Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Business, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Embarrassing Moments, Finance, Grifting, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Scam
Scams.
They’re bloody everywhere.
SMS. Email. People knocking on the door.
There seems to be three types …
The hopeful … which is sending the same thing to tons of people and see if it will stick.
The too-good-to-be-true … which is promising untold riches for a fraction of investment.
And the invisible … where it has been so well planned, you may not realise it’s happened until its happened.
While I understand how the latter works – having once been a victim of it – it’s amazing how often the first 2 do.
Part of that can be down to blinkered greed.
The belief we’re all ‘special’ and while friends may think it’s a scam, they stick with it as it reinforces what they’ve aways felt about themselves.
Until it doesn’t.
The other group are people who are desperate – whether financially or lonely – so they take part in a desperate bid to escape their own personal hell.
So while its easy to laugh at people who we think have been stupid, the reality is there are always mitigating circumstances that add to the scammers success.
And nothing shows how successful the crims are by their exaggeration. Look at this …
For just NZ$400, you can get a ‘guaranteed’ NZ$7800 every month.
EVERY MONTH … where do I sign?
But the scammers aren’t completely stupid, so they’ve added a picture of Elon Musk.
Now whether that’s because he’s super rich or is OK with losing billions – as demonstrated with Twitter – is anyone’s guess, but given they’ve bought a ton of ads all over Facebook and other social media channels means they think it makes what is one of the most ridiculous financial investment promises in history, legitimate.
And you know what, it seems it has … which is a great reminder for the marketing community that while customers are often much smarter than we give them credit for, they rarely adopt the logic we like to think/claim they do because ultimately – and here’s the big reminder – they buy for what they’ve need, not what we want them to need.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Prejudice, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Succession, Toxic Positivity, Trust, Truth
I appreciate that at my age, the title of this post may suggest I’m going to whine about companies overlooking people of a certain age for younger, cheaper, hungrier individuals.
I’m not. I get it.
Not only that, while age and knowledge have some level of interconnectedness … I’ve met countless young people who are bloody brilliant [not relative to their age, just bloody brilliant] as well as plenty of people with ‘experience’ who, frankly, aren’t.
What I’m talking about is the blinkered confidence some companies place in their people simply because they’re their people.
On one hand I suppose I should celebrate it, given its not that long ago that companies overlooked internal capability for the external shiny and new.
And while this post does not reflect any of the clients I specifically work with directly, I am seeing and hearing more and more companies go to this other extreme and worse … enabling a level of arrogance in their people that results in any objectivity they face – regardless of the knowledge and expertise of the person delivering it, let alone the desire to help make things more successful – as a threat.
Complicity is the name of the game these days.
Blind acceptance that whatever the person ‘in charge’ says, is right.
A belief internal employees are better informed about every topic than people who are experts in specific topics … so companies can feel great about themselves.
Of course, the issue with this approach is that when things go wrong – or don’t go right enough – everyone else gets the blame. Not just by the person in charge [which you almost expect] but by the company they work for, despite the fact the only reason they gave this employee the project is because they knew a bit more about a subject than senior management, so they saw them as [1] an expert in the field and [2] a cheaper option that bringing in external expertise.
Now you’d think the fear of this outcome would ensure people would stand up for what they believe is right.
Not because they’re arrogant, but because they know their experience and knowledge can disproportionally benefit the end result.
And some do. At least the really good ones …
But even they are under increasing pressure to go along with the whims and wants of certain people/companies … because the whole industry is seeing more and more work being handed to people and companies who simply say yes to whatever is wanted.
Or said another way, convenience and fawning is more valued then expertise, knowledge and standards.
Now of course, it’s human nature to believe we can do more than we actually can.
We all like to think we are ‘special’.
We all like to be acknowledged as important.
We’ve all heard the ‘fake it till you make it’ philosophy.
But the truly special are the ones who know that however good they are, having people around them who are better than them – in different fields – can make them even more effective.
It’s why the World’s best athletes have coaches.
It’s why the World’s best musicians have producers.
It’s why my brilliant ex-NIKE/FFI client, Simon Pestridge, said: “middle management want to be told they’re right. Senior management want to know how they can be better”.
The reason I say all this is that I recently reached out to one of the best organisational psychologists in the World. They work with the CEO’s of some of the most respected and successful companies in the World including Apple, NIKE, Ferrari and Electronic Arts to name a few.
This is what they said when I talked to them about what I was seeing:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“I call them professional imposters and the reason so many succeed in corporations is because they target other imposters. It becomes a co-dependent relationship where they ensure their ego, status or promotion opportunities won’t be challenged.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To be honest, I was not shocked by their view, I was more shocked by the acknowledgment.
Of course, I probably shouldn’t be. It’s hardly a new phenomenon and we also had one of the most successful shows in TV history shine a light on it …
Succession was a celebration of the role of co-dependence and complicity within organisations.
As I wrote recently, Tom was the epitome of it.
But this post is about Tom before he ‘won’ [even though he is still a pawn to the real power] … this is about Tom when he just wanted to please to win favour. Where he thought nothing of being vicious and vindictive to those beneath him because he knew that didn’t just please the people above him, it let him feel he was above everyone around him.
And so Tom eventually gets promoted beyond his capability …
Where the illusion of power and external fawning is more important to him than pay checks.
Where his belief is he is superior to all, regardless of knowledge or experience.
Where his understanding of situations is the only understanding of a situation.
Yeah, it’s bleak. It’s fucking bleak. Because while Tom was fiction, Trump got to be President of America. And what makes it worse is we all see it. Hell, we’ve probably all been exposed to it. And yet it goes on.
If companies truly want to be great, then they’ve got to kill and stop rewarding toxic positivity … because value will be revealed when they allow more people to say no to them and they say yes to more people.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Business, Innovation, Insight, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Product Mentalness, Planners, Planning, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
I recently read the credentials of a design/branding company who said their processes ‘guarantees’ to be effective.
GUARANTEES!!!
How the fuck do they do that then?
Unless they’re literally buying-up whatever it is their clients are selling, there is no way they can guarantee that … even if they have more data and knowledge than God.
Which means they’re talking utter shite.
Or – at best – aiming so low with their goals, that it means whatever they do is pointless.
But what is scary is clients buy this rubbish …
They buy into a proprietary systems – that often are only proprietary because of the name they have been given – and believe it somehow has the power to dictate how people think, feel and behave.
I am not saying we can’t have a good understanding of what is likely to happen.
I mean, that’s literally my job.
But increasing the odds of success and guaranteeing them are very, very different things.
This obsession with the process rather than the output of the process is one of the major issues companies are creating. Wanting to control every detail to such an extent that what comes out the other end is far more a reflection of their ego than the opportunity they can embrace.
Martin and I talked about this at our Chaos talk at Cannes for WARC back in 2019 … but it seems to be getting even worse.
Which leads me to this image I saw recently …
Of course it shouldn’t need saying that it’s correct …
But I have to because there’s companies out there ‘guaranteeing’ success.
Process is important … it serves an important role.
But as I said, too many people look at process development in isolation to what it is there to enable … and that’s when it all goes to shit. At best you end up doing similar things to your competitors. At worse, you end up with stuff that serves no value to your customers.
Now I get the allure of best practice.
Of following what others have found to be effective.
But the thing many forget is best practice is past practice … or said another way, it’s adopting a process that is looking backwards rather than ahead.
And while adding new elements adds a dimension of the unknown to what comes out the other side, the irony is its those who are willing to fail who are the ones who will end up creating the standards everyone else will end up following and chasing.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Bank Ads, Business, Customer Service, Emotion, Empathy, Finance
This has been a week of big posts. And tomorrow is going to be mega-big … as I’m going to be away for a couple of weeks and given there’ll be no posts, I have a lot of stuff I need to bang on about before I get on that plane.
I know … I know … the thought of that fills you with dread [me too, to be honest] so to make us all feel ready for that nightmare situation, I thought I’d write something a bit smaller … a bit lighter. Albeit it revolves around identify theft. Specifically mine.
You see a few weeks ago, I received this:
It was real.
Apparently someone had got hold of my NZ Credit Card details and was attempting to buy stuff with it in the US. Specifically DoorDash food.
Personally, if someone is going to steal credit card info, you’d think they’d spend your cash on something massive and ridiculous … and certainly not something where you can easily trace where they are by simply following where their food is being delivered. I’m almost insulted to be honest. I remember the good, ol’ days where my credit cards were used to buy computers at Apple in NY and – best of all – tickets for the Orient Express.
But I digress … because in this situation, the bank noticed straight away and shut any spend down before they could go to extravagant.
So far, so good.
Understandably they wanted me to call them to confirm information … so I was just about to dial when I noticed their fraud departments ‘opening hours’.
I must admit, my first reaction was that it felt a bit strange.
Surely a fraud department would be open 24/7? Ready to respond.
But no.
Worse, as all this happened at 9:30pm on a Friday evening, I was in financial no-mans-land.
To be fair, when I called them the next morning, they were very helpful – but then they informed me that my card was now blocked forever and it would take approx 5 working days to get sent a new one.
Five days.
And just as I was about to plead with them to speed it up, I suddenly realised that this meant I wouldn’t be able to buy any more wifi/gadget trash off instagram. Given in the previous week, I’d purchased an ‘ink stamp’ of my cat, a wi-fi/automated Rubik’s cube and 500 stickers of Nottingham Forest … this was an act of mercy.
Which leads me to this.
Banks have a bad reputation.
A lot of it is entirely justified.
But sometimes – just sometimes – you feel they’re actually being proactive and it feels shocking. Good shocking … but still shocking. Maybe they should try it more often, they may be amazed what it does for their reputation and loyalty.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Strategy
Not too long ago, Campaign – in the UK – asked me for my point of view on Byron Sharp and the obsession with brand assets etc.
Specifically, they wanted to know if I felt he was hindering creativity as well as making it harder for small business to ever stand a chance of breaking through.
Now I have some issues with Mr Sharp’s character, but if I put that aside to answer the question, I said this:
First of all, I don’t think Mr Sharp wants to kill creativity.
From my perspective, he recognises its value far more than others in his position. If I’m going to talk about who is undermining the power of creativity, I’d say it can be aimed far more at the companies who outsource all their training needs to the same few individuals because it’s easier and cheaper for them to do.
God, that’s started off controversially hasn’t it?
The reality is what Mr Sharp says isn’t wrong, it’s just not the one-size-fits-all approach that so many seem to have interpreted it as.
And that highlights what the real problem is for me: conformity over possibility.
Or said another way, the modern equivalent of ‘no one got fired buying IBM’.
Look, I get it … marketing is expensive, complicated and influenced by a whole host of factors that you can’t control, so if someone say’s “this will stop you making stupid mistakes”, it’s pretty compelling.
But the reality is not making stupid mistakes doesn’t mean you are ensuring success. Worse, blindly following these rules creates a real risk you will commodify yourself … looking, talking and behaving just like everyone else. Let’s be honest, you don’t have to look too hard to see that already happening …
And that’s my problem with terms like ‘brand assets’ … they’re talked about as if you can buy them off the shelf.
Simply choose a single colour, add a logo and some category cues … then sit back and count your billions.
But people are confusing visual distinction with brand value.
Sure, being recognised in some way helps … but it only becomes an ‘asset’ if it has meaning built into it and to do that requires distinctive and deliberate acts, actions and behaviour over time.
Or said another way, you don’t ‘create’ a brand asset, things become a brand asset.
The industry is continually looking for shortcuts.
I get it … I really do … but the irony is the thing that can deliver so much of this, is the thing the industry continually tries to diminish or control.
Creativity.
At its best, creativity rewrites rules and changes the odds in your favour.
Creativity helped Liquid Death get men to want to drink water.
Creativity helped Gentle Monster become the fastest selling and growing eyewear brand across Asia.
Creativity helped Roblox go from niche player to the single most played game by kids and teens across America.
Creativity even helped Metallica use a 30 year old album to attract more fans resulting in them becoming the second most successful American band of all time.
They didn’t achieve this simply because of smart distribution of their brand assets. Nor did they achieve it by placing their logo as a watermark throughout their TV commercial [which has to be the laziest and most misguided attempt to achieve ‘attribution’]. They achieved it by allowing creativity the freedom to push forward in ways that – as a by-product – meant their voice created value in their numerous assets.
I get it’s not easy.
I get it requires real energy and openness.
But little can achieve what creativity can do when you commit to letting it loose.
My problem [and I appreciate this may just be me] is that many seem to have interpreted the words of Sharp [and others] in a way where they see creativity as simply the ‘wrapping paper’ to execute their rules and processes.
But creativity isn’t the wrapping, it’s the fucking present.
A gift that offers value to brands that goes far beyond the fulfilment of singular commercial objectives and goals.
There are countless examples of brands achieving incredible success and growth following different rules so much of the industry feel is the only way to progress.
That’s not meant as a diss to Mr Sharp, he is obviously very good – though I note he and his peers choose to not highlight that many misinterpret and misuse their guidance, which suggests there is an element of complicity and profiteering from the one-size-fits-all blandification that is happening all around us.
But even then, the real blame should be aimed at the industry for fetishising the learnings and viewpoints of the same few people, because however good they may be – and they are good – it means we’re literally choosing to narrow our own potential and future.
Don’t get me wrong, brand assets are definitely a thing. But they don’t make creativity valuable … creativity makes them an asset.