The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Of course some of this status has been achieved by things that occurred outside of the brands direct influence/control [the ‘Acts of God’ as I like to call them] but still, when you take into account that it’s not the best bike in the World … nor the most efficient … nor the most practical for daily urban use … you realize how powerful the emotional value of a brand can be in overcoming more rational obstacles.

Given this consistency in brand approach/identity, you’d think this is one of the most carefully managed brands in the World but I don’t think it is …

OK, so the actual product has been pretty stable in its execution over the decades, but there’s been more than one occasion where – like Ferrari – they’ve fallen into the [ego] trap of licensing.

Don’t get me wrong, licensing can be a fantastic way to create new revenue channels as well as extend the presence and awareness of a brand, but when you sell your name to anyone/anything, you are in danger of fucking up the long term value of your brand just for the sake of a couple of quarters heightened profit.

[I know I’ve said it before, but I never understood how Harley – a brand that represents ‘freedom’ – could go out and put their name to a range of bloody watches given they’re a device created for ‘time management/awareness’. Talk about a complete clash of purposes!]

Before people start slagging me off for being a purist, I’d like to point out that I think I’m far more intune with the demands of brand and profit than many in Adland … however strategy is there for a reason and whilst there has to always be a degree of flexibility, it shouldn’t mean you can go off and do something directly opposed to the companies direction/philosophy just because you think you can make a couple of extra bucks.

I think one of the reasons this sort of thing happens is that brand managers spend such a small amount of time in their job before moving on and doing something else.

I believe the average length of time for a brand manager is 18 months which means they will either [1] do nothing different because they don’t want to be known as ‘the person who fucked up’ or [2] they do lots of things different because they want to be known as ‘the person who made big changes’.

Of course there are strengths and weaknesses to both of these characters, but it would seem the guys currently running Harley fall into the latter, because they have just launched an ad campaign – admittedly in image-obsessed Asia – which makes the licensing of a watch look practically sensible compared to this shit …

No, it’s not the visual I’m upset about – though that is pretty crap, especially as the image of the brand is often driven through iconic imagery tapping into the ‘freedom’ essence – it’s the copy of the ad that bothers me most.

Let me re-type it for you …

“You’ve taken over the helm of companies, assuming countless roles in the span of your corporate life. But none are as exhilarating as taking the helm of a Harley Davidson Softball Rocker C [TM].

When you experience the strength of its drive. It gives you a sense of freedom that changes you. And once you’ve taken the seat on a Harley, that’s when you realize that it’s not a position, it’s a privilege.”

Holy crap, who wrote this shit?

Apart from the fact it’s been written using some of the worst [and most pretentious] grammar since Yoda … it just is so off bloody brand.

Yes, those 2 horrible ‘planner type’ words that are the scourge of every creative – but in this situation, absolutely appropriately used!

Now whilst I’m sure some planner would like to argue a life of freedom is a life of privilege, that’s not what this ad is trying to say … if it was, they would not of talked about things like ‘taking over the helm of companies’ or ‘corporate life’.

Corporate life?

Harley Davidson?

Jesus, they’ll be talking about how their bikes have storage capacity for a set of fucking golf clubs next.

It’s bad enough they put ‘TM’ after the product name, but to blatantly link the brand to ‘white collar management’ is beyond fucking belief. It just smacks of a company going after sales regardless of the implications, and whilst cash flow is vital – especially in these economic times – to basically turn your back on the essence of your brand is nothing short of scandalous … especially when the positioning they embrace is about as polar opposite to what Harley is about as you can get.

Of course the fact is a load of Harley owners probably are CEO’s and accountants – lets face it, they are the only fuckers who can afford them – however by actively bursting the bubble of illusion, delusion and unspoken truth that has kept that brand prospering for decades, they are acting in a way that is probably going to be more beneficial for their competitors than their own brand.

Is it me, or is that the ugliest, laziest looking ad ever?

Hell, the web address looks like it’s been written in that comic font! Jesus, and you thought impact was bad.

I sort-of feel sorry for Malaysian Airlines.

Not only are they in an industry that is under immense economic pressure, they are also in direct competition with their countries nemesis [and greatest major airline in the World] Singapore Airlines.

Seriously, it must be like being Brad Pitt’s ugly brother!

It gets worse …

When I flew with the airline recently, I went into the lounge to get some food [yeah, yeah – I know, what a ponce] and as I walked in, I came face to face with the highs and lows of brand delivery.

Lets start on a positive shall we?

[Only because it’s nice to end on a negative, haha!]

In the front of the lounge is a putting green.

Now as much as I hate golf and hate people who love golf, I do appreciate quite a lot of people feel quite differently about that sport – especially clichéd businessmen – so I can see why this is a nice touch and probably gets quite a lot of people talking.

Of course – like most airlines [VA excluded of course, ahem] they don’t cater for people like me – the golf hating, none-car driving, suit burning tee-totaller – but that’s a gripe for another day.

Anyway, because I needed to catch up on a few things, I went into the computer room and it was here I was faced with an experience that doesn’t just make me regard Malaysian Airlines as a 3rd division player … but makes me question almost all aspects of their business, including their planes safety record.

Can you see what it is?

Well the above pic is of their computer desktop and if you look carefully at the bottom left hand corner, you will see that the START button of their Microsoft machine comes from the Windows 95 software.

Let me say that again.

WINDOWS 95!!!

We’re in 2008 … they’ve launched Windows XP and the uber-frustrating Windows Vista since then.

We’re talking over 10 years of technical software developments and yet this airline – this brand – decides it is fine to put this on computers that their supposed higher end customers will use.

OK … so you could argue that many of these people will have their own laptops and so will never need to venture into such a room – but that’s a crap argument, because if that was the case, why have the room at all.

It might not seem much – but that simple little act made me question everything about Malaysian Airlines.

How old is the food?

How modern are their maintenance techniques?

Like I’ve banged on for years – a brand is much more than just ads or big PR stunts – often it’s the little things that can make the biggest difference to a customer, which is why an ad that looks like it’s been art directed by Stevie Wonder and a computer that has software even a local prison would turn down is unlikely to make a seasoned traveler look positively towards them and worse, unlikely to convince them to spend their cash flying their airline over a more overtly contemporary competitor.

If you want a successful brand, maybe it’s worth starting from the ground up – because the top down mentality tends to focus on areas that suit the companies ego rather than the customers rational and emotional needs.

Two short planks

First of all, click here: T E S T M Y B R A I N/

Yes Paul, it’s nice and all that – but surely if you were a clever sod, you wouldn’t order your pizza from Pizzahut.

Guess this is what happens when creatives try and do their own strategy 🙂

As far as I am concerned, the creative brief is evil.

That’s not just because they are partially responsible for some of the World’s truly horrendous advertising [with the majority of the blame going to the guys who wrote it, agreed to it and worked off it] but because they have this ability to continually undermine my confidence and get me questioning everything I’ve ever done and will ever do interms of communication.

You’d of thought that after all the years I’ve been doing this, I’d be quite a dab hand at knocking a brief out, however I’m not and there’s 3 reasons for this …

1/ You should never just ‘knock a brief out’ … infact, the writing of the brief should be the middle part of the whole brief writing process because thinking/conversation and deliberation should come way before any words hit the page.

3/ The best creative I’ve ever been involved with has come from multiple and varied conversations, never a piece of paper.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the importance of a brief – not only does it give the client something to ‘sign off on’ [which means in theory they can’t object as long as it meets the previously detailed criteria] but it ensures creative consistency as time, creatives, agencies and client change … however I don’t mind telling you that I find them bloody torture.

Of course part of the pain is that you have to get a shitload of info down to single page – or a couple of sentences – and whilst there is always the temptation to write everything in a really small font, that isn’t really going to get you a good end result.

Saying that, I don’t agree that there should be a defined process to how a brief is done/written – it’s all about adapting to how the team operates, so you get the best out of them.

My view – which I accept might be founded on the fact I don’t like writing formal briefs much – is that as long as the fundamentals are covered, and there’s been breadth, depth and rigor in the development – you should be able to approach it in whatever way is the most effective and interesting.

It is because of this that I’ve adopted all sorts of methods of briefing …

From watching the Dam Busters and listening to Vera Lynn/Iron Maiden records for Tango to taking creatives to chat with single 30-something ladies for VB [This is a stealomatic for the ad/new positioning we wanted to make [with Angelina Jolie!!!] after ‘Stubby Symphony’ but couldn’t because of ‘corporate political issues’. It still needed work – the endline wasn’t quite right for a start – but hopefully you get the idea, especially if you’re an Aussie], my attitude is anything is possible as long as there’s a purpose behind what is being done… because planning shouldn’t stop when the creative development starts.

Of course Andy thinks I do this because I want to either [1] share the glory and/or [2] share any possible blame … but he’s a cynical ol’ bastard because the real reason is I know collaboration can make more of a difference than isolation.

[I mean collaboration in the real sense of the word, not the sort of brainstorming ‘love-in’ where all ideas get equal credit even when they’re total shit]

One of my favourites was when I worked on Guinness in Australia.

The brief was to basically try and help Guinness have a direct association with Australia Day – in other words, make an Irish brand, Australian without looking overly contrived.

Hmmmmn ….

Anyway, when we stated looking at the 2 places, we saw a lot of similarities …

Both are part of a family they’d rather not be part of.

Both have a load of English in them.

You get the idea …

So what we wanted to say was basically ‘Every Aussie has a bit of Irish [ie: the spirit of the Irish] in them and Guinness helps let it out‘ – and to ensure this idea really got across to the creatives, we did this …

For those ignoramuses out there who don’t know what this is – it’s [a very bad version] the Aussie flag – however instead of the Union Jack in the corner, it’s the Irish flag.

Whilst I know the creatives would have got what we were talking about without this visual proposition, it helped get their brain ticking in different ways and it led to the creation of County Bondi, where Guinness basically took over Bondi Beach and gave away promotional that took Aussie Icons and Irishified them. [which we created for them]

I’m not really explaining it very well – and sadly I have no visuals of what we did – but what I can say is that Guinness sales were the highest they had ever achieved [and by the end of the year, they had achieved their highest ever sales in Australia], they sidelined a bunch of competition that had been getting closer and closer to them over the previous few years and they generated more publicity [every media channel covered the event] than the value of their annual communication budget.

I guess what I’m saying is that you should use a creative brief rather than a creative brief using you – because if you approach it just interms of ‘filling boxes’, you can’t blame the creatives when they say they have little to inspire them.

Well it’s just dawned on me that ever since our little Latino babe became an Ice Cream Ambassador, she’s morphed into a frumpy, middle aged soccer Mom …

BEFORE

AFTER

Coincidence? I don’t fucking think so …

If I were her hubbie, I’d be suing the hell out of Magnum and getting her down to Weight Watchers pronto.

OK … OK … so she ‘claims’ her weight gain is to do with her role on the program “Desperate Housewives”, but regardless of that, it’s hardly great for Magnum given her fat face is all over the gossip magazines while her once svelte like bod promotes their high-fat pleasure

Goes to show that celebrity endorsement requires more exploration than simply aligning with a [once] pretty face.