Op-Eds

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published a story about Esquire magazine's use of Augmented Reality on the cover and within ad pages. California based Zugara is a company that during the last few months has modified part of its business to include Augmented Reality (with a purpose) in its offerings. Here, Zugara's Jack Benoff, digs into the issue.

What's the buzzword du jour?

It's the buzzword of the day...

Mmmmmm that does sound good. I think I'll have that.

So, as most of you are aware, the buzzword du jour is actually Facebook Apps Twitter "Augmented Reality" (AR). And this week, a Wall Street Journal article regarding Esquire Magazine's use of AR in an upcoming issue was getting passed around. In essence, they are taking what Popular Science and GE did this past summer and attempting to turn it up a notch by integrating several interactive videos as well as an ad from Lexus.

I applaud Esquire for the effort, for getting their hands dirty. It's no secret that the print industry (like the music and movie industries) is getting absolutely turned on its head thanks to the digital landscape and consumer media consumption habits. They have to try something to garner interest and maintain revenues. I don't think that this is going to help out their January sales, but maybe December's will see a bump. And to be honest, their execution and the subsequent WSJ article is for the most part par for the course if you follow the AR space. But there are two elements of this article that I felt compelled to weigh in on, here's the first: "It is a gimmick, but we're an entertainment medium," says editor-in-chief David Granger.

Now, this is a first. Someone had the stones to admit that their execution is gimmicky, let alone be proud of it. So kudos for that but let me say this: AR doesn't have to be a gimmick. In fact, it shouldn't be. Your executions should be providing real value to the people that read your magazines and buy your goods your consumers. Now, I'm not saying that the "value" provided can't be entertainment in nature, but I am saying that it should provide value outside of what a person can already do in their browser. Otherwise, why put the barrier of needing a webcam between a person and your content/offering? All you're really doing is giving people a more complicated user interface.

Of course it's easy to sit here and rip on someone else's work without providing any real value, so here's an idea: what if Esquire's "fashion spread" allowed people to overlay images of an article of clothing on themselves ( for example ties) so that they could match (or in my case, learn how to match) them with their existing wardrobe. Editorial content could provide tips, tricks and insights. Now, that might provide some real value to consumers looking to make a purchase (not to mention the brands that sell those articles of clothing) and would be an execution that could be updated and utilized all year long (that is, Esquire could sell the space to various retailers each and every season).

Now, on to the second item that I wanted to address:

"Mr. Nordstrom says that Lexus could do AR ads in other places but that consumers have to download a piece of software to make the technology work."

People do not like downloads. It's just another barrier between them and your content, and people will drop off. Now, I don't want to get too techy, but if you are advising a client to do an online AR execution you should seriously consider building it in Flash (at the very least, you should have a compelling reason why Flash is not the proper solution). Flash 10 has a 93.5% penetration rate (Flash 9 is at 99.6%) in mature markets, and Flash development is relatively fast and cheap.When you throw on the consumer benefit of no downloads, it becomes a pretty compelling solution. Now, the counterargument may be that Flash does not allow for the sort of rich 3-D image modeling that a proprietary plug-in will allow for (I'd argue that it doesn't matter how beautiful the image/asset is if people aren't seeing it, but that's just one man's opinion). Well, that's all about to change in 2010 when Flash 10.1 hits the streets.

So, what do you think (note to trolls: please keep the ripping of my grammar and spelling to a minimum)? What are some of your favorite AR executions? How do you wish the technology was being used? Would you be willing to download a proprietary plug-in to experience an AR execution you've never seen before?

If you want to take this conversation to twitter, you can find me at http://twitter.com/jack_benoff

Rather, it's only focused on how advertising can solve problems. And when you're the CMO of a multinational corporation like, say, Pepsi, you have a lot of problems that advertising can't solve. Traditionally to address communication issues you've hired a variety of companies who all claim they can achieve the same goal (making you more money) through various methods. But these design and PR and advertising companies use old worn out tools, and despite employing really good mechanics, no mechanic no matter how talented can replace a head gasket with his teeth.

Last week's PSFK conference was all about the past and the future. How general of them. There were some points made about being nimble, flexible, open and all that — which got me thinking about how every agency says they're that. But they're not. As James Othmer explains in AdLand, retaining a client that wants to move on is like convincing your significant other not to leave you. And then your lover says (this is the review scenario), "OK, but before I take you back I'm going to spend the next six months meeting and sleeping with other people, some of them your friends," etc etc. And then the bitch ends up with Jim, the douche bag that used to dead horse drunk girls in college.

What Othmer's example fails to explain is that when the client moves on, no matter how good the agency, at some point they'll probably move on again. History has shown this to be true: key players leave, needs change, relationships sour. Each subsequent agency ends up dealing with the same or similar problems that the last tried to or couldn't solve, all the while making money and thinking they're doing great. All the while wearing out their tools a little more.

They get worn out because consumers get bored with redundant, repeated messaging.

And so the idea to take away from this is that (and this is not my idea, but the person whose it is would not like to be outed) the agency that has the best chance of making it through the next 100 years is not an agency at all. It's a group of people dedicated to solving problems for another group of people, so everyone can keep paying their rent. It's your job to figure out what that means, but before you order another banner, spot, focus group or box of razor blades — stop and think about whether or not messaging is what the group of people you're trying to help needs. Or if maybe they should invest in training their customer service reps, or if they should donate to some charity. You can help them do it, creative agency people.

It's hard, I know, but you'll be OK. Rinse, repeat.

Note: I neglected to mention above that standard agency structure doesn't really allow for this model. So I'm not really even talking about advertising then, but a sort of hybrid company that uses advertising in concert (or maybe not at all) with other business assets to accomplish a goal. So a company that achieves this methodology has a different mindset all together, and consciously breaks barriers to serve its client's needs. I want to say "Think Different" here, but that'd give Chiat too much credit.

More: "Op Ed: Gareth Kay on the Great Lack of Trust (in Advertising)"

Gareth Kay is one of our Op Ed writers and today he's got a piece on Trust, or the perceived lack thereof, in advertising. Perception is reality, folks. Here is his last article.

Time to stop the fireworks

A little while ago Agency Spy published an Op-Ed about what should be at the heart of advertising and marketing communications — trust. There's no doubt that this is something the industry is in short supply of. Every year we see a growing number of Americans distrusting and actively avoiding the stuff we make, and all the evidence suggests we're pretty rubbish at doing what we're meant to be doing — changing people’s behavior.

Some conversations recently (particularly with the incredibly smart Ian Fitzpatrick of Almighty) have got me thinking about what may be behind this failure. And all of them lie in the prejudices we ('the advertising industry') tend to have when developing and evaluating what makes a great idea.

The first is about our desire as an industry to create spectacle. Take a quick look at the award shows or the trade press, and the campaigns that get the gongs and the plaudits — Sony's Balls, T-Mobile's flashmob at Liverpool Street station and this year's Cannes Grand Prix film winner for Phillips, to even lauded digital work like Uniqlock — tend to be those designed to create immense spectacle. It seems we're in the business, more often than not, of producing fireworks.

Now clearly spectacle has been a powerful force in culture over time, but it's one type of execution and a type that feels increasingly at odds with a more intimate and invisible culture. We're getting better but we’re still not very good as an industry at celebrating small, relatively invisible things but increasingly these are the ideas (think Nike+, Fiat Ecodrive, even iTunes and the Obama campaign) that are driving culture, that seem to thrive in an increasingly digital world and are able to change behavior.

Click continued to read on.

More: "Op-Ed: What Social Media Revolution? By Gareth Kay"

continued...

Just over a year ago musician Dave Carroll (and band!) were on a United Airlines flight to somewhere. As they sat in their seats on the tarmac, one of the band mates noticed the ground crew were tossing around guitars. Fast forward to the Carroll getting his baggage and sure enough his $3,500 Taylor masher was broken. And then United gave him the old run around and now he's made this nice little music video to help explain the story. And to think, for a few grand, United could have avoided the so far mini-fiasco.

Thus far, comments on Carroll's YouTube page are in his favor, even from people who maybe don't like his music. Should this be a thing?

Via Consumerist

More: "Droga5's Hit With Guitar Hero And A Possible Explanation For Honeyshed?"

Since you all loved him so much for his previous dissertation on Sir Martin Sorrell, we couldn't resist bringing Dean Crutchfield back for another round of industry-related musings. A consultant and strategist whose other writings can be found in AdAge's Stories: CMO Strategy, Crutchfield now waxes poetic about client-agency compensation issues.

I was brought up on the notion that there were two things we could guarantee in our lives: Debt and Death. Today we've got agencies in debt and death of advertising smears.

In the face of this adversity, the often approached and avoided "value-based" compensation system is making a successful comeback via marketing heavyweights, Coca Cola and P&G; with P&G going to the extreme edge of the curve with one agency made responsible for all the other partners, including payments, budgets and hires! It's tragically ironic that whilst recession is a viable reason to reexamine how clients pay their agency partners, the solution is not to stop paying them!

My favorite face on a currency, Mr. Benjamin Franklin, advised that "a penny saved is a penny earned." And that's exactly the advice corporate clients have adapted to assuage their cash flow by holding onto what's rightfully yours. That, in a nutshell, is it, cash flow; theirs first, yours whenever...Facts are stubborn things so what's the ethical thing to do? That mostly depends on who is asking, in this case the agency, who is going to be affected (the agency), and the likely outcome: a defunct agency (maybe).

continued...

One of the many unfortunate downsides of a down-turned economy is a resistance to innovative brand promotion. I am currently seeking sponsors for a unique summer-long event that directly reaches over 21,000 kids. The opportunity is brilliant — a sponsorship dream — but this year, marketers are not seeing it that way. (They're not even calling me back!) The event is called Rock Star Camp, and its short history reveals a lot about the state of the advertising industry today.

Rock Star Camp is an interactive music workshop that travels from summer camp to summer camp throughout the East coast. Julius C, a young band based in New York, goes to a new camp every day. In the mornings and afternoons, they meet with each bunk/cabin/wigwam/what-have-you to rehearse a pre-selected song (anything from the Beach Boys to the Backstreet Boys).

In the evening, the entire camp performs a concert in which the kids release their inner American Idol and Julius C plays a few upbeat tunes of their own. Band members immerse themselves in each camp's culture, eating meals with the kids, learning the camp cheers, and teaching the camps some cheers of their own. It's a positive experience to say the least.

Click continued to read on.

More: "Dean Crutchfield on Why Sir Martin Sorrell's New Deal Isn't Such a Big One"

continued...

Dean Crutchfield is an industry consultant and strategist whose other writings can be found in AdAge's Stories: CMO Strategy. We asked him to talk about Sir Martin Sorrell's new deal with WPP, whereby if the company is successful and outperforms 5 other large cos, he will receive a $96 million bonus.

Oscar Wilde once mused that "to know the price of everything was to know the value of nothing". Our cogitation surrounding Sir Martin Sorrell's $96M remuneration package is a fascinating debate about perceived value.

As an industry we bring tremendous value: brands are a businesses greatest asset promulgated by the rampant rise in the value of intangible assets. In 1982 the net tangible assets on the
Balance Sheets of the companies comprising the S&P 500 accounted for nearly 90% of their value, by 2005 it was only just over 20%. So if today the value of the S&P is approximately $11.5 trillion that means $9.2 trillion is intangible and within that sum, WPP's BrandZ study estimates the brand value is $2 trillion! It is no coincidence that this all has happened whilst the marketing industry blossomed from the mid 80's e.g. Omnicom and WPP both started 1986.

Sir Martin Sorrell had a vision to build a full-service, global-marketing company to serve worldwide clients and in 1986 he acquired an already publicly listed company called Wire & Plastic Products. Having been the CFO for Saatchi and Saatchi for a number of years, he understood that advertising was being usurped. Ad agencies needed to ameliorate the rebellion from clients who refused to keep paying ad agencies 15% commission so he moved to a fee based model. It was also a category whose effectiveness was being diluted by technology that gave consumers more choices and tools that avoided ads. Sorrell knew the simplest answer was to act. With an appetite for acquisition he acquired fee-based service businesses such as branding, public relations, event marketing, digital, direct mail and research firms. He was also the first to really make in-roads East, adding companies and clients in Asia as well as Europe,
the Middle East and South America.

I have a Financial Times article from 1997 with an interview with Sir Martin in which he talks about the challenge of getting 50,000 employees to face in the same direction. Today it would seem he has accomplished that goal with a $13.6B global powerhouse that has over 125,000 employees and 141 businesses in over 100 countries that derives more than half its income from marketing rather than advertising.

For most of us, we all want success, we all want it now and we all want it big and Sir Martin has matched all three splendidly. But is he worth it? I believe he is and I admire what he's achieved and I have no problem with him being incentivized to keep growing WPP with $96M over 5 years if you compare that with mainstream corporate execs. Just take a glance over the last several years and you can read stories of profligate excess, from Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski, Computer Associates Charles Wang's $1B share binge, New York Stock Exchange paying departing Dick Grasso $140M, Robert Nardelli getting $221M for failing at Home Depot and a tidy exit package for failure of $200M for Hank McKinnell of Pfizer.

Click continued to read on.

continued...

This anonymous OpEd is in response to the Digital Done Right story, which is below. Take it away, anon.

The recent Op Ed piece on Digital Done Right and Wrong by Shape78 has been cause for much excitement in the comment section of this site. Some suggest traditional creatives would be wise to be scared of the impending digital agency takeover of our media universe, others laugh them off as vendors with an out-of-whack ego. Sometimes posturing and enthusiasm takes over but both sides do have their points.

First let's establish some ground rules:

The web is as important to people now as TV is. it's more important than radio and (depending on how old or urban you are) either slightly ahead or behind print. However some have not recognized that this is not a zero-sum game: there is one additional chair being added to the table and while nobody has to leave just yet everyone has to move closer together. There are also a host of kid chairs at the table that also take up their space. Take a look at all the different ways you now have to obtain a music track — itunes, brick-and-mortar store, online band store, myspace, at concerts, ringtones, ad sponsoring, cereal redemption codes, there must be a million ways to consume a track.

Let's talk about what this means for creatives:

A creative who isn't able to concept for the web has just as large a
hole in his book as one who doesn't have a reel. You can rise through
the ranks only so far without it and getting hired will become
increasingly difficult. This creative is right to be scared of the
future.

A creative who only produces for the web should be scared as well.
Sure, there are plenty of jobs but there is a built-in ceiling. you
can only show digital work, so you will only be considered for digital
jobs. You cannot apply for certain agency jobs at a certain point in
your career because you can't show certain work examples. You're
pigeon-holing yourself.

The most-valuable and creative is and will be the one with the best
ideas. The person who has a great insight into a brand, product,
client, whatever, the one who can easily whack out 200 ways to execute
this great thought. If you have an idea like "What happens in Vegas
stays in Vegas," and you have no trouble expressing this in print, on
tv, on the web and on the street, you'll always have a great job,
especially as more and more clutter is competing for attention. It's
that old "if you can't outspend them outsmart them" line that Pat
Fallon and Tom McElligott coined.*

And now to the most important question of them all: are you,
traditional art director, copywriter, creative director, screwed in
your traditional agency? Should you bail, learn action script and get
on board with a digital shop? Is it time for the most fundamental
change of your career?

That depends.

Those screaming you're worthless without a proper knowledge of SEO,
Action Script, CSS or whatever they love most are kidding themselves.
You might as well consider becoming an Art Buyer or HR executive.
These people each have a valuable role but they support the creative.
They do not compete with you, they compete with the TV Producer down
the hallway. Your job is to have an idea, sell it to the client and
then produce it. You oversee, you protect the idea so that at the very
end exactly what you promised comes out of the process.

You'd also be shocked to find out how digital agencies work. Lots of
long hours, open-floorplan offices, smaller paychecks and a lot more
daily routine. A digital creative is in production every day but
unlike you he rarely leaves his desk and goes to a weeklong shoot in
LA.** You'll also have to figure out which digital agency you really
want to work for. Parts of the web do that the direct mail guys in the
basement used to do (and still do) in the traditional ad world. Do you
want to build huge product catalogues? Other shops do amazing
conceptual work that you'd love to be involved in. What I am saying is
that there are the hotshop digital agencies as well as the uncool
sweatshop dm-farms that drain the last bit of creativity out of you
just as much as they exist in the traditional world and you need to be
aware of who is who.

I am a traditional creative who in the last five years has tried hard
to get more digital into his book. I am fortunate to be young enough
that using and exploring the web has been second nature to me for as
long as I have been working. I have a decent grasp of what is possible
but I wouldn't want to program a professional site myself just like I
wouldn't just pick up a camera to shoot my latest campaign. Doing so
would slow me down and the result would not compare favorably with the
result a specialist could produce.***

I am competing against some digital agencies — those who can approach a client and reputably claim to be able to produce a great (be it insightful, funny, eyecatching and all that) campaign across all media. Goodby is the posterchild. I'm more worried about pitching
against Goodby than against Wieden+Kennedy**** these days. I am fairly
worried about R/GA. They don't have as big a pedigree in traditional
and TV and sometimes their work is merely good looking as opposed to
really jealousy-inducing smart but every now and then they produce
something so insightful that I wonder what could happen if Bob didn't
silo his creatives to death.***** Other shops I am thinking about are
Droga5, where ideas clearly lead, The Brooklyn Brothers, Venables Bell
& Partners, Agency Republic and Strawberryfrog Amsterdam. (I am
already competing with 180, 72andsunny and those kinds of shops.)

There are plenty other digital agencies that I do not think I am in
competition with. The Barbarian Group, Odopod, Firstborn and other
similar shops do a lot of beautiful work but I rarely see concepts
other than websites coming from them. Most such shops I have worked
with****** are great at taking a concept and executing it beautifully.
I'm still in awe of Subservient Chicken and I love Comcast Town but
both these campaigns came from traditional agencies if I'm not
mistaken — Crispin******* and Goodby. I am not afraid of pitching a
360 campaign against Firstborn just as they probably aren't afraid of
pitching a web campaign against Fallon.

I am excited about Goodby because I see who they hire. You can't get
into that place without a fantastic book that includes digital as well
as any other medium. You get to work on huge accounts with great
freelancers********. There are downsides — Jeff has been known to fire people in elevators if he forgot what they've been working on — but imagine how much this concept could rock if the agency had 70 instead of 500 employees. This is the mold the next hotshop boutique is going to be — the place that is going to be what Team One, Ground Zero, Wongdoody, Fallon NYC, Mother and all those places at some point in the previous two decades were. Small, nimble, new, brave and feared.

*I understand it was more mc elligott than fallon.
**unless that's where the office is.
***Noam Murro, I love you.
****I love you, Dan, but only your Tokyo lab gives great web.
*****every shop has problems. that doesn't mean the one I called out a
bit is any worse. R/GA is solid.
******yes, I have worked with these shops.
*******Crispin is the new Chiat — large mediocre agency with a bright flash of ingenuity once every decade. Not as bad as some other shops but not great either.
********hello, natzke.

More: "Digital Is Traditional, Traditional Is Digital: Razorfish Goes 360"

Not long after we posted the piece below, many of you began writing to us to share your thoughts. One response was particularly lengthy so we decided to post it as an OpEd to the OpEd. For background, here's the original. The next post will be the response we received. With no further adieu, Shape78.

Part 1

Digital, interactive or whatever creative work you'd like to call it has obviously been in increasing demand from clients spanning practically every vertical. The banner ad, while enhanced by rollover videos and other forms of interactivity, simply doesn't have the impact anymore. Neither does a microsite, the meaning of which is seemingly vague as of late. The audience wants more, be it a social networking component or an informational tool, a memorable, eye-catching destination or a pleasing distraction from the monotony of the work day.

Good digital work today is, of course, reliant on the consolidation of all these creative concepts but most importantly as any creative director will impart on you, it has to ultimately tell a story. So who’s actually getting it at this point and in turn producing quality work that resonates with the web audience? Fortunately, there are several companies with varying attributes who are doing things right while expanding beyond their creative roles in the process. While there are too many to pinpoint with respect to word count, here are a few well-known outfits that stick out.

The Barbarian Group

While its headquarters technically remain in Boston, digital company The Barbarian Group's creative core has shifted to New York City, a big move that's analogous to the creative leaps the company's taken since its breakthrough "Subservient Chicken" effort. In the past year alone, the Barbarians have broken out of the microsite mindset that comprises many an "interactive" campaign nowadays and flaunted their creative prowess with the CNN.com T-shirt application, the idea-inspiring, audiovisual "Moodstreams" site for Getty and the user-driven "Waking up Hannah" web tale for Dove. Along with internally developing software such as presentation tool Plainview, BG has built up its strategy and user experience divisions under the watchful eyes of ex-Naked Communications lead Noah Brier and Apple alum Justin Baum, respectively. Now a multi-tiered operation that doesn't view the digital landscape through a narrow lens, the Barbarians have created an operation where user-friendly creative executions and utility have equal importance.

Firstborn

During the course of the past decade, bicoastal production shop Firstborn has methodically situated itself as the digital partner for agencies throughout the world. The company's reputation has been cemented through the development of aesthetically pleasing sites including Nokia's "Music Almighty" destination for W+K, London and the hallucinatory Microsoft Zune experience for T.A.G. When you talk about doing digital right, Firstborn has consistently developed creative work where sleek and pretty melds effortlessly with functional and entertaining, arguably the essential formula for solid digital creative. Most recently, the Webby-winning company has teamed with Droga5 to launch the site promoting the Puma "L.I.F.T." shoe. The 3D, slightly salacious experience lets visitors control scantily clad models by having them sport the ultra-light shoe or compare its weight to other random objects.

Goodby, Silverstein & Partners

Sure, this stalwart San Fran-based operation already broke the digital mold years ago with its "Get the Glass" game (developed with North Kingdom), but among its big name agency peers, Goodby has also been the most progressive and consistent in the quality of web work. Phase two of its Got Milk? web work, "White Gold", was a multi-faceted project that consisted of a content-heavy website and YouTube videos centered on a fictional, vitamin D-loving rock god. Entertaining and amusing while subversively serving as a PSA, "White Gold" paved the way for further unique initiatives including "Comcast Town", the information-loaded widget site for "Sprint" and the YouTube-destroying viral video for Nintendo Wii's Wario Shake It game. Perhaps its ultimate feat, though, was last Halloween's "Hotel 626" effort for Doritos, the webcam-based haunted house experience that satiated both the reporter and horror fan in me.

As previously noted, it was hard to choose just a few so out of respect to those who didn't get bigger mentions, honorable nods go to: B-Reel, Big Spaceship, Perfect Fools, Forsman & Bodenfors, Grow Interactive and Odopod.

Next up and indisputably more fun: Companies who are doing digital WRONG.

Image

More: "Op-Ed: What Social Media Revolution? By Gareth Kay"

This OpEd is written by our yet-to-be-named digital thinker, Shape78.

It's been quite a while since my last transmission, but a refreshing hibernation works wonders for the soul. Anyhow, as indicated in the previous post, it's time to pack the bags and set sail across the globe to take a closer look at digital creative sprouting up beyond our borders.

Let's begin across the pond in Europe, more specifically in what is arguably the epicenter for eye-catching work in said continent: Sweden. While London and Amsterdam might host the branches of large agencies like W+K, Fallon and 180, it's Stockholm that's proven itself as a leading locale when it comes to digital innovation.

But what exactly separates this Scandinavian capital from the pack? From a statistical standpoint, we can refer way back to a 2007 Gunn Report, which listed that four out of the ten best web advertising firms were Swedish. Two years later, it seems that data hasn't fluctuated much—in fact it's likely improved—with outfits like Forsman & Bodenfors, B-Reel, Farfar, Perfect Fools, Akestam.Holst and North Kingdom continuing to push out quality work that can be both aesthetically pleasing and provocative.

One such example, which also proves why Europe is much more sexually liberated than the U.S., is Akestam.Holst's "Miss Fiffi" project for RFSU. We couldn't dare get away with a site called "Shave Your Pussy" here in the States, but beyond the initial shock factor there lay a humorous, substantial discourse on proper female grooming that tied into RFSU's sexual education initiative.

Along with the more controversial material, some of the more notable Swedish output has placed equal value on the audio and visual elements. F&B's IKEA web efforts—"Dream Kitchen," "You Need a Quiet Space" and "Come into the Closet"—are shining examples, with the last item featuring a seamless, genre-shifting soundtrack from Dead Mono that ties perfectly into the five floors of exploration. The agency's recent work for Wasa completely flips the script on sound design, though, with various early morning effects fluttering about that help highlight the site's simple message of eating a healthy breakfast.

It's this sonic subtlety that definitely benefitted DDB, Stockholm and Acne Digital's two rounds of online recruitment for Swedish Armed Forces, which required headphone use to not only hear the instructor's monotone orders, but basically immerse yourself in the claustrophobic environment that tests your mental prowess.

From a truly visual standpoint, FarFar has unleashed several engaging web efforts for Nokia and Bjorn Borg, while B-Reel has worked the agency circuit from Paris to San Francisco, giving us stunning destinations for Frito-Lay, Sharp and Nike in the process. And on the gaming tip, North Kingdom followed up 2007's breakthrough "Get the Glass" challenge for Goodby with a Coke Zero advergame and Mentos "Kiss Fight". Add to that the "Plug into the Smart Grid" site for GE and David Ericsson's company has shown us how user interaction can be propelled by an alluring storyline.

Of course, all of these various digital creative strategies are not necessarily groundbreaking in the ad industry these days. But within a market that's comparably small to other European metropolises, it's pretty intriguing to see so much steady innovation for such a prolonged period of time from so many different companies. While it's doubtful that there's a massive mindshare amongst these various creative types, there's undoubtedly a community that seems to thrive on the competition they've all created. It is this competition that in turn has spawned digital efforts that can entice the user, initiate interactivity and sell a product...all with an attractive facade on top. Now let's see how the rest of Europe fares.

Image

More: "Op Ed: Digital Done Right and Three Companies That Seem to Get It (Part 1)"