Filed under: Comment
… that companies use clichés to talk about their desire to develop innovative thinking/ideas?
Shift the paradigm
Think outside of the box
Jesus, if they can’t even think of a fresh way to express their goals, how the hell are they going to ever stand a chance of achieving them?
One of the worst offenders has to be Wunderman.
After making some truly awful generalisations regarding technology and people born in the 1970’s … they’ve now gone and cemented the fact they are about as creative, imaginative and relevant as Elizabeth Taylor by launching their new corporate identity …
Apart from the fact the font looks like it comes straight from Air Austria circa 1974 – that splodge is just plain weird.
Personally, I think it looks like a butterfly trying to shag a kids building block … or maybe the silhouette of some freak deer [while vomiting] … but according to Trish Wheaton [Wunderman’s Global Chief Marketing Officer] it represents …
“Wunderman’s new and refreshed brand identity bringing focus to our core proposition for clients and potential clients and provides each and every employee with a common articulation of our values and our vision”.
Sure it does love … sure it does.
Now putting aside the fact that this demonstrates how design justification is even more ludicrous than that of adland … what I want to know is what this means Wunderman’s value and vision actually are?
Does the purple represent they want to be a delicious [and successful] as Cadbury’s?
Maybe it means they think Prince is the God of midget-sized music?
Or it signify that they are ambiguous in their claims because that way, they can say whatever the client wants to hear?
Too be honest, I still wasn’t the wiser – especially when I spotted that their logo [or the squiggle outside the box] actually varied …
Because I’m a nosy bastard, I decided to find out what they were on about, so I called up a Wunderman representative and asked … and do you know what they said?
“It represents how Wunderman think outside the box”.
Case closed, point proved and despair achieved.
Filed under: Crap Products In History
GARDENS!!!
Who comes up with this shit?
Look, I like gardens as much as the next OAP, but to suggest I haven’t lived unless I’ve visited/seen 1001 of the bastards is pushing it a bit far.
No bloody wonder the book is on ‘sale’ – I mean, the only people who could [1] spare the time and [2] give a damn, are so bloody old that they’ll be pushing up daisies before they even reach triple figures of the suggested garden safari.
What next?
1001 Socks You Must Wear Before You Die?
1001 Coffins To Try Before You Buy [Which Hopefully Is Before You Die?]
1001 Prostitutes To Get STD’s From Before You Die?
The only reason to buy this book is if a garden-loving enemy of yours is on their death bed – because as you hand it over, you know their last living thought will be …
“Bollocks, my life has been wasted because I’ve not seen 1001 beautiful gardens”.
If someone buys you this book, smash them over the head with it because they hate you. HATE YOU!
If the publishers really wanted this book to stand a chance at flying off the shelves, they should of done a maximum of 100 Gardens, not a thousand.
A hundred is still be a lot, but in the weird minds of the green-fingered community, it probably represents a number that can be more realistically achieved – though if I was the publisher, I’d of also created the ‘Bloomin’ Beautiful Garden Holiday Tour’ and get garden fanatics to pay to be taken to maybe 10 of the gardens over a 3 week period.
Not only would this let them see the gardening majesty in the flesh [so to speak], they’d also get to share their holiday with a bunch of like-minded individuals – swapping tips, making friends and getting inspired for when they get home.
Well, that’s what I’d do anyway – especially because the book would then become more than just a reference guide, it would represent important and personal memories.
Filed under: Comment
So I was having dinner with my friend Doug Hart when I realised he bore a more than passing resemblance to Mr Love Marks himself – Kevin Roberts.
I’ve looked at the pictures for bloody ages and have come to the only conclusion that the only difference is the one on the right [Doug] talks more sense.
Well, he does when he’s sober!
So I was thinking, given I’ve been told I look like some freak from Harry Potter [thanks NP] and I have claimed Charles and Russell, Jon and Vince and now Doug and Kevin are one and the same – who do you think you look like and provide photographic evidence so your delusions can be smashed into pieces.
Filed under: Comment
In the classic mockumentary, Spinal Tap guitarist Nigel Tufnell say’s the reason the volume control on his Marshall amps goes up to 11 is because it’s “1 better” than amplifiers that only go up to 10.
Well it would seem that Toyota have been inspired with this approach because they’ve gone and made the volume control of their car stereos not go up to 10 … not even 11 … but ….
Talking of stupidity, have a look at their automatic gearbox.
Maybe they were adopting the same strategy as the QWERTY keyboard – trying to stop people accidently doing things that could damage the machine – but let me tell you it doesn’t work either practically or asthetically.
What’s going on with Toyota? Hell, the Japanese philosophy is ‘perfection’ so why they seem intent on letting the fuck-up fairy loose on all their hard work is beyond me.
No doubt some ‘business guru’ will claim they’re doing it because everything is too easy for them … but I’m not a business guru so I’ll just say it looks and performs like shit.
Thank you and goodnight.
Filed under: Comment
I’m back home for a few days which gives me a chance to have a think about some of the stuff that’s been going on in my/our lives as of late. [Not including having to put up with Andy at close quarters for far too long/often!]
To be honest, it’s all been very exciting – but rather than go on about that [mainly because there’s shedloads still to do] – I’d like to write about one of the key differences I’ve noticed between how an organisation like Google operates [especially in the area of ‘problem solving’] and adland.
Actually, I/we have noticed quite alot of operational/attitudinal differences so maybe over the coming weeks/months [time, confidentiality clauses and other things that get me ranting, allowing] I’ll detail a few more of them because there’s some massive learnings that I believe both organisations/industries could benefit from reading/hearing.
[Well, that is if you think my viewpoint has any validity at all – which we all know it doesn’t – so moving swiftly on …]
So last week we were sitting around with some of the Google folk when the subject of adland came up.
Putting aside that a load of geeks had the audacity to say people in advertising are out of touch [that comment is just for you Jonathan, ha!] I found it very interesting that they said the worst two presentations they’d EVER seen came from big ad agency networks/holding companies.
Apparently in both cases a bunch of big wigs had come in and talked about their ‘proprietary system’ and how it led to a bunch of their famous ads being created.
The thing is, the Google folk found what was being said weird – not just because they didn’t recognise some of the ads being called ‘famous’ – but because [1] they couldn’t believe the networks were claiming their system was unique when it sounded awfully basic [not to mention very similar to the one their competitors were bragging about] and [2] they couldn’t help but feel the agencies were talking about processes and systems because they thought it would help them ‘connect’ with the engineers in the room.
The thing is – and this is a lesson to any in adland who claim EVERYTHING has to follow a regimented, researched, all-encompassing process – Google don’t believe that one single process can solve it all.
Sure there may be certain elements within a task that requires specific processes to be adhered to, however when Google [or any engineer for that matter] tries to create something new, they tend to develop a process around the challenge, rather than make the challenge work within the process.
I know that sounds like common sense but have a think about how many agencies talk/think/act like that?
No wonder so many ad campaigns are so bloody generic!
In their desperate bid to be corporately relevant, adland decided to put all their eggs in the ‘proprietary tool’ basket [even though in many cases, the only ‘unique element’ is the name attached to their system] … and while some clients have ‘fallen’ for this approach, the fact every business problem is answered with ‘an ad’ shows just how out-of-touch they [and their proprietary tools] really are.
[Yes I know that at this point Google basically just live online, but [1] they’re still more imaginative than many in adland [2] they are still a relatively young organisation [3] I’m working on changing that, hence I’ve asked them to come up with ideas how the brand would/could exist if there was a Worldwide power cut, ha!]
The difference between Google and adland is that Google live by guiding principals rather than a single, regimented process – and whilst there are some agencies out there who follow a similar approach – the short-sightedness [or arrogance] of the big networks is becoming more and more apparent each and every day.
Sir Martin Sorrell calls Google the ‘frenemy’ … and he’s right, because on one hand they’re encouraging/forcing adland to raise their game and show just how clever, creative and imaginative we can be whereas on the other, they’re ready to take away our livlihoods if we continue to ignore the needs/wants/desires of clients and society.
Right, I’m off to spend abit of time with the wife so I hope you’re all toptastic and I’ll catch you soon …
[PS: I cannot tell you how great it is to meet people who can articulate why they don’t like something, clearly and precisely. It makes such a refreshing change from the usual, “I just don’t like it”]