Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Chaos, Complicity, Culture, Equality
So recently someone sent me this:
In front of you are 2 cars.
Two ‘family’ cars.
One from around 1987 – a Ford Escort, albeit the XR3i, ‘boy racer’ version. One from 2024 – a Tesla Model Y.
I appreciate a lot has changed in the intervening 37 years … but of all the features, technology and emission differences, surely their physical size is one of the most extreme changes.
It’s happening everywhere, for example, here’s average US ‘ute’ size …
Or if you want to be completely messed with, here’s an average ‘ute’ next to – admittedly – a smaller car.
Now I know there will be a lot of reasons for it.
From technical and safety innovations through to comfort, status and just plain consumer tastes – let alone humanities capacity to become fat bastards as we crave more and more pampered convenience – however seeing them side-by-side is pretty bloody confronting.
But the impact of this is more than just scale …
The roads we drive on are not made to deal with the vast increases in weight.
In fact, they were not designed for cars, full-stop.
And while over time, the automobile succeeded in hijacking the tarmac … a major contributing factor to its ability to do that was cars were far smaller and lighter back then – not to mention a lot less of them – so basic infrastructure didn’t really need to change.
Zoom forward today – and with everything from climate change to population increases – the cars we have are not fit for the roads we drive on and the cost to maintain this or change this is almost beyond anyones pocket.
Now you may think this is going to become an anti-car/pro-environmental post.
You’re wrong.
I’d be a fucking hypocrite given I drive an SUV – though Otis is making sure that won’t be the case much longer.
No, what this post is about is thinking things through.
Considering implications to actions.
Not blindly running at what offers immediate benefits … but a consideration of what it may change or create.
Oh, we may all think we do that, but we don’t really do that. More often than not, short-term wins or instant gratification conquers all.
We’re seeing it with AI.
I’m not against AI. I believe it can do great things. But the people who are pushing it aren’t the people I trust to do it.
Tech bro billionaires who are not used to saying no … or dealing with consequences of their actions … are not the people we should be relying on to evolve this technology.
Not simply because of the damage it could cause, but the implications of what it could change.
In Apple’s iOS 18, the calculator can do mathematical equations in realtime and give you answers IN YOUR OWN HANDWRITING.
Oh it’s cool, no doubt about that … but why will kids want to learn maths anymore?
Hell, why will schools even teach it?
And while it would be nice to buy into the argument of ‘it will enhance the learning journey’ … humans have an incredible capacity to ‘outsource’ their responsibility and engagement to alternatives that they think can do it easier, quicker or more conveniently.
From GPS through to VAR in football … we are forever looking for the shortcut.
A way to remove ‘challenge’ from our life … or – more cynically – have someone/something we can blame when things go wrong.
Look, I get this is MASSIVELY hypocritical coming from me … a fucking gadget loving, wifi-craving, tech groupie … but I am shocked at how many decisions are made with a short-sighted focus.
Over the years I’ve seen some incredibly daft things be approved simply because it satisfied ego or offered a quick win to buy the time to get out unscathed.
And just to be clear, this has not come from the ‘irresponsible class’ … which is the label often given to those in the creative industry … but those who are supposed to be the sensible ones.
CEO’s.
Bankers.
Accountants.
Jesus … even Governments.
In fact, in my experience – while creative people are always looking forwards – they always want to make things that last. That will stand the test of time. Far more than many of the ‘protection and insurance’ discipline/industries that have somehow gained the label of being ‘the responsible ones’ in the boardroom.
Thinking through implications does not mean you are adding obstacles or stopping possibilities, it means you are building something sustainable.
An idea that can benefit all, not just the few.
And while I accept in this day and age, that sort of thing sounds like a bunch of hippy bollocks … the attitude of ‘prosper now and leave any shit to the next generation’ is not working. Even more so when we try and position independent thinking as the enemy of progress.
Somewhere along the line we need to think beyond the next quarter.
We need to go beyond ‘what the short-term data’ is telling us.
We need to value more than ‘how much money it can make us’.
We need to consider more than ‘what this enables’.
And ask ourselves two additional questions …
The first is:
“What could be the implications of this decision on the next generation”
And the second – which is from my friend Paul Stechshulte:
“What if we’re wrong?”
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Imagination, Logic, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Paula
Just to be clear, I am not anti-logic.
Of course not.
But I am anti-blinkered logic.
Where anything outside of established rules or norms are discounted because they’re outside of established rules or norms.
It was the foundation of our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative talk, last year at Cannes.
And ironically, if I thought it was important then … it’s become even more important now with people like Jon Evans waxing lyrical about ‘System 2’ thinking.
Have a look at the functional benefits he is stating:
+ Facts don’t care about your feelings
We all know how unreliable our feelings can be so why would you make a large business decision based on what people feel about it?
+ Measure Everything
I never understood at System1 why we worked so hard to reduce it down to a few key metrics. The results also came in this super easy online report rather than PowerPoint. Now you can have every measure you ever wanted in a shiny PowerPoint presentation with our ‘minimum page promise’ of 93.
+ Infinite personalisation at scale
We have finally achieved the holy grail of marketing reporting namely infinite personalisation at scale. With so much data at your disposal whatever conclusion you need to make we can provide it. We also present it in such a scientific way that no-one will be able to challenge your conclusion. Imagine that!
+ The Price is Right
One of the reasons you employ McKinsey is because they charge a lot of money and therefore must be making a huge impact on your business. We have followed this immutable logic to ensure this is the most expensive research you will ever pay for because, well, we’re worth it.
Now on one level, a lot of what he’s saying isn’t wrong. But by the same token … it’s also not entirely right.
The reduction of everything to a quantifiable – and historical – measure ultimately means you’re advocating, at best, for incremental change or, at worst, following a model of ‘best practice’ without remembering that best practice is past practice.
Of course some will love it. But then, some love beige office furniture.
Which is why this old ad kind of sums up my concerns with myopic approaches based on models designed to not fail rather than liberate possibility.
History is littered with once great brands and ideas that fell foul of ‘the research says no’.
What makes it even worse is often that research is based on the lowest common denominator of audience versus – say – the highest.
Resulting in commoditised mediocrity, hidden under ‘effectiveness and optimisation’ justifications.
Or said another way, outsourcing your cowardice to ‘for profit, external organisations’.
I am not saying what Jon is saying is wrong.
I am not saying using facts and data are wrong.
I’m saying his view – as I say about many people who sell their specific processes/programs as guarantees of success’ – is.
[For example, as the very brilliant Lee once told me, “if you’re measuring everything, then you don’t know what is important”]
As I wrote a while back, there’s many examples of brands who buck his view.
Hell, I work with a bunch of them, including:
SKP-S … the most profitable luxury retailer on the planet.
Gentle Monster … the fastest growing and selling eyewear brand across Asia.
Metallica … the 2nd most successful American band in music history.
… to name but 3.
The point is, for all the cleverness of Jon Evans – and he is very clever and I respect him, what he does and how he does it – the implied suggestion, whether intentional or not, that his way is the only to be successful, is wrong.
As is his new statement around ‘system 2 thinking’.
I get why he says it … just like I get why many people in that industry say it … because it’s as much what they believe and how they make money.
And while that is all well – plus they’re very good at what they do … especially with organisations who are conservative and/or have people with little formal training – they’re services are more like insurance products than business accelerators.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as you’re not claiming otherwise.
Which is why it’s important to remember – to paraphrase what Martin and I also said at our ‘The Case For Chaos’ talk in 2019 for WARC at Cannes – logic might give you what you think people want, but chaos gives them what they’ll never forget.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Business, Chaos, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Honesty, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Music, Nike, Packaging, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Trust, Truth
I was recently interviewed by a music company about the work I do for artists.
They – quite rightly – wanted to know what I did and how it was different to what I normally did.
And I explained the difference was made clear pretty much in my very first meeting.
Because I was told this …
Now I can’t be sure they used those exact words, but that was the general premise.
And that was what was amazing.
Because when working with brands, they want you to use creativity to engage audiences, but with bands – at least the ones I’ve been exposed to – it’s the opposite.
I don’t mean they want to alienate people – though they understand the importance of sacrifice better than almost any brand marketer I’ve ever met – it’s just they are the creativity … they are the product … and so the last thing they want is some fucker placing a layer of ‘marketing’ on top of their artistic expression which can be twisted, diluted or fucked with so what they want to say and what it means to them, has no consideration whatsoever.
Now I admit I’m very fortunate the artists I’m working for are of a scale where they have the power to not just consider this issue but do something about it.
Many don’t.
However by the same token, when you’re of that scale, the potential for things to get messed up in some way is much greater.
Which is why they ensured I knew my role was not to market them, but to protect their truth.
Do and explore things that amplify who they are not just flog more product.
And because what they create is an expression who they are … they can express their truth without falling into endless streams of cliched brand consultant speak.
+ So no buzz words.
+ No ambiguous terms.
+ Just stories, experiences and considerations that have defined all they do.
And that’s why they don’t really care if you like their music. Sure, it helps, but they don’t want fawning fandom, they want people who understand what they value, believe and give a fuck about so everything associated with what they do expresses it.
Or said another way, they want people who can ‘speak their tongue’.
Now I am the first to admit there have been some mistakes.
Some things you go, “why did you do that?”
But in the main, I’ve not seen much of it and even when I have called stuff out, they have [generally] appreciated it, because – as I was also told on my first day – I’m being paid to give them truth not comfort.
I’ve always said people should not aspire to be a planner, but get away with the things a planner can get away with. And I’ve got away with a lot as a planner. Done all manner of weird and wonderful.
While I’d like to think that’s what helped me get this gig … the reality is I got it because of an introduction from someone I know.
And while in theory any strategist could do what I’m doing, how I do strategy and how I have been asked to view what it’s role is, has highlighted that’s not the case.
Not because of capability, but what the industry currently wants and expects.
And this is manifested in increasingly not being given the time, support or standards to do things right.
Where speed is more important than substance.
Process more valuable than output.
I wrote about this and more, here.
But it’s more than that, it’s also what clients think strategy is for …
Packaging rather than changing.
Wanting quick wins rather than long term value.
Targeting needs, not a point of view in the world.
Chasing convenience not authenticity.
If anything, doing this work has made me even more grateful to the bosses, agencies and clients I’ve worked with over my career.
Because when I look back, the truly great ones were basically like a band.
Born of belief. Defined by a point of view. Wanting to attract not chase anything popular.
And that’s a big part of why they have been able to remain at the forefront of their individual discipline, category and/or sub-culture.
Because they never saw strategy as a tool for marketing, but to amplify their truth.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Chaos, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Innovation, Marketing, Music
There’s a brilliant documentary on the band The KLF.
For those who don’t know who they are/were, they’re a band formed in the late 80’s who wrote some of the early 90’s biggest selling singles.
Except, if truth be told, The KLF were more artists than musicians.
I don’t mean that in terms of them having many different business interests …I mean it in terms of them expressing their creativity in ever-more dramatic, provocative and intriguing ways.
From burning a million pounds to sampling without permission to firing a machine gun full of blanks at an audience live on television to delisting every song they ever made … and a whole lot in-between.
It’s a truly fascinating documentary, where you realise that everything they did – while not planned – was definitely deliberate.
But there’s one quote about them that stood out for me.
Not just because it captured who they were, but because it revealed what is missing for me in so much of the work the industry is producing.
I love that.
I love it so much.
But sadly, many in my discipline of strategy – and all the self-proclaimed marketing gurus – have killed that in the quest to flatter their own ego.
And it gets worse.
No, I’m not talking about the clients who value function, logic and attribution over shaping or changing cultures opinion, attitudes and feelings – though I could definitely talk about that – but the agency creative departments filled with people who want to make ads rather than use creativity to push boundaries.
The KLF may have been seen by the industry as anarchists … but for a band who had a few – albeit massive – hits in the 90’s, their work still is remembered, stands up to scrutiny and can be directly associated with cultural change which is more than pretty much anything our industry, or most industries for that matter, produces these days.
Of course, given the untold billions brands spend to have culture know them, value them and want them … this is pretty ironic.
Oh I get these brands still make a ton of money.
More than even The KLF could burn.
But this isn’t about distribution, habit or media spent, but influence, change and ambition.
This doesn’t mean the talent isn’t there to make something like this happen.
It is.
But it means nothing if the role it’s used for is to give clients what they want rather than what culture can never forget.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Cannes, Chaos, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Marketing, Martin Weigel, Music, Strategy, WeigelCampbell
A few weeks ago, I read this:
It was said by Susan Ann Sulley, one of the singers in The Human League about their iconic song, ‘Don’t You Want Me’.
I have to admit, it has absolutely captivated me.
From the acknowledgement there was a real chance they could have put sleigh bells on the song if they thought it would chart over Christmas – which would have immediately made the song a novelty record rather than one of pop’s true classics – to her statement of simply being ‘an ordinary girl, doing her best’.
The level of honesty featured in those few lines is both breath-taking and disarming … especially given it comes from someone from within an industry that loves to big-talk itself, even when they haven’t had a Worldwide hit like Susan has.
To be honest, this openness is reflected in the entire article – which reinforces some ‘no nonsense’ Northern stereotype that adland likes to communicate over and over again.
But there’s something else I like about it …
Because while rigour and planning definitely increase the odds of success, the uncomfortable truth for all those companies, consultancies and self-anointed marketing masters who claim to have proprietary processes that ‘guarantee success’ is the legends, legacies and icons of culture owe far more of their good fortune to the beauty of happy accidents than an obsessive focus on the perfection of a process.
Said another way, they leave space for chaos rather than try to remove it.
I get it may sound counter-productive, but as Martin and I said way back in 2019 … chaos creates what order can’t.