Filed under: Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Community, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Experience, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relevance, Reputation, Stupid, Talent, Technology
AI is one of the most talked-about subjects – not just in adland, but all of business.
As I’ve written many times, I think – when used properly – it’s ability to open-up doors and possibilities is revolutionary.
Not just commercially, but from a human enablement perspective.
However, too few companies like it for that reason … instead they’re excited by its ability to ‘optimise’ profits at the expense of hiring employees.
We’re hearing more and more companies getting rid of junior positions – either ‘outsourcing them’ to lower-cost nations [which sounds bonkers, given they’re already the lowest cost in an org] or simply replacing them with AI bots.
This is not pie-in-the-sky … it’s happening right now.
Hell, recently I met someone who’d recently left university who had applied for over 100 jobs at different companies despite having just spent 4 years studying full-time trying to learn the basics of how to get into it.
I find this reprehensible.
+ How is there going to be a future of any industry or company if we don’t let juniors come into the business?
+ How are companies going to evolve if they don’t let the energy and ideas of the young, shape their ideas and thoughts?
+ Why is it always junior people affected when not only are the C-suite, the best paid, but whose decisions and actions tend to be the easiest to predict. [Even more so when many ‘outsource’ their responsibilities to an external ‘for-profit’ consultants]
+ Why are their clients not kicking up a fuss when they’re literally ensuring the demise of their future customers – even though we all know the real reason why.
+ While I’m at it, why do companies expect their people to be loyal to them when so many are literally trying to delete them?
While I appreciate AI is still in its infancy and that even then, there are some incredible things it can do … in the realms of our day-to-day business, its core adoption appears to be focused far more on speed and volume rather than personalization and possibilities. And there’s nothing wrong with that except for the fact many AI models are aggregators who take source material and then promote the most balanced response. There is value in that … except when you are trying to develop value in your own originality, craft and specialization.
Said another way, the approach many companies and people adopt for AI is ‘short-cutting their way into commodotisation’.
As I said, it doesn’t have to be this way.
AI can be used in a multitude of ways to avoid this very outcome.
But in this fast-paced, instant-gratification, short-term-thinking, ego-promoting world … the emphasis of value is seemingly placed on the creation of noise over melody, which is why this comment about ‘the worst of AI’ [ie: what many companies adopt because the people authorizing its use don’t know/care about how it really works or the implications of it] hit me hard and should hit anyone who reads it in a similar way.
“Everything is a summary of something else. Bits regurgitated, vomited from someone else’s throat, then stirred and mixed together to reach that fluorescent level of flatness, the shiny turd of craft that lies in promptly created art” – is next-level viciousness. [In fact, I’ve not heard something spat out with such venom since Queen’s ‘Death On Two Legs’ lyrics]
And yet they are not wrong.
Maybe they’re pretty one-sided in their view, but given what we’ve already seen and seeing – especially from certain tech-leaders who declare they have the answer to making everything better, regardless of category [which always seems to come down to: ‘use our tech and no one else’s because we’re the best’] – not wrong.
Of course, we all like to think we’re the exception to the rule.
That we’re doing it right and everything else is what ‘other people do’.
But the question we need to stop and ask when using AI is this:
Are we playing for a better future or down to a personal convenience?
Sadly, only AI can probably answer that objectively … and that’s only until the people behind it realise they need to stop any possibility their business plans and ambitions could be undermined by revealing the truth of its blind adoption.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cliches, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity
I recently saw this wonderful clip of Hans Zimmer talking about the soundtrack to the movie Interstellar.
I don’t just like it because of the story he tells, but how he talks about the music representing the ‘heart of the story’.
For all the ad industry bangs on – or has banged on – about storytelling, it seem to have forgotten what that actually means.
Far too often we talk about it in terms of a format rather than craft.
Tickboxes rather than nuance.
Disctation rather than imagination.
It shouldn’t be a surprise because this is the way the whole industry is going …
Immediacy.
Blatant.
Simplistic.
Overt.
Complicity.
Egotistical.
Now of course I appreciate a movie allows more space and time to tell a story than an ad, but storytelling seems to have become a lost art in our industry – regarded as superficial, rather than powerful.
Of course part of this is because we – as an industry – have sold creativity so far down the river, we like to pretend we’re ‘serious business people’ and so spout ecosystems, processes and practices while forgetting the commercially valuable and powerful skills we actually offer which is solving problems in creative ways that can capture the imagination of society in ways that pull people to us rather than rely on bombarding them with rational messages over and over and over again.
While our industry has never had the monopoly on storytelling, it seems crazy we have been so happy to walk away from it, even if so much of it has been driven by clients and procurement departments who have decided the only thing people need to know for them to make a fortune is the repetition of a logo and a single ‘brand asset colour’ … even though ironically there’s arguably less differentiation and aspiration in categories than at any point in the past 30 years.
Don’t get me wrong, there a lot of value in marketing practice, but what is being adopted these days is less practice and more pretending.
Going through the motions of over-simplistic dot-to-dot thinking that not only leaves everyone ending up in similar places, but encourages the relinquishing of responsibility from the very people who are paid to be responsible for where and how a brand grows.
So while I’d be skeptical of anyone who claims storytelling is the most important ingredient in brand building, I’d be even more worried about those who don’t value it, understand it or appreciate what you need to be good at it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Distinction, Diversity, England, London, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Reputation, Resonance
One of the things I have loved about living in so many countries is that I’ve been able to see and experience different ways of living.
I don’t just mean from an economic perspective, but in terms of what a country or city values and how it expresses and encourages that through its architecture, planning, facilities and people.
However, over the decades – as economies have grown – more and more of the individual spirit and character of cities has been replaced with identikit skylines, resulting not just in everything looking familiar, but feeling it as well.
Now I appreciate for some, this is a great thing … the creation and demonstration of social progress and achievement. However when everything increasingly ends up looking, feeling and acting the same – regardless of geography – not only is the magic of discovery being traded for the convenience of familiarity, the soul and history of every individual city is being erased and whitewashed over.
I say this because recently, as I was walking around Auckland, I saw this:
The bit that got me most was that first line …
‘All these upgrades are turning our city grey’.
And they’re right.
Don’t get me wrong, Auckland is a beautiful city and a great place to live … but what is being classified as ‘improvements’ is ironically having the exact opposite effect.
The colour, character and contrasts of Auckland are being wiped out … traded out … and moved out … slowly turning the entire City into a comfortable and convenient prison cell. Except instead of this cell keeping people from getting out, it stops people from wanting to come in. Not because there aren’t things to do, but because they are the exact same things, with the exact same people as everyone else is experiencing.
It’s part of the reason I loved the London Underground on Friday evenings.
Because despite it being packed. Despite it being hot. Despite people not really making eye contact, let alone talking to you … it was like a brilliant zoo. Full of different animals hanging out in each others environments.
People going to the theatre.
People going home from work.
People going out for a big night.
People going to do a night shift.
People going on a first date.
People going for a last meal.
Locals … out-of-towners … tourists.
God I loved it … I loved the variety, the weirdness, the characters and chancers.
Or said another way, the pieces that not only give a place its soul and identity.
But also its individuality.
Brands … specifically those who outsource who they are to a ‘for profit’ marketing practice process, should take careful note. There’s a lot of you. Even though it’s increasingly difficult to tell you from one another given you all look, act and feel the exact same.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Complicity, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture
At a time where our industry seems to value – and talk about – capabilities more than creativity, I can’t help remember something a wily, old client of mine in China once said to me:
“Just because you have the best piano doesn’t mean you can play the finest music”.
The reason why this is especially pertinent is that – as someone who is older than the planet and has worked pretty much all over it – the one thing I’ve learned is the very best clients don’t get seduced by hype, headlines, PR releases, agency models and processes, panel invites, network configurations, the promises and claims of ‘the power of the network brought together under one roof’ … they believe the work does the best talking.
Given we – as an industry – have always talked about the importance of communicating benefits rather than features, this shouldn’t be a surprise and yet, it’s happening more and more often. There’s a bunch of possible reasons for why this is happening, but I can’t help but feel some of the main ones are we’ve forgotten who we are, what we do, and what is valuable about what we create – which has manifested in us making choices and decisions that make us feel smart, but – as Lucille Ball once said – not very clever.
Of course, there’s a lot of clients – and agencies – who don’t care, or don’t have the talent, experience or knowledge to recognise what quality, craft or even a sustainable, distinctive, differentiated brand even means or looks like … which is why we will continue to see a bunch of them burn down their own house down while proclaiming to have the best chefs in town.
Sad.
Especially given the people running these orgs tend to be the ones with the loudest voices saying they ‘understand business’.
Though to be fair they do, it’s just that it’s the ‘demolition business’.
As the old adage goes, ‘anything is easy if you haven’t got to do it’.
And too many people in positions of authority don’t. And never have.