maclarity

Happiness Is Contagious

A recent study written up in the Globe and Mail supports what we probably intuitively knew all along: happiness is contagious.

“... they found that when an individual becomes happy, a friend who lives nearby experiences a 25-per-cent increased chance of becoming happy. And the more centrally located you are in your social cluster of happy people, the more likely you are to become happy.”  Further, researchers found that “happiness is a collective phenomenon that spreads like a virus through social networks – affecting even strangers three times removed from each other.”

Fortunately, misery does not, contrary to popular belief, love company. Negative emotions do not seem to spread as intensely as giddiness.

The research, published last week in the British Medical Journal, relied on pretty solid methodology – tracking data among 4, 739 individuals over time since 1948, accounting for 50,000 social and family ties.

A couple of questions arise from this.

1.       Could it be that social networks supported by social platforms like Facebook, twitter, and flickr, can support the spread of happiness? Aren’t we drawn to wall postings that are light-hearted, fun, and positive? Personally, when I read Negative Nelly postings, I quickly empathize and then move right along, eyes peeled for lighter, happier fare. Boing Boing seems to be aware of this too –  when they have a post that is disturbing or disgusting, they offer up a Unicorn Moment, a link to pictures and poems of “unicorns, rainbows, happy flowers forever.” Sort of an antidote to whatever grossness that they had just foisted on their readers.

 

2.       How can brands participate, if at all, in this propagation of happiness? When I first saw the Free Hugs campaign, I thought wouldn’t it have been so awesome if a brand had thought of this. (Or maybe not – that might be another post/conversation altogether). Suffice to say, it was a movement which started small, turned global, got on Oprah (now name me a brand that DOESN’T want to be on Oprah), incited controversy, but generally, did well by others. In the same vein, I wish more brands thought about sparking movements. I wish more brands obsessed about their world view, rather than their shelf space. I wish more brands thought about connecting with folks, rather than interrogating respondents behind a one-way glass.

INSIGHT? Like a virus, happiness can spread. Like a virus, it can be created, propagated, supported, facilitated. The tools are there. On the fringes, proponents act. There exists this wide gaping void for brands to play in. Now more than ever, brands can step up and kickstart a much-needed joy-fest.

Posted by Lee C.

Shreddies Rant

 

So the New Diamond Shreddies ran away with a Clio. Frankly, the first time I saw the billboard, I thought it was a lame in-joke. I could see the briefing: “There’s really no new news that we can talk about, but we need to be out there. Just. Say. Something. Anything.” We’ve been to these briefings, we’ve had these discussions, but these guys really pushed it.

 

(Props to them for the chutzpah, and the flawless execution. I did enjoy the satire in the web spots, I have to say. I particularly like how the moderator asked the respondents for their ratings of the "new" shreddies: such earnestness! So precious!)

 

But! As far as the campaign idea goes, I thought it was too glib, too much of an inside joke to really matter to the audience.

 

It’s an agency’s way of saying, Wink Wink, Look How We Can Spin This One. Aren’t we clever hucksters? Clever, yes, but hucksters nonetheless.

 

That's my rant.  Now check out Andrew's rave.

 

Posted by Lee C.

Kickstart

About a month ago, I received an invitation to attend the launch event for a new book called Kickstart: How Successful Canadians Got Started.  This book included brief accounts of how 70 high-profile Canadians got their start – people like Jim Pattison, June Callwood, Karen Kain and Brian Mulroney.  I am an entrepreneur, having run two of my own businesses amidst stints in corporate life, so the title intrigued me.  I can’t recall ever having been to a book launch before so I had no idea what to expect.  From somewhere in the depths of my consciousness, I presumed that this kind of an event would be structured and so I decided to go alone.  I actually never made a decision to go alone, I simply never considered inviting someone to join me.  I just figured that since I received an invite, others received similar invites and might be in the same situation as me, independently interested and just deciding to go… alone. 

 

Learning: Since I received Kickstart’s communication as an individual and there was no suggestion to “please bring a guest” or any indication that colleagues or acquaintances of mine would be in attendance, it seems reasonable that I would assume the event would in some way cater to attendees with a similar profile to mine.

 

Moving right along, the event was held at Casa Loma and was hosted by the three authors: Alexander Herman, Paul Matthews, and Andrew Feindel. Upon arrival, it became instantly clear to me that many, actually most, of the audience knew the authors, or the persons interviewed in the book, or others in attendance.  After enquiring, I was told the structured part of the evening would begin in approximately one hour and was expected to run for about 30 minutes.  My immediate thought was: “I have to mingle for an hour?  Alone?”  But I sucked it up, grabbed a glass of wine and started circulating.  As it turns out, I met a number of very interesting people and enjoyed the 30 minutes of the structured part of the evening.  Then again, I am a good conversationalist and new social settings don’t intimidate me. 

 

But on to the point of this post.  When I left the evening, I was pleased with the experience.  The wine had settled nicely, the people were interesting, and I even made a new friend.  I had bought the book, and I was looking forward to reading it.  But the biggest observation I had of the evening was the sheer impressiveness in the accomplishment of three young men.  I’m referring to the authors, who I would estimate are each in the 25–27 years old range.  I’m impressed not because it’s an award-winning book (I don’t know, I haven’t read it yet, though maybe it is), and not because the topic was overly ingenious, or even because the sales were achieving record rates, but because I experienced first-hand the power of the capability of this generation.

 

A Just Do It Generation:  These three guys graduated university, from diverse programs, and were unclear about what to do with their lives.  They must’ve determined that ‘successful’ was a key criteria in developing their careers, so they decided to reach out to others they deemed successful and find out how they ‘got it off the ground’.  And they wrote a book about it.  That’s all… just interviewed 70 high-profile successful Canadians, wrote a book about it and got it published.

A Generation with Backing:  These three young men were supported by an extensive peer network (some of whom I met), the encouragement of their parents, and perhaps most importantly the web of connections, influential at that, that extended from this group of backers.  Using this web, they managed to fill a ballroom at Casa Loma for their launch party, featuring a diverse group of well-presented Canadians, including speakers Eddie Greenspan and Bruce Poon Tip.

 

The Smarts to Make It So:  As I mentioned earlier, I haven’t read the book yet, and I’m not a respected copywriter, so I can’t attest to the quality of the language in the book, but the content of this book represents such a host of important people that I can only assume the quality is there.  The launch event was well run which at least indicates smart selection in a publisher or promotion partner.  I was greeted at the front door by a handshake and a personal hello from one of the authors.  The authors each stood up and addressed the crowd with intelligent words and wit. 

 

INSIGHT: In summary, my observation is that the ‘Just Do It’ chutzpah and the network of backers is bolstered by some solid credentials of capability as well… rounding out a triple threat that may be more common than we think in young people today.

 

www.kickstartcanada.com

Posted by Heidi M

Free-Range Kids

One of the more remarkable takes on parenting in communications would be the successful Sunlight's campaign from 1999 - let kids be kids. Subtext: You're not a bad, neglectful mom even if your kids get dirty. In fact, you're being progressive in your child-rearing values.

Cut to April 2008.

Carl Honore, Canadian writer (and perplexed parent) publishes his latest book, Under Pressure: Rescuing Childhood from the Culture of Hyper-parenting. His thesis: Children around the world are being warped by the fears and pressures of their parents - it’s time to back off.

The same week of Honore's latest book launch, a mother in New York let her 9-year old son take the subway alone and wrote about it in her columnfor The New York Sun. A flurry of media coverage later, she starts a blog, Free Range kids, with a stirring call to action:

Do you ever... ..let your kid ride a bike to the library? Walk alone to school? Take a bus, solo? Or are you thinking about it? If so, you are raising a Free Range Kid! At Free Range, we believe in safe kids. We believe in helmets, car seats and safety belts. We do NOT believe that every time school age children go outside, they need a security detail. Most of us grew up Free Range and lived to tell the tale. Our kids deserve no less. This site dedicated to sane parenting. Share your stories, tell your tips and maybe one day I will try to collect them in a book. Meantime, let's try to help our kids embrace life! (And maybe even clear the table.)

Hyper-parenting has always been a rife territory for branding and communications. What kind of parent you are largely depends on what brand of laundry detergent*convenience food*vacation get-away*stationery... (pick your category) you choose, if you go by the depictions of parents in some campaigns.

So which side of the fence does your brand sit on? Do you tout safety and cautiousness (and play on fears and anxieties of parents today)? Or do  you celebrate kids' independence, exhuberance, self-reliance?

Going by the poll on the NY Sun column, 51% of parents thought that the mother-who-let-her 9-year-old-son-loose-in-the-NY-subway was nuts. 25% were ambivalent; a little more than a third were on her side. Those stats don't bode well for progressive, empowering parenting styles.

Fine, there is a world of difference between letting your kids run dirty in the playground and letting them run loose in New York. Woe to the brand (or columnist) who takes the laissez faire impulse too far.

Canadian Nationhood (or Notionhood): What Is It and Why Should I Care?

Last Sunday, Malcolm Gladwell and Adam Gopnik “faced off on the importance and relevance of a Canadian identity in the world.” I missed the event (and the CBC broadcast), but MacLeans uploaded clips here.

 

Gladwell asserted that as far as Canada on the world stage is concerned, “small is useful” – by being small, Canada is unencumbered, can be mean (in a nice way) and can thrive in a networked world.  Gopnik countered that Canada, in fact, IS very much encumbered -  by its history and by a commitment to make that history work in a civic manner. Rather than “small is beautiful” Gopnik’s preferred slogan is “plural is possible.” What Canada has going for it is Notion-hood – a collective identity based on the ideals of common sense, tolerance and co-existence. Ideals that the world of nations is only beginning to learn to grasp and aspire for.

All in all, very interesting. The last clip also shows more heavy-hitters such as Ralston Saul, Coupland, et al. weighing-in.

 

So what does this have to do with my day-job? How does this debate help us craft communications for chocolate? credit cards? cars?

Planners are perennially in search of the sweet spot. That nugget of truth about people that would make them stop and *pay* attention to our message. We need to understand universal truths – but also, and perhaps more importantly, Canadian truths. A tough challenge, but it’s what we listen for everyday – whether in the august halls of academia, in dark backrooms of focus group facilities, or in somebody’s kitchen.

Personally, what I found most interesting was how Gopnik tried to tie his whole argument together. "Citizenship... has to be tangible, immediate, local, collective." Following that criteria, Gopnik pinpointed the roots of Canadian identity: hockey (no surprise there) and the CBC. That was an eye-opener. A media company? But of course. After all, as Arthur Miller said, a good newspaper (or broadcasting company, for that matter) is like a nation having a conversation with itself. 

maclarity

Lucid arguments. Precise viewpoints. Sound thinking.