Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Mum, Mum & Dad, My Childhood, Nottingham
As I am away till next Wednesday on a work trip and I wrote about Dad yesterday to celebrate what would be his 86th birthday … I thought I’d leave you with a post about Mum, to even it all up, haha.
So Mum loved the arts.
Actually, it was more than just love, but curiosity.
Not in a suspicious or judgmental way … but from the perspective of wanting to understand more of it.
Not academically, but more about how the artist approached the work and why.
And it is because of this attitude, Mum was as keen to explore the stuff she didn’t know as much as the stuff she did.
One day she saw an ad for an orchestra coming to Nottingham.
Their name was intriguing – suggesting a new approach or experience of music – so she, along with her neighbours, bought tickets to go and see them at the Royal Concert Hall.
So a few months later, three 80 year olds caught the bus into the city and walked into the venue, only to be a little surprised at what they saw.
Because rather than a stage full of orchestral instruments, they were met with huge amplifiers and a massive lighting rig.
It didn’t take them long to discover why …
Because the orchestra they were seeing was the Electric Light Orchestra.
Also known as ELO, the rock band.
And they loved every single second of it,.
The music, the volume, the musicianship, the drama, the lighting, the whole extravaganza.
I still remember the excitement – and laughter – in Mum’s voice as she told me all about it. But there was one thing above all that stood out – and that was her happiness at discovering, experiencing and exploring a new artistic expression.
Because while she liked – and knew – some of the songs, her biggest joy was the surprise of the unexpected.
Where many would be disappointed to not have what they thought they were getting, Mum was elated.
She understood it was a gift.
A way to see more, feel more, experience more and know more than she did before.
Leaving with more than she went in with … musically, creatively and how people interpret and interact with the World.
But that was her …
A human who not loved to learn for the sheer joy of learning, but had a deep interest in what others are interested in. Even if she didn’t particularly like it, understand it or connect to it.
Because to her, knowledge wasn’t power, appreciation was.
Appreciation earned through listening, learning, experiencing and engaging.
An openness to expression and experience …
It’s why that even in her 80’s she was curious to the new.
Not so she could pretend she was young, but to protect her from becoming old.
By that, I mean in terms of her attitude to life rather than reversing her age.
And as I get older, I realise what an amazing role model she was to me.
To be comfortable with the uncomfortable and curious to the new.
Because while Mum was a person of high standards, morals and values … she never let these become barriers to exploring or welcoming the people and subjects that lived outside of them. Not so she could judge, but so she could grow.
We could do with more people like my Mum these days.
Across all areas of life. From politics to advertising.
Because we see so many people aggressively trying to live in the bubble of their making.
Actively standing in the way of new ideas and ideals … fighting hard to defend what they have or control what they don’t.
Believing they know enough and are enough so stay within the walls of their blinkered, privileged, superficial echo chamber.
Seeing anything different or new as – at best – hard work or, at worst, the enemy.
Living by headlines, not experience, curiosity and understanding.
So while Mum most definitely had her quirks, I’m increasingly grateful that she – and Dad – taught me variety isn’t the spice of life, it’s makes sense of it.
Thank you my dear, wonderful Mum.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Confidence, Content, Context, Craft, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design
A few weeks ago, I went on a trip where the people I was going to meet, had sent a car to pick me up.
If this wasn’t flashy enough, it was a Mercedes. With a driver who wore a fucking cap … and it wasn’t even a German Policeman.
As I sat in the plush leather seats, I couldn’t help but notice one thing.
This.
Brown.
Brown on brown.
Brown on brown. On brown.
It was as if the design team were a bunch of perverts who loved sewer porn. Or something.
And I have to say, I found it pretty off-putting. Well, when I say off-putting, I mean distracting … because I couldn’t take my eyes off it. Wondering why anyone would do this.
Because it wasn’t just 50 shades of brown, it was also made up of multiple materials of brown.
Leather.
Wood.
Plastic … often disguised to look like leather. And wood.
What the actual fuck?
I tell you something, when you’re literally cocooned in a car of poo, the last thing you want to do is drink the bottle of water they kindly put our for me.
At the time, I tweeted out a picture of the car and said:
“Mercedes really like brown. Though no doubt in the brochure it was called, ‘decadent dark chocolate’. 💩”
To which someone tweeted back that the official colour was, ‘Macchiato Beige’
MACCHIATO BEIGE!
BEIGE!!!
Jesus Christ … if associating with brown is alarmingly questionable, then surely associating yourself with beige is even worse?
Who the hell decided that???
I’m as confused by that as I am the people who actively chose to spend multiple tens of thousands of dollars on having it as an option.
But then history is littered with companies being able to embrace terrible decisions as long as someone has given them a reason to ignore reality.
Years ago, Bloomberg Businessweek asked me to write something for them.
One of the things I wrote about was UPS and their choice of ‘corporate brown’.
At the time I said, “if I had millions to spend, I don’t know if I’d be using it to associate with the contents of a dirty nappy.”
[Otis was approaching his 2nd birthday, so that was relevant to me rather than an attempt to be controversial]
While I appreciate the role colour has in branding – even though the way many use it. think about it and talk about it is utter bollocks – I still don’t really understand how any organisation could decide ‘brown’ in their shade.
In fact the only reason I imagine that can happen is when they hire a consultant firm and they tell them, “brown is a white space for your category, so by owning brown, you differentiate yourself from competitors”.
Which highlights five major considerations for brands:
1. When you allow ‘white space’ to define your strategic decisions, you’re ultimately seeding control to your competitors, not your truth.
2. The quest for differentiation only counts if it offers something of value, not just is different.
3. Without creativity and meaning, your ‘brand asset’ is a conformity drain.
4. Job title doesn’t equate to being smart.
5. Honesty trumps harmony … at least with companies who don’t have god complexes.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Music, Queen, Resonance
Of all the terms banded about by the creative industry … craft is one that is spoken about a lot.
For many people, they interpret this in terms of executional quality and without doubt, that is a part of it, but it is so much more.
In fact, craft starts at the thinking phase … before a single thing has been defined or committed to paper.
I’ve written a lot about craft over the years, but I recently read something that for me, is a wonderful expression of its role and power.
Now, I get there’s going to be a lot of moaning when you see what my example is – or, should I say, – who my example of craft is coming from. But hang in there. Please.
Are you ready?
OK, so it comes from Queen’s Brian May.
I know … I know … but there’s a reason for this.
You see he was recently asked about the lyrics to one of his songs called ’39.
This song appeared on their 1975 album, ‘A Night At The Opera’ and it is a song about space travel through different dimensions.
For haters of Queen, just description probably justifies all your loathing … but there is method in the madness.
You see Brian May has a PHD in astrophysics.
And while he gained that qualification in 2007, the reality is he was a leading researcher in the field prior to joining Queen.
In fact the only reason he didn’t gain his PHD back in the 1970’s is because the band took off and so his studies stopped.
But even then, his love of astrophysics was a key part of who he was – especially the relationship it had with the dimension of time – which is maybe one of the key influences behind this song.
To understand the rest of this post, you should hear it … paying particular interest to the lyrics. So click here.
Did you do it?
Did you bollocks.
OK, then just click here to read the lyrics.
Did you do that?
Hmmmmn, OK … I believe you even if no one else will.
The point of this is because Brian May was recently asked about the story of the song and his reply is fascinating.
Fascinating in terms of where and how song writers get their inspiration …
But – to link back to the point of the post – fascinating in terms of how this crafted how he specifically wrote the lyrics …
How amazing is that?
I love how he explains why the tenses are mixed up in his lyrics.
How it is integral to the idea he had for the song.
How it is an example of craft in motion.
Sure, there’ll be some pricks who will claim its ‘post rationalized justification’, but that’s because they are confusing their ego with their ability.
Because here’s the thing with craft …
In many ways it is not immediately obvious to the recipient … they may not engage with it in the detail and care that went into it. They probably encounter it as a singular, all-encompassing experience. But to the creator, everything will mean something. Not in terms of ‘contrived, focus-group instruction and manipulation, but in terms of ensuring their creativity is crafted to represent their idea in its purest, most honest form. All the while embracing – and valuing – that the recipient may interpret and connect to the work in different ways than intended. Taking it to somewhere new, different and personal.
It’s a beautiful and generous act and why one of the most important questions I ask in any initial creative meeting is ‘what’s the story behind your story?’.
I don’t mean that in terms of them reiterating the brief or conveying some ‘insight’ they’ve defined to answer/justify their solution … but the journey they have been on in terms of inspiration, consideration or history that has led them or shaped what they are going to show.
Mainly because at this stage of proceedings, it’s got less to do with ‘answering’ the brief, but understanding how they see it.
A glimpse into where it could go, rather than what it currently is.
It’s why we need to remember craft isn’t something to wrap an idea in, it’s what informs the entire expression of the idea.
Because even if people don’t recognise it, they will probably feel it … even if they can’t explain why.
And that is the power of creativity … something we need to protect, especially from those who try to present it or define it like its engineering and their master mechanics. Which is ironic, given they’ve never created anything with it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Alcohol, Apathy, Asia, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Beer, Campaign Magazine, China, Chinese Culture, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Empathy, Environment, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Shanghai, Singapore, Strategy
I have a history of working on clients I don’t really have a right to work on.
Sport.
High Fashion.
Female Haircare.
OK, so I have a real relationship with sport, but I think the reason I have been able to [even though I say it myself] be so successful with the other categories is that I get so into what I am working on. I get kind-of obsessed with learning and understanding everything about it and throw myself into reading all I can about the culture, history and category before I then interview everyone I can meet who is authentically connected to it.
No outsourcing to superficial focus groups … it’s about graft. Working with the people who create and push the category rather than those who simply buy the product.
It’s served me well – underpinned by clients who care about their audience rather than just see them as walking wallets and me being being self-aware enough to know my perspective is from an outsiders point of view, so I need to explore everything while assuming nothing.
I say all this because one of the other categories I’ve worked on that I shouldn’t, is alcohol.
Why shouldn’t I?
Because the last sip of booze that passed my lips was in 1985.
NINETEEN EIGHTY FIVE … so 39 years ago!
And yet over that time, I’ve worked on everything from Heineken, Guinness, Johnnie Walker and the development of Blackened, for Metallica.
Beer advertising in particular is fascinating because there tends to be 2 states:
Sponsored jokes or pretentious bullshit.
Now I get why it falls into these 2 states because client/agencies tend to either want to reaffirm their beer is ‘fun and social’ or ‘important and crafted’.
But for every Guinness Surfer, Carlton Draft Big Ad, John Smiths No Nonsense, DB Export Brewtroleum or going right back, Heineken Refreshes … there’s a whole heap of contrived, lifestyle rubbish.
Lazy headlines placed over generic Getty image photography.
One I saw recently was this from Tiger.
Now I appreciate the photo does not do it justice, but the headline reads:
Tiger Crystal.
Ultra Low Carb.
Extra Refreshing.
The reason this does my head in is two-fold.
First is you have to understand Tiger is very close to my heart.
Not only was it one of the first brands I worked on when I first moved to Asia, I also won the worldwide account – literally on my own – against 4 network agencies back in the early 2000’s.
Apart from that allowing me to work with some brilliant people on some brilliant assignments, it also resulted in Campaign Magazine featuring me on their front page in all my sweary glory, which is obviously a career high, hahaha.
But the other reason is that copy makes no fucking sense.
What the hell does ‘extra refreshing’ mean?
Oh I know how they’ll justify it …
With less carbs, the beer tastes even better to the drinker. Not literally, but emotionally.
And while there may be an element of truth to that … it doesn’t make it EXTRA refreshing. More drinkable maybe, but not extra refreshing. But here’s the thing, if it’s that good, why don’t they make ALL their beer like this?
Why don’t they bring their ‘extra refreshing’ premise to all their products?
I’ll tell you why, because it’s bollocks.
It’s lazy marketing … another example of vacuous superlatives being churned out to sound exciting without any thought, consideration or any excitement. An act of arrogance, demonstrating how important the brand thinks it is and how little they think – or understand – the audience they literally serve.
Now I appreciate some may say, ‘why does it matter, no one will pay much attention to it’?
And I get that … except that’s the point really.
Our job is to try and make people pay attention.
To give a shit.
They’re not going to think it changes their life, but they shouldn’t blindly ignore it.
It’s this sort of arrogance that demonstrates the lack of self-awareness that has permeated the industry. A blind belief that everything we do is great simply because we did it … despite the fact in the real world, all we’re doing is adding to the social landfill and social pollution of shit advertising.
Where is the pride in who we are, what we do and the intelligence of who we engage?
Where?
We’re so much better than this. And just to be clear, I’m not solely blaming whoever did this awfulness, it’s also the clients, procurement and ‘for profit’ research companies who created the environment where this ends up being deemed ‘worthy’.
I swear the biggest problem the industry has is every department and discipline has its own agendas and metrics for success.
There’s no alignment.
No agreement on what we want and need to make.
Just distain, distrust and self-interest.
Of course not everyone is like this – thank god – but if clients want to see the potential of their brand and agencies want to push the possibilities of their creativity, there has to be a moment where we stop hiding awfulness under the blanket of marketing justifiable rationales, because for all the NPS, system 1, best-practice approaches we may proudly shout about, there are two questions that trump all.
Is it true and does it make us give a shit?
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Context, Craft, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Cynic
Once upon a time – when we had cynic – we were approached by a car company to work on a secret project for them.
Or so they said.
As we spent more time together, we discovered what they wanted was to see if we could help them stand out from the competition when their cars were literally rebadged cars from another manufacturer [under licence] and there was almost no distinctive feature whatsoever.
Originally, we thought that was an interesting situation in itself, but the more ideas we presented, the more we realised, ‘what they wanted’ … and ‘what they were willing to do’, were very different indeed.
So one day, exasperated, we showed them a campaign that looked just like every other campaign, except we removed every element of background. For all intents and purposes, it was the car driving around a white space. And while that sounds weird – and shit – it actually had this hypnotic effect.
Familiar and new.
Clinical and intimate.
Boring and interesting.
It was strangely bizarre, and while the client never made it – in fact we told them we didn’t want to play with them, shortly after this – that work still messes with my mind for the feelings it gave me.
Mainly because on face value, it shouldn’t have made me feel anything.
But then, if it didn’t have that effect, then Andy and Rudi wouldn’t have come up with it.
I’ve thought about that campaign every now and then for literally years, and then I saw this:
Suddenly it all made sense.
Why that idea felt comfortable while also igniting confusion.
But a confusion that was addictive and infectious.
And all because what we’d done was create a campaign that was generally the same as every other car ad campaign, but with one distinct element removed … meaning it felt psychologically very different, which meant it felt very emotionally different.
Which is why this piece I saw recently from Nils also hit home.
I love this.
I admit, it’s something I’ve been a part of countless time, but it’s always felt part of a conversation of curiosity rather than part of a designated creative process.
So seeing it written down was really good and powerful.
And to me, this kind-of captures the difference between making advertising and creativity.
When we make advertising, too often we think of it as an entire package … where everything needs to communicate a singular message that has been designed to present the product or brand in the most favourable light. But when we think in terms of creativity, it’s more about igniting feelings and emotions – things that stick deep within and make you think.
And that’s what we did with that ad we presented to the crazy client … we made something that was creatively psychological rather than advertisingly logical … exemplified by the fact that while I’ve seen a lot of car ads in the past week, I can’t remember any of them. But I can remember how a car ad we put together 20+ years ago made me feel.
Sometimes, the worst ideas open the door to some of the best.
So be careful before you kill things … you might be destroying your chance to do something that you’ll never be able to shake.
Thank you Mario.
Thank you Nils.
And thank you Andy and Rudi, who caused this whole mindfuck for me, over 20 years ago.