So here we are, a few days before the 2010 General Election. A good time for a little review of how the election has gone from a communications perspective. And it’s all been a little surprising, and dare I say it, disappointing.

This was the election that was supposed to be decided by mumsnet, fought out Obama-stylee across social media and where the only thing that was 100% certain was that old crappy media like TV would have no role whatsoever to play in the decision making process. But it hasn’t quite worked out that way has it?

1) Apart from the (very) occasional piece of interest in social media – mydavidcameron was very good – the impact of Facebook et al has been pretty minimal. The Tories seemed to be doing something interesting for a time using twitter to send messages from 2015 about the impact of a Labour administration but again it seemed criminally underused or leveraged. There was some marginally interesting tweeting from party reps surrounding the third debate but to be frank I was more impressed with the bloody “Widdiweb” last time out. For all the hype it has all been pretty dull and disappointing – and certainly nowhere near as influential or impactful as predicted. I’ve hashtagged myself silly and no party has bothered to engage with me (it comes to something when British Airways and Starbucks are outflanking you). It’s all been a little bit of a damp squib. And believe me, it’s not like I’ve not been ALL OVER IT trying to shamelessly rob stuff for planning case studies for the next five years. Obama it ain’t.

2) Perhaps the most disappointing thing from an industry perspective however has been the lack of any proper impact from any of the advertising campaigns for any of the parties. I can’t remember having seen a party political broadcast.

Can you remember a single truly memorable, historical poster? Thought not.

The traditional topical poster anyone? A ‘Demon Eyes’? A ‘Labour Isn’t Working’? A ‘Labour Tax Bombshell’? Hell, I’d even settle for a ‘Mr Boom & Mr Bust’. But nothing. 

Not sure what’s to blame for it – maybe everyone was too busy trying to develop transmedia 360 socially networked twitter content for……er…..the internet.

I think we might see some pretty searching questions get asked at Tory & Labour HQ about advertising budgets for the next election. If I were them, next time, I’d just flight a bit of paid-for media around the three debates and leave it at that.

3) Which brings me to BIG TELLY. It was the only thing that was supposed to be redundant and the only thing really that has engaged anyone or set the campaign alight. Even Nick Clegg’s mum used to have a problem picking him out of a line up last month and one TV debate later he is suddenly the kingmaker. The role of TV has been really interesting – it must have given Thinkbox enough ammunition for the next ten years. The debates were the only thing of any real interest to anyone (hence why non-events like Bigot-gate were being desperately latched onto by a media in the absence of anything really interesting to talk about)

As someone who remembers when there were only three TV channels (and about eighty million people used to sit watching 3-2-1 on a Saturday night with the family) it is rather heart warming to see that TV can land a couple of blows on mumstwitfacespace and the brave new world.

It would have been nice to have a poster for the history books. But I suppose we’ll have to make do with a few stills of the debate.

Don’t forget to vote.

KC for WTO

Nice essay in this week's Campaign about Nike GRID – compiled by one of the planners involved, W+K's Graeme Douglas

Here's the piece in full:

Nike is a brand built on running. Trace the company’s
lineage back and you eventually arrive about forty years ago, with running
pioneer and legendary Nike co-founder Bill Bowerman’s quest to build lighter,
more technologically advanced running shoes to better serve the elite athletes
with which he worked.

That quest for innovation is also something that’s
inherent in Nike’s DNA and drives not only product development but also how the
brand engages with consumers, so the creation of Nike GRID – an engagement idea
built around fluid, unrestricted running – seemed a fitting concept.

THE BRIEF

Nike set us the task of engaging young people with
Nike Running around the weekend of the London Marathon. The insight driving
this was that there are groups of young people running, but who were not yet
adopting the title ‘runner’.

Whilst it was vital that whatever we did was
consistent with and conveyed Nike’s POV on running, it was evident from the
start that a message-based campaign wasn’t going to be enough. We needed to get
people out and active; and introduce to them a new way to run. The main goal
was to make it accessible, both in its location and the format of the event. We
decided the best strategic option to deliver this would be to augment the
running experience; creating a layer of experience on top of the run that aimed
to alter how the activity would be interacted with.

CREATING THE GRID

We set six core objectives for the concept to deliver
against:

–         
A playful, game-like experience

–         
Make it flexible and fun

–         
Technology as an enabler, not a barrier

–         
Consistent with the Nike running POV

–         
Uniquely London

–         
A platform that can be built on in the future

The basic premise of GRID turns London into a game board, challenging runners
to ‘claim their streets’ by amassing points for runs completed in their, and
other, postcodes. Points, badges and prizes are awarded for speed, attrition,
routes and various other ‘unlockables’ that became apparent as the game
unfolds. Players could play at any time of the day or night, in any postcode,
as casually or as seriously as they wanted. Players connected their GRID
profiles with their own social networking platforms, and a central Facebook
group allowed GRID to engage in a live dialogue with players as events
unfolded.

Advertising also played a role: digital out-of-home in
each postcode celebrated the leaders in real-time throughout the day. This had
a dual purpose: not only did it motivate the participants; it also amplified
the game to a larger, non-participating audience, turning the idea into a wider
Nike Running brand campaign.

The GRID itself – or how we pinpointed player location
– was the biggest question that we faced. Partnering with one of the major
mobile location services du jour was
an obvious option, but instead, we focussed one of the massive pieces of
pre-digital infrastructure still lying around London: BT phone boxes.

This re-appropriation of an iconic system achieved a
few things. Firstly, it completely removed technological barriers to entry.
Secondly, it delivered a surprising, subversive and urban tone to the game.
Thirdly, it grounded the game firmly in the real world, and provided a unique
‘sense of place’ that simply wouldn’t be achievable solely through mobile
platforms.

IMPLICATIONS

GRID is part of a growing category of ideas that sits
within, as Tom Coates of Yahoo! describes, the ‘real world web’; connected
things that blur the physical and virtual spaces – things that thrive primarily
because they excite us as humans, rather than being a vehicle for demonstrating
technical capability. Fun and competition ruled over technology and tradition,
which led to almost 3,000 individual, runs being logged on the day. Further
performance data is not yet available, but given some of the initial feedback
via the group, the experience was a rewarding and enjoyable one for those
involved.

Nike
GRID was a collaboration between W+K London,
AKQA, Mindshare and Nike. Planning, creative, media and production
responsibilities were shared between all agencies.