livingbrands

10 things we didn't know before the 19th week of 2008

1. Kosher is not the word to describe the method of slaughtering animals which conforms to Jewish law - it's shechita.
2. Britons throw away 1.3 million unopened pots of yoghurt each day.
3. Punch and Judy puppeteers are called professors.
4. The duck-billed platypus's genetic code contains avian, reptilian and mammalian features.
5. No one knows how many adults there are in England with autism.
6. Foreign workers at British airports don't have to undergo criminal record checks.
7. Only 3% of London street robberies are solved with the help of CCTV evidence.
8. The song Waltzing Matilda was believed to be a socialist anthem.
9. Catherine Tate won the People's Choice Award at the 2005 British Comedy Awards, not Ant and Dec.
10. Flowers wave at passing insects to get their attention.

(Borrowed from the BBC)

Richmond Sausages - The People's Choice

1000 people have spoken in UTalkMarketing's weekly 'People's Choice' survey, and their choice this week is our new Richmond Sausages TV commercial. Nice.

As a 'conventional' (in a good way ) FMCG ad, this was never going to get ad-land excited in the way some commercials do. Indeed, it came in for a few vitriolic (and rather harsh) comments from industry types on Brand Republic ('horrendous' and 'appalling' according to some!).

But that's just following the fine tradition of people who work in advertising not always liking the same ads as people who don't. As UTalk point out - "it received 24% of the vote, placing it significantly ahead of the first runner-up, when participants were asked ‘which of the adverts made you want to buy the product or service advertised?'". And it is having a big sales impact, so there's a grain of truth in that claim.

What's also interesting, given the 11 sour grapes on Brand Republic (it's just an ad guys), is that, of the nearly 550 people who expressed an interest on the UTalk website (who must be also be marketing and advertising types), over 90% said they liked it.

But whatever people say, we're all happy. And so's the client. Which is the important thing.

10 things we didn't know before the 18th week of 2008

1. An LSD trip led to the invention of the vegeburger.
2. "Unlawfully laying hands on a cow with intent" was a crime in 19th Century Britain.
3. Colossal squid have the biggest eyes of any creature on the planet at a whopping 11 inches.
4. The most popular name for a pub is the Red Lion, with 756 such establishments across the UK.
5. The most common "combination craving" for a pregnant woman is pickles and peanut butter.
6. Inhabitants of the Greek island of Lesbos are known as Lesbians.
7. Humans can hold their breath for 17 minutes.
8. A severed finger tip can grow back naturally.
9. Residents of Sheffield have the worst tooth decay of people anywhere in Britain.
10. Children who attend daycare or playgroups are less like to develop the most common type of childhood leukemia.

(Source: BBC)

The world according to Lego

Everyone loves Lego: it is one of the unwritten rules of life. But 10 years ago I bet no one at the Lego HQ (now there's a nice image) could have foreseen that, come the dawn of Youtube and UGC, they would become a media of choice for amateur animators the world over.

I seem to remember the whole thing being kick started by the guy doing rather surreal takes on bible stories. Since then anything and everything has been retold in a Lego stylee, from Michael Jackson's Thriller to the post-modern classic of Lego doing Eddie Izzard doing Darth Vader (using Star Wars characters).

The only thing that comes close are the machinima films made using clips from video games, such as the Halo-based Red vs Blue. But these seem technical and difficult (which is probably why there's so little good stuff about), whereas animation with Lego has that air of 'I could do that' ease about it (even if that isn't the case). So much so, I'm surprised Lego haven't started to produce their own stop-frame animation kits.

Anyway, the latest thing to enjoy a Lego makeover is UK series 4 of the apprentice. Enjoy.

Episode 1...

Episode 2...

Episode 3...

Episode 4...

With more to follow I guess.

How much longer for disposable fashion?

There was an article in the Evening Standard last week, praising the delights of Primark. I was reading over someone's shoulder, so can't be certain. But one of the subheads went something along the lines of "so cheap you can wear it once and chuck it".

Now I'm all for affordable clothing (many genuinely can't afford the inflated prices of 'brand' clothes - this isn't some middle class snobbery...I hope!). And, personally, I'm positively allergic to high price 'labels'. But am I alone in thinking that shopping at Primark is like being addicted to some kind of fashion crack. Because no one (really, it's true) needs that many clothes, or to change them that regularly.

It's psychologically damaging, and just serves to reinforce the need, need, need...want, want, want...buy, buy, buy cancer destroying our society from within.

And have you ever stopped to think about the damage being done elsewhere. I don't want to point the finger without knowing the facts. But the clothes can't be that cheap just because they're rubbish quality bought in large quantities. Someone somewhere is bearing the brunt.

And yes, I'm sure it's all perfectly legal. But the law is ripe with shades of grey when it comes to human rights - as Dr Who said the other week, when told that us Brits don't have slaves: who do you think makes your clothes.

And even if the labour practises of Primark (and the other low cost retailers - it's not just them) are above board, even best practise (I wouldn't want to pre-judge!), what about the environment?

Those clothes we wear once or twice and chuck are using up nonrenewable resources at a rapid rate...and putting rubbish back in return. Because most people do still chuck clothes when they are 'out of fashion', or even if they're just board with them, rather than recycling in some form. Where other markets are (if only superficially) trying to be 'sustainable', fashion is careering in the other direction.

It can't last. A change will have to come. And not just in what we wear. Across the board we will have to switch from the suicide path of 'more, more, more' fuelled by cheap disposability.

But the alternative path of sustainability has many components - it's not just about businesses having a socially, morally and environmentally positive perspective. Or us complaining that they don't. We have to change our own lives - we can't have our cake and eat it when it comes to consumerism and 'doing the right thing'.

What was it the Ghandi said - be the change you want to see in the world. Culturally and psychologically, people need to change. We need to discover the joys of contentment; a sense that enough is enough. But that ain't easy, given the the cultural thrust of the last 50 years.

Which is why those of us involved with brands and comms have our part to play in helping change happen. Because, like it or not (and despite all the liberal hand wringing we now take part in), we have been (and remain) a big part of the problem.

10 things we didn't know before the 17th week of 2008

1. A mother's diet at conception influences the gender of her baby.
2. Elvis visited Britain.
3. Gordon Brown did not send a Christmas card to Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel or Russia's outgoing president, Vladimir Putin.
4. Staff at the BBC's Radiophonic Workshop were only offered six-month contracts when it opened 50 years ago, because the corporation feared the work would drive them mad.
5. There are 109 journeys between London's Tube stations that are quicker to walk.
6. Astronauts at the International Space Station must spend two hours a day exercising their legs.
7. The language of space is English.
8. The UK's most valuable tree is the plane.
9. Children are more likely to injure themselves falling out of bed than out of a tree.
10. A woman's chances of quitting smoking is linked to her hormones.

(Source: BBC)

FutureScoping 75

Just to let you know, the latest edition of my trends newsletter is now out: "emerging trends, new ideas and general thought stimulation"...or so it says on the cover.

Dove's Onslaught(er)

We've already had variations on Dove's Onslaught film highlighting the (some would say) corporate hypocrisy of Unilever owning Dove and it's positioning polar opposite Lynx/Axe.

And now Greenpeace are getting in on the act with their Onslaught(er) campaign, pointing out how Dove's need for palm oil is having a devastating impact on cultures in the developing world, and the same young girls they purport to care about in the West.

Now I think Dove's stance on our cultural skewed definitions of beauty is an important and valid one. And they are not the only villains of the palm oil piece. But they are a big, high profile target (much as Nike were when factory conditions first become an issue in the 90s). All of which again shows that you can no longer assume a distinction between brand and brand owner - they are one and the same thing.

If you're going to put yourself on a pedestal you've got to be bullet proof, because people will try and shoot you down.

SIgn up tho the campign here.

The stuff of life

Unsubscribe Me is Amnesty's campaign against state sponsored torture as part of the War On Terror (tm). As part of this, they are producing a series of short films. The second looks at waterboarding, and shows how the Stuff of Life can be an instrument of torture...

Maybe not quite as shocking as the first film, but still powerful stuff. Particularly it's use of advertising's style conventions to give the whole thing a harrowing gloss.

You can sign up to Unsubscribe here.

In the presence of greatness

Having been away on hols, I'm aware this may be old news to some. But I've just had my first up close and personal experience of a Banksy in the flesh - on the wall of the post office sorting depot in Newman Street if you haven't seen it.

Now I know he's become a bit passe; a member of the art set glitterati, rather than the urban street warrior he once was. And that, like the Masters of old, he may well have a whole studio of apprentice Banksies running around doing his work for him.

But it did send a little tingle down the spine to see a genuine cultural phenomenon in all its glory. And to see the sheer numbers of people stopping to look and take photos.

(And thanks to Lori for the loan. I only had my phone with me, and the picture I took was pretty rubbish)

The Men from the Ministry

At two previous agencies, I've enjoyed the privilege of working with the COI (essentially, the UK Government's marcomms department). Obviously, you have to park your personal politics and policy views at the door. But for anyone who believes that what we do can be used for the social good, you can't ask for a better client.

So it is with much excitement that I can announce that QS has secured a place on the COI's just announced Cultural Diversity roster, which has responsibility for black and other minority groups, including faith groups, migrants from new territories and subcultures such as urban youth, whose lifestyles, fashion and attitudes transcend ethnic lines. So an exciting area. And with the 'big' roster up for review next year as well, it's fingers crossed.

Anyway, we're all very happy.

10 things we didn't know before the 16th week of 2008

1. About 86% of fathers attend the birth of their children.
2. There is more crime in Glasgow than New York.
3. Vitamins can be bad for you.
4. To help break the bubby when a new ship is launched, P&O sometimes scores the bottle with a glass-cutter.
5. The brain makes some decisions 10 seconds before they become conscious thought.
6. bout 42% of hay fever sufferers think they have a cold.
7. Smells can drift across the Channel.
8. Belly fat creates more fat.
9. Scientists can control the brains of flies.
10. Bowleggedness is called genuvarum.

(Source: BBC)

10 things we didn't know before the 15th week of 2008

1. Ian Fleming never met the woman upon whom he based Miss Moneypenny.
2. Each year 40,000 people pay homage at the California garage where the founders of Hewlett Packard started out.
3. White people make up 90% of the UK's population.
4. Most popular musical instrument in schools? The violin.
5. Morgan Tsvangirai's surname is pronounced chang-girr-IGH.
6. Much of the time it takes to fully train as an RAF pilot is taken up with solo flights.
7. Fabio Capello rings his mother every day.
8. Rice was once considered so important in Japan that it was worshipped as a god.
9. 4.4m apples are thrown away daily in the UK.
10. Belugas are the only white whales.

(Source: BBC)

Search for the hero inside

Back in the early 70s prof Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University conducted what is now a famous (or rather infamous) psychological experiment: he wanted to see what made 'ordinary' people turn bad en-mass - the kind of behaviour seen everywhere from Hitler's Germany to Abu Graib, and all points in-between.

He placed college students in a mock 'prison', some as guards, some as prisoners, and left them to self organise. The experiment had to be stopped after only 6 days because nearly half the prisoners had emotional breakdowns as a consequence of the sadistic treatment they had to endure.

Zimbardo, who (rather spooky given his chosen topic) is a dead ringer for the old-school Master from Doctor Who...

...has since termed this tendency for unexpected collective evil the Lucifer Effect, an idea he develops further in a just published book.

I can't claim to have read it, but in the book he apparently posits that the mirror of the Lucifer Effect should also be true; that, in similar mass terms, we should be able to create conditions that frees the latently heroic in people - the collective Hero Effect. Which seems, to me, a much more interesting idea, and maybe where he should be focusing his future efforts.

We can see this almost spontaneous mass heroism stimulated by a common cause (the Jubilee 2000 human chain around the G8 to the marches against the war in Iraq) or when faced with large scale catastrophe (9/11 and the 7/7 bombings). But the key question is, how do you cultivate the hero when these catalytic conditions don't exist?

In previous generations we might have looked to the classic institutions to do this. But the school system doesn't seem well placed to deliver, for all the 'citizenship' lesson and teaching 'respect'. And joining the army or going to church are now minority activities, and ones often discredited for those on the outside. Nor, in our culture of fear and 'cotton wool kids', is such inspiration likely to come from within the family (most will be looking to keep those heroes locked up tight). There are plenty of self help books out there of course. But most of the heroes in these are essentially individualistic and selfish - the 'hero' lets you achieve what you want for yourself, rather than for the good of others (which is the effect Zimbardo is talking about).

How do you get everyone being heroic then? Pained as I am to suggest it (but obviously where I was going to end up given the nature of this blog), maybe the most likely candidates are brands, given the popularist power they wield. Nike, for instance, is already encouraging people to be heroes, albeit in the world of sport. What if they took that ethos into other areas. And I'm sure their are other likely candidates. Any thoughts?

Turn it up to 11

The BBC iPlayer is clearly one of the phenomenon of 2008 so far (at least if you live in the UK - if you don't, you're missing out!). And then you discover something that makes you think it's better still.

I was watching the finale of Torchwood season 2 last night (vast improvement on season 1; and a good ending). Fiddling while I watched, I turned up the iPlayer's volume. And guess what - it goes to 11!

A bit nerdy, but what a great touch. It's the little things that make the real difference!

Over egging the pudding

We had some cheese for supper last night. And without wanting to sound like the VO from an M&S commercial…

it wasn't just Emmental;

it wasn't just Swiss Emmental;

it wasn't just aged Swiss Emmental;

it wasn't just cave aged Swiss Emmental;

it was Tesco Finest cave aged Swiss Emmental.

And after that it still had holes in!

How did it taste? Pretty good. Was it better than 'ordinary' Emmental? No idea (but not significantly I would guess). And for all I know all Emmental may be aged in Swiss caves.

Why did we buy it. Because it was cheap. Or at least cheaper than some of the other 'nice' cheeses

Which all adds up to I'm not exactly sure what. Other than maybe to ask what is 'protesting too much' when it comes to premiumising product adjectives.

10 things we didn't know before the 14th week of 2008

1. Only 1% of parking tickets are appealed against, despite more than half of all appeals being successful.
2. The Romans were the first to introduce the image of Britannia to coins and it was reintroduced by Charles II.
3. Wild birds’ eggs have no monetary value.
4. Thalidomide is used to treat bone marrow cancer.
5. The Olympic torch is designed to withstand winds of up to 65 kms per hour and stay alight in rain up to 50mm an hour.
6. Its flame gets its own hotel room and is protected overnight by a flame attendant.
7. It costs $100,000 to hunt a rhino in South Africa.
8. The term "Killing Fields", used to describe the mass graves caused by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, was coined by journalist Dith Pran, whose story was the focus of the film by the same name.
9. The world’s longest-running factory in is Derbyshire.
10. Kids are 1cm taller than 10 years ago.

(Source: BBC)

When enough is enough

A maybe naive (but I would like to think positively idealistic) build/variation on my recent 'lefty' post, inspired a little by some of the comments that one received.

In thinking about whether free market proponents (or businesses in general) really practise what they preach, one thought that struck me (maybe simplistic - happy to hear a well argued alternative) is that many rely on what I shall call 'lazy competition' to succeed. Businesses don't really compete with each other in a 'red in tooth and claw', survival of the fittest sense. It's often more a case of (latent...because they won't see it this way) collusion, where they rely instead on out of control consumerism (and the ability to 'infect' developing countries with the same disease) to grow markets so that everyone 'wins' - you don't have to be fit to survive you just have to be playing the game.

But there are still losers (there always are), and that's those of us doing the consuming - all that 'extra' income we 'enjoy' because of economic growth is spent as quickly as we earn it, on things we don't really need, which provide limited (if any) incremental utility. And, of course, the environment doesn't do too well out of this arrangement either, as we eat up nonrenewable natural resources and replace them with, well, rubbish.

So what's the answer? I can't say that there's an easy one. Or rather one that doesn't involve apparent sacrifice (at least as defined by the economic rules we are currently slaves to). But maybe what we need to do is start looking for different models to work by, built around more socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable levels of growth (reminds me of this, which I wrote a while ago, comparing collaborative 'ecologies' to competitive economies); strategies of 'enough' rather than 'more' - because when you have enough, more rarely makes you any happier. In fact, it probably makes you less.

Yes, incomes would be lower, which I guess would be the main counter argument, but so would overall consumption - so net we may end up better off! Particularly as most of us, in the West at least, are now well beyond the 'enough' point, and into the diminishing...even negative returns of 'more'.

In this model, companies would also have to get back to proper competition (which is no bad thing, if harnessed in a social constructive way) - the 'free market' kind where you have to properly earn the right to receive my money…a right many good companies have earned (but a right too many have simply 'stolen' by being on the materialist consumerist gravy train of growth). This would be a 'people first' not 'company first' world where failure to earn my trust and respect would mean something more significant than succeeding less.

How do we get to this point? Again I don't know. For me (and I think this is where it gets very personal), I see it as an almost spiritual question, something that requires a paradigm shift in how we view the world, and our place in it. Others will have equally valid points of view, and effective strategies for change, and I would love to hear them.

But change will have to come, because where we are heading is unsustainable, self-destructive, and (irony of ironies) doesn't even really deliver the benefits to us the 'consumer' that we think we're buying into.

Coin of the realm

wwI'm not a designer, so I'll just have to say I like this, rather than give any clever reasons why...

New designs for the coins that will soon be jangling in the pockets of us Brits. In good modern fashion, the Royal Mint ran an open competition for these, that was won by young designer Matthew Dent. The focal point is the shield on the £1 coin, with details then exploded out on the smaller denominations.

Nice.

Feeling frustrated?

Then you need this. Enjoy.

Do you understand me?

An interesting piece looking at the difference between email and phone as a means of communication. Both sender and receiver view them equally, but correct communication is far greater by phone.

The reason for this Egocentrism. As the original research study says: "People tend to believe that they can communicate over e-mail more effectively than they actually can. Studies suggest that this overconfidence is born of egocentrism, the inherent difficulty of detaching oneself from one’s own perspective when evaluating the perspective of someone else".

Or, to put it another way, if the other person isn't actually there with you in a 'real' sense, you assume (probably wrongly) that they are thinking what you are thinking.

Makes you wonder how much better we would do if we ditched the virtualising and got back to good, old fashioned face-to-face communication between real people (he says, as someone who communicates a lot by email!)

The free-market paradox of company structure

(charles.hope)

As a bit of an old fashioned lefty, I've never been a big fan of unfettered capitalism and the uncontrolled free market, particularly where global trade is concerned (or any point, in fact, where the 'strong' meet the 'weak').

My problem is that, for all the theoretical purity of the arguments in favour of economic freedoms, what works in a textbook rarely works in practise.

Because the sad fact is that, ultimately, we all have a worrying tendency to be be selfish and self-serving. And in the free market, this tends to mean the survival of the fittest (for which read richest, most powerful etc.) in all the worst ways, rather than a case of 'floating all boats' (to quote an oft-used free market platitude). Basically, it's a system which favours those with the ability/power/resources to 'play' the system, breaking the 'natural' rules of markets in the process and bending (sometimes ignoring) those imposed by governments. All of which means that those at the bottom of the pile suffer as a consequence.

The problem is that, for me at least, this is all gut feeling (even if I know I'm right!) - I'm not a professional economist with all the arguments to hand. But because the free market meta-narrative is now so all pervading, and intertwined with that of 'democracy' and 'individual rights' (but not, obviously, 'personal responsibility'), everyone 'knows' it is good and right. And that to argue otherwise means you're a communist or some old school 70s trade unionist (and look what happened back then).

Which is why a small point in one of John Grant's recent posts on economics and the environment leapt out at me. In it, 'green' Economist Herman Daly draws a parallel between the freedoms nation states are expected to offer businesses to aid the workings of the market, and the controls those same companies impose on their own work force.

The argument was so simple and so obvious - a Homer 'doh' moment. Because if we are so convinced of the power of the market, why don't we run our businesses along similar lines - insisting on freedom of all information and all resources (rather than just that which we view as essentially disposable/easily replicable), and letting people within the business decide for themselves what they want to 'make', 'buy' and 'sell' (it's the 'freedom' we want to impose on developing nations after all…albeit heavily influenced by our view of what they should be 'free' to do). Because if markets work, clearly they must work everywhere. Otherwise there is an exception that proves the rule - that markets don't work perfectly.

But obviously businesses aren't run in this way. Many of the most successful are, in fact, as totalitarian and centrally planned as during the worst excesses of Stalinist Russia. And even the most modern and flattest in structure will have rules a plenty for people to abide by. It's just that when it comes to how these companies operate at a macro level, all the importance placed on control (strangely!) goes out the window. And the expectation becomes one of freedom (to do what I want and damn the consequences to others) all the way. Funny that.

So next time you're confronted by this attitude, ask the person in question when they're going to start running their own business along similar lines, if the free market is such an efficient and effective model.

If nothing else, it should make for an entertaining conversation.

P.s. just in case anyone wants to fire back the hypocrisy argument, I see no contradiction with holding this view and working in advertising ;-)

The problem with brainstorms

Ran what I thought was a rather productive workshop with a client last week, using a methodology that takes FutureScoping as its launch pad (slight plug...and on general release soon!)

The idea of it is to avoid this kind of brainstorming navel gazing nonsense...

...because from my experience: blank sheet of paper + 'now be creative' = lots of (wasted) time + ideas which are slight variations on what happens currently, because we are constrained by what we already know.

There has to be a better way!

10 things we didn't know before the 13th week of 2008

1. Up to one quarter of the sand on shorelines can be composed of plastic particles.
2. nakes can give you salmonella poisoning.
3. Barack Obama was known as "Barry O'Bomber" at school because of his basketball prowess.
4. Lions were kept in the Tower of London in the 14th century.
5. In Brighton and Hove, there are 46 takeaway outlets and sweet shops for every secondary school.
6. Sharks can be used to predict storms.
7. Italy produces 33,000 tonnes of mozzarella each year.
8. Somalia, ranked the third most unstable country in the world in a recent stability index, has eradicated polio.
9. Hillary Clinton, Madonna, Angelina Jolie and the Duchess of Cornwall are all distantly related.
10. Human beings can detect danger through smell.

(Source: BBC)

New Cadbury Dairy Milk ad

Airport truck racing is here.

More comment to follow, I'm sure. But this is just a vain attempt to try and be first :-)

(That 8.52 am GMT on saturday 29th March)

Brand inspiration

Some nice research turned up by Tom Asacker, showing that people primed with a momentary glimpse of the Apple logo are more creative than those exposed to the IBM logo...who are also less creative than a control sample.

All of which may be a little harsh on IBM who, objectively, are much less the dull and grey monolith they once were. But, as in all thing, it's the emotional response that matters.

So brands matter (surprise!)...at least when it comes to tricks with bricks.

And if your brand has real and potent meaning, which is about more than a set of adjectives in a marketing document, it can have a significant (if subconscious) impact.

The economic crash and burn

(Johnthurm)

John Grant has just written a couple of very challenging posts on the current state of the economy.

He argues (and I would agree) that we are living in consumerist denial and way beyond our means. And that all the 'choice' and 'innovation' we enjoy is as chimeric as the 'growth' it purports to fuel.

Basically, there's a strong case for it all going horribly wrong if we don't find a different model to live by.

It's not even as if 'choice' is the panacea of happiness it's often made out to be, as this TED talk by Barry Schwartz (he of the Paradox of Choice) points out...

Or as Borat takes 4 painful minutes to demonstrate (because it's always worth watching again!)...

Clearly, this economic crisis of over consumption is inextricably linked to the equally significant crisis faced by the environment (maybe that's an eco-mental crisis then?).

But because it's impact will be felt more immediately and closer to home by those of us in the industrialised West, maybe it will take this economic downturn/meltdown to trigger (voluntarily or otherwise) changes that have a positive impact on the environment.

Which fits with a recent New Yorker piece by James 'Wisdom of Crowds' Surowiecki.

And with some of the things I've posted recently about slowing down and living more simply.

All of which I must admit to finding a continual challenge, given what I do...and how I increasingly feel about doing it. Although what value is there in running away?

Maybe it's better to be a dissenting (if often compromised) voice speaking from within. 

Slowing down in a world built for speed

I definitely think there is something in taking things slow, which is why I will recommend having a watch of this talk by journalist and author Carl Honore, from Ted 2005...

Because slow is sustainable!

PS Sorry if you've seen this before! I managed to delete by mistake, so this is a repost. I've been having problems with the TED embedded video player (possibly a function of moving to IE7) - at least at my end, But this alternative player seems to work.

10 things we didn't know before the 12th week of 2008

1. An obituary for Captain Birdseye appeared in the Times in 1971.
2. Arthur C Clarke wrote story-lines for the comic-book hero, Dan Dare.
3. The Easter Act 1928 fixes the date for Easter but the law has not been implemented.
4. The average child's clothing costs are £600 a year.
5. Lhamo Thondup was renamed Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso when he became the Dalai Lama aged 15.
6. Sleepwalking is linked to sleep deprivation.
7. The CND sign is based on semaphore for N(uclear) and D(isarmament) but it also signifies human despair.
8. Having alcohol in glass containers in football grounds in Scotland is illegal.
9. Men eat more Brussel sprouts and broccoli than women.
10. The most frequently used term of abuse in schools is "gay".

(Source: BBC)

Celebrate the truth of who you are

One of the things we always say to clients is that they need to celebrate the truth of who they are, rather than pretend to be something they're not. Even when, on the face of it, this truth doesn't seem immediately motivating, or may even be 'negative'. In fact, these are the times you have to be most confident. Because it's a human truth that if you can't be confident in yourself, can't like yourself, everyone else will feel the same way.

Vespa, in Canada, have a good example of this. You may be able to pick holes in the execution. But the idea is good. Overcome criticism the brand faces (in this case that a it isn’t a proper motorbike) by celebrating the truth of what they're really all about (Italian-style lurve machines).

The positive but humorously self deprecating tone makes current users feel good (I'm guessing) and gives confidence-boosting (post) justification to those on the cusp.