In our ongoing discussion about interesting advertising and communications, McCain’s bus stop ads for its new baked potato products. In select areas the ad features a giant potato which generates both heat and the smell of baked potato. An intriguing concept, which has generated a lot of buzz around the office, with its advocates and detractors.

Read more »

A while back I saw a whole page ad in the paper.
It was for Marks & Spencer.
It said, for every item of used clothing you donate to Oxfam, Oxfam will give you a free £5 Marks & Spencer voucher.
This voucher entitles you to £5 off any purchase over £20.
Now why would M&S do that?
Why would they give all those vouchers to Oxfam, for free?
Sure it makes them look like a nicer, more caring company.
So it’s good for PR.
But is that all there is to it?
Is it pure altruism?
Well not quite.
In order to donate used clothing to Oxfam you need to get rid of some clothing.

Read more »

We are all familiar with the traditional CRM / Direct Marketing / Data Driven Marketing / Direct Response*, *choose preferred name here, world. Whatever you call it, essentially it’s where we collect data about an individual, determine what we think is relevant for them by looking at their behaviour, their purchases, or from research, and map it to our business needs. Then we put it all in a database and use it to drive mass-customised messages – the key being that we incorporate personal information from our database and then use automated rules based systems to generate relevant communications.

Read more »

One of the best things about working in the advertising and communications industry is that there’s rarely a dull moment. Many of us get to luxuriate in swanky offices, mix with creative people, and can justifiably spend time on YouTube conducting research. What’s not to like?

Read more »

The philosopher David Hume, defines two main types of reasoning.
Deductive Reasoning and Inductive Reasoning.
For Hume, all true reasoning is the deductive kind.
Deductive Reasoning is based on purely observable fact.
Facts alone with nothing added.
The other kind, Inductive Reasoning, is when we infer something that isn’t actually there.
For Hume, Inductive Reasoning is fallacious and misleading.
And yet most of our thinking, Hume says, is based on Inductive reasoning.
I think we can learn a lot from this.
So let’s start by following Hume’s thinking, as I see it.
Hume says the only true reasoning is Deductive Reasoning.
We might also call this ‘reductive’ reasoning.
We reduce everything down to the exact truth of what is observed.
And nothing more.
And that’s the most important part: “nothing more”.
We don’t add a single thing.
However, most of our thinking is based on Inductive Reasoning.
We can call this ‘assumptive’ reasoning.
Hume calls it ‘cause-and-effect’.
We assume a cause-and-effect relationship where we have no proof.
Hume’s example is billiard balls.
Ball A strikes ball B, and ball B moves.
We assume that ball A striking ball B, has caused it to move.
But actually we didn’t observe this and can’t prove it.
We observed a ball striking another ball.
We observed the second ball moving.
We didn’t actually observe a link between the two events.
We assume it, we infer it.
This is Inductive Reasoning.
For Hume this is like superstition.
Something we believe to be true even though we can’t prove it.
Hume says this leads to generalisations and sloppy thinking.
Well that’s true.
That is one aspect of it.
But there’s another.
For me Deductive (reductive) Reasoning is inward facing.
It looks at the single final truth.
What it actually means.
The more limiting the better.
Inductive (assumptive) Reasoning is outward facing.
It looks at the interesting possibilities.
What it could mean.
The less limiting the better.
Deductive Reasoning is about facts.
Inductive Reasoning is about opportunities.
And there’s real value in separating thinking along Hume’s lines.
Not to decide which sort of thinking is right?
But which is right in different circumstances?
When do we need to close down the thinking?
When do we need to open it up?
But we don’t differentiate between different types of thinking.
So we use the wrong thinking in the wrong place.
These two types of thinking do different jobs and have different uses.
For instance.
Deductive Reasoning might be perfect for defining the business problem, for identifying the target market, distribution and cost issues, for all kinds of decisions about where we’re at, right now.
But Deductive Reasoning can’t tell us where to go in the future.
By it’s very nature, Deductive Reasoning isn’t about vision.
It’s about fact.
So it’s about the present and the past.
Not about the future.
What has happened, not what could happen.
The past is about Deductive Reasoning.
The future is about Inductive Reasoning.
There’s a great value in recognising the need for both types of thinking in marketing and advertising.
The security blanket is Deductive Reasoning.
But the trap is, that will keep us stuck where we’ve been.
Deductive Reasoning may be great for identifying the problem.
But it’s exactly wrong for telling us what to do about it.
For that we need Inductive Reasoning.
Reasoning based on possibilities, probabilities, inferences and assumptions,
Exactly the kind of reasoning Hume thought was wrong.

Read more »