longer, but partly because it does take some time to debunk myths. So, it looks good and it reads well. Quality.... pays.

3) Towards the end of each 'torn apart' myth, there is an ingenious idea. You are asked to vote on whether you agree or disagree with the arguments you have just read/heard/seen. In sum, interactivity and feedback all in one. A smart way of checking whether the messages work and to allow the Foundation to listen and adapt. Understanding ....pays.

3) On top of spamming everyone on Twitter, Bill Gates has gone on TV to promote the letter. Nothing bizarre about that. I saw him on NBC's 'Late Night with Jimmy Fallon' and I do admire the fact that he is giving to charity so much of what he earns. He came across as a nice and clever man, a good talker and surely a true believer in the power of aid. But towards the end of the interview, there was a bit that left me perplexed, to say the least. Here is it:



Now, I can see how it went: since his comms people are avid readers of my blog, they realised the importance and power of visual communications, hence they decided to make a video that could go viral. Seriously, I know that it's meant to be a joke, that the idea that such a powerful man could make fun of himself can be seen as a good one but, at least in my case, watching that video, at the end of a good interview to promote a 'great message' was a bit of an anti-climax.

And the curious thing is that, if I were to judge the effectiveness of it, I would really struggle Why? Because in the end, having said what I just did, I still watched it, started writing about it and shared it; hence I contributed to its viral potential. I was about to write bad, ridiculous videos DO NOT pay, but is that true? Help me out here.

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?