Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brands, Cliches, Collegues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Success
It’s been a while since I’ve had an all-out rant, but here we go.
So recently, I saw a quote recently I loved.
It was by Arnold Glasgow, the American businessman and satirist who said:
“Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have trying to change others”.
I say this because too many brands – and agencies – think they can.
Worse, they think they can with an ad … an ad that either tells people specifically what to do/what they should do and/or a list of product attributes that they believe will make someone immediately stop whatever it is they have been doing for decades and change tact because they’ve suddenly been ‘enlightened’.
Of course, this is not entirely the fault of agencies and clients.
Too often, it is backed up by some for-profit research group who has said their findings prove – without any possible doubt – this is what people will do and, even more importantly, want to do.
Now this is not an anti-research stance. Or an anti-agency or client diatribe.
The reality is we need some sort of foundation of information to make choices and decisions and research – when done well, like everything in life – is a universally established way to achieve that BUT … and it’s a big but … the definitive and delusional nature of how our industry talks borders on bonkers.
I get we don’t like risk.
I get what we do is bloody expensive.
I get there are big implications on getting things wrong.
But nothing – and I mean nothing – can be guaranteed and yet so much of the business acts like it can be, conveniently choosing to ignore the landfill of failings from organisations who have researched every part of everything they do for in every aspect of their life.
Sure, it can increase the odds of success … like advertising.
Sure, it is better than not doing anything at all … like advertising.
But everyone acting like whatever they are going to do is ‘a dead cert’ is an act of commercial complicity and co-dependency that borders on Comms Stockholm Syndrome.
A long time ago, when I was maybe a bit more of a menace, a media agency told a client – with me in the room – that they could guarantee they’d HIT their sales target if a particular amount was invested.
I asked, “but you don’t know what the idea is yet and surely that has a role in the level of impact and/or investment that needs to be made?” … to which they said their ‘proprietary data’ gave them the commercial insight that helped their clients achieve their goals.
So back at the office – pissed off – I sent them an email saying this was the work.
Obviously, it did not go down well, but then neither did their ‘strategy’ of just throwing money at the wall until they hit the magic number.
Again, I appreciate we all need information to base choices and decisions on, but we’re getting way too generalistic, simplistic and egotistic in our approaches and methodologies – which is why the sooner we remember how hard it is for us to change any part of who we are, the sooner we may start accepting it takes far more than a business goal … a focus group commentary … a marketing methodology or an ad to get people to even consider doing what you want them to do and so maybe – just maybe – it will encourage us all to start playing up to a new standards rather than down to complicit convenience.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath, which is why I finish this rant with a post that I saw recently I also loved – albeit with ‘paraphrased interpretation’.
Thankfully not everyone is like this.
As proven by the fact, they tend to be the ones behind the stuff we all wish we were behind.
Or as my friend said recently, ‘they’re the ones who play to create change, not communicate everything exactly the same’.
Oh, I feel better for that. Thank you for [not] reading, hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Awards, Birthday, Bonnie, Cannes, Cliches, Comment, Creativity, Culture, Jill, Otis, Paul, Paula, WARC
So, I’m back.
And I survived.
Better yet, the family … pooch … and my colleagues seemed relatively happy to see me, which is a massive win.
Plus the people with the birthdays, had good ones. Albeit maybe because I didn’t get to share it with them.
Anyway, Cannes was interesting.
I have a very weird relationship with it because while I love hearing great people talk … looking at some incredible work and seeing old friends, I do hate a lot of ‘the scene’.
The indulgence.
The egotism.
The excess.
That said, so much of that is now coming from people and companies who work in consultancies, tech, research or big multinationals – rather than ad agencies or companies who practice creativity in the truest sense of the word. Part of that is because they’re the only ones who can afford it … but it also reveals a chink in their ‘armor of confidence’. Evidence that for all their smarts, they’re desperate to feel admired, liked, wanted … without ever realizing their American Psycho approach to life attracts derision more than attraction.
At least for me.
I often wonder if all industry conference get-togethers create this sort of energy.
Do dentists/analysts/publishers [delete as appropriate] start to convince themselves they’re the Masters-Of-The-Universe when all packed tightly into one room?
As I said, Cannes is brilliant for the talks, the creativity and the ability to reconnect with old friends.
It’s nice to see a celebration of what we do when so often it faces a barrage of abuse from people who wouldn’t know creativity if it smashed them in the face.
But the vulgar displays of excess are less attractive to me.
As are the giant ads from tech/consultancy companies which are trying to position themselves as creative but end up demonstrating they’re the total opposite.
At least that’s slightly amusing, especially because you know it took them 6 months of board approval/design to make it happen.
But I digress …
I’m back.
I had a good time.
I’m thankful to WARC and Paula for making it happen.
I’m very happy to have seen some old friends after years.
But – unfortunately for you – I’m ready to write more blog bollocks.
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, Age, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Cliches, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Product Mentalness, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Success, Technology
One of the things I find hilarious about a lot of strategists, agencies and companies is how they talk about their openness towards innovation, but do all they can to maintain the status quo.
Oh, they’ll claim they give things a chance, it’s just their version of doing that is to immediately compare/judge any new approach against ways of working that have literally had decades to evolve and iron out any quirks … and so, generally, it is always going to end up being the unfairest of unfair fights.
However sometimes dismissal is not even about a lack of effectiveness.
Many times, it’s driven more by personal ego … where rejection occurs because a particular individual fears that any new methodology may result in them losing power and control and because of that, they’re openly hostile [and subjective] to anything being presented for consideration.
So what happens is the industry invents terminology that allows them to feel they’re being innovative but actually it’s all about conformity.
It’s why we hear the word ‘transformation’ banded about so much.
Oh when you hear that you think of acceleration … revolution … category redefinition … but what does it tend to really mean?
That’s right … it’s companies who have been left behind by years of ignorance/arrogance/complacently who finally realise they need to get their shit together so spend a fuckton of cash simply to be where everyone else has already been. The irony with this approach is that despite making such a big deal of their ‘transformation’, they still end up behind their competition because while they’ve been trying to play catch up, everyone else has been moving forward. Again.
But just as much as fearing innovation is harmful to your growth and potential, so is blindly accepting whatever new thing is available to you.
Far too often we’ve seen some companies embrace the new, shiny thing for the simple reason they want to be associated with the new, shiny thing.
Worse, they embrace it and then talk about it like it’s the finished article only to quietly move things aside when [1] they realise it may be shiny, but it’s not worthy or [2] there’s a newer, shinier thing that they need to be seen aligning themselves with.
Sadly adland is one of the worst at this. But so are the tech industries. And basically everyone on Linkedin, hahaha.
New is wonderful. It needs embracing, celebrating and championing. But most of all it needs patience and objectivity.
Patience for the idea to evolve, develop and see where it can go or goes.
Objectivity for you to be able to assess without bias, whether you’re dealing with hype or hope … allowing you the clarity to know if you have to protect it or kill it.
The last thing to remember is that sometimes, the thing an idea needs to work is ‘good timing’.
When I was younger, I never believed it when people [read: girlfriends, haha] said it was ‘bad timing’.
I thought it was just their way of getting out of seeing me.
And maybe it was … however as I got older, I’ve realized timing is a thing. Often an intangible, unexplainable, unmovable thing.
It may be driven by coincidence. It may be driven by circumstance. It may be driven by attitudinal shifts. But there are countless examples of ideas that were made or died because of timing, regardless of who was behind it, how much they spent on it or their history in doing it.
One of my favorite examples is the Toyota Prius.
The general view is Toyota launched the car in response to societies increased awareness of the car being a threat to the environment.
It may be true, after all the concept of the electric car had been around well before Toyota launched the Prius, albeit with continual failure.
[As an aside, there’s a documentary entitled ‘Who Killed The Electric Car’ that is well worth a watch]
However, I was told the development of the Prius had nothing to do with environmental concerns and was a byproduct of Toyota experimenting with their engineering capabilities. By pure chance, they developed a viable electric car at a time where society was changing/evolving … both in terms of environmental awareness but also economic situation. In essence, Prius was a happy accident of timing rather than forward planning.
As with most things, history has a million different authors … but given the Prius was so far ahead of other car manufacturers – and very different to Toyota’s traditional approach to car manufacturing – it feels there may be legitimacy as to how and why it succeeded and it had very little to do with being culturally aware.
Whatever the answer, the issue of ‘new’ is a complex one.
Too many people dismiss it.
Too many people fawn over it.
All I know is we should value it and respect it.
That doesn’t mean you can’t challenge or question, but in a world where everyone wants to give their hot take in the blink-of-an-eye, the smart people give ‘new’ the time to surprise and evolve as well as remember that on the occasions something doesn’t work out, they acknowledge it may not be the idea, but the times.
And times are always changing.
Just ask the horse. Or Ed Klein.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Cliches, Clothes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Context, Craft, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Delusion, Distinction, Equality, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, London, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a post about naming strategies.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this before.
A lot of times before.
The processes.
The considerations.
The complications.
… but mainly it’s been about how certain branding consultancies charge an absolute fortune to come up with some utter nonsensical bullshit that they back up with 1000’s of pages of self-serving pseudo-science bullshit and still end up creating something pants. Kind of like the explanation of the Pepsi rebrand from 15 years ago. Or most Linkedin ‘guru’ pontification.
But the other side of this is when people choose to put no effort in whatsoever.
Hiding their recommendation behind terms such as ‘colloquial context’ or ‘cultural vernacular’.
Don’t get me wrong, there are times where a stripped back approach can be powerful.
A way to connect to society by taking their cultural references and contexts head-on.
Hell, cynic used to embrace an approach that we literally called, ‘unplanned‘.
However, while this was about removing any element of pomposity, it still had to elevate how people saw or connected to what we did. Any fool can churn out lowest common denominator stuff … but it takes a certain amount of skill and flair to develop something that not only connects and engages the masses, but does it in a way where the value of the product/brand is increased and improved to all.
We used to call this ‘massperation’ … which still makes me feel sick even today, hahahaha.
I say all this to justify something I saw recently.
Or should I say something Otis saw recently.
You see down the road from us there’s a house being built.
It’s in full-on construction mode and as it is on the way to Otis’ school, he passes it every day.
Anyway, one day he came and told me he’d seen the building site loo and was shocked with its name.
It was this:
That’s right, it’s called the ‘Shitbox’.
To be honest, I’m not sure if Otis should have been more surprised at the name or the fact it proudly states it’s a ‘high viz’ toilet box.
HIGH FUCKING VIZ!
Is the toilet going to be walking along the street late at night? Do builders have such bad eyesight they can’t find a 6 foot high toilet without it being painted bright orange? Are construction workers such bad drivers they need to be warned of where the portaloos are so as not to hit them?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Anyway, I digress.
The point is that while calling the portaloo a ‘shitbox’ may make sense … I can’t help but feel it is also playing into the builder cliche. Sure, cliches happen because they represent a common behavior or attitude that is played out over a sustained period of time … but often this is only a ‘perceived’ behavior or attitude [usually promoted by an individual or organisation who have found a way to monetise the acceptance of this view] that victimizes anyone who does not live upto the cliche.
I appreciate you may think I’ve gone full-on woke … but apart from the fact I don’t think considering others is a bad thing, I see this behaviour over and over again.
Hell, even Jaguar – with their ‘interesting’ rebrand did it by revealing their new concept cars in pink and blue.
PINK AND FUCKING BLUE.
They made such a big deal about how they ‘delete ordinary’, ‘break moulds’ and ‘copy nothing’ and then they actively, loudly and proudly reinforce the most basic of gender stereotypes. On the World fucking stage!
I totally appreciate you can go over-the-top with this stuff – especially given this whole post was inspired by a building site portaloo. I also get people may think I am suggesting we should name products/brands with words that offer no defining characteristic to avoid any potential stereotype. But neither of those are what I’m trying to say.
All I am attempting to point out is that words matter. And while I fully appreciate naming is a difficult task, I find it fascinating companies spend millions on ‘solutions’ that tend to fall into either pompous, basic or made-up.
Or said another way, names that define, limit or pander rather than celebrate those who use them and the reasons they do.