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

I’ve been incredibly fortunate to work for – and with – companies that have been unwilling to sacrifice their beliefs for profit.

To some, that might sound foolish, but it’s not like these companies were on the breadline – by all conventional definitions, they were both successful and wealthy.

Sure, there might be the odd competitor who made more money than them … had a higher profit margin than them … had a better share-price than them … but whereas those companies had to continually chase and buy their audience, these companies had attracted a mountain of geniune fans because they had cemented their reputation as doing things with quality, flair and care.

What bothers me a lot today is this attitude that profit and quality are mutually exclusive.

That you can’t have one without the other.

In my mind, so much of this has been driven by 3 factors:

1. The rise of accountants as CEO’s.
2. The reliance on share price for bonus.
3. The quarterly obsession of the stockmarket.

Despite brands like Apple and Dyson showing the commercial benefits of longer-term thinking and an unrelenting commitment to high standards … more and more companies are forgoing their longer-term potential for the sake of a few more dollars today.

Don’t get me wrong, I know how important money is.

I know how vital revenue and profit is for an organisation.

But for many companies, it’s not a case of profit or loss, it’s a case of obscene profits today over great profits for the long term.

Years ago I wrote a paper for SONY stating their obsession with hoovering up every possible dollar from their customers wallets could lead them to losing their entire fortune.

In it I basically said that the pressure they were putting on their R&D department to develop new technology [to drive continued revenue growth] was leading to them releasing sub-standard, unreliable products and if they continued down this path, their brand would start to suffer because their reputation for innovation and quality would be severely impacted.

I think SONY’s current situation says it all.

Without doubt, speed is a competitive advantage.

But so is quality.

People say you don’t remember who came second, but I’d counter by saying history is littered by people and companies who have prospered by taking a too-quickly-launched idea and making it right.

I’ve said it many times but for all the talk companies spout about the importance of ‘strategy’, it all goes out the window the moment they see a short-term, high profit opportunity.

Look, I’m all for making money.

I’m all for being filthy rich and successful.

It can make amazing things happen.

It can engage, involve and change the actions, behaviours and opinions of millions of people all at the same time.

Sometimes.

But the thing is, advertising’s effectiveness can only truly be evaluated when it appreciates and involves a whole host of other disciplines … from sales and distribution through to retail and product development.

Now this is nothing new – nothing new at all – but I still am shocked and appalled how few people in adland accept that, let alone appreciate it.

I cannot tell you how many meetings I’ve been in over the years where adfolk have talked as if they – and they alone – can change the World by the power of what they do.

It might be a bit better if they were at least open to other disciplines within the advertising community, but no.

You get direct marketing people who think all a client needs is direct marketing.

Digital people who think all a client needs is digital.

Creative people who think all a client needs is a beautiful 30″ ad and double page spread. Shot in Paris.

Media people who think all a client needs is a good media plan – which more often than not, is as similar looking to the media plans they used to churn out before digital was even a twinkle in the eye of Microsoft, let alone Google.

But frankly, that is not good enough.

Advertising’s power comes when it works WITH – not against – other specialities and many of those are outside of traditional marketing channels.

Understanding the role distribution has on a result is often ignored or arrogantly dismissed.

Appreciating how sales teams need to ‘sell in’ to retailers is too often regarded as ‘not their issue’.

Looking at how people buy – let alone when – is viewed as ‘below the line’ stuff.

Rubbish … rubbish … rubbish.

Apart from the fact these should be basic pillars of the process, the creative opportunity that stems from understanding and respecting these people/disciplines/circumstances and situations is unbelievable.

When we had cynic, we had some of the best case studies an agency could ever wish for … stuff that showed our commercial effectiveness through imaginative approaches … and literally, 80% of these had nothing to do with a traditional ads whatsoever.

We used to love ending our pitch by saying,

“Lot’s of agencies claim they solve business problems with a media neutral approach, but we think we are the only ones that can consistently prove it”.

And it worked. A lot.

At least with the clients who weren’t tied to traditional approaches because their remuneration model could only accept that.

[This ‘pitch’ changed when we started Sunshine and the wonderful Lee @ Virgin said, “media neutral is still media, I want things more independent than that”. Top point]

Look, it’s not just adlands fault, there are – amazingly – many marketers who either ignore the needs of their wider corporation or take so many of their points on, that they can’t offer a clear and consise objective for the goal that is required … however given adland is struggling to maintain it’s value and relevance, blindly ignoring the factors that can literally help us be successful [and more importantly, prove it] seems sheer utter madness.

Then again, it could be because when things go right, adland hates to share the credit and is only programmed to ever share the blame.

So many people talk about wanting opportunities and challenges that really push their creative intelligence and skills and then expect them to be handed to them on a plate.

I understand that, it’s human nature … however given we actually never know when our time is up, all we are doing is creating a situation where we allow regret to blossom.

A while back a nurse wrote an article about her experiences looking after the dying.

After years of service, she had been able to compile what the ‘5 biggest regrets of people on their death-bed’ were …

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself.
2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.
3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.
4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.
5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

Now I don’t know whether this is a true reflection of what people really think in their dying days … but something tells me there’s a lot of truth in there.

The tragedy of life is that it appears we only see – or embrace – the things that are truly important, once we know the end is near.

OK, so not everyone is like that, but if you were to look at those 5 regrets right now, how many – being brutally truthful to yourself – could you say you are living without compromise.

Of course, it could be argued that life is one big compromise … and maybe that’s true … but if you were told you had a year left to live, how differently would you be living your life?

If you can say ‘not a lot’ … then I am envious of you.