Dragging politics into cool

I can't lie to you, I'm not the most politically intellectual account manager out there, but I do try and keep abreast of current issues the best I can. During the build up to the general election, the sometimes informative, rarely entertaining and generally repetitive leaders debates were earmarked as a key source of guidance in the build up to 'vote day'. But overall, the most memorable thing I took away from the Sky News coverage on 22nd April was some rather snazzy projection graphics shown on the Bristolian building after the big event was over. This technology is not a new phenomenon, but in my opinion, that didn't detract from the impactful nature of the medium. A series of video animations were shown, taking up the entire building in question, including a mix of logos, images, and culminating in the apparent destruction of the building itself. It certainly caught my attention.

Sky News Leaders Debate Projection News Final Edit from Projection Advertising on Vimeo.

Since then, tothepoint have been in talks with the company behind this often guerilla style marketing approach - Projection Advertising. The best way to get an idea of the potential scale achievable is to check out their site where you can be inspired by previous examples of their work. Our experience in animations lends itself perfectly to a partnership with such an agency - giving the client the opportunity to bring their brand to life on a huge scale.

Additional to the standard projection, there are interactive options including AdWall, AdTrace and AdFloor - a kind of animation which alters when you interrupt it. Clever stuff, which in it's simplicity, manages to really stand head, shoulders and sometimes literally metres above the standard competition of static large scale poster advertising.

Feel free to give us a call on 0207 378 6999 or email us to discuss how your brand could be at the cutting edge of experiential branding.

Access to grind

Increasingly we have been working with many of our clients to help them transfer their print materials into an appropriate digital format. As print becomes more of a unique medium it will still have its place in marketing strategy, helping with standout and differentiation which is still key, but digital can offer so much more if managed and implemented well.

Through research, advice and implementation of our digital strategies we have gained knowledge and experience. We have ensured standout and analytics, plus action based on related activity reports, has helped some of our clients to achieve a significant increase in readership, take-up and awareness of their offering.

As part of this communications change management, digital 'accessibility' is becoming an important growth area for our business and should be for all businesses. We all need to be thinking beyond just ticking the compliance box.

At its most basic, and not going into detailed website compliance, nearly all of our clients see PDFs as a quick and low cost way of converting their print to a digital format that all can access through the web or via email. True, PDFs are probably one of the widest used formats, and reader software is free. They enable people to share information in the way they intended, and the higher end Adobe Acrobat Pro gives some fantastic additional functionality and innovation. But how does this all work when you think of the new regulations and laws being actively enforced to ensure all content is fully accessible for all?

For some time we have been producing interactive PDFs and had moved on to developing these as accessible through basic tags and the Acrobat 'read out loud' feature. There is a plethora of information out there but as Adobe has such a large user base we, like many others, thought that this was all that was required to create a compliant accessible PDF.

However, as we have discovered, this is only the entry level for this area of accessible communication. We believe there are two key issues. The first is content and the second is technology, but I stand ready to be enlightened by any who know more on the second.

From a content perspective, you can structure how a PDF is 'read out loud' or made accessible for those with visual impairment, but does the final document truly convey the messages that someone, who can see the tables and graphs, would have access too? This issue needs to be addressed at content stage. Merely reading out tables or headings and captions of graphics is not enough. The text should be written in such a way that it explains the graphics for this wider audience. After all, the graphics are often there to support and help people speed read a document, often skipping the text. So expanding on the text to help the visually impaired, or even helping those that may not fully understand what you are trying to convey, should not be an issue, but rather a benefit for your audience.

The second issue is the technology. Like I've said, using and perceiving Adobe as the industry standard meant that we didn't test further than the this format. But there are issues with how these PDFs are then converted or used and read on the proprietary software and systems that are used by people with visual impairment to access websites and related content  (eg Text Braille, Jaws or Window Eyes). To truly test these PDFs, companies need to either invest in these systems or partner with companies who have them so they can test the accessibility. We have been working with one client, the EPSRC, who have this software, and have discovered anomalies that mean the read order is completely changed when you convert from an Adobe PDF to JAWS. The read out feature jumps around so you could start on the back page and the user would therefore be thoroughly confused. This issue is addressable but requires deeper understanding and training on the software to ensure the PDF is compliant with these different formats.

Our experience has shown that it is better to work on accessibility in the original programmes pre the PDF conversion stage. All of the content should be planned for the wider audience and then made accessible in programmes such as word, powerpoint, indesign or quark.

Without the help of the EPSRC we would have been unaware of these issues and believe many others may still be unaware, clicking a few buttons in acrobat and thinking they have an accessible PDF. This could mean that content currently in the digital arena isn't accessible and at a time when you really want to be seen to be transparent, helpful and accessible, you need to make sure you are fully compliant.

I have added a few extracts and some useful links but there's a lot of reading here so if you'd like some help or advice with the accessibility side of your communications, do get in touch with us. There are many business benefits to having accessible websites and content so it makes sense to ensure you are accessible to all.

USEFUL LINKS
http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/
http://webaim.org/intro/

Every time you use Google, a kitten dies

Yesterday I saw a comment on Twitter that really threw me. As both a long-time consumer and creator of digital material and also a believer in climate change, this statement really made me stop in my tracks.

"Making two internet searches through Google produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle!!"

Pretty controversial stuff, and shocking if true. For anyone concerned about the environment, this could have major implications. If we want to 'do our bit' should we stop using Google? Presumably 'Bing' and the rest are no more efficient, so does this spell the end of web search completely? Perhaps we just have to abandon the internet altogether in order to save the world?

Or maybe this is just a made up fact designed to get attention? Hmmmm.

Well, a couple of boiling kettles later, I found the origins of this statement. It wasn't made up, it wasn't just a casual tweet created to generate interest and site hits (as if THAT would ever happen!) - turns out this factoid has been going around since the start of the year. And worryingly (well for me anyway) it can be traced back to an article on the Times - so a pretty reputable source of information. You can read it here - and it's replicated in full here for those who are less keen on the new Murdoch Paywall.

A whole bunch of other sites followed up on the story. Here it is on the Telegraph and on the BBC - among many others - and it's obviously still doing the rounds. (Note: by this point I've probably boiled about 6 or 7 kettles and killed a small polar bear).

So, a shocking statement backed up by some serious journalism. But to me, it still doesn't ring true. Is that because I'm too involved with the web and can't let go of my preconceived notions that digital information is actually a GOOD thing for the environment? (saving on paper / waste etc.) Perhaps, perhaps it's worth just one more kettle to find out.

A day after the original article appeared online (and a lot harder to find on Google) this article was published on the Technology News World site, which says:

The Times reporters wrote about a new Harvard study that examines the energy impact of Web searches. One problem: the study's author, Harvard University physicist Alex Wissner-Gross, says he never mentions Google in the study. "For some reason, in their story on the study, the Times had an ax to grind with Google," Wissner-Gross told TechNewsWorld.

And the example involving tea kettles? "They did that. I have no idea where they got those statistics," Wissner-Gross said.

Obviously, Google weren't too happy with these statistics either, here's the view from their side.

Yes, of course computers use energy, but a single search is closer to 0.2 grams of CO2 and that's 35 times less than the Times article suggested. It's interesting to note that the original statement is still circulating around as assumed fact, while the refuting stories have a lot less impact - presumably because they're not associated with a bold, tweetable headline? Which in turn probably says something interesting about the dissemination of news as a whole, ie. the impact of sensationalism vs. more realistic (ie. more boring) information.

What have we learned here? Well, it's always important to check your facts - a growing problem now even within respected news journalism; if they don't do it, then we have to boil a few kettles and do it ourselves. Bias has a tendency to creep in - especially when people are trying to sell us news and there are always (at very least) two sides to every story.

Of course, while the figures reported are widely inaccurate, it does serve to remind us of the fact that using the internet does come with it's own environmental impact - and the more we use and rely on technology - the more PC's/Macs/iPhones etc. we buy - the more energy and CO2 we inevitably consume.

However, ultimately I think the moral of this particular story can be summed up neatly by the article that appeared on Physorg.com here:

"It would appear the London Times was trying to sell newspapers"

Shock news indeed.

Ben Jackson,
Head of Digital Media,
www.tothepoint.co.uk

Eco systems

Whilst many are jumping on the 'Green' bandwagon, it is important to remember that this is not merely a marketing tool to sell more things to more people, it is a social responsibility that we all should bear. From CEOs to low level staff, we should all be aware of our personal and collaborative impact on the environment. Radical steps can be taken to streamline efficiency and reduce waste, but small changes in our behavior can equally pay dividends.

Here at to the point, we fully acknowledge that, the very nature of our work as a graphic design consultancy involves recommending the use of printed materials where appropriate and, as a company, we may not be as eco-friendly as those businesses who enforce an entirely paperless workplace. We do, however, recognise our accountability for our part in how our environment has changed over the years. We have already helped many of our clients reduce their impact on the planet by recommending recycled stocks and employing digital media over printed materials when appropriate. More recently however we have turned our attention to our own working practices and have taken steps to adjust our own behaviours. Simon (our MD) has asked me to drive our green initiatives forward and invest time in reducing our impact and improving our behaviour and awareness. We now continually target areas in which we can improve and work to be as green as we can possibly be. It is important to note that this is not an overnight process and should not be seen as something that can be solved instantly and then forgotten. We continuously evaluate our ways of working and endeavor to improve upon them.

What we have already done

• We now produce our monthly newsletter digitally to reduce our print output.
• We have upgraded all computers and screens to new energy saving work stations: Mac minis and iMacs
• We have set up all computers to automatically shut down at the end of the day so they are not left on standby accidently.
• All computer screens are set to go to sleep within under 10 minutes if not being used, and computers sleep after 20 minutes if not being used.
• Halogen light bulbs have all been replaced with a low wattage energy efficient variety.
• All staff take public transport, cycle or walk to work.
• Individual bins have been removed to promote taking waste to the recycling points in the studio.
• We now recycle more than ever thanks to the new Better Bankside scheme
• We use double sided printing for all internal documents – reducing our paper output by 50%.
• Whenever possible we supply our presentation document as an interactive PDF rather than a printed document.
• We have invested in a better conference call system and remote access software to avoid travel to UK and overseas client offices unless essential.
• We have invested in a complete digital project management and accounts system to reduce paper consumption.
• We have purchased glasses for water so no more plastic cups in the water dispenser.

We continue to look for new ways to improve our environmental impact – any ideas (big or small) or working practices that may help us make a difference would be very welcome, so please post your suggestions below.

Free pitching - a shared responsibility?

Things are definitely picking up but with the upturn comes the prospect of even more pitches and tenders and increasingly we are being asked for free creative. The free pitch debate has raged since before I came out of college a few centuries ago, and not much has changed. Public sector has a lot more red tape to cope with and, once you are through that, often you still have to free pitch. Private sector are requesting free pitching without the red tape but are asking more people to take part than the traditional three.

I do understand that with some new accounts the client will want you to demonstrate your creative abilities. This is so they can see that the past work you've shown could be created by the current team and also that you understand their business, especially if this is a new sector or market. However, if you have a track record (20 years for us), most companies can review your existing work, check bank details for solvency and take up references from existing clients. On this basis they should be able to select an agency or, if still undecided, select up to three agencies to tender for a project. Requesting more agencies than this for a creative tender means they don't appreciate the time and value of the bespoke work that will be wasted by all those that lose, not to mention the time they will need to spend to meet and review all this work. Requests for sealed creative tenders (must be close to 99% public sector procurement), without the agency even meeting the client, shows a complete lack of understanding of the process required to come up with strategic creative solutions.

If a solicitor or an accountant tenders for new business, they would meet the prospective client and give an indication or firm quotation of likely costs. As the client, you'd judge them on chemistry from the meeting, take personal recommendations or references to ensure they were suitable and you'd look at their track record and fees. Could we pick three accountants, ask them to present ideas for tax avoidance (not evasion) and produce our draft accounts for free  - we'd then pick the one that has given us the advice we like and proved they can prepare accounts? I think not.

There have been articles about the DBA working with government agencies and marketeers for an improved procurement processes but it is in all our interests to look for ways to improve the pitch processes. This is a shared responsibility between client and designer. We've won some and lost some but recently lost one where we needed to explain the cost of pitching to our client and try to persuade them to look at new ways of working with their agencies. We had already achieved a place on their roster, had been through brand inductions and had worked on several projects but had lost two fairly big unpaid creative tenders.

We explained that roster designers invest time in building knowledge of a client brand and how to successfully implement materials in both print and digital formats. This knowledge has a value and, as long as none of the roster agencies become complacent or over charge, by all working together they can each add value and proactively evolve and develop the client brand and communications.

Pitching is acceptable if it is paid for but if not, and work doesn't rotate, one or more of the roster agencies will soon face losses that can not be recouped through the other work they do for the client. The account becomes unsustainable, a line has to be drawn and the client potentially loses a valuable resource. The client needs to understand the value of their investment in these agencies - we think this knowledge and experience is well worth protecting.

Our view is that for any creative pitch some fee should be paid to all (three) agencies for their creative work. An agreed pitch fee, either split equally from the pot or with 50% for the win and 25% to the other two agencies, would promote a better platform from which to work. This demonstrates some client recognition and respect for the value of the work and the time spent. This may mean agencies accepting slightly less than the value of the work that is produced as part of a pitch but it does mean that all the agencies get some remuneration and the client isn't over exposed financially.

We strive to build long term partnerships with our clients but creative pitches hinder this, especially if they are requested again after an initial pitch. A solid relationship built on trust promotes joint proactive engagement, where the design agency and client share ideas and innovations beyond any written brief or project. The benefits of a long term working relationship are something that public sector tendering does not seem to recognise.

We have seen two recessions, been around long enough to know how to run our business and decide in which client accounts to invest our time and ideas. Many smaller design agencies are often led by creative output rather than financial remuneration. It's easy to take advantage of this, but these businesses will not survive without a careful balance of creativity and sound business sense. It is the responsibility of both the design agency and the client to ensure this balance is achieved and both will benefit in the long term.

Who counts the cost of procurement?

I have just read Andrew Princes' COI letter in design week 26.11.09.

http://www.designweek.co.uk/coi-is-not-to-blame-for-public-sector-problems/3007140.article

We applied for the COI tender and received the full documentation. I find it amazing he thinks a response can be put together in 4 hours. It takes that long to read all the materials and work out how to fill in the PQQ before you start pulling together all the info required including relevant case studies and a written page to support each - make that 2 - 3 days and you have a realistic timeframe. Even at 4 hours with 1000 applying that's 500 working days of time that will only yield a result for up to 10% of respondents - 450 wasted days! The pre qualification is only the start. If you get through there is an ITT for which they want even more detailed information. I read and re read the requirements and came to the conclusion that despite being ably qualified for 3 or 4 of the 11 lots (why 11 lots just for branding!?), the questions were framed in such a way that you start to question your ability to deliver. Having been in business since 1991 and delivered full identity and branding solutions for the public and private sector and retained many of these clients on a long term basis we know we can deliver. But is public sector and procurement worth all the hassle? When I re read the materials I discovered that each lot could have up to 10 agencies on each roster. All agencies are invited to tender for each project and where there is cross over of lots for a branding project the agencies in that lot are also invited to tender. Based on my understanding this could mean having gone through all of this you could have 30 agencies tendering for 1 project. The total budget for the year is listed as £1,000,000. So 11 lots with up to 10 agencies in each means that by my maths that works out as less than £10,000 per project which for a branding exercise is not much for the risk involved. This coupled with the fact that you have to tender for every job means we opted out at the first hurdle to focus on real clients with real needs. When will the public sector realise the value and benefit of long term relationships built on respect, trust, knowledge and experience? How much does procurement and tendering cost the tax payer and the design agencies against any perceived saving this process achieves? How much better are the designers that get through all the hoops? How can piecemeal projects deliver true strategic approaches and brand consistency? I am sure that some of those that get through will see the benefits but from outside I just see the over complex inefficiency of bureaucratic administration that hinders many of our public sector services and delivers no real value.

Who counts the cost?

Joining or creating a bandwagon!

I'm not sure if posting part of an email is a blog, but i'll put it down to my experimentation with social media before anyone starts reading or following my monologues!  I'm trying to get my mind in order after the very inspiring yet worrying launch of a new mini publication that the email refers to and just scratching the surface of a subject area that everyone seems to be talking about in different ways for different outcomes with the same end game - to save the planet and we've got just 10 years to do it.

Worrying stuff, for starters i may still be alive! (Bit selfish.)
So I'll be joining forums, catching up and in the process decide if we are joining a band wagon or that if, with a bit of inspiration, we may be able to create one.

So the email is a response to the DBA following a request for feedback on subject material for future seminars after the very rich and interesting one given on social media by Gemma Went earlier this week. The extract goes:

"I have been going to a few non design talks recently but these have been overshadowed by one run by tommow's company at the House of Lords on Wednesday. It was entitled 'qualitative growth' and launched a paper by the ICAEW and was supported by the WWF.  It set the real agenda for businesses and the paradigm shift that is required within the next 10 years. I also went to the tomorrow's company Al Gore lecture last year on climate change with his 10 year deadline. This in itself was eye opening but watered down CSR, sustainability and climate change initiatives have not really tackled the issues - we await the outcome of the summit next month. Unlike many there, I had not heard of Hazel Henderson or Fritjof Capra but they were the key speakers by video link. Their revelations and recommendations were quite shocking but are the issues that we must all be looking at, whether we agree with them or not. I'll be looking into this more and trying to find ways that as designers we can help this 'transformational change' take place. There is a lot of disparate info out there but a bit more focus on this area by the DBA and design publications will really help designers like us to advise and influence clients."

Google here I come...

A November rant - must be the weather

Anyone else noticed that the governments logo for 'solutions for business' is 'red tape'! We came across this initiative, aimed at simplifying support, while working on a funding project with the brief that we had to work within the branding framework set out in the governments solutions for business programme. Having visited the site and clicked various links we soon discovered this is anything but simple :

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/enterprise/simplifyingbusinesssupport/page44802.html

We have to agree though that  'red tape' as a logo is in fact very appropriate!

Next project, communicating the need for SME's to take a more active role in reducing environmental impact at work in line with Governmental policies. We're an SME but have never really considered the definition of an SME. Our research showed that roughly 99.5% of SME's in London have between 1 and 49 staff and 0.5% have 50 to 250. In Europe, SME companies are defined as: less than 10 staff are 'micro'; less than 50 staff are small and with less than 250 staff are medium. So it's no surprise that given these statistics that nearly all the documentation and 'red tape' we receive as an SME is more appropriate for the 0.5% rather than the 99.5% group. Certainly in our appraisal of the communications requirement for our project, there was a need for a tiered approach with sector specific messages to these different types of business within the SME bracket. I would suggest that some of the guidance and rules given to SMEs from government should also be tailored to 'micro', small and medium, but this could obviously make things more complex and undermine 'simplifying business support'.

When will Government, the public sector and procurement departments really make an effort to simplify things so people can actually get on with jobs and work that benefit people and planet rather than having to plough through endless red tape to tick boxes to satisfy the people that write the gobbledigook!

There is hope. We have recently started working with a couple of public sector procurement departments that actually have some understanding of what we do and don't ask us in contracts for a website to "clear our waste on completion of on site works"!

The joy of public sector work... it would be if only we could get through the PQQs and ITTs. Give me fast paced, relationship building, knowledge sharing, mutual respect and reward, private sector work any day... until public sector cut the red tape, believe in trust and build relationships with their suppliers.

End of rant and will have Christmas cheer hat on for next blog...

Are they missing the point! or postman to blame...

We try to send out a press release each month, or more often when possible, but time is always against us in this fast paced side of communications. We have sent two stories to design week this year about our work for, up until now, low profile EPSRC, the research council for Science and Engineering. We originally talked about our branding for 'IMPACT!', their campaign to raise awareness of the impact of science on society but it didn't get any coverage. Disappointment all round. This month we followed up with news of our ground breaking design for a new satellite website, 'Impact World' :

http://www.impactworld.org.uk

We eagerly awaited our copy of design week to drop through our letterbox on Thursday. It did but no story again! Having failed twice to get coverage I felt a stand had to be made so a heavy two finger typed email venting my frustration was sent into the email ether. I pointed out that as the leading UK funder of scientific research (they invest over £800 million per year in research) why did nothing appear about the website, not even making it onto 'news in brief' ahead of something as bland and uninspiring as 'the London Restaurant Festival' (p5). I ranted on about Design Week's complete lack of understanding of the importance of Science in society.

I really wanted to understand why a business that doesn't have a high profile name but that has such a huge impact on society is not perceived as news worthy - I asked them if anyone actually took the time to look at the site and read some of the stories. Maybe like us, they are so bogged down with information overload that they don't have the time to spare so stick to the usual favourites, the quick wins and the no brainers while the unknowns stay that way - shame!

All sounded good to me until the short but sweet response that perhaps this was a postal issue and that the 'London Restaurant Festival' logo appeared in last weeks issue - I realised my error! Despite arrival on the right day of the week, I had received my design week one week late! Egg on face or what but no time left to vent my anger at that creaking establishment - the Royal Mail!

With nothing about EPSRC up on the DW website, I still await this weeks copy to see what coverage science gets. In some small way I hope it is a very small piece so that some of my frustration was justified.

I know the PR fraternity out there will be saying get a good agency on board and the stories will flow but I find it difficult enough to find the time to write a press release for Design Week, the occasional blog, let alone start a PR campaign (but it's a thought for better times!).

Meanwhile I'll pause a little longer next time before letting loose with my two finger typing!

Busy busy busy

Had hoped to have one blog per month but there is a sense of relief that this has not been achieved due to work, work, work. Whether its a return from the non barbeque summer to desks of to do lists or true signs of recovery we are certainly starting to reap the rewards of our investment in getting our brand and marketing materials evolved to inspire and engage with the audiences that are making up the current and developing communications landscape. We are now helping new clients like EDF energy and EPSRC to realize their visions and the order books are starting to fill with new work from existing clients. The entrepreneurial spirit is also alive and kicking as we help smaller ventures to establish their brands where new opportunities are coming to light. We've just got to ensure we leave enough time to design our 2010 calendar! So I've beaten my midnight deadline to get this one in for September so that I've only missed out August!