Filed under: Comment
Smug, but deserves to be
NP wrote an absolutely super post about Boris Becker this week.
In it, he say’s that rather than focus on his opponents weaknesses, he would play them at their own game – letting his confidence and ability intimidate/undermine the competition by overcoming the best that they could throw at him.
He continues to say that too much strategy is focused on weakness rather than taking on the competition at their own game and he’s absolutely right.
Of course there are some exceptions – but in the main, a lot of strategy is more influenced by what the competition are doing than the brand’s own goals and abilities – and when you take into account how much strat is influenced by the planners and clients own personal perspectives/agendas on data/life/business, you come to realize that much of business is about personal indulgence and/or fear, than embracing the true potential of an organisation.
I cannot tell you the amount of times I’ve had clients say to me, “That sounds abit arrogant” and yet I don’t know what’s wrong with that.
Surely it’s better to be arrogant than passive and pointless?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting arrogance is valid if there’s no substance behind it.
I remember being in a Virgin meeting where Mr Branson himself said to me, “You have to earn the right to be arrogant” and you know what, he’s right.
You see too many companies read ‘arrogance’ as rude … but if you are committed to doing what you say [and what people want] I don’t think they’d mind arrogance, infact they’d probably like to be associated with a winner.
Eric Cantona was hardly passive was he?
Steve Jobs isn’t exactly a wallflower?
Fuck, even Bono is known for being a rather ‘full-of-himself’ individual and I don’t see people walking away from them in their millions?
The thing is, arrogance is all about tone.
Che Branson by Pestkop
I believe there are degrees of it – and if you handle it correctly, I think it’s a bloody great attribute, and what would be better than taking on the establishment and winning?
Hell, what do you think Virgin do?
And the thing is, the people who think they are arrogant are the ones who are being beaten by them, not the ones benefiting from their actions.
OK, so I know you’ll come back to me and say arrogance and confidence might come from the same ‘family’, but they’re not the same – and you’re probably right – but then my response is one man’s arrogance is another man’s hero so I guess we’ll go round and round in circles on that, ha.
So here’s the thing, if a client of yours openly says they don’t want to be arrogant – explain to them what it could actually mean interms of brand value and their customer loyalty – and if they’re still scared, get rid of them because they have no intention of making a real difference in their category or their customers lives, and if they don’t want to do that, then what the hell are they dealing with you for?
40 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“the people who think they are being arrogant are the ones who are being beaten by them, not the ones benefiting from their actions.”
Exactly right, because if you’re right you’re not arrogant you’re just extremely self-confident.
Comment by John November 20, 2008 @ 7:09 amIn other words, you believe in what you’re doing.
Comment by John November 20, 2008 @ 7:10 amYou are absolutely right that it’s a matter of other peoples perspective whether you are displaying arrogance or supreme self confidence and that opinion is often based on whether you are benefiting or being undermined by the actions of that person/brand.
I think your last paragraph is brilliant, positioning arrogance as a trait of an “active brand” committed to a particular cause (ie Virgin, Google) is certainly a fresh way for companies to look at the “arrogance factor” and turns a negative trait into one with real merit.
Really enjoyed this post, good one Rob.
Comment by Pete November 20, 2008 @ 7:36 amoi pete arent you just giving “challenger brands” a new fucking name? or maybe its a case of a challenger brand that ended up beating the establishment at their own fucking game?
i cant be fucked getting into language symantics because frankly i dont give a shit but its a better post than campbell usually comes up with but that because northern wrote it, lol.
Comment by andy@cynic November 20, 2008 @ 7:46 amYou’re letting your brand brain show Andy because you raise a valid point, am I simply describing the traits of a challenger brand?
I possibly am but then you offer an alternative definition based on symantics and I think you might have hit the nail on the head because arrogance (from a brand perspective rather than a human one) tends to be associated with companies who have succeeded rather than companies who are simply trying to succeed.
Another potential difference between “challenger” and “arrogance” brands is that one of the traits synonomous with a challenger is they target a weakness of the market leader whereas what Northern and Robert are talking about are brands who take on the leader at their own game, focusing on their strengths not their shortcomings. (Which could mean that Apple are potentially more of an “arrogant” brand than “Virgin”)
Still, I like the idea that a challenger brand can be deemed successful when a market leader desctibes them as arrogant because to quote Robert, “one man’s arrogance is another man’s hero.”
Great post.
Comment by Pete November 20, 2008 @ 8:04 amplanners: making big deals out of little things since that fucker at jwt decided to label “conversations” as “planning”
nice to see you get all corporate toady towards me pete especially as you havent even fucking started yet but its not my brand brain showing its called having a chat, something youd find normal people do if you and your planning types pulled your collective heads out your fucking arses 🙂
Comment by andy@cynic November 20, 2008 @ 8:13 amI have so much to learn. 🙂
Comment by Pete November 20, 2008 @ 8:22 amOh my god, a debate from a post of mine [well, errrrm, NP!] that is actually delving abit deeper into the issue with SHOCK HORROR PROBE that inspiration kinda coming from Andy!
Andy stop underplaying how good a thinker you are . I know you want to be seen as the man who shouts insults from the rafters [images of the 2 grumpy men from The Muppets comes to mind] but many of us know the truth and wonder where this blog could go if you put the safety catch on your gob and offered your clever view rather than your potty mouth.
And no, before you say it, I have not been bullied by George to say this – which is all the more shocking to me really, ha!
Pete – I like where you’re going with this and I can see why by your/our/NP’s definition you’d say Apple is more an arrogant brand than Virgin – wonder what Lee’s point to that will be. Especially as he’ll be your client again soon, 🙂
Comment by Rob November 20, 2008 @ 9:24 amIf Pete’s definition of an arrogant brand is one that upsets a competitors market share dominance due to their ability to continually rally mass population endorsement, purchase and vocal support then that is a label I can live with.
Comment by Lee Hill November 20, 2008 @ 11:24 amDidn’t you read my previous post Lee, we don’t like 26,056 word answers when one will do 🙂
[Pete, reading between the lines I think Lee is saying that you’re not going to be working on his business unless you agree with his extremely concise definition, ha!]
Comment by Rob November 20, 2008 @ 11:33 amI agree with Pete that this great post presents a very valid alternative to the “exploit weakness” type of planning that is so dominant in advertising.
I love the idea a company should embrace arrogance (based on Lee’s carefully worded definition) but knowing how large corporations fear pragmatic statements, I think “confidence to win” is something they’d find easier to accept even though it loses something in translation.
Fantastic post so a big thanks to Northern. 🙂
Comment by Bazza November 20, 2008 @ 12:42 pmi’m going to be wildly unpopular and say how much i hate it when brands get anthropomorphic definitions… richard branson is “arrogant” because he has the balls to fly in the face of a fearful and safe market/public opinion. virgin is a brand that reflects that. virgin is not a person – even though i know it’s all cool and stuff to talk about brands as people.
sorry – i’ll understand if i’m not invited back.
Comment by lauren November 20, 2008 @ 1:03 pmLast para is super.
I’m gonna look at arrogant people with new perspective now 😛 Ha!
Comment by bhaskar November 20, 2008 @ 1:08 pmHello lovely Lauren …
Well we all know that you have one person who’ll agree with what you are saying …
http://www.robcampbell.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/can-people-stop-referring-to-themselves-as-brands-theyre-not-theyre-people …
but I actually think we’re all on the same wavelength because I absolutely agree that arrogance in a human is different to the potential arrogance of a brand. I just like NP’s sentiment that Becker didn’t focus on a competitors weakness but embraced their strength because ultimately that was the ultimate demonstration of their talent rather than simply refocusing the game.
Fuck me, even I don’t know what that last sentence means so maybe it’s me who won’t be invited back!
Comment by Rob November 20, 2008 @ 2:57 pmi concur
Comment by Niko November 20, 2008 @ 3:55 pmAgreed. Just takes a good brain to spot where on the Intelligence ——- Arrogance radar they should be.
Comment by Rob Mortimer November 20, 2008 @ 4:54 pmabsolutely spot on!
Comment by Niko November 20, 2008 @ 4:56 pmOh, and it was a very very good post by NP. I thought for a moment this post was going to be dissing him… I thought you’d had a moment of madness!
Comment by Rob Mortimer November 20, 2008 @ 5:02 pmencore!
Comment by Niko November 20, 2008 @ 5:07 pmHave a go at me if you want, I’ll just turn your strength into weakness.
Comment by northern November 20, 2008 @ 5:28 pmAnd Lauren, the thing about brand models is a bit like science models – like the ones of the atom.
No atom will look like a mini solar system with electron planets flying around (electrons behave more like clouds anyway), but the model is the most useful visual description of wha goes on.
The anthropomorphic thing is useful like that to me, brands are no people, but since people form relationships with them over time, it’s useful. At their best, a good ‘brand’ is shorthand for the collective consciosness of a company -a hive mind. On that level, a model of how the hive mind behaves is useful.
On that note, too many talk about what that hive mind is ‘like’ rather than what it ‘does’. Brand as verb is far more useful as far as I’m concerned
I don’t know if I do agree – I think it’s actually quite easy to spot.
Based on Lee/Pete/Andy’s definition, if the majority marketshare player starts referring to a competitor as arrogant, they are doing something right and if life carries on in all its monotonous glory, they’ve not. 🙂
Comment by Rob November 20, 2008 @ 5:34 pmI think the key Lauren is that there’s a massive difference from learning about the intricacies of ‘human relationships’ for a brand versus actually thinking a brand is human.
And NP, there’s no dissing, I told you I loved your post and if you still don’t believe it after reading this, then either you’re thick or I’m shit at writing.
Or both. 🙂
Comment by Rob November 20, 2008 @ 5:36 pmI think brand as a verb is the root of all the problems. It implies the imposition of brand values on subservient customers. When you brand cattle, you impose a superfical marker of ownership while having no impact on the DNA.
In fact, Becker is the antithesis of that – he became known as a great tennis player by winning Wimbledon (as a qualifier) before anyone had the opportuntiy to brand him as such. In contrast, innumerable british sports people are branded as great new hopes before they’ve done anything and subsequently flop because there’s little to back up the claim.
Comment by John November 20, 2008 @ 6:30 pmYou know Dodds, I absolutely agree with you – the soul of a brand/person is the key and the problem with too many organisations is they fly with the wind rather than have some elements that form the heart of how they approach every situation.
To be honest, this is why I like NP’s “anti-weakness” strat approach so much – many brands change who they are simply to try and exploit another brands problems, and whilst that can be a very successful strat, it can work alot better if a company stays true to it’s essence rather than has multiple personality disorder.
This is why Virgin works – the “Robin Hood of Business” IS in their DNA because it’s in Bransons so exploiting weakness is part of who they are but it’s not just any weakness, they are weaknesses that stop existing customers from truly enjoying the experience they get – be it the level of service and comfort to the regimented rules of the contract.
Comment by Rob November 20, 2008 @ 6:44 pmI disagree. What the fuck you gonna do about it?
Comment by Marcus November 20, 2008 @ 7:48 pmmarcus brown: 10 foot tall, bullet proof and wearing the english kit. do not mess with him.
Comment by lauren November 20, 2008 @ 8:27 pmbad luck marcus, youve just proved campbells point because while some of the wets on this blog may think youre an arrogant priok i think youre a champion prick and my opinion matters most.
id like to put it on record that auntie fucking george is wetting his knickers over this post. it seems its planners porn which shows what a bunch of sad fucks they really all are
Comment by andy@cynic November 20, 2008 @ 10:07 pmandy’s right you know…best not argue with him 🙂
Comment by Niko November 20, 2008 @ 10:33 pmstop sounding like a jwt bag carrying twat niko or you might find your teeth suddenly fall out and your nose starts to bleed like fuck
Comment by andy@cynic November 20, 2008 @ 10:52 pm🙂
Comment by Marcus November 20, 2008 @ 11:05 pmindeed mr brown..
Comment by Niko November 20, 2008 @ 11:07 pmIs it arrogant to believe you can make a difference through business? Is it arrogant to believe your company/brand can do better than an established leader? If so, perhaps I’ve misunderstood arrogance.
I think of arrogance as feeling/acting like you’re better than everybody else. It’s an individual thing.
Brand arrogance is a bit different. Because clearly some brands and companies are better than others.
Comment by Ryan Healy November 20, 2008 @ 11:10 pmis it arrogant to think i shit better ideas than campbell could come up with in a million years?
not if you ask the people who matter because they see it as fact not arrogance
what campbell is trying to say ryan is that companies should crave a competitor to describe them as arrogant because when that happens it means the fuckers have done something thats fucked up their marketshare.
he then bored us by saying when a brand beats the establishment based on the same idea its even better because when you take someone on at their own game and win its the ultimate demonstration youre better.
its all planning wank but being called arrogant by the once market leader means youre doing something right where in the human world it means youre a right fucking wanker
Comment by andy@cynic November 20, 2008 @ 11:53 pmand does anyone else think np looks like prince fucking charles in that photo?
or do i mean lester piggot? or a bald ken dodd?
whatever. hes not brad fucking pitt is he
Comment by andy@cynic November 20, 2008 @ 11:57 pmin the shed. still in the shed. and a bit tipsy. thought I’d just say hello to Boucher.
Comment by Marcus November 21, 2008 @ 2:12 amhello marcus you arrogant darling. lets play soon
Comment by andy@cynic November 21, 2008 @ 7:45 amFlying in the face of this is that old Avis ad about being 2nd best, or something like that. Humility worked quite well there
Comment by Tom November 21, 2008 @ 11:38 pmwhen that ad came out people still believed politicians talked truth rather than shit
Comment by andy@cynic November 22, 2008 @ 12:28 amDodds had hair when that ad came out.
Comment by Marcus November 22, 2008 @ 3:33 amOnly Andy and the government split his pay cheque when that came out
Comment by Rob Mortimer November 22, 2008 @ 6:53 am