142: Leaping to AI tactics, again
Dear Sydney creative brief, a Tom Waits show, Meta's SAM2 model
It feels like lots of marketers are leveraging AI and Creativity in odd ways. First there was OpenAI, then Toys “R” Us, and now Google. If you haven’t, give Dear Sydney a look. It’s received a fair amount of criticism.
Meanwhile, as Sydney airs, Google is also running a mix of “Olympic athlete uses Gemini” ads on TikTok. Some of those clips are better than others, but at least they aren’t so strategically confusing.
UPDATE: Google has pulled Dear Sydney from airing.
Let’s imagine the Dear Sydney creative brief
The tactical premise of Dear Sydney appears simple enough: In a voice over, Dad says he uses Google’s Gemini AI to help his daughter write a letter to a famous athlete, while we see training footage of the daughter juxtaposed Olympian hurdler Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone. Here’s Dad’s main script (minus the camera comments):
“My little girl’s always been a runner, just like me. I’ve always thought she was following in my footsteps. But lately, she’s been looking up to someone else. She might even be the world’s number one Sydney fan. And like Sydney, she’s focused on her technique. She wants to show Sydney some love, and I’m pretty good with words, but this has to be just right. So, Gemini, help my daughter write a letter telling Sydney how inspiring she is and be sure to mention that my daughter plans on breaking her world record one day. She says, ‘Sorry, not sorry!’”
This seems innocuous enough until you ask:
Is this how Google thinks we should parent now, by abdicating the effort to write something important to its AI?
The kid looks old enough to be able to write. Why is Dad inserting himself in the kid’s initiative—specifically the writing part? (He could be helping figure out how to find Sydney’s mailing address.)
Was it necessary to position a Black father as the person who needs the help of an AI to ensure their words would be “just right?”
Given the diverse realm of “kids writing to heroes,” why did the letter need to be “just right?” Wouldn’t any message be just right?
One of my favorite steps in a creative process is to ask, “What are five reasons why this might be the dumbest idea ever and could blow up in our face?” I mean, it’s not always fun but it is really illuminating if you’re candid. And, if you work through that question in depth, you can A) better protect an idea as it moves through various layers of approval, B) learn a lot about why the idea is “right,” and works well. It’s a form of due diligence that gives ideas strength, or helps address weaknesses before they become liabilities.
We’ll never know if the Dear Sydney team asked themselves these types of questions. But we can try to walk the cat back to discern a theoretical creative brief.
1️⃣ What’s the business issue this ad seeks to address? As expansive and encompassing as generative AI appears (see McKinsey, Salesforce, Adobe), we’re still in very early days of adoption. Or as Benedict Evans puts it, “most people played with it once or twice, or go back only every couple of weeks.”
I’m betting Google looked at repeat traffic, saw a lot of initial Gemini trial but not “enough” return volume—then looked at their Capex spend on AI and said, “Hey Marketing, we need more people using Gemini more often to justify the investment.” Good news, this is why advertising and Team USA Official AI sponsorships exist. I have no issues with this (theoretical) business issue.
2️⃣ Who’s behavior are they trying to change? This is where things begin to get confusing. The ad copy would lead you to believe Google is targeting parents (“my little girl”), who maybe lack self confidence (“I’m pretty good with words”) and/or are heavily invested in their kid’s athletic pursuits.
I’m curious how Google landed on parent as the archetype for an increase in AI use. So I asked Gemini, “Which type of person uses generative AI tools the most?” and “parent” wasn’t in its list (but the task of writing was). One assumes Google has lots more data than I about the best persona for targeting increased AI use. And yet, Parent seems an odd choice compared to, say, Harried Business Person, or Entrepreneur.
3️⃣ What’s the actionable insight / big idea? Is inner mettle the most actionable insight? Is generative AI best experienced as a confidence builder? I mean, I have used it to help me solve linguistic challenges, so, maybe? Boosting confidence worked for Snickers, after all.
But linking the role of parent with the capabilities of generative AI is where things seem to have gone south for Google. You can image a team telling themselves, “Dad feels more confident because of Gemini.” And maybe if he was writing his own letters, or applying AI to his work, or a task he alone needed to solve we would be applauding versus scowling.
I think Dad’s emotional situation was the wrong place to root an insight.
Instead, I think there was greater power to be leveraged by the (near) impossible athleticism of the Olympics—a source of intrigue and drama for us mere mortals. This is where their slate of TikTok videos shine. The question posed to Gemini could have been the child asking, “how could I become the next Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone?” I wonder what Gemini might recommend to parents to help their family gain the most knowledge or perspective from the Games. Seems a waste to just name check an Olympian.
4️⃣ Budget, Timing, Mandatories, etc. I’m sure they all exist, but have little if any impact on this conversation.
Then, of course, there’s the interpretation of the brief. The idea itself.
“Hey, what if Dad asks Gemini to help his daughter write a love letter to Sydney? And we’ll show how Gemini helps get the words just right.”
They could have walked far away from the brief, if there was one in the first place. Who knows how it all came together, but I can see a world where the Team USA connection offering up Sydney drove the entire effort. So getting the love letter written “just right” is really a nod to corporate sponsorship. Google wanted Team USA to feel loved, so an insight, casting and dialogue were less significant details.
In the current realm of generative AI advertising, leaping to tactics seems to be the norm.
Minneapolis News
🥁 🎙️ If you’re into the music of Tom Waits, you don’t want to miss Jake Endres’ A Tom Waits Revelry at Crooner’s on Saturday, August 10 at 8:00 p.m. I’ll be sitting in on drums. Jake totally nails the persona. It’s going to be a blast.
📻 🧑🏼🦼➡️ Many thanks to Minnesota Public Radio’s Ellie Roth for illuminating the story of my son, Felix Neptune, earlier this week. The station’s Changemaker series celebrates Disability Pride Month.
Creativity + AI Update
🌊 📸 Jérôme Brouillet’s photo of Olympics surfer Gabriel Medina. 🤯 It’s a story of skill, experience and luck.
🤖 Brand strategist Luis Garrido created a GPT with his resume. I can see a future where more of us enable “conversation” with our online portfolios. This is akin to Seth Godin or Scott Galloway enabling AI chatbots of their entire writing output.
🤖🎥 Meta has launched a demo of its Segment Anything Model 2 (blog post, demo website), which uses AI image recognition to solve a real challenge in video production—namely rotoscoping. What used to take hours if not days now takes seconds. I uploaded a video of my son Felix throwing a frisbee ring. SAM2 could 1) identify the ring as a distinct element, and 2) isolate it in every frame of my video, and 3) attach effects to the isolated element. Here are two output examples. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it empowering and indicating an amazing future? Yes. TikToker Coffee Jesus agrees.
That ad was such a turn-off! It nearly made me want to retire my usually curious and early-adopter self, along with all my AI bots. Talk about a buzzkill!