Filed under: 2025, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Confidence, Craft, Luxury, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance, Reputation
Birkin.
The Holy Grail of handbags.
Created in 1984 when the CEO of Hermes, Jean-Louis Dumas met the actress Jane Birkin.
They’re sold exclusively through Hermes stores and you have to jump through all manner of hoops to be able to buy one.
You also need to have a fuckload of cash because they can cost in the hundreds of thousands.
That’s MULTIPLES of hundreds of thousands.
And that’s in US dollars.
Whether those prices are justified is immaterial … the reality is, they are viewed almost like precious gems.
Which is why this ad for a beauty company – MCoBeauty – made me laugh out loud.
Look at it.
LOOK AT IT!!!
It’s more Burger King than Birkin … made even better that it is appearing on bus shelters.
On one hand, I quite like how they have just destroyed the pomposity of the Birkin brand with one simple image … but on the other, they’ve not just destroyed the aspirational value of the ‘prize’ they’re giving away by making it look like a ‘pound shop knock off’, they’ve also just fucked themselves over by reinforcing that however much brands like MCoBeauty may try and claim they’re all about ‘accessible/everyday luxury’, they’re basically admitting nothing compares to getting your hands on real luxury.
But that last point is immaterial when you make an ad that makes a Birkin Bag look less appealing than a supermarket paper bag.
If it was ironic it might work, but it’s not … it’s pure ‘starburst’ sales promotion awfulness
Who designed this thing?
The colours are hideous.
The copy is disastrous.
The art direction is scandalous.
If you want to leverage giving a Birkin Bag away to drive sales … maybe you should make it feel like something you would actually like to own, rather than avoid. And god forbid Hermes see it because they will come after you like a ton-of-bricks. Even if you own it. And even if it is second hand. Hermes understand the value of reputation … it’s why they can sell bits of stitched leather for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What is so annoying is this could have been really good.
Not just executionally, but for building the reputation and value of the MCoBeauty.
But no, instead – as is the case with far too much these days – they haven’t given a shit and just banged any old bollocks out, because we live in times where marketing is focused more on what you want to say rather than understanding the importance of how you say it.
Or said another way. There’s too much focus on systems rather than appreciating the value and impact of craft.
Which may explain why Hermes – for all the challenges the luxury category are experiencing – are still doing better than MCoBeauty and the entire ad industry put together.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Colleagues, Craft, Culture, Customer Service, Emotion, Experience, Fake Attitude, Japan, Luxury, Marketing, Mercedes, Money, Packaging, Resonance, Respect
Over the years I’ve written a lot about brands who spend time and money ensuring their customers feel they’ve purchased something of significantly greater value than the functional cost of the item they’ve purchased.
The original ‘brand experience’ as it were.
There’s Tiffany with their iconic ‘little blue box’.
There’s Apple with their packaging and attention to detail.
Hell, there’s even Absolut with their special edition bottles – though I accept that’s more a satisfying novelty than something that builds real additional value for the brand.
But what I find interesting is for all the talk of ‘brand experience’, most brands – except those truly in the luxury space – suck at it. And that’s not counting the masses of brands who don’t even bother with it – often believing their customers should consider themselves fortunate for owning whatever it is they’ve just handed over their cash to buy.
But that aside … the problem with a lot of ‘brand experience’ is it’s starting point is the cost to do it, not the emotion they ignite because of it – so we end up with countless Temu versions of whatever it is they want to do or what they think people want to get.
Now I am not saying that these approaches don’t work or aren’t liked, but we end up in parity status very quickly – which has the result of completely nullifying whatever ‘value’ you hoped you would get from it in the first place.
The reality is experience is less about what you do and how you do it …
Not just for distinctiveness.
Not just for memorability.
But because it conveys what you value and the standards you keep.
This should be obvious as hell – but the problem is, when companies evaluate it against the cost – or time – many view it as an expense rather than an investment in their brand and customer relationship, so before you know it, they strip things back to its most basic form.
It’s why I love how Japanese brands tend to approach brand experience.
As a society, care and attention seem to be built into the DNA.
You just have to see how they package anything to realise they – if anything – over engineer brand experience.
It’s a culture that places high importance on standards, respect and consistency – which is why I like this video of someone picking up their new Lexus car.
On one level, it’s not that different to a lot of car manufacturers around the world who place a bow or blanket over a car when it’s about to be picked up, however when they do it – you know the amount of effort involved in executing is minimal, whereas this – whether part of a fixed process or not – requires commitment and time.
Is this overkill?
Yep.
Is this more culturally influenced than category?
Undoubtedly.
And is the whole thing a bit awkward?
For many, it absolutely would be.
However, the point of the Lexus example is less about what they do and more a case of showing a brand who are committed to expressing who they are and who they’re for – because where brand experience is concerned, too many companies approach this key part of the ‘sales process’ with passive energy whereas Japan is almost aggressive in ensuring its point of view in expressed in an active and engaged manner.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Career, Communication Strategy, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Egovertising, Influencers, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Popularity, Process, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Success
I’ve been lucky enough to work with some of the most talented advertising people in the whole business. Not in terms of popularity. Not in terms of ‘thought leadership’. But in terms of making the work. Consistently.
Not luck.
Not one-offs.
Not dependent on a particular client.
They’ve made work that has changed minds, categories and possibilities through their vision, talent and creativity.
And while they are all individuals, with their own perspectives and viewpoints – there is one thing that is pretty consistent across all of them.
They’re good people who are immensely talented rather than people who aspire to work in advertising. Or more specifically, live what they think is ‘the advertising lifestyle’.
And what the fuck do I mean by that?
Well, there’s many ways I could explain it but instead, let me show you something that a mate of mine sent me recently.
Now, before I go on, I should point out I don’t know this person and I don’t know if they’re just executing a brilliant pisstake of how some in the industry act. And if it is, then bravo – they’ve nailed the Andrew Tate of advertising schtick that some on Linkedin like to spout, perfectly.
However, if it’s not – and I worry, it may not be – then this kind of shit sums up everything wrong with our industry. All about attitude and fame than actually making stuff that is famous.
Now I appreciate this person may be young and felt this is how they were supposed to act – especially as those ’24 hours with …’ features tend to be a total exercise in ego and bravado. And it’s for that reason, I chose to remove all reference to who wrote it because let’s be honest, we’re all entitled to make huge mistakes.
However, as I have recently come across a bunch of people in the industry who I suspect would write something exactly like this – and be proud as fuck for it – I think this is the point where I remind everyone in the industry that the people we should be looking up to are not those with the name … the title … the pay packet … the popularity … but the ones who have actually made the fucking work.
Not by proxy.
Not by association.
But with their fingerprints.
And if that’s too much to ask, then let’s at least celebrate people like Sangsoo Chong, who wrote the best ’24 hours with …’ I’ve ever read. Not because it takes the piss … not because it’s glamorous and glitzy but because it’s the most brutally raw and honest description of how a lot of this business really works.
Sadly, what you are about to read, doesn’t capture any of that.
Hell, it doesn’t even capture anything to do with great ideas.
But then it shouldn’t really surprise me when too much of the industry seems to value ‘hot takes’ more than making cool work.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Content, Context, Craft, Finance, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Technology
One thing I find increasingly interesting is the focus on speed rather than quality.
Oh no one really talks about it directly, instead they use terms like MVP to make it sound like a much more strategic decision … but the fact of the matter is everyone is in a race and the prize goes to whoever starts first, let alone finishes first.
Nothing is this more true than in the modern era of gold rush, known as ‘AI’.
Everywhere you look there’s a new company that has popped up with claims they are the next big thing … reinforced with a market evaluation in the billions, despite the fact they haven’t made a profit and they haven’t even got a significant user base yet.
But that’s the thing with tech and investment … all the rules that we are told to abide by, go right out the window when there’s the belief you can make a quick fortune on the wave of topicality and hype.
I’ve talked about it before, but the book Disrupted by Dan Lyons is a brilliant expose on the flaws and hypocrisy of both the tech and investment community … both of whom love to present themselves as The Masters Of The Universe, but are more similar to Jocks crossed with Scientologists and sheep.
The reason I say this is because I recently read a brilliant article by the Economist Luis Garicano on what he calls ‘the O ring’. No, he’s not talking about some orgasm inducing sex aid, it is an economic theory with a name inspired by the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster that states it does not matter how sophisticated or advanced any new idea/system/technology may be, it’s only as good as its weakest link.
Often we forget this in the quest for fast fame, wealth, success or competitive advantage … however given every single one of us who has used AI will have encountered a flaw with what it produced for you at some point or other, should we really be blindly running ahead thinking those ‘little issues’ will forever remain ‘little flaws?’.
Again, don’t get me wrong, I think AI is incredible.
I also appreciate it is still new technology so what it can already do is amazing.
But …
As the father of a friend of mine [Hello Judd] once said:
“If you haven’t got the time to do it right at the beginning, when will you?”
Filed under: 2025, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Comment, Confidence, Conformity, Consultants, Craft, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mediocrity, Paula, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Process, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
In strategy, one of the biggest insults is someone saying the strategy was post-rationalised to fit the work. The accusation implies you are a parasite of creativity … bigging yourself up on the sweat and tears of the creative team.
I get it. We all like to think we are a vital part of the process … the ignition of possibility … but the reality is, we all post-rationalise at some point, in some way.
I don’t mean we do fuck-all work and simply ‘badge’ our involvement post creative development – well, there’s some who do that, but they’re not hard to spot. No, what I mean is we all fine-tune our strategy as the creativity starts to reveal where it can go.
And that is good.
Because if you are so purist you think what you write is the rule of law, then you either better be fucking incredible or prepared for disappointment.
Sadly, I know there are some who think that way.
People who don’t get strategy without output is intellectual masturbation.
People who don’t get strategy that doesn’t create change is cowardly bullshit.
People who don’t get if strategy doesn’t make the first creative leap, it’s commercially small.
The reality is there’s a big fucking difference between having a vision for the work and dictating the work … and far too often, I see a lot of strategists talk about the former but act in a way that is much more about the latter.
It’s why I’ve enjoyed working so closely with artists – be it fashion, music, photography or authors – because while many approach their work with a clear vision for what they do … and an incredible focus on ensuring every little detail that goes into it is true to what they are trying to express … they also stay open to possibilities, opportunities and happy accidents throughout the entire journey.
Put simply, if they find something that feels/looks/sounds better than they imagined or intended, they go with it.
They chase the excitement and the interesting – which Paula, Martin and I discussed in detail [in particular regarding how Succession creator, Jesse Armstrong, approaches his ‘writers room’] a couple of years ago at Cannes with our talk ‘Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative’.
And that is what strategy should be doing as well. And often it does … and yet, I continue to hear people throw ‘post-rationalised’ barbs like they’re confetti. Given how much work is seemingly churned out without any strategy whatsofuckingever – masked by using a celeb, a gimmick or some made-up ‘consumer need’ – I can’t help but feel we should be focusing our judgment on those who are literally undermining the value of our discipline rather than someone who wrote a strategy, saw work that revealed a bigger possibility and then evolved/adapted their thinking because it helped everyone get to a bigger and better place.
I say this because I recently watched an interview with Bowie who perfectly articulated how the ‘creative process’ that is spouted and sold by so many is often a pile of shit.
As usual, he’s right.
Of course I appreciate there are some industries, processes and jobs where there is no room for deviation.
But in terms of business – and especially the business of creativity – that’s a terrible idea.
It’s why I find it hilarious how many companies and individuals try to claim they have perfected the ‘creative process’ when not only are most basically flogging self-serving insurance policies rather than business liberation but ALL OF THEM – and I mean ALL – are peddling processes that revel in ‘removing process inefficiencies’ without realizing they’re the very bits that allow great work to be born.
And that is the problem with where we’re at right now.
People who have never made any work, creating processes they say lead to great work.
But when you’ve never done it – or never done it at a level that has made a difference – you don’t realise the things that make no sense to you, are often the very things that make special things happen time and time again.
So what do they do?
They get rid of them …
So there’s no time to do nothing but just think about stuff.
There’s no time to shoot-the-shit with colleagues, clients and people in general.
There’s no time to explore, research and experiment with your thoughts and ideas.
There’s no time to collaborate with people who have exceptional taste, craft and vision.
And all this is before we even get to basic shit like being given a good brief, a good amount of time, a good enough budget and good enough people who not only can make the work … but evaluate it and take responsibility of getting their organization to embrace it.
So all these pundit processes sell the illusion of a seamless, processes where the people involved are immaterial to the work that is produced … often using the shit in the market as the ‘ultimate validation’ of their approach, while conveniently ignoring the fact most of that shit was created because of their processes, not despite them.
Look, I get what we do is expensive … I also get what we do has a lot riding on it, so the desire to have more certainty in decisions is understandable. But you can’t expect certainty while demanding possibility … while at the same time, reducing budgets, people and time … and anyone who says you can is not just bullshitting you, but stealing from you.
I’m not saying there isn’t stupid shit in adland, but we also have to acknowledge there’s stupid shit in corporateland.So given we’re all supposedly wanting the same thing – while appreciating what each party brings to the table that the other is not capable of doing – maybe we’d all be doing better off if we talked honestly and openly rather than egotistically and judgmentally.
I know I’m dreaming, but hey … it’s close to Christmas, so when better to make a wish?