Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, China, Chinese Culture, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Film, Nike, Sport, Wieden+Kennedy
So the posts this week have been quite emotional.
Well, they have for me …
And – if you watched the hostage negotiation film in yesterday’s post – probably for you too.
And given I’ll be writing an emotional post on Friday – in preparation for what would have been my wonderful Dad’s 85th birthday on Sunday – I thought I’d take a bit of a lighter approach to today, because frankly, I’ve cried enough for this week.
This post is about case study films.
Specifically case study films by agencies for award submissions.
To be fair, there are some that are truly great. Mainly the ones that actually have the work to back it up rather than those that crank up the cliches and superlatives because they haven’t.
Even though I’ve made more films than Spielberg, this is one of my faves … even though it blows my mind it’s 11 years old now.
But even that … even with all it’s success is no match for what I’m about to show you.
A film that trumps 95% of all Cannes/WARC/Effies case study films.
Not just because it is clear, entertaining and informative.
But because it demonstrates more human insight than all those others put together.
Enjoy.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, China, Chinese Culture, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Distinction, Government, History, Influencers, Luxury, Marketing, Perspective, Politics, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Revenge, Truth
Once upon a time, when I lived in Singapore, I popped into the restaurant next to where we lived on Club Street, to get some takeaway.
As I was waiting for my noodles, I saw a man at the bar having a drink.
He had a nice face but the only reason I noticed him was because he had a mark on his head that made him look like Mikhail Gorbachev.
The next day I found out, it was.
While Club Street was blessed with lots of nice restaurants and bars, seeing the ex-head of the Soviet Union having a drink next door to where you live, was not the sort of thing you expect to see.
But then Mikhail was good at the unexpected.
Like the time, in 2007, he turned up in a Louis Vuitton ad.
Back in the days when being an ‘influencer’ meant you had done something to impact the world rather than existed to simply flog product.
But Mikhail was an inspired choice for a whole host of reasons …
One was the visual metaphor he represented for Russia’s journey from communism towards capitalism.
The symbolism of a new era in Russia. And the rest of the world.
And while this ad came out in 2007 – 16 years after he had seen the dissolution of the USSR – what he represented was still clear. Made even more obvious by placing him in the back of a car – in a photo taken by Annie Leibovitz – driving past the Berlin Wall … another symbol of capitalism triumphing over communism.
For many who read this blog, the impact of this change may fly right past you.
I get it, especially if you’ve lived in Western countries, so to give you some context, let me take you to Communist China.
The modern metropolis that you see in photos of China today is certainly not what I found when I first moved there. Especially when you stepped out of central Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou. Though, to be fair, that’s still the case in many parts of the country – including Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou – despite the Middle Kingdom’s incredible modernisation and rise.
Anyway, when I first moved there, Louis Vuitton had a reputation – and nickname – of being ‘the mistress brand’.
There was a simple reason for it …
People who owned it were seen as ‘girlfriends’ of high-level business people or government ministers.
Basically the belief was that because their lovers were one of the few people who were allowed – or could afford to – leave China with ease, they’d buy LV products on their travels and then give them to their lovers as presents on their return.
Was it true?
Not entirely, but there was definitely a ‘second wives’ economy that existed and likely still does.
There was a street near where we lived where every shop was allegedly funded by a generous ‘benefactor’. And you could believe it, because we never saw a customer enter a single store and yet the owners – always young and attractive – were driving the latest Bentley’s. Ferrari’s or Maserati’s.
It was a different world.
And while China has been the centre of the luxury universe for decades, I still remember the Government banning all luxury outdoor advertising in Beijing every now and then to both show their power to the luxury brands who make billions from them as well as reminding the people who live there ‘they were still a communist land’.
Sometimes.
What is interesting is that when Russia and China opened up, Louis Vuitton were one of the quickest brands to see what this could mean for them and their category.
They recognised very early the importance – and confidence – luxury brands could play in culture and so they upped the branding on their products dramatically.
And that’s why these ads, from Ogilvy, are so interesting to me. Because at a time where the cult of luxury was on the rise, these ads attempted to separate LV from the competition by trying to position them with greater significance and purpose.
Presenting LV almost as something you ‘earned the right’ to have rather than something anyone could just buy.
Treating the LV iconography as a badge of honour, not simply wealth.
Reinforcing status as much about how you live, rather than simply what you have.
Maybe this was a reaction to the way Putin was starting to shape Russia to his will.
If you look closely at the bag next to Mikhail, you will see a magazine with the headline ‘Litvinenko’s murder: They wanted to give up the suspect for $7000.’
That headline was on the magazine, New Times, a liberal Russian publication that regularly criticised the Kremlin.
That headline was a reference to Alexander V Litvinenko – the former KGB spy who died in November 2006 after being poisoned in the UK. The former KGB spy who had accused Putin of orchestrating his murder.
While Ogilvy and LV dismissed the significance of that magazine headline, I think it’s pretty safe to say that’s bullshit.
There is no way that is a coincidence.
I get why they said it, but the symbolism of Mikhail … with that magazine poking out his bag … driving past the Berlin Wall … was a pretty blatant message of how far Putin’s Kremlin had taken Russia back to the ‘bad old days’ since Gorbachev had left.
It may have been a condition for Mikhail to feature in the ad.
Only he, Ogilvy and LV execs would know.
But I do admire their stance.
Let’s be honest, there’s absolutely no way that would ever happen now.
Which is as much of a statement on how safe advertising and brands have become as it is of the dangers of Putin and his actions.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, China, Chinese Culture, Colenso, Comment, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, EvilGenius, Focus Groups, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mischief, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Prejudice, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Wieden+Kennedy
I’ve written about this subject before, but one of the biggest issues I think is facing marketing strategy these days is the obsession with corporate logic.
The quest to create frameworks and messaging that ultimates dictates and demands order, consistency and control. Not to help clients build the brand, but to help clients feel safe and comfortable.
And while that may all sound great in theory, the reality is – as the owner of the store with the horn discovered – that it often backfires magnificently.
Because great strategy isn’t logical, its logic born from the ability to make sense of the ridiculousness of reality.
Whether that is amateur artists buying a Mona Lisa painting when they really want the frame or
And the beauty of that is it liberates the possibilities of creativity …
Whether that is an actor who lets the paparazzi see them every night to avoid being photographed by them to the Chinese Government adding a mini ‘scratch card’ on till receipts to get customers to ask for it so it forces the seller to put it through the till and the government can ensure they get their tax through to a beer that is an act of love.
I’ve been talking about the power of devious strategy for years … and while I’m not claiming it is anything extraordinary, when you compare it to what so many think passes for good – I’d choose it any day of the week.
Not just because it leads to better work, but because creative ridiculousness is becoming a far more powerful way to drive commercial effectiveness than corporate-appeasing, logic.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Chinese Culture, Context, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, London, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Membership, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
One of the things I hated when I lived in China was hearing people slag off the country for all manner of things.
While some of the accusations were true, the reality was China was not the only country that participated in such behaviour but people chose to ignore that.
Not that I’m defending what was going on, because even though I rarely saw any of it – in fact I saw more in the US and UK when I lived there – I knew it was going on.
However there were some claims that showed people didn’t know what the fuck they were going on about.
The amount of people who would come to Shanghai from America and say, “let’s do ideas that force the government to deal with the pollution crisis”.
They’d say it like they were the very first people to identify China had a problem with pollution – which is possibly the greatest sign of arrogance you could have. So we would tell them.
China knows there is a pollution problem.
They are actively fighting it.
They’ve been the biggest investor in green tech for decades.
Proportionally, they still pump out less pollution into the air than America.
In fact, up until the last few years, they pumped out less pollution than America full stop.
America had been doing that for decades.
And there’s parts of London with a higher pollution index than most parts of China.
Then they’d stop acting like they’re a superhero and start understanding their perspective had been driven by media bias not cultural understanding.
But there were some things that were accusations. The lack of respect for copyright being one.
Of course, it’s not just in China this happens, but it definitely happens there. A lot.
Even now, I still think Uncle Martian is peak-plagiarism … mainly because they didn’t just make replicas and sell them as originals, they created a whole new brand based on the intellectual property of brands including Jordan and Under Armour.
I say that because I recently saw another version of this.
Maybe not quite as bad as Uncle Martian, but pretty terrible al the same.
But not from China … so you can keep your prejudiced thoughts to yourself.
It’s that brand at the top of this post that looks awfully like this …
I am an enormous fan of Liquid Death.
I love what they’re doing and how they’re doing it.
Not only are they the true embodiment of a cult brand – with some amazing cult behaviours, such as their $100,000 country club membership … or buy a slab of Liquid Death – they have made drinking water in public cool for men.
That’s something no other beverage brand has pulled off.
So while I am sure they would think someone ripping them off is a sign they’re doing something right, it’s also a sign some lazy, parasitic pricks are ripping them off.
Though as George once said when we once pitched an idea to a client who said, “but what if we just asked another agency to do your idea for cheaper?”
If you choose to go with someone copying someone else’s idea rather than the people who actually came up and created the idea, then you deserve all the disappointment and confusion you get. Including the lawsuit.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Birkenstocks, China, Chinese Culture, Comment, Creativity, Culture, Nike, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Sport, Wieden+Kennedy
One of the great pleasures of my career has been working with NIKE.
What made it even more memorable is that I got to work with them in China … where the challenge and opportunity to develop sport culture was arguably their number one priority.
What it meant was their best people were there and their most senior global management were constantly there so I got to meet them, work with them, present to them and argue with them on a regular basis.
They were good.
As in proper good.
I still remember the first time I met the most senior of senior management and when back to Wieden and said, “Oh, I totally get why they are who they are”.
And I did.
They were incredible.
Sharp. Focused. Ambitious. Progressive and obsessed with culture, sport and creativity.
Then there was the time I met Rosemary.
She had just come to China from the US and I remember being in a meeting where I saw all the global guys go up to her, when normally you saw people go up to them.
I mentioned this to her when we were having a coffee later that week and she eventually admitted the reason they all knew her was because she had been Phil Kinght’s kids babysitter when he was starting the company and she had actually painted the swoosh on the first shoes they produced.
Amazing.
As was her knowledge of the brand.
The nuance, not the headlines.
Underpinning all of these people was a backbone of belief. A pride of who they are matched with a responsibility for where they were going. They were challenging, demanding and questioning … but you always knew it was to get to great rather than to tear you down.
Frankly I’d not seen anything like that, at that level, before – and being old – I had been exposed to some amazing people within organisations.
I will be eternally grateful to Simon and Steve who both invited me in to meetings and discussions I should never have been in … as well as them not killing me when I turned up in my Birkies.
Now it is fair to say, the brand – for all the success it continues to have – has faced some headwinds. Some are shifts in culture, some are shifts in internal culture.
And while there are many opinions and viewpoints flying about, there are many who say the company they are today is not the same company they once were.
Some of that is good, some … well, probably less so.
Too many amazing people have departed.
Too much focus on sales rather than sport.
Too great an emphasis on optimisation rather than progression.
But the great thing about Nike is they always come back.
Sure, some of the things – and people – that allow that to happen are no longer there, but it will be back because this is not the first time they’ve gone through something like this.
Whatever ‘this’ is.
And recently I saw a clue it was starting, bizarrely from someone at McKinsey of all places.
This:
Cool, isn’t it?
But not because of Adam’s interpretation of why it exists, but because it exists.
Someone did this.
Someone chose to do this.
And while there are a whole host of possible reasons why it happened, to me it’s a sign of a brand that still has people in there – beyond the few left I know/work with – who do what they believe is right rather than what their process now dictates they do.
At its best, Nike was always an infectious culture machine.
Making it. Championing it. Enabling it. Fighting for it.
I’ve not seen that as much as I once did.
Maybe, a txt.file is a sign I will.
I hope so.