I’ve pre-written this post so I have no idea how my first day at W+K went, but if I’m still in a job – then I am sad to say you can expect more frequent blog posts in the near future. However if they have realised just what they have done, then the gap between this post and next will be much longer as I will be selling everything I own to pay the bribes that stop me being sent to the middle of nowhere to make cheap kitchens or something.
Right back to the bollocks …
A few months ago I was in KL doing a workshop.
During a lunch break, I went to check out shopping centres – or more specifically – check out the people who go to the shopping centres.
In-between talking to anyone who was coming out of a shop carrying masses of bags, I just walked around to see if I could spot any specific retail differences between Malaysia and other markets … and while I wouldn’t say what I’m about to write signifies a unique take on KL window displays, it was enough to get me escorted off the premises by 2 security guards and then have them wait at the entrance to make sure I didn’t get back in.
So what was so bad that got me thrown off the premises?
Well to be honest, it’s all their fault because all I did was photograph quite possibly the ugliest shop mannequin I’ve ever seen.
This mannequin:
How hideous is that eh?
Of course the stupidly high forehead with the Hugh Grant floppy hairstyle doesn’t help – but putting that aside, the whole thing is just plain ugly.
The thing is, I can’t help but feel it’s supposed to be Eurasian.
Eurasian is obviously a European/Asian mix … however in Asian adland, it’s almost the defacto cast call for models.
Why?
Well because some believe it is a more ‘aspirational’ look for the people of Asia.
There’s that word again … fucking aspirational.
Aspirational heritage to go with aspirational clothes to go with aspirational gadgets to go with aspirational toilet paper … and yet nine times out of ten, the only justification the company has to explain their ‘aspirational’ label is they charge a fuckload of money for the product.
Yep … like ‘luxury’, the marketing community have completely bastardised and simplified the meaning of the word ‘aspirational’ to try and make themselves feel better about what they do while making the masses feel worse.
I have nothing against aspirational products … just like I understand there is [sometimes] a commercial benefit to communicating a lifestyle image that your audience finds attractive and desirable … but more often that not, there is no depth of exploration of this view, it’s executed as a simple “this costs a lot of money and so you will obviously want it” tone and manner and that just annoys the shit out of me.
Now here’s the thing … Asia does regard money as the root of all happiness – more so than possibly most other regions on the planet – however, this is also a culture with deep rooted values and beliefs and so many marketeers overlook that because they think by simply painting something ‘gold & red’ they have immediately achieved the goal of looking – and thus justifying – their high price point.
To be honest I don’t know who annoys me more … the clients who have this oversimplistic – and generic – approach or the agency/planners who happily go with it.
A long time ago, Freddie and I did some work for a truck engine oil that to this day, is some of the best work I – and I think Freddie – have ever done.
Again the client wanted it to be ‘aspirational & premium’ however rather than simply reflect the cliched ‘success’ image cues that you tend to see in 99% of all ads out here, we spent time to find out what these guys – Phillipino truck drivers – really aspired to and then found a way to link it all together.
The best bit was that our work didn’t just make these people – viewed as some of the lowest valued individuals on the economic scale – feel great about themselves, but it made people who were much, much, much more fortunate than them actually aspire to be more like these truck drivers.
Not obviously interms of economic circumstances, but interms of their honour, values and beliefs. Infact when the head of the oil company saw it – a man who has more money than Sorrell – he allegedly said,
“I hope I’m like that man”.
How amazing is that eh?
A billionaire Texan saw the values of a poor Phillipino truck driver as something he wished he had. We didn’t focus on what they had on the outside, we talked about what they had on the inside and those were way more aspirational than a new BMW 5 series, a sailboat or a fucking gold Rolex.
Which leads back to my point.
The mannequin in the picture above is – to my eyes – hideous …
This is not because it’s Eurasian … but because it’s a really badly designed Eurasian mannequin.
There could be a whole host of reasons for this:
Maybe it was designed by the Elephant Man … maybe it was bought from a warehouse that had a fire and all the faces went a bit weird … maybe it came from a ‘high forehead’ magazine shoot … but for me, if the retailer had done one of 2 things, it could have ended up much better and resulted in shoppers spending more time looking at the clothes rather than the head.
1. Stop thinking the people of Asia don’t regard anyone or anything from Asia as being attractive, aspirational or desirable.
This view that ‘the West is best’ is diminishing by the day – driven by things like technology & economy – and to think no one would buy anything that appeals to Asians is preposterous to the nth degree.
On top of that, using a Eurasian model isn’t clever.
You think people can’t spot you’re trying to be relevant and yet aspirational at the same time?
I know this is a region where myth & legend have a huge impact and influence on culture, but with the shift in society, the view that the order of desirability always goes:
EUROPEAN
EURASIAN
ASIAN
… is wrong, especially with the younger generation who now get far more influenced by the sort of people that the older generation would regard as a weapon of mass contradiction.
Sure, some categories may reflect this hierarchical order, but it is in no means a blueprint by which all categories, countries and [to maintain the ‘c’ theme] consumers follow … as many brands would see if they just looked a bit deeper. Or – in some cases – just looked.
2. If you’re going to do something, do it right.
I know it’s a simple mannequin but it matters.
If the person[?] wearing the clothes wasn’t important, fashion brands wouldn’t spend such outrageous amounts on people whose only talent is being a genetic freak with positive outcome.
If you really want a Eurasian mannequin, get one made – don’t go for the cheap as shit option – because people don’t just buy a single item, they buy all the things associated with it and if there is one element that is less than favourable, then you better hope to hell the other aspects of your product are hot shit or it’s going to stay in a warehouse than hang in a wardrobe.
I know … I know … this is another overlong, tangent-loving post that all stems from a photo of a bad shop mannequin in Malaysia. I am aware of that … but as much as it’s called a ‘cliche’ because there is more than an element of truth in it, it doesn’t mean there are not other ways to approach the task … ways that are just as relevant if you look deep enough.
I suppose the thing that really bugs me is that for as long as I’ve been in adland, I’ve always heard how agencies want to differentiate their clients brand from the competition … and yet, when they actually have the opportunity to do it, they go with the easiest option.
Oh sure, they claim all sorts of reasons why their ad is different to everyone else’s – but in the real World, most times you would be hard pressed to spot any sort of difference other than the brand name.
Maybe this is because agencies have cut their fees so low they need to churn ads out as quick as possible just to break even … or maybe it’s because the research clients commission is so superficial that it is impossible for anything new, interesting and relevant to come out from it … who knows – there’s probably a whole host of reasons and circumstances but surely it should happen more than it does, shouldn’t it?