Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Communication Strategy, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Cunning, Design, Distinction, Packaging
Toblerone.
The chocolate you only see – and buy – at airports.
The chunky triangular pieces that are guaranteed to give you lock jaw.
And while you may think nothing has changed with that chocolate for 10,000 years, a lot has.
Not in taste.
Not in ingredients.
But definitely in reputation.
You see in 2016, the Swiss chocolate brand quietly increased the gaps between the pieces so they could use less chocolate and maintain their price.
On one hand, that’s a smart way to do it.
However on the other, by not telling anyone that’s how they were doing it, left Toblerone’s owners – Mondelez – look like they were trying to pull a fast one.
A year later, Mondelēz went a step further and reduced the number of triangular peaks in each pack from 15 to 11.
But that’s not what this post is about …
You see, Mondelez shifted a large amount of Toblerone’s production outside of Switzerland.
However, in 2017, the Swiss Government passed legislation that restricts use of Swiss provenance. To be able to market yourself as ‘made in Switzerland’, 80% of raw ingredients must be sourced from the country and the majority of processing take place there.
For milk and milk-based products – ie: Toblerone – the required quota is 100%, with exceptions for ingredients that cannot be sourced in Switzerland, like cocoa. Apparently products branded as ‘made in Switzerland’ can command a 20% premium compared to other comparable goods from other countries … with this rising up to 50% for luxury items.
Given the extortionate prices of all things Swiss, none of this is a surprise.
Anyway, because Toblerlone no longer meets the criteria to use Swiss iconography in its marketing, they have to replace the image of the Matterhorn mountain that has been a mainstay of their packaging for over 100 years.
The Matterhorn was used because of it’s near symmetrical pyramidal peak that mirrors the shape of the almond-and-honey-laced chocolate bar.
Anyway, in a perfect example of diversion marketing justification, just take a read of what an Mondelez say’s to explain this change …
I mean, I know they’re not wrong … but their ability to ignore the reason WHY they are changing the logo is the sort of corporate-toady that I both admire and loathe in equal measure.
Admire … because the willpower needed to be able to publicly sell-out your own morals and standards for the good of your employer is almost impossible to fathom.
Loathe … for exactly the same reason.
I have no problem Toblerone are producing their product outside of Switzerland … but I have a lot of problems with them trying to hide that fact under the guise of some packaging redesign.
But then that’s modern marketing these days.
Rather than opening up opportunities for more people to consider buying you, now it is increasingly about hiding the reasons people might not.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Business, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Culture, Devious Strategy, Equality, Management, Marketing Fail
A few weeks ago, I saw this Linkedin x Headspace ‘survey’ …
What struck me immediately was the possible choice of answers they gave.
Not one offered any possibility that the ‘scaries’ could be caused by the company you are working for.
None.
No reference to toxic behaviour.
No reference to bad working conditions.
No reference to unrealistic expectations.
And yet, if you visit Corporate Gaslighting, you will see endless stories of people having to deal with just that … and let me tell you, no amount of prep, self-care, going out or unplugging is going to solve that.
Now I know someone is paying Linkedin for this ‘survey’, but in choosing to only offer those options, they – and Headspace – are reinforcing the belief the emphasis of blame – and responsibility – falls with the employee … and frankly, that’s the sort of attitude that causes the ‘scaries’ in the first place.
Now of course Linkedin has form for claiming ‘professional community’ while revealing they’re all about corporate complicity, but if they want to at least continue that claim, it would be great if they ensured they reflected the needs of the audience, not just the person who is paying them the most.
And people wonder why the great resignation happened … even though, as I wrote a while back, that title was chosen by people who show they don’t really understand the conditions they’ve created because ‘the great reset’ or ‘the last hope’ would be far more appropriate.
Linkedin.
Headspace.
You could play an important role in the future of work.
Not just in getting jobs, but setting standards and allowing alternative voices to be heard.
I get money is also important, but you’re better than this … surely?
That said, maybe your actions are the best demonstration of what corporate life is these days.
Chase the money.
Do whatever the highest bidder asks.
Only mingle with like-minded people so no one gets to call either out.
Filed under: Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Collegues, Comment, Corporate Evil, Culture, Inclusion, Management, Professionalism, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
I want to talk about redundancy.
Before I start, I’d like to inform my team that – even though I know they don’t read my rubbish – I’m not writing this for reasons they should fear. The reason for this post is because I recently heard of a terrible example of how a company handled it and it compelled me to write this post.
Let’s face it, redundancy is shit.
No one wants it and no one wants to have to do it.
But sometimes it has to happen and what bothers me is how so many companies approach doing it.
A big part of the issue is driven by the ‘legal’ mandates companies choose to adopt.
Please note I said ‘choose to’ rather than ‘have to’ … because their starting point is to minimise risk to the company during the process.
It’s why so many people often feel a change in how they’re being treated a few weeks before they find anything out. It’s also why, during the process, they feel they are being kept at arms length, regardless how long they’ve been there. And it’s definitely why they are faced with cold, ambiguous and functional interaction with the people who just a day before, we colleagues – and sometimes – friends.
And while that is all shit, I kind-of get it because it’s never nice to have to let someone go … but here’s the thing, it’s not about you, it’s about them.
Their feelings.
Their situation.
Their impact.
And that is why there’s almost nothing as offensive as the whole ‘it’s not personal, it’s business’ schtick so many organisations insist on rolling out.
Of course the reality is they’re not so stupid to really think that … it’s just another way to remove their complicity from the situation. Which is why so many then practice the subtle art of ‘blamethrowing’, so the person being let go feels they are in some way to blame for this situation, so they stay quiet because of the shame they have been made to feel … allowing the company to then put out some PR bullshit sayking, “while we have sadly had to make the tough decision to let some people go, we’re in amazing shape to keep doing the brilliant work we always do”.
Blah, blah fucking blah.
This is why, when I was made redundant, I made a big deal about being let go.
Not in a nasty way – I was generally treated OK by R/GA – but in ‘loud and proud’ way.
There were 2 main reasons for this.
The first, as I said at the time, was to acknowledge I was genuinely glad it was an old white guy being let go rather than someone young, female or a person of colour … who are often the ones who suffer the most.
The second was I wanted to own my own narrative about the situation – rather than have someone try and own it for me. There were a couple of reasons for this.
Part of this was because I saw it as an opportunity to let as many people as possible know about my situation because – the way I saw it – it was a great platform to tell as many potential employers/clients, that I was available.
The other part was because I saw by doing this, I could also help remove the stigma of redundancy many that companies have manufactured for their own gain for many years.
All of this came together because of a phone call I received a few days before I was given my news.
A very well respected industry person had reached out to me to ask if there were any options of work at R/GA. They told me they had recently been made redundant from their company and wanted to get a job without the industry knowing their situation.
When I asked why, they said they believed if people knew they’d been ‘let go’ their reputation would be forever sullied because people equate redundancy with failure.
That broke my heart.
It also made me angry. Not at them, but at the context they had been led to believe was real.
Here was a brilliant person with an exceptional career and reputation who thought their redundancy was all about their failings rather than the company they worked for.
Sure, sometimes companies are caught unawares.
Sure, market conditions change.
But while there are occasions where a company is relatively blameless for the situation they find themselves in, it’s definitely more them than the people they bestow the blame upon as part of their redundancy.
All that lit a fire in me and so in typical ‘Rob Is A Prick’ fashion, I decided to announce my news of redundancy with a real sense of pride … which hilariously led to it being picked up by Campaign and even The Guardian.
And while this directly led to job offers, project offers and client offers – which was amazing and why I write this living in NZ – the thing I was happiest about was how many people reached out to say that it had helped them feel a bit less shit about the situation they were in, or were scared they’d soon be in.
But despite this, a quick glance on Corporate Gaslighting shows that companies continue to act like assholes.
And what is so annoying is how easily they could change this.
Beyond the legal requirements … beyond the awkwardness … beyond the context of the situation … all you have to do is respect the person you are about to hurt.
And you will hurt them.
Understanding that is important.
However, respect ensures you help them get through it much better and faster … and why the hell wouldn’t you want to do that to someone who was a colleague.
So turn up … not just physically, but emotionally.
Talk like a human … not a legally oppressed robot.
Be honest and open … not secretive, ambiguous or gas-lighty.
Offer clarity … don’t leave people wondering and self-hating.
Consider their context … rather than just what suits you.
Commit to their wellbeing … rather than just wanting them out the building.
And most of all, make it about them … rather than trying to make it about you.
As I said, it won’t stop it hurting, but it won’t add even more damage to the damage you are already inflicting. And who the fuck wouldn’t want to do that for another human – especially people in companies who claim their people are their everything?
OK, so quite a few … which is why the more people feel confident in owning their redundancy with pride, the more companies will lose their power to silence the people they’re making redundant. And that’s why this is still my favourite redundancy revenge, excluding the blackmailing scene in the movie American Beauty.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Communication Strategy, Corporate Evil, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View
Somewhere along the line, the strategy discipline went from judging what we did by what it achieved, to what process was followed.
I get it, process matters – but as I pointed out a while back, the vast majority of strategic models out there say and do the same thing, just with additional layers of complexity and/or ego huff-puffery.
But as much as purposefully making things sound like it’s rocket science is tragic, it’s the one’s that are patronisingly simplistic that are almost even more offensive.
Recently I saw one that left one of the worst tastes in my mouth.
It’s called, ‘the beef burger’ strategy.
Here it is …
Terrible eh.
I mean, proper horrific.
But that’s only the aperitif, because each one of those shapes is ‘an ingredient’ and the creator of this has written out a recipe of how it ‘all goes together’.
I should point out, I have purposefully removed the name of the person who developed this.
I don’t know them.
I don’t know the background to them.
I don’t know if they’ve come to their senses and disowned this.
Plus I accept their reason to do it was to try to help and that is worthy.
However …
Look at that.
Look at it.
And what’s worse, I can imagine LOADS of people liked it.
Probably said “it makes sense of the complex in ways that are ‘digestible'”.
Well it does if you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. The overly simplistic definition that lets people immediately think they’re experts when they’re literally going to miss the point of each and every ‘layer’.
And what’s worse is there’s a lot of this stuff out there. Portraying accessible expertise when it’s really just Emperor’s New Clothes.
Strategy is in danger of forgetting what it’s supposed to do, which is see the future.
A future of commercially valuable opportunities.
Stuff that’s not been made yet, but can be.
And yet these days, it’s treated like some superficial, ineffective glue.
A superficial, ineffective glue used to lightly hold some creative bullshit ‘wrapper’ on whatever blinkered thinking a company has convinced themselves is Einstein standard of brilliance.
And everyone loses because of it. Everyone.
Especially strategy.
Because instead of helping companies take giant leaps, it’s just shuffling it’s feet and it’s stuff like the ‘beef burger strategy process’ that is bringing it down.
Playing to the lowest common denominator rather than the highest.
Letting certain organisation claim they’re developing their teams skills when they’re really destroying their potential.
Allowing ‘guru’s’ who have built their own brand more than they’ve ever built anyone else’s, churn out Morph-strength, strategy landfill.
Strategy is more than a bunch of bland and ambiguous terminology.
More than a condiment in a sea of condiments.
Strategy is imagination.
A way of looking forwards to see opportunity, possibility and value.
It’s not some shitty, unsatisfying burger made by instructions, regardless of context or hunger … and anyone who thinks that or eats that, deserves all the indigestion they’ll get.
Crikey, that’s some post isn’t it … and I’m not even in a bad mood.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Effectiveness, Fake Attitude, Grifting, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Scam, Strategy
I’m all for people expressing their opinion.
I’m all for people being excited about things they see as having great possibilities.
I’m all for people trying to find new ways to evolve, grow and make money.
But come on …
It’s getting to the point where Linkedin should be renamed Disneyland given how much fiction and fantasy are going on.
What’s worse is among all the ‘consultants’ and ‘new business development people’ claiming expertise, are a bunch of strategists.
Now I know as a discipline we think we have the answer to everything … but we don’t.
Fuck, even the people who are developing the technology, don’t.
But what bothers me is the reason behind why so many people are claiming expertise.
OK, so I know some have a real understanding of the technology and its possible implications. And in that, I include certain strategists – we all know who those brilliant people are.
And I also appreciate some mistakenly believe that because they’ve used ChatGPT, they think they now know everything about the technology.
But others – and this is potentially the majority of them – are doing it because they see it as a chance to personally gain from it.
In essence, their perspective is that as long as a subject matter is highly topical and others – especially companies – don’t know about it, then they can profit from it because they can say anything because no one will know enough to tell them they’re wrong.
You can tell who this group are because they’re the one’s who are either the loudest to declare their knowledge or the first to say they had identified the trend … despite never doing anything with their ‘expertise’ or because of their ‘vision’.
Putting aside how this sort of behaviour can damage the reputation of real experts, disciplines and entire industries … the issue I have is how it is often justified as hustle culture.
I’ve written my issue with hustle culture in the past, but the fact is, this isn’t hustling … it’s grifting and the impact of it is not just damaging people and companies, but it killing the potential of technology before it has a chance to find it’s real possibility.
I appreciate this is quite a heavy post from what was just a piss-take image of Homer … but the best comedy is always based on a truth we often like to deny.