(Continued from Spock vs. Gump.)

We usually call rational marketable qualities USP, the unique selling proposition. And the brand’s emotional qualities we know as ESP, the emotional selling proposition. But the contextual, cultural connection is still unknown to many, so let us provisionally call it ASP, the affinity selling proposition. It is understandably the group, social network, culture and background that determine how a lot of things are interpreted.

If you have your head screwed on, you will notice that the brand goes through an evolutionary change. First comes USP, then ESP, and after that ASP. The USP is generally regarded as dead. The ESP is familiar and has been for a while, whereas the ASP is still largely unknown to many, but it is definitely something that we must give great consideration to in the future.

Can it be true that many have become stuck in the brand’s first stage of development, despite indications that many should be on the edge of the second and third stages? Is it possible that many still persist in describing and presenting their brand from a one-sided product perspective, despite the fact that most consumers seek emotional gratification from the brand with support from their tribal brotherhood?

In which case, the consequences would be disastrous: The brands’ descriptions are too narrow. They are objectified and reduced. They are not able to reach out and touch the consumers. Their patter falls on deaf ears and they die from a lack of relevance. Communication is too expensive. Profitability decreases. Many have started to complain that advertising doesn’t pay.

What many brands need is an integrated comprehensive view which doesn’t exclude any of the three dimensions.

As far as Camitz Sparkling is concerned, they are lucky enough to be blessed with all three spheres. The vodka’s tangible qualities, such as the carbonation, the bottling, the cork and the bar-dispenser, are a world’s first. The emotional benefits are evident for all to see: the visual impression, the sound of the hissing bubbles and the spontaneous effect contribute to a trump card that is exceptionally difficult to copy.

As for the cultural aspects, such as those moulded by the principal characters in the story, their fight and their network is naturally their own with a personal touch. But the creating and building of a strong brand requires much more. The three dimensions are, despite everything, just an expression for something else.

At the base there must be a good story to tell. A brand story.

You have just read the Camitz story. If you haven’t already noticed, let me refresh your memory, it is a typical David and Goliath tale – about the rebel who took on the huge establishment.

So, how does your story run?

Read the next chapter, »I’m Dirty Harry. Who are you?«, here.

David Hallerman, a senior analyst at eMarketer writes today in AdAge about what made the Old Spice campaign such an earth-shattering success. David starts with probably the most important factor: »It is creative”, he says, and points out that »making advertising videos that consumers want to watch is, in truth, very, very difficult.«

Mind  you, these are words from an analyst, not a creative.

While some say that this is an optimal case study in viral marketing, David delivers a more matter-of-fact explanation. He reminds us that »Procter & Gamble division figured out how to effectively blend ingredients from the three marketing media — paid, owned and earned — to reach its target audience.« And here’s how P&G and Wieden + Kennedy launched the campaign:

The marketing feat got its start from traditional TV commercials, supplemented by cinema ads (paid). Then the campaign migrated to an interactive mix of brand microsite with Facebook and Twitter pages (owned), and continued its momentum through consumer interaction and word-of-mouth on social sites and beyond (earned). Finally, the campaign gets continued lift from additional online advertising — both banner and video ads — which drives traffic back to the brand’s site and social-media pages.«

I believe this is not only true, but it’s also probably the best route to go these days, since a) we’re not living in the sixties anymore (traditional media), and b) we’re not living in a futuristic world either (where social media is everything).

You can read the whole piece here.

A brilliant analysis, if you ask me.

(Continued from »Not nice. Gorgeous«.)

Once upon a time an old, bearded Greek by the name of Plato wandered the streets of Athens. He was convinced that truth had more dimensions than the objective, which wasn’t really at all especially objective. It is just something that we have in our heads. His view was that truth was divisible by three.

The inside. The outside. The context.

The first aspect is emotional. The second is rational. And the third is cultural and collective. Look on it as a truth prism, wherever you point it, it splits into these fundamental aspects.

The outside formulates what we know as facts : all that is empirical, measurable and controllable. What does it look like? What does the brand do? What benefits does it bring with it?

The inside reflects the subjective, how it is experienced. It consists entirely of personal interpretation and not only in writing. The aim is to reflect and try to find some deeper kind of meaning, feeling and purpose.

The context is explained by depicting the background, culture and belonging. If you want to see the brand’s full potential you should describe if from all three angles. You can sum up the reasoning by asking three simple questions:

What? How? And why?

Read the next chapter on The Brand-Man, august 30: »Spock vs. Gump.«

Dan Landin’s little tweet caught my eye this morning. Dan highlights an interesting study from Brand Science Institute. This is too good not to blog about. It deals with a german study on corporate social media projects during the past 7 months. It was conducted in order to understand why most social media campaigns backfires. BSI included 560+ marketers in its analysis, representing 52 brands from some of the largest companies across 12 European countries.

Here are the findings:

81% of all companies don’t have a clear social media strategy

Corporates tend to take twice as long as start-ups for social media projects

Only 7% understand the real value of customer interactions

Only 27% have a clear understanding of their customers

Social media projects are three times more under control

73% had to show the money after 12 months

76% feel that legal departments hinder social media expectations

87% had to correct their social media expectations

72% thought social media must be viral

68% never heard of the 1-9-90 rule (1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify that content, and 90% view the content without contributing)

84% compare social media performance with standard media measures

76% don’t moderate social media projects accurately (if at all)

Only 7% understand the CRM value of social media

91% allocate budgets the wrong way (meaning: too small budgets on social media)

37% think that social media is a media buy

53% were stepping into the geek-trap

92% are not aware of their Facebook dependency (The importance of the ”I like”button). Speaking of which: shouldn’t FB also include a ”I dislike” or even a ”I hate” button? Personally I think this would be really interesting.)

71% take expensive upfront investments to secure technical functionality

Only 11% have social media guidelines

86% don’t have a clue how to handle a social media backlash

Only 4% share their social media experience throughout the company

(Have a look at the original presentation on Slideshare here.)

Is this the world’s first blog relay? Me and The Brand-Man (a.k.a. Micco Grönholm) will publish parts of my book Let’s get gorgeous on both my blog and his blog, by turns. Starting today. The book is a branding case book about Camitz Sparkling Vodka, founded by Mattias Lindberger and Peter Camitz.

Here’s the background:

The main character, Jhoan Camitz, is killed by a dead man in New York. (Try figure that one out.) At the same time, his friend Mattias, and Jhoan’s older brother, Peter, are sitting in Stockholm, finding themselves in ecstasy as they believe they have just come up with a brilliant idea. From that moment and onwards, the story about Camitz Sparkling Vodka, continues in leaps and bounds, between hope and despair.

The first of the three men is a living cliché of an inventor. A hyper-intelligent, introvert mad man who would rather ponder over difficult problems and dream about thunder storms, hail and lightning. The other man is the renowned commercial film maker who died in a bizarre accident. He viewed all of life as if through a caricature lens, where most things were portrayed as mischief and big laughs. The third one started his career as a model, but who grew tired of flying around the world like a smiling ad and therefore decided to turn it all around; he made use of his experience of being directed and started to direct himself, together with Jhoan.

They have been faced with physics, chemistry and electronics which all seem to lead a life of themselves. They have had to live through a Stockholm premiere which ended in humiliation. They have had to witness bankers being sprayed with foam of liquor. They have met Chinese fortune-hunters who have led them astray. And they have dealt with people who have turned deaf and dumb when faced with having to make decisions.

However, all the failures have given them a lot of experience, making them wiser and better than when they started out. And it finally looks as if they have made it. Today, there are people all over the world who actually view Camitz Sparkling Vodka as the best vodka in the world. What a journey it has been!

Read more about the book here.

The world’s first blog relay, by Micco Grönholm & Per Robert Öhlin, starts here today. And here it is, the first chapter of the fifth part:

If you have read this far you should have a pretty good perception of what Camitz Sparkling stands for. You have got to know the people behind the product, including their strengths and weaknesses, dreams and nightmares. You know all there is to know about the brand’s shape, function, quality and performance – including the shortfalls. You should also have gained an insight into the significance of the brand, the feelings it creates and what it means to you.

You have also been given a description of the brand. Not an ordinary description, by any means, it is actually a much more personal and genuine description than you usually come across. It is only the moral of the story that is lacking.

What does the story want to tell us? Are there any fundamental insights or practical elements that we can put to good use and implement in our daily life? Now we are coming to the theoretical crunch. We are about to take a leap into the complex area of management philosophy and brand strategy. Let’s not make it more difficult than it really is. It is best to start from the beginning, from the only thing we are certain about, namely that modern brand strategy is based on five simple standpoints:

First, you have to ask who you are and where you are. Your qualities, starting point and surrounding terrain are the given prerequisites for everything you aim to do. Then you need to decide where you want to be. Remember that the consumer is the intermediate goal that takes you to the destination, sales. You need to choose a direction, as it doesn’t matter how fast you run if you are running in the wrong direction.

When all this is done, only the tactical side remains: to run. You must be flexible. If you stumble across a swamp, you must be ready to wade or swim. If you run into steep cliffs, you must be prepared to make a detour. General Patton had a simple rule when it came to the relationship between strategy and tactics. He said, “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”

In theory it is simple. The problem is to get it to work in reality. All this is an integral part of the mission for Mattias and Peter to establish and build an internationally, marketable brand. But what is a brand? And how do you go about building one?

(Read the next chapter on The Brand-Man, august 25: »Not nice. Gorgeous.«)

What does it take to be a leader? What is the one, single quality that
separates the mediocre, self-declared leaders from the true leaders, such as Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, John F. Kennedy, Steve Jobs and Ingvar Kamprad –  people who actually changed things?
Inspiration.
Now, what is the true source of inspiration? Where does it come from?
Smart people?
Not necessarily.
Does it emanate from risk-aware cultures?
Not very likely.
Does it come from the nice and humble?
Nope.
Does it come from the safe and sound?
No way.

Inspiration always comes from the bold and the daring. Why? Because they dream of things that others find impossible, wrong or downright silly.
They are fearless of being depicted as failures, of being ridiculed, of being rejected, of being embarrassed, or being played for a fool.
There are four questions that are essential for success as a leader whether you operate in a corporation, or in a political party, or in media.
What are you doing?
How are you doing it?
Who are you?
And why are you doing this?
Take a look at the picture above.
97% of the world’s population gravitate towards the question on top.
Is this because it’s the wisest thing to do?
No, truth is it’s because this is the easiest question to answer – whereas
successful leaders are more attracted to the questions at the bottom.
The reason for this is quite simple.
We live in a world where the majority tend to like things that they can see, grip, grasp and drop on their feet, while true leaders are attracted to the opposite.
They seem to like things that are more abstract.
Stuff that’s meaningful.
Questions that are much, much harder to answer.
It’s like the popular iceberg metaphor.
Most people can only picture the tip and fail to see the whole picture.
And that’s probably why so few of us become succesful leaders.

So how do you answer these four questions?

The first question »What?« is purely descriptive.
As in »I’m selling cell-phones«, or »I’m in computers«.
»How?« Is about creativity: how can you make a difference?
The answer could be »Think different«, or »a really beautiful product design«.
»Who?« is a question of identity.
By this I refer to cultural and psycho-social mirroring.
Because it’s far more important who’s selling than what’s being sold.
Now it’s getting really interesting. How do you relate to this:
»I’m a former hippie from California and I rage against big corporations that enslaves individuals. This is my quest and I hope you sympathize«.
This statement reveals a personal, heroic story.
As in all biographies the story should be woven around a few dichotomies:
Love vs. hate. Fear vs. bravery. Good vs. bad.
The trick is to know what you stand for and know what you oppose.
If you fail this, no one will be able to identify with you or your cause.

And by »Why?« I touch on intention and aspiration.
The purpose of this question is to know, deep down, why you’re doing whatever you’re doing.
Sometimes it’s called »a mission statement«.
But this is an expression that has been watered down for ages, so let’s drop it.
Instead, I prefer to talk about meaning, or purpose.
Meaning always outperforms information, like emotion trumps rationality.
When your quest is based on a bold aspiration, it will make hearts pound faster.
People will be moved.
People will start to act and participate in your misson.
Here’s a formula to keep in mind:
Somebody (you) should want something really, really bad.
Unfortunately, something (an evil force) keeps standing in your way.
How should you go about it (the creative challenge)?
Make sure this struggle goes on forever.
How do you recognize a meaningful quest? Here’s an example:
»I will always fight stupid conventions, wherever it rears its ugly head…
Just bring it on!«

You know what I’m talking about, and whom I’m refering to.
I’m talking about Apple, of course. And Steve Jobs.
They don’t sell their stuff because it’s innovative or of excellent quality.
These are by-products of a lifelong, meaningful quest.
They sell because they have the urge to challenge the stale and the stupid.
And this make them living heroes.

A really smart guy I know wrote in his blog the other day about the endless question of what makes us most happy: money or meaning.
Most people think that rich people are driven by money, and that this is the reason why they’ve become rich.
Not true.
If you read the book »Obliquity. Why our goals are best achieved indirectly«, by the british economist John Kay, you’ll see that many of the best performing businesses were built by people who didn’t strive for money, but for meaning.
Kay shows that companies like Boeing, Ford and Microsoft were driven by goals other than profit, and that money often is a by-product of much bigger and stronger incentives.
The need to achieve.
To change.
To become at ease with oneself.
Or to leave a mark on the world.
That’s why they ended up making fortunes.
Ironic, isn’t it?

Jag har just fått reda på att min bok »Den mentala orgasmen« har nominerats till Årets Marknadsföringsbok. Den utses årligen av Sveriges Marknadsförbund som har till syfte att bevaka internationella trender och svensk lagstiftning, och därutöver ge råd, utbilda, främja spännande forskning samt förmedla viktiga erfarenheter och bilda opinion. Vinnaren koras på Tendensdagen den 14 oktober.

Här är alla nominerade böcker.

Marina Schiptjenko, kvinnan med många strängar på sin lyra, har tillsammans med sin gamla skejtarkompis, Eddie Bengtsson blåst liv i kultbandet Page och det nya albumet »Nu«, det nionde i ordningen. Marina kommer från band som Vacuum och BWO. Och Eddie har ett förflutet med band som Sista mannen på jorden och S.P.O.C.K.

Page är ett stilbildande band som startade redan 1980 – en tid då de var tvungna att skruva fram musiken på enkla monosyntar som bara kunde producera en ton i taget.

Musiken är befriande avskalad och enkel, med rappa refränger som flätar samman åttiotal med tiotal. Musiken blippar och bloppar sig fram med ett grymt sväng. Vi pratar om syntpop av bästa märke vars texter rör sig runt deras liv här och nu (inte bara då). Och texterna spinns mest runt ämnet relationer.

Jag må vara en smula partisk, men i mitt tycke är det här ett perfekt sommaralbum. Då och då när jag lyssnar flyter jag tillbaks till en bekymmerslös tid då man gick i blekta, lappade jeans och kanelbrun solbränna, för att i nästa sekund kastas tillbaks till nuets betydligt mer komplicerade tillvaro.

Plattan fjäskar inte. Den bär drag av inopportun minimalism och inleds med en handfull snärtiga spår. Men det är när jag kommer till »Tätt inpå«, Ett S.O.S.« (låten därpå kommer in lite fel) och »Allt eller inget« som jag går i gång på allvar. Det är då musiken varvas upp några snäpp, det är då jag glömmer deadlines och andra måsten och bara vill dansa. När det hela avslutas med en tolkning av Liquidos »Narcotics« – här med titeln »Min drog« – ja då blir jag extatisk. Vilken avslutning.

Tack Page! Sommaren är räddad. Nästa spelning på Arvikafestivalen 15-17 juli.

Alex inledde sin karriär som art director på åttiotalet. Snart blev han delägare i byrån Crispin Porter + Bogusky, en byrå som lett utvecklingen under de senaste tio åren. Alex har tagit fram kampanjer som lär bli skolboksexempel för många år framåt, bland annat för Burger King och BMW Mini Cooper.

Enligt en notis i Advertising Age lämnar han moderskeppet MDC som köpt Crispin Porter + Bogusky för att ägna sig åt projekt som ligger utanför reklamvärlden. Nyheten lär skaka reklamvärlden, även om signalerna varit tydliga sedan en tid:

Under de senaste två åren har han gradvist trappat ner. Det kreativa ledarskapet har han sedan länge redan lämnat över till Rob Reilly och Andrew Keller. Han har också ägnat sin mesta tid åt projekt vid sidan om, som till exempel att skriva böcker och jobbat upp en nätbaserad talkshow under namnet »Fearless Q&A«.

Alex gick i främsta ledet för att förändra en bransch som söker sin identitet i en gråzon mellan reklam och pr, med de berömda orden:

»Don’t show me a script. Show me the press release!«

En sann innovatör har lämnat branschen. Det känns lite vemodigt. Hoppas han återvänder någon gång i framtiden.

Jag läste ett utmärkt blogginlägg av Micco Grönholm häromdagen. Det fick mig att tänka på ett kapitel ur min bok Branding enligt Forrest Gump som kom ut våren 2006. Eftersom den är utgången sedan länge tänkte jag publicera kapitlet här. I boken fick det namnet »Bokens tristaste kapitel«. Det följdes sen av kapitel med rubriker som »Tillvaratagna affekter«, »Blåsningen«, »Fuck U Inc.«, »Friheten, märket och du« och liknande, för att sedan kulminera i ett utopiskt-filosifiskt pekoral jag titulerade »Relationismen, beroendets tid«. Kanske lägger jag in dem så småningom också, men först…

Bokens tristaste kapitel.

För ordningens skull följer här en kort redogörelse för varumärkets historia.

För cirka femtusen år sedan fick en boskapsägare en snilleblixt: han började brännmärka sina djur. På så sätt kunde han känna igen sina egna kreatur när de var på bete, och andra kunde se vem som ägde dem.

Det var så särskiljningen uppstod.

Några tusen år senare satt en krukmakare någonstans i antikens medelhavsregion och förargade sig över att konkurrenterna sålde krukor till »hans« kunder. Han hade gott rykte, så han beslöt att märka dem i botten med sitt tumavtryck.

Så föddes det visuella märket.

Snart kom man dock på att märkena gick att kopiera. Det ledde till att man började hålla ordning på dem och arkivera dem. Det hände i antikens Rom (var annars?).

Historiens första legala skydd för namn och ursprung var därmed ett faktum.

Och med det kom ansvarsbiten in i bilden, märket var till för att kunna identifiera tillverkaren och hålla denne ansvarig. Exempelvis låg tegelmakaren risigt till om huset rasade.

Många såg fördelarna med att märka sina egendomar och produkter. Inte minst makten. Kungar, kejsare, kyrka och adel fick plötsligt bråttom att skaffa egna märken.

Och så uppstod heraldiken.

Sedan kom den industriella revolutionen med masstillverkade konsumentprodukter. Det innebar till exempel annonser i tidningar. För att inte hamna i total märkesanarki beslöt man år 1857 att inrätta en myndighet för registrering och lagstiftning av »trademarks« i Frankrike. Kort därefter följde England efter. Och några år senare även USA.

Den starka konsumentutvecklingen under efterkrigstiden innebar så småningom att vare sig produkter eller trademarks var tillräckligt särskiljande för att stå ut från konkurrensen.

Det ledde till att man började prata om produktlöften och varumärken.

Nästa steg i utvecklingen kom i industrialismens slutskede då produktionstekniken utvecklats så starkt att det inte längre var meningsfullt att prata om konkreta produktskillnader. Varumärkets mer ogripbara värden, som känslor och upplevelser, kom i fokus och innebar ett första, trevande steg mot en ny varumärkessyn.

Och där är vi idag.

Det räcker inte längre att vara bäst, tydligast eller mest känd. Det räcker inte längre att tjäna mest pengar nu. Anonymitet, girighet och cynism hotar många märken, kortsiktiga vinster urholkar förtroende och uthållighet på sikt.

Och vad leder då allt detta fram till?

Jo, att vi måste börja resa kraven på äkthet, närhet och ärlighet i märkets relation med sina konsumenter. Och så smångingom kanske kan vi börja prata om det meningsfulla märket.

Imorgon viker Dagens Media en helsida till mig. Jag skriver en artikel om kreativitet med anledning av Cannes Lions. Dessutom och bjussar jag på ett kapitel ur den nya boken »Den mentala orgasmen«. Glöm inte att kolla.

Ifollowed a confused conversation about brand strength on Twitter the other day. So I think it’s time to tackle the brand issue again.
In my mind it’s quite simple.
A brand is an overall feeling.
This feeling emanates from three aspects:
A functional. An emotional. And a contextual.
The first aspect tells us what the brand is capable of, using only objective and measurable facts.
The second shows us what the brand feels like, in terms of subjective expressions.
The third deals with historical, cultural and psycho-social patterns.
All in all, these are merely reflections of what’s going on inside the brand.
The brand’s core.
Normally, the core is built around a couple of core values.
Personally I think core values are a terrible waste of money.
Why? Because it only creates omnipotent brands that nobody cares about.
Instead I believe it should be built around a drama.
So how do we define a drama?
First, we need a character, a brand persona.
Second, this character needs to have a good side and a dark side.
The good side consists of qualities to look up to.
But why a dark side?
Because we need to see shortcomings so we can identify with the character.
Real people have flaws. No flaws, no identification, no relevance.
We also need bad qualities to create conflict.
Yes conflict. Because conflicts create feelings.
And feelings are the most effective way to move people. And products.
It leads to action.
At the core of every successful brand we usually find a struggle between two opposing forces. Small vs. big. No-frills vs. status. Risk vs. safety. Chaos vs. order. Good vs. evil. And so on.
Which brings us to the third property.
The character also needs a truly inspiring goal to strive for.
And more inportantly, it must stumble across obstacles along the way.
This leads us to two crucial qualities in the art of drama.
Suspence and action.
The two most fundamental elements in storytelling.
When our character manages to overcome its shortcomings, it grows in stature and becomes heroic.
Because all stories are built on some kind of valour.
Because people relate to each other and interact with each other through stories.
In short:
No identification without heroism.
No hero without challenges.
Challenges don’t appear out of thin air, they must be built on friction –
mostly the hero’s own problem.
Now, suppose you’re a tenacious control freak and want to manage the brand over time? (I’m sure your boss want to.)
Then the »Brand asset valuator« might come in handy.
Learn to separate »strenght« from »stature«.
Strength is built on a) relevance and b) differentiation.
Good stature comes from a) knowledge and b) esteem.
Want to know how your brand is doing? Ask these four questions:
Is the brand appropriate to you?
How well does it differ from the crowd?
Do you understand the brand?
What does it mean to you: do you love it?
If »yes«, you’re probably looking at a leading brand.
If »no«, it could be an unfocused brand, or a new brand.
And if it’s strong, but lacks stature, it’s likely a niche player.
If it’s weak, but with high stature, I guess you’re dealing with a declining brand.
Allthough I sometimes find this useful, I also think it’s a bit too technical.
Because I believe in the human connection. I believe in the power of drama.
I’m dead certain all brands have the potential to be a hero.
No matter if it’s a low-interest fmcg brand or a b2b ditto.
And I think I can prove it.
I probably will too.
Soon.

In this TED speach, David Byrne explains why we don’t just create things from passion, it’s also affected by the different venues where we present our stuff. He uses music and architecture as examples.

This ever-evolving artist argues that his musical performances in the late seventies and early eighties was developed by rough environtments like the CBGB’s, for instance.

David continues to demonstrate how different kinds of architectual venues influenced guys like Bach and Mozart. And he claims that it wasn’t the jazz that constituted the musical context, it was the other way around. This also applies to pop, which was triggered by the microphone – and the arena-rock, which was evoked by huge sports arenas.

Come to think of it, I bet this has been an idea in David’s head for a long time. Clearly there are resemblances to the concept behind his great concert film »Stop making sense«, from the eighties.

I’d like to elaborate on this a bit. In print advertising, for example, we tend to create ads and force them into different papers and magazines. Why don’t shift perspective and create each one of them in order to meet the requirements of every single placement? Like we always do on the Internet, mostly do with posters, and sometimes on tv.

This way I think we could accumulate power enought to actually meet the readers high expectations of the editorial content and the media itself, more efficiently. This way I reckon we could be able to tune in perfectly with the consumers ever-changing states of mind.

Just a thought.

Living My Life Faster – 8 years of JK’s Daily Photo Project from JK Keller.

Det här påminner mig om en gammal idé jag har haft länge och som jag har tänkt på då och då. Om jag hade barn (det har jag inte), skulle jag ha filmat dem en gång varje månad. Vid varje tillfälle hade jag tänkt låta dem få svara på en och samma fråga. En enkel fråga, typ »vad gör dig lycklig?« eller liknande. En fråga som garanterat kommer att förändras i takt med att barnet växer upp. Vid varje tillfälle hade jag tänkt filma barnet med exakt samma ljussättning och mot samma bakgrund. Sen på artonårsdagen, när barnet ifråga blir myndigt, var tanken att allt skulle sammanställas som film och överlämnas som present. Eftersom jag nu inte har några barn så har jag mest ägnat mig åt tanken som en lek. Jag gillar att göra så, för man vet ju aldrig, man kanske kan få användning av idén i ett annat sammanhang.

Nu såg jag på fejsboken att Kenneth Pilo – han som drev den populära sajten Bold, du vet – har hittat något liknande. Men här rör det sig om en kille vid namn JK Keller, som har plåtat sig själv varje dag i åtta år. Det sägs ju att det tar sju år för kroppens samtliga celler att bytas ut. Det betyder att du och jag inte är samma människor idag som då. Ändå är vi det. Fascinerande.

Kalla mig gärna naiv. Men jag tror helhjärtat på att det går att förändra världen med en annons. Jag försöker gripa mig an varje uppdrag med den inställningen. Jag kan väl inte påstå att jag lyckats förändra världen i sådan omfattning som Gutenberg eller Steve Jobs –  än – men jag har utan tvekan fått en och en annan att sätta kaffet i halsgropen, både en och flera gånger, och bevisligen fått många att le igenkännande. Det viktigaste är att fortsätta försöka förändra.

Det här är mitt senaste försök.

Jag skrev den nyligen på uppdrag av ett äldreboende för demenssjuka i Åkersberga. Lokaltidning. Minimal budget. Ingen tid för trix och fix. Det var brief ena dagen och materialdag några dagar senare. Jag kan utan omsvep erkänna att jag har skrivit vassare reklamtexter, men jag måste tillstå att jag gillar rubriken. (Klicka på annonsen. Och klickar du en gång till, blir den större.)

Om du inte har fått tag på boken än – den finns till exempel här, och här, och här – så kan du bilda dig en uppfattning om innehållet här nedan:

Mysteriet 8
De plågade 9
Hjältarna 10
Romantikerna 11
Drömmarna 12
Galningarna 13
Mystikerna 14
De blåögda 15

Var inte så vuxen 17
Skapande anarkister 18
Måste du följa reglerna? 19
Den berömda boxen 20
Den mentala orgasmen 26
Hoppsan! 28
De tre prinsarna från Serendip 30
Vad är meningen? 31
Och vad är problemet? 32
Var aktiv och ifrågasätt 34
Är det originellt eller kreativt? 36
Varför är det så svårt? 37
Intelligensfällan 39
Stackars Phineas Cage 40
Finta bort förnuftet 41
Känslor är handling 42
Känslor smittar 44
Mentala vädersystem 45
Lura kroppen att bli kreativ 46
Lyssna inåt 48
Lita inte på logiken 49
Gå och lägg dig 50
Sänk bruset i hjärnan 51
Var medveten om vad du inte vet 53
Är du realist eller idealist? 55
Var inte så närsynt 57
Fokuseringsproblemet 59
Den osynliga gorillan 61
Blockering av nya intryck 63
Släpp tron på fakta 65
Du ser vad du vill se 67
Tro inte att du är perfekt 69
Sluta kategorisera 70
Släpp kontrollen 72
Var inte så förbaskat tvärsäker 76
Genomskåda dina fördomar 78
Stenhuggarens dilemma 81
Klarar du det med ett streck? 84
Var inte så förmäten 86
Vågar du se det du inte vill se? 88
Förenklingar skapar trygghet 89
Myten om musan 93
Livets klåda 94
Omfamna hotet 96
Tre strategier 98
Varats tuffa villkor 100
Skapandets eviga kretsgång 102
Undvik mental inavel 104
Den kreativa musslan 106
Drömfabriken 107
Den skapande hjälten 109
Myter och kreativa suggestioner 111
Se skönheten i det fula 114
Skratta och lek 115
Ytliga lögner och djupa sanningar 116
Sluta aldrig att fråga 117
Lär känna din hjärna 119
Mata den 120
Motionera den 121
Koppla bort den 122
Två, små figurer i mitt huvud 124
Du är fantastisk 128
Men har du vad som krävs? 130
Konsten att tänka rätt 132
Hur bygger man en kreativ kultur? 134
Myten om fjärran närvaro 137
Myten om kollektivets kreativa kraft 138
Ge inte upp 140
Hur vet du när du har tänkt klart? 142
Lär dig att döda 144
100 kreativa frågor 145
Slutord 152
Sugen på mer? 153
Några kreativa ord på vägen 154
Litteratur 156

Har du kommit fram till vad bilden ovan föreställer? Utpräglat kreativa personer har förmågan att se gestalter i kaos. Resten får du räkna ut själv.