Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Differentiation, Egovertising, Insight, Marketing
Just before we started cynic, we got our hands on as many agencies creds decks as we could get. The point was we wanted to see how our ‘competition’ were positioning themselves so we could both learn about who they were and ensure what we did was not going to mimic anything that had already said or done.
We needn’t of worried.
The reality was the vast majority of agency creds all said the same thing.
Literally … the same thing.
Bar the logo in the bottom left/right hand corner and the case studies they showed, they all talked about how many offices they had, how many people they employed, their propriety tools, their effectiveness [which often was very questionable] and their management team.
And it went on.
And on and on and on …
Excessively long, contrived, mundane, corporate monotone, egotism aside … what shocked us most was how few talked about the value they placed on the quality of the work and their philosophy behind what made good work happen.
So when we came to creating our creds, the first page anyone saw was the image at the top of this post.
[For the record, it wasn’t that exact image, that’s my instagram ‘square’ pic of the 9 individual pieces of artwork that we had around the office that I only recently got my hands back on. Thanks Billy]
Now I am not denying it was a bit confronting.
And now – with experienced eyes – it smacks of trying a too hard to be noticed and different.
But the purpose of it was three-fold.
1 We wanted to ensure no one could mistake us for anyone else.
2 We wanted to make sure our work always represented our beliefs.
[Because we had read too many creds where the words didn’t match the output – indicating they were either delusionists or illusionists]
3 We wanted clients to know the majority of people they wanted to engage with, wanted them to leave them alone.
Part of that was because they had a ‘blanket’ approach to targeting – despite claiming otherwise.
Part of that was because they had a superficial/egotistical attitude towards why people would care.
Part of that was because they saw work simply as communication rather than building something bigger.
And while cynic has been dead for 8 years, I look at that image and think it’s still pretty relevant, which is pretty tragic, especially when you think about all the research, processes and tools adland likes to ‘big itself’ up about.
And that’s why I suggest to anyone looking to change agencies that before you make any decision – you should ask to see their creds.
Of course that shouldn’t be the only reason you choose a job, but seeing how they present themselves to others is possibly the quickest way to see what reality is truly like … especially when you filter it through the body of work they actually ended up putting out into the World.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail
A while back – when I was running The Kennedys – I told the guys about how hard it is to make great work.
Ironically, the issue was less about the expression of creativity – though there is always difficulties in that – but in actually getting your precious idea through all the gatekeepers/processes/people without it being impeded, diluted or impacted.
Now don’t get me wrong, being pushed to be better is always good, but it appears we now live in times where the goal of others seems to be the reverse.
Sanitization.
Blandness.
Ego/Career management.
Or as my dear friend George once said:
“Creativity today is a client going to the doctor, telling them their expertise is wrong and then prescribing their own medicine.”
Of course people are entitled to their opinion.
Of course ad industry creativity needs to be commercial creativity.
But right now, it appears many clients version of ‘commercial’ is to either communicate what they want people to care about [regardless if they care about it, or believe it] or to say things where absolutely no one can ever be offended because what they want to communicate makes beige look bold.
And because adland – or should I say some within adland – has sold the value of creativity down the river in favour of making fees from process and production, the entire industries ‘creativity’ is being called into question.
What has happened to wanting to make work that makes culture take notice?
What has happened to wanting to making work others wished they had made?
What has happened to wanting to make work that changes entire categories?
Yes, I know there are some that still fly the flag of great work – but not many and not always consistently – and what’s worse is that we, as an industry, have contributed to this situation but what really gets to me … what really pisses me off … is that I feel we are continuing to pander to the wishes and demands of the organisations we are supposed to help, the organisations who – for whatever reason – are undermining our industries value and long-term future.
I’m not saying we should be arrogant.
Or rude.
Or forget why clients hire us.
But come on, why be a doctor when we let the patient diagnose themselves, which is why I absolutely loved this piece by the phenomenal Dave Trott.
At the beginning of this post, I wrote about how I had taught The Kennedy’s that great creativity doesn’t come without bruises and scars … well, if we still want to stand a chance of making the work that shows how brilliant we can be, then we better be prepared to fight harder for it, because being the punching bag is hurting everyone … us, our clients, our audiences.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Confidence, Craft, Culture, Insight, Planners
OK, full disclosure, I don’t really like Tom Hanks.
Sure, I’ve enjoyed some of his movies but for some reason – maybe due to overexpose of his movies in my early 20’s – I think he has a face I want to smack.
But recently I read an article on him that changed my opinion of him.
To be honest, this ‘change my opinion’ thing is getting annoying.
First is was my ultra-nemesis, Morrissey – though he seems to behaving like a twat again.
Then it was Johnny Marr.
And now Tom Hanks.
Who next … Todd Sampson? That would literally make me want to kill myself.
Good job I know that will never, ever, ever happen.
But back to Hanks.
In the article, Hanks covered a huge range of subjects … the roles he’s taken, his approach to parenthood, the mistakes he’s made – it was all very interesting, vulnerable and honest – but the bit that caught my eye was this:
“I learned a long time ago that you don’t have to like the people you work with. If someone wants to be a dick, it’s OK, but if their dickishness means everybody else doesn’t get to work at their best level – if you being a dick means you’re going to encroach upon my process – there’ll be a slug fest in the parking lot. There will be words exchanged I’ve worked with men and women where I’m like, ‘Are we going to have to go through this again?’ And, well, yes, because that’s what’s called for. On rare occasions, people are insane – but those are really rare.”
The reason I like this is because one of the biggest issues many face in agencies is working with others.
OK, in the majority of cases, as Mr Hanks states, it’s all good – but occasionally you find someone who is especially difficult – not because they are pushing for the best work, but because they think they are the only one’s capable of doing the best work and don’t value anyone else’s contribution or process to get there.
In other words, they’ve become the office egotistical dick.
We’ve all seen them.
Prancing about like they’re gods-gift.
At best they’ve done something genuinely good in their time. At worst, they’ve only done something good in their mind.
What I like about Hanks advice is that it ultimately helps you work out when you should or shouldn’t act.
In other words, if the person isn’t affecting your standards negatively, then let it pass.
Life is too short and ultimately, your engagement with them is not going to achieve anything.
However if their actions are impeding the work you do to the standards you hold, then it’s time to strike.
I should point out that when I say ‘strike’, I don’t mean it literally, but the key point is that the moment you feel your process/standards are being limited because of this other persons actions or behavior, you need to speak up.
To them.
Directly.
I wish I had known this earlier in my career.
When I think of all the energy and time I wasted taking on issues that were just annoying rather than damaging, I want to kick myself. But the good news is that working in advertising means I’ll be able to use this advice properly in the very near future.
And it’s important.
Not just because you should never let someone negatively impact your standards and process, but because – as fellow actor Michael Keaton pointed out – even if you’re just an employee, you’re still in charge of the direction of your career.
So thank you Mr Hanks. Damnit.
Remember last month I showed that photo of the Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his metamorphosis from nerd in 1998 to Terminator in 2017?
Well it’s obviously not an isolated incident because here’s Elon Musk … though unlike Mr Bezos, it appears he spent some of his billions on a hair transplant. But then, when you read what his ex-wife said about him, he might be a genius but he’s also a vain, little prick.
Something it appears the first Mrs Bezos would agree with.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Confidence, Marketing Fail
… if you watch the fakest ‘off the record’ video of all time, you might think he is.
And if not that, he’s absolutely desperate to be the next member of Dragon’s Den/Shark Tank.
Suddenly my post about him – and other successful people – seems even more accurate.
Which makes a pleasant change.