When our work doesn't work

Reviewing the digital problems revealed by the "I Sea" scandal

One of the recent industry scandals is the recent "I Sea" app by Grey Singapore - submitted to Cannes, awarded at Cannes, and then revealed to be more concept than actual solution.

What this reveals is that we are clearly not a proper digital industry yet. Similar to law enforcement, education, entertainment, our industry has been disrupted by technology and the old structures and norms have not adapted or gotten ahead of the new developments. Here are three indicators in relation to "I Sea" that remind us how digital we are not-yet:

/ Execution in digital is inherently about utility, a clear line going beyond concept and into real function
Where things have gotten fuzzy is in the transference of scam work from traditional forms to digital. A piece of traditional work (print, OOH, film, etc.) is considered good or award-worthy based on concept. Execution for traditional work is based squarely on craft whereas effective digital work is based on actual functionality. Being "user-centered" doesn't only mean having a consumer-cultural insight, but that based on a digital build that actually works in and out, top to bottom.
When trying to create sound digital work ideas must be reviewed (if not jointly conceptualized) by technical teams. When possible user testing should validate concepts, initial design work and user flows (would X be useful to and usable by Y target audience?) Some ideas may die if not feasible to execute, even if the concepts seem strong. Some creatives may not react well to comments that stemmed from usability and UX issues. It takes ongoing testing, always-beta, optimization to move a solution to its most functional form.
Where we stumble as an industry is that concepts are judged as solutions, being awarded even if they don't quite (or don't at all) work. THere were so many errors on the "I Sea" app resulting in diminished - or absent - utility.


/ Juries are made up of CDs and ECDs who may have little digital or technical experience. Is it up to the jury to validate the entries? And who is vetting the jury?
Arguably the most important show in the industry not only let this entry through to judging but awarded it. Which tells us that Cannes is happy to accept every claim and statistic as fact, disregarding any potential errors whether they stem from exaggeration, malicious intent or even human error. There does not appear to be any fact-checking as long as entry fees are paid. "I Sea" was apparently not even launched with the permission of the client it was supposedly representing.
Here is a list of members this year's Promo & Activation Jury. How much digital experience do they have? (This is a real question; I have no idea.) One interesting name on the Jury list is a Creative Director from Gray Singapore itself, which is extremely fishy. Given the outcome of the "I Sea" fiasco they seem to be either digitally inexperienced or have questionable enough quality standards to let a non-functioning entry through.


/ We were found out by people from outside the industry.
The alarms were raised not by industry members, but by non-agency technical experts. Maybe we forget that everyone in the world is using and/or is moving into digital and technology. Entire industry disruptors exist based on digital expertise. We as an industry have not the technical prowess that a Facebook or Google has. Those guys make functional programs and websites and apps and games that might never be considered creative by Cannes standards. But they work. People can carry out actual tasks on them. It seems that we don't hold ourselves to this standard of functionality yet, at least in terms of award work.

On a larger note, industry folks must admit that there's a little hypocrisy here. "I Sea" isn't the first sham of the agency award circuit. Industry members openly call these types of projects "scam" work. Agencies search for clients who will allow them to come up with "initiatives" (as opposed to real briefs from existing clients that must solve business challenges), take the lead in coming up with both issues and ideas, and sometimes even pay to print, air or publish the work for the minimum exposure required.

We are all complicit in this, from agencies that include the number creative awards won in yearly evaluation forms to creative directors who give preferential treatment to the young guns that add to their metal collections, and from all of us who put extensive lists of awards (no matter how relevant) our projects have won on our CVs, to the slew of random award shows popping up for agencies desperate to announce they've won literally anything. Gray may have gone too far, but we all create the atmosphere for it.

I'm not exempt from this award-hungry behavior but seeing what has happened with "I Sea" makes me think that we should actively question these prevalent practices that we devote so much time, energy and money to, and that we need to think harder about whether we really and truly want to be digital.



Sources:
Thousands of migrants are dying at sea. This charity is trying to save them
Grey Singapore’s migrant-saving app shortlisted at Cannes Lions called out as ‘terrible fake’
Apple Pulled This App From iTunes the Same Day It Won a Lion at Cannes
Grey Grudgingly Returns Bronze Lion It Won at Cannes for Questionable 'I SEA' App
Grey Officially Returns ‘I SEA’ App Lion, Clearly Isn’t Happy About It
Grey Returns Bronze Lion After Blogger Backfire
How Grey Group's 'I Sea' app came undone
Grey Singapore’s ‘fake’ refugee-saving app removed from Apple store, slammed by client, wins at Cannes

Remarketing Overkill

Do you ever get the feeling that brands are stalking you? Like no matter where you go online, certain websites are following you? I've noticed this before, especially with travel or shopping sites, but the ads die down eventually.

Recently, one brand has been so relentless that I couldn't help but notice how unforgivingly present it is everywhere I go online. Narrative Clip is EVERYWHERE. I clicked on one of their sponsored ads on Facebook because I find the idea of personal surveillance interesting. However at a current price tag of over $200 it isn't something I'm ready to buy. I can remember going to the site only once but with the pervasiveness of the Narrative Clip ads that followed, I'm trying to recall if I maybe visited it maybe a million more times. In any case, ever since, the ads have trailed me all over the web and social.

I saw the ad many, many times before I started to take screen caps every time I saw it again. These were all taken within a few days:

 

    

Too much?

Remarketing is a common practice in digital advertising. The rationale stems from traditional media buying which recommends a minimum frequency required for an ad to reach saliency. We are less likely to remember an ad, or want to buy something it is selling, if we see it only once. But at, say, six to ten times later, you are much more likely to remember it and possibly even be ready to buy it.

Digital advertising has expounded on this thinking. A consumer who is exposed to an ad and doesn't click is may not be interested, whereas someone who clicks through to the website is hypothetically more keen on the brand or product. That said, one-time exposure to the content may not be enough to persuade him or her to sign up, buy, subscribe or register. However given their level of interest (versus someone who had never visited the site at all) exposing them to additional calls-to-action even after they leave the site might entice them to come back and ultimately convert.

Most of the media campaigns I've worked on that included remarketing as a tactic showed higher click-through rates for remarketed ads. So if someone had visited your website before, they are more likely to click, re-explore and convert. This leads to better efficiencies and happier agencies and clients.

Narrative Clip's remarketing efforts, on the other hand, seem extremely wasteful. I had already decided, based on the initial website review (and price point) that I was not going to buy. Yet continued to hit me at an illogically high rate and wasted media dollars. The case made me think of ways that marketers and end up mis-using remarketing.

Here are a few things they and other marketers can consider when creating and reviewing remarketing plans:

• Remarket based on the customer's journey. Level of interest should dictate how much to remarket, if at all. Do you want to remarket to everyone who visits the site, or just those who click through to an inner page? Are there certain calls-to-action that register deeper interest, e.g. A "Buy Now" button? In Narrative Clip's case, I did scroll all the way down the page to see the price, but as that was what turned me off, may not be the right filter to gauge whether or not to remarket.
• Remarket with alternative messaging. The same ad that drew a customer to the site is probably not be the best way to get them to re-examine the product. How about an offer? This doesn't have to be a price-off, and can even be an existing mechanic such as free shipping. Other slants can include press reviews, awards, testimonials, additional features.
• Activate frequency capping. When a customer has seen the ad X times and not clicked, they are probably not interested!

When we have these remarketing conversations at work, I have to remind myself to park my consumer self who still finds this level of "stalking" quite unsettling. It is an accepted part of the landscape though and brands need to go easy on the new capabilities so as not to alarm consumers and freak them out unnecessarily.