Filed under: Comment
So it’s nearly Superbowl time … that time of year where the ad industry spends shitloads of their clients cash making very expensive ‘sponsored jokes’ to help them delude themselves it’s like the 80’s all over again.
Except adland in the 80’s wasn’t anything like that.
Far from it.
Anyway, last year … amongst all the ads that ran, one stood out.
Yes … yes … I know I’ve written tons about it over the past year and that I’m deeply and unashamedly biased – especially as the VW Darth Vader spot was lovely – but in terms of a commercial that actually represented the brand that was paying for it, I think it’s fair to say the ‘Born Of Fire’ spot was the one to beat.
While I don’t know what this years Superbowl will bring us, it’s fair to say that amongst the plethora of overpriced, over-celebratory endorsed slapstick pointlessness … they’ll be a couple of ‘Chrysleresque’ ads, because let’s face it, whenever something achieves the level of impact, awareness, coverage and sales that Chrysler got with that spot, clients often run to their agency and say “I want one of those”.
But while imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it does not automatically ensure the same level of success … which is why anyone who has a Superbowl ad running this weekend should have checked out this interview with Joe – the CD on the Chrysler spot – before starting their campaign, because in just 4 minutes and 22 seconds, he not only explains WHY that ad worked so well, but demonstrates a level of understanding and insight that would put most planners and media people to shame.
He’s a brit, which probably explains his cleverness … though I appreciate the way he moves his hands around could give the impression he’s an Italian suffering from an overdose of espressos.
Anyway, while he’s a creative, there’s a lot that planners can learn from his approach which is forget trying to come up with a load of fancy – yet meaningless – ‘yoda statement’ [ie: POWER FREEDOM or PASSION THINKING] and look for provocative, interesting and genuine view points that can move, change or create culture or attitudes.
Over to Joe.
PS: The title of this post comes from something Joe say’s in the clip, it’s more insightful than most of the effectiveness papers I judged last year. That’s why I believe great creatives are great planners … it’s just a shame that it doesn’t work the other way around.
Filed under: Comment
As I’ve said many times, I read a lot of magazines.
A lot.
Because it’s hard to get a lot of stuff in China – and I don’t find reading stuff on my iPad nearly as enjoyable, even if I often have no other choice – I have found that on top of all my usual [and unusual] titles, I am also devouring any magazine I can find in a shop … which in China’s case, is often a business title.
Fortune.
Bloomberg.
Economist.
Time.
Etc Etc.
Over the years, I have always checked these kind of magazines out, however as they’re now the only titles I can get in ‘classic paper form’, it seems I’ve started noticing what they say in much greater detail.
Without doubt they are informative.
Without doubt they talk about issues and subjects that relate to my clients and my job.
But on top of all that, they also all promote a way of life that is totally unconducive to health, happiness and family.
Take this article in Fortune:
[See it a bit clearer here]
I have no idea who this woman is – and without doubt she is highly successful – but does she come across as the sort of person you’d want as your Mum … or your wife … or your girlfriend.
Does she come across as the sort of person you’d want to be with?
Does she come across as the sort of person you’d want to be?
I’m sure there some bits that sound attractive, but I’m not talking about ‘bits’, I’m talking about how she lives her life in its entirety, each and every day … would you like that?
Don’t get me wrong, this is not some ‘women should stay at home’ rant – they’re countless articles where Wei Hopeman could be exchanged for some male executive – but the issue I have is the general attitude in all these magazines is that ‘giving your all to your job is the only way you can succeed in your job’.
Sadly that might be true.
I accept that maybe the people featured in these magazines are very happy with how their life is going … but wouldn’t it be nice if there were articles on successful people who lived a healthier, more balanced life?
I do find it interesting that so many execs leave jobs and say it was ‘so they could spend more time with their family’.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
If you ask my wife, she’d say I’m a bit of a hypocrite saying all this because – believe it or not – I work quite a lot and have done more travel in the last 10 years than some pilots [maybe] … but a healthy and happy workforce is as commercially beneficial to an organisation as a dedicated and effective workforce and the reality is that in many cases, these two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.
I hate that companies think it’s OK be able to call upon you whenever and wherever they like.
I hate that companies think they can veto your pre-planned holiday.
I hate that companies are starting to charge their staff to train them.
I hate that companies have created an atmosphere where going home at the proper hour means you’re not dedicated to your job.
I hate that companies act like paying you a salary means they own you.
That’s why I love that Volkswagen [albeit because of union pressure] have mandated that their work email servers are turned off 30 mins after official office closing time and will only be turned on 30 minutes before the working day.
Sure, that will only benefit some people [though it’s a lot of people] but I genuinely think that’s a brilliant move.
Is it enough?
Will it change anything?
Who knows – without doubt it might mean more of the working day gets taken up answering all the held back emails – but since when was answering emails when you’re at home part of the job?
OK, so for some people, it could be argued that their level of remuneration means there has to be a greater level of flexibility as regards their working hours … but even then it shouldn’t mean they have no ‘personal time’ whatsoever.
But what’s scarier is that there seems to be this attitude that EVERYONE should think and act this way, regardless of family circumstances, level of responsibility or pay.
Why?
Why do they think this is acceptable?
Believe it or not, some people feel a balanced life – be it with family, friends or just themselves – makes them as rich as having a bank account filled with gold.
Companies are forever talking about their ‘staff being their greatest asset’ but their actions seem contrary to this.
It appears they think a salary counters any personal sacrifice you make – or are made to make – on their behalf.
As much as Wei might be happy with how she lives her life … as much money as she might be making for herself, the bank and their customers … if I was thinking about joining them and read that article, I would run a mile.
Of course Citibank would think I’m weak, because they – like all bankers – think they’re all powerful, all conquering, super machines … but if they were that good, they wouldn’t have fucked up with the economy as badly as they did.
Mind you, they did also manage to convince Governments to bail them out so they could continue earning obscene salaries so maybe they are smarter than the rest of us.
But being smart isn’t as wonderful as being happy and living a lifestyle isn’t as rewarding as living a life and while business magazines have to talk about business, it would be good if they occasionally celebrated the companies and individuals who succeed with a more balanced type of life.
Sure, they might not be as rich as those who sacrifice all to ‘the commercial cause’ [though that is open to debate] but if the commercial value of a happy, rested, fulfilled employee was more greatly acknowledged and appreciated, maybe we’d start seeing more companies treat their workforce like an investment than simply an asset.
Filed under: Comment
Car ads are notoriously bad.
So many are either like shampoo ads [showing the same gleaming visual from different angles over and over again] or beer ads [basically a sponsored joke, probably relating to how stupid a man is or some other pile of sexist, low-rent, unimaginative twaddle]
They used to be so good … from Volkswagen to Rolls Royce … but now, apart from the odd exception, they’re all about as bland as their overall design.
In some respects, that should be good for the smaller car brands because there’s a real chance to stand out, but no … instead so many go for the same bland and boring approach as the big boys, as if they think by acting like them, they’ll be perceived in the same way as them.
I remember once being kicked out of a Hyundai meeting – and told never to come back – because I dared suggest they should be positioned as ‘the Robin Hood of cars’.
My basic premise was that the general public thought they were cheap and nasty and we could change this perception by suggesting they ‘borrowed’ their thinking and technology from the wealthy and well respected competitors and say this is what allowed them to build a great car at a fraction of the price of brands like VW, Ford or Toyota.
#Fail.
Instead they ran a campaign that said something like “$15,000 On The Road” and cemented their reputation as nothing more than cheap [built] metal.
OK, so I can sort-of understand why they would be pissed, but ignoring the ‘cheap metal’ label that had been bestowed on them wasn’t going to do any good either.
As we saw with that awesome Skoda ad [after VW had bought the brand], tackling negative perceptions head on can be far more powerful than simply ignoring them [ala my ‘unplanned’ view] though I do have to credit them for that great ‘give it back & don’t suffer the consequences’ promotion that they did in the US that drove sales even when the economy was keeping car buyers locked in their houses.
Anyway, I digress.
The reason for this post is that I recently saw this:
‘Inspired by what you like?’
Really?
As opposed to being inspired by what you don’t like?
Seriously, even their ‘Power To Surprise’ line – which was shit – was better than that bollocks because it at least hinted they accepted how people currently perceived them and that the reality was soooo much better.
OK, to be fair I do think it could be made to be interesting and intelligent, but given this is a brand that has paid Rafael Nadal a fucking fortune to appear in their ads, it appears they are purveyors of ‘the lowest common denominator’ approach to advertising.
Talking of Nada, do Kia really think that:
… people will believe he really drives one of their cars of his own free will?
… people will buy a Kia simply because Rafael Nadal appears in their ads?
I appreciate celebrity endorsement is very powerful – hell, I live in the region of celebrity endorsement – but that is fucking ridiculous.
Like Hyundai, I really feel they would be better off strategically if they tackled the issue head on.
Sure, that might make them nervous but if the goal of a car ad is basically to get on the ‘consideration list’, even if it’s just to ‘check it out’, that’s a damn site better than being in the position where people dismiss you before they’ve even seen or heard what you have to offer.
Again, I’m not talking about doing a bunch of overly rational ads, spouting off an endless list of features … I’m talking about pulling everything together under a single idea that takes the negative public perception and plays with it rather than sticking their head in the sand and ignoring it.
While I’m at it, can I complain about all these car positioning’s with lines like ‘POWER TO SURPRISE’ … ‘ENGINEERED TO EXCITE’ … stuff.
And I include those brands that say their line in a foreign language … especially a foreign language where you can’t tell what the fuck they are trying to say.*
Yes, I know it’s all a play on words associated with cars and driving experience, but in the main it’s all bollocks and completely undifferentiated.
Like so many of the new car designs that roll off the production line.
Seriously, the biggest thing most car ads tell you is how delusional – or myopic – the senior management of the car brand is.
Which is another reason why our Chrysler work is so good.
Oh god, I am digressing again aren’t I.
OK … OK …
So to KIA, please accept your brand realities because I honestly think that as soon as you do that, you’re on the road [sorry, couldn’t resist] to a much better future and that would be a lot more fun to watch than any of your current ads.
[* Audi is excluded from this, because they did it first and did it brilliantly]
Filed under: Comment
We often take our Mum’s for granted, choosing to either ignore – or simply not see – the numerous sacrifices they continually make to aid us in living a better life.
They ask for nothing and yet give us everything.
Just because they just want us to feel good about ourselves.
Happy.
Safe.
Content.
Comfortable.
As we grow up … develop … they are always there, looking on.
Living in a state of quiet, constant conflict.
There’s the undeniable sense of pride as the see us take bigger and bolder steps into the big, bad world …
But it’s always mirrored by a quiet sense of concern that along the way, we might experience or endure a pain that they can’t instantly whisk away.
With a kiss, a hug, a word or a plaster.
Mothers don’t want us to hurt.
Their protective instinct never fades.
They constantly and continually want the best for us and they’re selfless in that goal.
So next time you complain she’s treating you like a child, stop for a moment and remember this isn’t about annoyance, it’s about love.
And we’d be nowhere without them.
So thank you Mum.
For everything.