Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Technology, Wieden+Kennedy
Apple.
One of the best brands in the world.
From product to marketing … everything they do is considered, consistent and distinctive.
A brand voice forged over years, with a clear understanding of who they are.
But what’s interesting is what they used to be …
Or this …
Or worse of all, this …
I know they’re from a time where long copy wasn’t viewed with the same distain as a global pandemic but look at them?
And what’s with their obsession with mythical figures?
It’s ugly, it’s cluttered, it’s got no clear point of view and it’s talking around the product not at it.
And then, there’s a point in their advertising evolution that you feel they took a clear step towards where they are today with work like this …
And this …
Still a lot of copy. Arguably more.
But it just feels more contemporary …
From being product benefit focused to the choice of font to the voice … which talks to adults like an adult rather than the disinterested, casual, general audience tone they had used before.
It’s so strikingly different that you feel this was the moment Apple understood who they were and who they were for.
It’s also an obviously deliberate act … because there’s no way you would get here from the – let’s be honest – horrible historical figure focused campaigns they’d run before.
Which leads to the point of this post.
A while back I got to hear the wonderful Nils of Uncommon talk.
One of the things he said that particularly resonated with me was brands who say they need to ‘work up’ to the creativity you think they need.
In essence, it’s just their polite way of saying ‘no’ to the work you want them to do.
But the funny thing is that in the main, there’s no valid reason for them to say that, other than them being fearful of change or commitment.
There’s a lot of that at the moment.
Work in an endless loop … seemingly because the people who have the right to sign off on something are scared that the moment they do, they will be judged.
So what happens is the entire industry are caught in arrested development.
And what do agencies do?
Well, in a bid to get anything made, they agree to anything – justifying it as “being a bit better than what they did before” – so we end up with bland and boring campaigns that, bizarrely, keep everyone happy as the agency got to make something and the client doesn’t have to worry of offending anybody.
Said another way, everybody loses with this strategy.
Brand.
Advertising.
Customers.
Industry.
Which is why Nils challenges brands on what they need to do the work they could do.
It’s a test of their truth and ambition.
And he’s right to do that …
Because brands don’t get to where they want through time, but deliberate acts and choices.
Even then it won’t happen overnight … but continually and consistently playing to where you want to be is far smarter than playing to where you hope to be taken.
Because to paraphrase Dan Wieden said … you don’t become the brand you can be by discovering the power of advertising … you do it when you discover the power of your own voice.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
A few weeks ago, I saw this …
… and I have to be honest, it’s had me thinking a lot.
Because while I acknowledge you can’t take things for granted, when you get lost in the weeds, you lose sight of what you’re working towards and how you do it.
And a lot of people are doing both of those things.
Nothing sums this up more to me than the issue of attribution.
The quest to minimise risk – or ‘optimise value’ – has resulted in brands forgetting that the easiest way to get attribution is to do something interesting.
But instead – reinforced by industry ‘guru’s – we have ended up with a continual production line of commercially responsible alternatives.
Be a one colour brand.
Place brand assets higher than a brand idea.
And – worse of all – have watermarks in your ads.
While colour and brand assets have a role – albeit not a primary role as so many people seem to suggest – if you feel the only way your brand will be remembered in your commercial is to place your logo all the way through it, then you either don’t know how people work or how advertising does.
Or said another way, you’re admitting your brand and your product are forgettable.
Seriously … why would you do that?
Why would you spend millions on something that positions you as uninteresting.
Worse, why would you spend millions on something that positions you as uninteresting and make sure people know it’s you by ramming your logo down their throat?
But somewhere, someone is measuring the ‘impact’ of this approach and finding a way to demonstrate its effectiveness to clients. Letting everyone feel pleased with themselves. Their choices. Their actions. Creating a precedent others will follow in the blind belief they’re being smarter … more optimised … more effective than all their competitors. All the time consciously and deliberately ignoring the critical fact that it’s undermining them rather than liberating them.
Which leads back to that tweet at the top of the page.
Because while knowing how things are going is important, nothing reveals how lost you are than measuring everything but valuing nothing.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Communication Strategy, Food, Innovation
Years ago I wrote about how standards are driven – and protected – by stubbornness.
Well recently I heard a great story about the man who started the sauce company, Si Racha, who embraces this value.
David Tran arrived in America in 1979 after fleeing Vietnam after the communist takeover.
He found himself living in LA with nothing but his passion for spicy food.
The Vietnamese are one of the most magical and industrial cultures on the planet so David decided to turn his love into an outlet and started making hot sauce in a bucket and selling it from his van.
The name Si Racha came from a Thai surf town where he liked the sauce.
[You thought that was the name of the sauce rather than the brand didn’t you?]
Anyway, David didn’t care about branding or advertising … he just focused on making the best sauce possible. And it worked, because word of it spread like wildfire and suddenly people were buying it in their droves and putting it on everything they ate.
Over time, David started partnering with local Asian restaurants & grocery stores … and more and more people got to experience it.
One day someone said his product was “too spicy” and suggested he adds a tomato base to sweeten it. His friends agreed, saying it would pair better with chicken. But this is where David’s stubbornness started to come through.
“Hot sauce must be hot… We don’t make mayonnaise here.”
Over time Si Racha has become a cult phenomenon.
Famous chefs talked about their love of it.
Obama talked about his love of it.
And in many ways, the sauce became a symbol of both the diversity in America and the opportunity of America … because here was an immigrant who pursued his dream despite all odds and succeeded.
Today, Sriracha sells over 20 million bottles per year, generates over $150 million in annual revenue and has made Tran a very rich man.
But rather than just produce more and more of the sauce to make more and more money, it’s production is strictly managed.
David is adamant on quality, so because Jalapenos have a short window for being at their optimum ripeness, he has created a production cycle where a year’s supply is executed in just 10 weeks.
Tran owns 100% of his company – which he named after the ship that brought him to the US.
He still works at his factory in Irwindale, California and he still wears the same blue shirt and hat every day.
But what I love most is his attitude towards why he so conscientiously and strictly makes his product …
“I don’t make hot sauce for money. I make money for hot sauce.”
We could all do with more David Tran’s.
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Cars, Communication Strategy, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction
It’s been well documented how car design – thanks to a focus on efficiency and production optimisation – is becoming more and more similar.
So to increase differentiation, more and more manufacturers are adding little touches both inside and outside the car.
Paintwork.
Wheel design.
Technology options.
But recently I saw something that took my breath away.
For all the wrong reasons.
This.
Build Your Dreams????
What. The. Fuck!!!
I am at a loss.
Why would anyone have this on their car?
Who would choose to put this on their car?
It’s the sort of shit you expect to see from some imposter on Linkedin, not on the back of a car.
I have no idea if this was added by the manufacturer or the owner … but given they didn’t thank me when I let them in, all this car did was build my road rage.
Their used to be an old joke that went:
Q: What’s more embarrassing that being seen in the back of a sheep?
A: Being seen in the back of a Skoda.
Well, even if Skoda had not improved, that joke would be out of date because we now all know the answer would be … being seen driving a car with the words ‘BUILD YOUR DREAMS’ emblazoned on the back.
Over-reaction?
Well I did tell you on Friday that the older I get, the more I understand the film, Falling Down.
_________________________________________________________________
Update:
Apparently the car in question is made by Chinese [electric] car company, BYD.
I should have known.
Good cars. Terrible slogan.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Experience, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
A few weeks ago, I posted this on Twitter …
Quite a lot of people liked it for one reason …
It’s kinda true.
For all the shit people throw at the younger generation for chasing the next shiny thing, the same can be said for business.
Worse. In my experience, the younger generations are far more committed to what they think is the right thing and stick with it, even in the face of other things coming up.
OK, so there may be some subjects where they are quick to switch, but it’s not the stuff that costs tens of thousands of people their livelihood just because someone at the top wants to look like they have their finger on the pulse.
Seriously, the way some companies behave is like watching a massive game of Hot Or Not … just with billions of dollars riding on every decision.
Once upon a time, a planning colleague – Rodi – once said the biggest problem with business is they remain interested but never want to commit.
He was – as usual – bang on.
And while there are many schools-of-thought that suggest that because of the speed of change ‘those who commit, lose’ … they’re really missing the point.
Because while you have to know what is happening and shifting, it’s only those who commit to what they believe in who can create something that leads culture to them … rather than continually chasing where they’re going.
It doesn’t mean it will always work out, but we know the alternative achieves that even less.