Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mediocrity, Metallica, Nike, Paula, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Sport, Strategy
It is pretty obvious I have a major issue with a lot of the ‘best practice’ processes and practices certain members of my industry love to bang on about.
Not just because ‘best practice, is past practice’, but because these individuals position their approach as the legitimisation of the discipline they claim or suggest they are an expert in. Implying that anyone who does not strictly adhere to their process is an imposter and a danger to whatever organisation they’re working with.
It’s the sort of deluded arrogance that people who describe themselves as an ‘evidence based’ strategist embodies … attempting to infer everyone else is simply making things up and don’t give a fuck what happens afterwards.
It’s everywhere. Twitter. Linkedin. Conferences.
You name it and someone is bragging and banging on about it.
But what makes this hilarious is that many of these self-appointed experts have never made any work of any repute whatsoever. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Which means their entire viewpoint is either based on their own post-rationalised evaluation of another persons work or their narrow, naive and/or skewed viewpoint of what constitutes as ‘good’.
Don’t get me wrong, process matters.
In no way am I advocating you just chuck it all out.
However the difference is my processes does not require me to outsource my brain, imagination, curiosity, gut or ambition to fit into a format whose goal is to deliver a standardised, consistent response rather than enable the opportunity for greater possibility.
And that’s the big problem for me …
Because so many of these ‘models’ seem to care more about the process than what the process is meant to help enable. Actually, even that is wrong … because more and more of these models don’t even care about ‘enabling’ anything … they instruct you to simply follow the format and then do whatever the fuck comes out the other end.
No questioning.
No challenging.
No pushing.
Just blind adherence.
Martin and I talked about the folly of this approach in 2019 with our Case For Chaos talk at Cannes for WARC and then – in 2023 – Paula joined us on the same stage for our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative presentation.
But still this approach and attitude goes on … and while I don’t deny it can be effective, it rarely has the impact or influence as work that comes from a process shaped and flavoured by ideas, imagination or ambition.
But then I wonder if that is the goal anyway … because frankly, the obsession with efficiency means more and more companies don’t want to move towards where they could be and just want to optimize where they’re currently at. Adopting an attitude of ‘when we fall behind, we’ll simply catch up’.
Though they will never admit that publicly – oh no – what they is they’re investing in ‘business transformation’.
Hahahahahahahaha.
A while back I met one of these ‘dot-to-dot’ advocates at a conference I was attending.
Early in the discussion, they said their company had pioneered a process that “guaranteed success”. And then proceeded to talk about their system that ‘removed the risk of contaminated thinking’.
They literally said that.
I looked around the room waiting for someone to say something. Anything. But no one did.
Worse, they seemed to be nodding their heads in agreement. Or awe.
So I stuck my hand up.
Eventually I was seen and asked if I had a question, to which I replied:
“I was just wondering if you know what the words ‘guaranteed’ and ‘success’ mean?”
Yes, I know that was a total asshole move.
It alienated me immediately.
And while I regret how I asked my question, I don’t regret asking my question because that sort of declaration is insane. Not just because it’s not true, but because their ‘examples of proof’ are rarely more than a brand doing a bit better than it has before.
Now I appreciate that’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s hardly Metallica is it?
A band that plays a niche genre of music, has pensioners as members and yet is the 2nd best selling American group in music history. MUSIC HISTORY!
And I can tell you, that didn’t happen blindly adopting the latest best practice process.
Where are their examples of that sort of impact?
Oh I know … in the hands of the fuckers who do shit, not spout it.
Look, I am not dismissing process.
Nor am I devaluing rigour.
But I am redefining what they mean in comparison to how more and more people seem to be interpreting it.
As we said at Cannes, strategy is the first creative act.
A chance to leap not step.
An opportunity to leave the category behind rather than reinforce the category.
But you don’t achieve that by simply ‘filling in the blanks’ with your functional and rational data.
No … if you really want to have a shot at changing where you can go and where you can be, you have to heed the advice of Rob Strasser – the iconic Nike exec – who said this:
“A shoe is just a shoe until someone steps in it”.
By that, I mean don’t just follow a framework, put your whole self into it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Business, Comment, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Honesty, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I saw these 2 brilliant cats starring each other down when I was in Utrecht a few months ago.
Look at them.
Focused. Determined. Pissed off.
Trying desperately to intimidate each other while obviously being scared of each other.
Maybe not in terms of size … or beauty … but in terms of one being able to pull off something better, quicker or smarter than the other.
Trapped in an endless cycle of statue paralysis or trying to micro ‘one up’ the other.
The cat cold-war so to speak.
And what is funny is this is often how many brands behave.
Looking sideways rather than ahead.
So lost in what one other brand is doing – or could be doing – they ignore what’s going on around them.
What others are achieving without them.
Sometimes this is not simply driven by a competition, but greed.
A desire to make sure nothing is left on the table.
Hoovering up every scrap.
Believing they are in control and in power so nothing can challenge or take them.
So lost in their self-belief that they fail to see they’re being left behind.
Blinkered by ego.
We saw it with Nokia when Apple launched the iPhone.
We saw it with Listerine when Wrigley’s positioned chewing gum as dental care.
We saw it with Kodak when they chose to protect their photo processing profits rather than launch their digital camera.
We have seen it over and over again.
And while sometimes, having a focused enemy can push you to greater heights than you would be able to achieve on your own … driving you to make things better, rather than to look for things never done before [because often, those things are stupid or self-indulgent] like most things in life, the key is knowing when this approach starts to be counter productive.
When the focus is pulling you back than pushing you forward.
Blinkering your view rather than opening your perspective.
Losing your edge rather than fuelling your ambition.
But sadly, too many brands act like those two cats in Utrecht.
Unable to look away but without the looks to make others still want to come to them.
Which is why as much as there’s a lot to be said for exploiting and optimising the failings and learnings of your numero uno foe, there’s also a lot to be said for remembering to keep looking up and out from your blinkered bubble.
Or said another way …
When you ensure you’re focused on where culture is heading, you don’t get lost following where your competition is staying.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Stubborness, Trust, Truth
I love this clip from South Park about how they think Netflix works.
Sure, it’s taking the piss out of the streaming gods – suggesting their quality control is all over the place because they say yes to every pitch – but in some ways, I can’t help but feel it would be brilliant if more clients embraced this approach.
Now before you think I’m mad, there is a reason for this.
About 14,000 years ago, I wrote a post saying clients should say yes more often and agencies should say no. The main reason for this was I kept hearing companies suggest their agencies didn’t understand their business. That they were more interested in what they wanted to make rather than what their clients needed.
They’re wrong … because in my experience, agencies absolutely want to do the best things for their clients.
That they have different ways to achieve their clients needs and goals is a good thing.
More than that, it’s literally what they are all about.
But right now it seems more and more clients are trying to dictate and mandate work … when, with the upmost respect, many haven’t got the faintest idea what good work is, how to get it, and how to get their audience to be interested and motivated in what they’ve got to say.
Now to be fair, this is not entirely their fault.
It doesn’t help many agencies have sold creativity so far down the river, that the only thing they care about is the head hours they can sell. It doesn’t help many companies only enable their people to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. And it doesn’t help company procurement departments have an outsized influence on the approach and people their agency gets to work with – which directly impacts the work that gets produced – which is why you can see how this often turns into a complete shit show.
But that still doesn’t explain why some clients think they know more about creativity than their agency.
Which is why I think the ‘for profit’ research agencies they surround themselves with have to shoulder some of the blame. Part of that is because supporting what the client thinks and wants is in their personal interests. And part of that is because many of them make the mistake of judging work by clarity of message rather than enjoyment of content.
To emphasise this last point, there’s a brilliant story about Spielberg when he was starting Dreamworks.
You see despite him and his partners being some of the most successful producers and directors of all time, their external investors wanted everything to go through focus groups to ensure everything was geared for success.
Spielberg said no.
He said he made films that were true to his vision, not other people’s.
In fact he was so insistent on this point that the whole deal was nearly off until Spielberg agreed to do it on the condition that any focus group was based around answering just one question and he had the right to decide what to do with the answer, once he’d got it.
They asked him what was the question.
“Were you entertained?”
That’s it.
One question.
One simple question … but arguably the most pertinent question.
Just to be clear, I am not saying research isn’t important.
It is. It’s vital.
In fact I love research. I love what it can uncover and reveal and help you understand.
But it shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate judge and jury.
It shouldn’t be about definitive answers.
The funny thing is I often find company research people understand this very well. They have incredible knowledge while also being very self aware. An openness to explore and consider. Where the most blinkered and stubborn thinking happens is when working with external organisations who harbour ambitions to be strategic partners. Where their goal is to control rather than inform.
Not of course, not everyone is like that. There’s many amazing companies out there … but there’s also a bunch whose commercial interests end up accelerating the disconnection of brands with truth and potential rather than enabling it.
But I digress.
The point of this post – and that South Park clip – is in the quest to not make any mistake or risk upsetting anyone – often their own board of directors – companies end up creating work that says nothing and does little. Meanwhile, with Netflix actively looking for the next big, they’re saying yes rather than no … and while that leads to a lot of stuff that may not perform, their commitment to pushing and exploring means they also have a lot of epic. Which has created a lot of longterm value.
Or said another way, Netflix see the commercial value of trust, creativity and exploration.
And while I know the two can’t really be compared, I’m going there … not just to reinforce the point that self-awareness is commercial intelligence, but because if brands want people to love them, it might be good if they did stuff for them, not about themselves. And it might be good if more agencies got back to valuing creativity rather than just saying they do.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Comment, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Effectiveness, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Respect, Stupid
One of the things I find fascinating is how everything these days is ‘a sprint’.
The urgent need for an immediate solution to enable a brand or business to move forward.
Except it’s not true is it? Not really.
I mean – I get that there are occasions where circumstances demand an extremely quick response.
A terrible event.
A moment of opportunity.
An act forced by an aggressive client.
But in the main, these ‘sprints’ have nothing to do with that.
They’re for a new product launch.
A brand campaign.
An annual event.
If they need a sprint for those, then surely that means they haven’t [or just as likely, their bosses, bosses haven’t] got their shit together because those things don’t ‘just happen’ do they? It’s not like the Paris authorities are going to wake up on the 1st of July and suddenly realise they have to hold the Olympics in a few weeks time so need construction companies to engage in ‘a sprint’ to knock up a few stadiums in time.
Now if my Dad was alive and found himself in this situation he would say – as I often heard him tell clients who had failed to plan appropriately – “your emergency is not my problem” … however in adland, we tend to jump in and try to help.
Yay us!
Except quite often, when we do this, we’re made to feel like we’re the reason they’re in this mess and so rather than see us as someone trying to help, we’re seen as someone holding them back.
It’s so weird.
Even more so when they then question our hours and fees.
Which is why my attitude is that unless there is a real reason for the urgency – and a respect for what you’re asking people to do – you should probably say no. I get it may be unpopular, but you’re not going to win in this situation.
And don’t get me started when companies brief agencies before a major holiday.
OH MY GOD.
I used to see this in China a lot … and we [as in Wieden Shanghai] would always say no.
Sure, if it was a client of ours who was in a pickle for legit reasons, we’d do all we could to help them … but if it was about ego or mismanagement, we’d politely decline.
And yet, from what I see and hear from others – and occasionally experience – this situation seems to be happening more and more often … the defecto rather than the exception.
What’s even more bizarre is that the supposed urgency for a solution gets more and more delayed as additional contexts, mandatories, and approval processes get added to the list of deliverables … resulting in you wondering how urgent this really was as a supposed ‘sprint’ turns into a marathon.
Of course, the reality of these situations is it’s actually about money and time.
Or said another way, the desire to reduce it.
I get it, developing work can be time-consuming and expensive … but here’s the thing, shortening the time doesn’t automatically mean it makes it the work better.
Cheaper, maybe.
But not better.
In my experience, there are 3 main reasons this situation continually and persistently occurs:
1. The client doesn’t value creativity.
2. The client doesn’t understand creativity.
3. The client doesn’t actually know what they want or need.
For far too many, creativity is seen as expressing what you want people to know about your brand/product before adding ‘some wrapping paper’ around the messaging to make it ‘creative’.
I’ve talked about the folly of this ‘wrapping paper’ analogy before … but that perspective continues to grow. Worse, some agencies actively reinforce it in an attempt to show ‘they get the client’ or they ‘get business’, all the while undermining their single most valuable asset.
Which means that maybe they don’t know business as much as they think.
Don’t get me wrong, it is entirely possible to spend too much time on something. But there sure-as-hell can be too little. And when you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t know what they want – so use creativity to try and work it out and then judge it as if its your fault – then any length of time is too much time.
And yet it feels like ‘quality’ has now become defined by the speed it takes to create rather than the effect it creates … often reinforced, as I said a couple of days ago, by ‘for profit’ research companies and gurus who focus on clarity not interest.
No wonder so many clients are asking agencies about what their AI approach is.
Now as I said at Cannes, I think AI – and tech as a whole – offers a whole world of possibilities and opportunities for brands to evolve, grow and connect. Hell, we just did it with our Pedigree Adoptables campaign that literally wouldn’t be possible without it. But that’s not what a lot of clients mean when they ask that, they’re looking for cheaper and quicker output. Optimising the optimized.
The great irony of this is that when you talk about AI affecting their business – especially if the competition embrace it against them – many react like you’ve just tazered them.
They’ll say there’s no comparison.
That their product price-point is based on the value of their expertise, craft and innovation.
And for some, that’s true. But it’s some … not all.
Which is very similar to the post I wrote a while back about how many brands like to think of themselves as premium, but their actions and values are all about how cheap they can be.
A while back I spoke to someone who is one of the most influential luxury expert in the world.
They own, invest and consult with the best of the best … new and old, classic and innovative.
And they said to me they believe the future of luxury will be about recognizing the value of humanity.
The custom, craft and care.
Because in a world that is increasingly about speed, scale and optimization, the brands who will command the greatest value, influence and price will be the ones who offer their customers the most human interaction, engagement and service experience.
It’s a fascinating thought … one that could separate the real from the wannabes.
Or, said another way, the companies who those who talk about valuing their brand and audience and those who actually do. Because one only cares about the sprint, where others appreciate the jog.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Authenticity, Bands, Brands, Business, Comment, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Imagination, Individuality, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Metallica, Music, Provocative, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Talent
Recently I watched a documentary on a band.
A household name. Not just in America, but around the World.
It was pretty good … but the most interesting part of it was the interview with the manager.
Specifically how he described what he was there to do:
He said: “My job is to do one or two things that change your life. Not ‘good moves’ but change your life”.
And while they turned out to be arguably more focused on their own fortune than the artists they represent, it cannot be denied they achieved exactly what they said for the band in question … helping turn them into the biggest band in the world for a period of time. An accolade they have managed to forge into a long-lasting career that sees them continue to be at the top end of their industry.
Now of course, there’s a lot of things that go into achieving success like that.
Songs.
Talent.
Drive.
Concerts.
Fans.
Distribution.
Copyright ownership.
But a good manager has a huge influence and role to play in all of this … which got me thinking.
What if clients saw their agency partners as people whose role was to do the same as this manager?
To help them fundamentally change the trajectory of where their business is rather than continually communicating – and reinforcing – where they are.
Dramatic change, not incremental.
OK, there’s some clients who actually do that – and a lot more who think they are, but are doing the opposite – but the reality is for all the talk of ambition and change, so much of it what is done is about keeping things exactly where they are.
Part of this is because of the influence of ‘industry guru’s’ who have positioned themselves as business liberators when really they’re more insurance salesmen [made even more hilarious by the fact the vast majority have never created any actual creative work or built a brand of note] … and part of it is because of a narrative that’s been going around that suggests agencies care more about taking clients cash through excessive timelines and pricing.
As I’ve written before, this attitude is more bullshit than fact … shaped by a procurement process that doesn’t value quality of work – just the price of it – and a corporate attitude where the expectation is complicity not challenge.
Of course that doesn’t ignore the fact some agencies have also played their part in creating this situation by devaluing creativity, devaluing training and agreeing to whatever gets them the revenue – regardless of the consequences – which just reinforces what a mess we’re in.
It’s why I loved that managers quote so much …
The goal being to create the conditions to be ‘the exception’ by being exceptional..
Not ‘a little bit better than before.
Not ‘a little bit better than those around them’.
But to fundamentally change the context and rules of the game.
Champions, not just players.
Of course, it’s easier said than done … but I’ve had the pleasure of seeing it in action up-close-and-personal through Metallica’s management, which is why I know it can be done and I know you can increase the odds of it being able to be done.
Because in their case, what they’ve helped achieve is remarkable.
Put aside the fact they have worked with the band for almost 4 decades. Put aside they’re the most successful music management duo in music history. And think about how they’ve enabled 4 old men – who write what can best be described as ‘mass niche’ music – not just continue to live at the forefront of popular culture, but do it in a way where their creativity is deeply respected by all.
Hell, they’ve become the second most successful American group of all time.
OF. ALL. TIME.
But it’s even more than that … because they’ve also helped the band find new ways to push, explore and expand what they do with their creativity and how they can do it.
Incredible.
Of course, none of this would be possible without the band having the hunger and desire to keep pushing, but their relationship – and trust – of their managers is a key part of what enables it to be possible.
Which is why there’s a couple of things Peter Mensch – one half of their management team – said to me that has had as much impact as the quote that inspired this whole post.
1. “Our job is not to market the band, but to protect their truth”.
2. “We’re not paid to kiss their ass, we’re paid to tell them the truth”.
And maybe that’s a couple of the reasons why Metallica have been able to build a business and a brand [even though they would hate those terms] which is wildly more successful –culturally and commercially – than many brands who spend tens of millions trying to be.
Not just because music connects to people in ways brands rarely can, but because many brands don’t actually know who they are and don’t want to listen to anything that asks questions of them, they don’t want to acknowledge or accept.
So it’s little surprise an agency can change a brands life when brands so often choose to delude themselves with where they currently are … where their version of a relationship is based on how much you cost and how easy you are to deal with, than the quality of the advice and results you help them gain.
For all the systems and processes our industry has latched onto in a bid to prove our credibility and method behind our approaches … how many brands can we say have fundamentally ‘changed their life’.
One?
Ten?
One Hundred?
Certainly not as many as you would expect from the US$87 billion dollars spent on market research in 2023 delivered.
Which is why I leave this post with another music reference … another perspective that had a profound affect on me.
This time it’s from the band – albeit they were more artists than musicians – The KLF, who not only captured what I believe defines a great manager, a great agency and a great brand … but what also creates the chance for someone, anyone, to properly change their life.
“Don’t give them what they want, give them what they’ll never forget”