Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Alcohol, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Communication Strategy, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Devious Strategy, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity
Day 2 of 2025 and I’m still bursting with positive pessimism.
Helped because of stuff like this the following …
We all know one of the key roles of advertising is to add commercial momentum and value to business. Well, I recently saw a rather unique approach to achieving this goal with some work from vodka brand, Smirnoff.
Have a look at this.
What the absolute fuck?
What the hell is that copy?
What does it mean? What were they thinking? How the hell did this get approved?
I appreciate being associated with Russia these days is commercial suicide, but seriously, having Putin as their brand ambassador would be less shameful than this horror show.
And the overt attempt to boost business by attempting to be seen as a ‘social lubricant’ is about as subtle as a cucumber down a pair of cycling shorts.
“Don’t drink alone, drink with lots of people” … they scream.
To which I reply, why?
Why the hell should I?
And why the hell should it be with Smirnoff.
If you want to do that, how about you do something that creates the conditions that make me want to do it. Make it easy for me to do it.
But then, if you did that, it would mess up your ‘please drink responsibly’ message that you use to lobby governments to give you tax breaks because you’re more worried about the impact of declining alcohol sales and consumption than you are about excessive drinking.
Maybe. Ahem.
I’ve always felt Smirnoff – bar a couple of campaigns a 1000 years ago – have had a problem capturing and expressing who they are., but this is new depths of barrel scraping awful.
That said, I appreciate there’s also the possibility it could be an act of creative genius.
I appreciate those are wildly contrasting views, but it’s because I can’t tell if this ad is:
1. The result of the copywriter chugging down copious amounts of Smirnoff as they ‘wrote’ the headline. OR …
2. It has been purposefully designed to be so insane, it will make all who see it want to turn to drink and so Smirnoff sales rise.
Frankly, I can’t help but feel they’d have more luck with this ad if they targeted Pornhub’s audience, because ‘YOU DO YOU … NEEDS MORE US … WE DO US’ sounds more like an invitation to a swingers party than anything that would make anyone else give a damn.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Content, Context, Crap Campaigns In History, Creativity, Empathy, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Resonance
Growing old is a fascinating experience because of the multitude of ways it impacts you.
And while a lot of the narrative around it is negative, it’s not entirely the case.
You give less of a fuck about things that used to bother you because you realise they don’t really matter. And you feel more confident to speak up about issues that do bother you, because you are less nervous about expressing how you feel.
Sure, that can lead to all sorts of problematic behaviour and attitudes, but as long as you’re not a myopic, prejudiced dick … it’s generally good.
But without doubt there’s things that do mess with you.
Parts of you hurt you didn’t even know was a part that could hurt.
You are made very aware that your relevance to society is less important.
And when you look in the mirror, you don’t recognise the old bastard staring back at you.
There’s a lot of money in trying to delay the signs of ages.
Or should I say, the physical signs.
And while I could make this a post about the unfair, unjust and unrealistic expectations [and judgement] that society places on looks – and aging – especially towards women, that’s not the point of this post.
You see I recently passed a cosmetic beauty shop/spa/clinic whose promise to ‘help you counter the realities of growing old’ seemed to miss the point of what potential customers actually are looking for.
Or at least it did to me, because their ad said this …
Now maybe I’m wrong, but surely one of the main points in seeking anti-aging treatment is so you DON’T age your way.
That, if anything, you age someone else’s way.
Preferably someone much younger than you.
And hotter.
OK, with hindsight, I get that’s what they maybe meant.
That they were trying to say their treatment allows you to control how you age, as opposed to leaving it to nature. And if that’s the case, then it’s probably closer to being the right proposition [albeit flawed, generic and contrived as hell] with some of the worst writing.
But then I hate that whole ‘YOUR RULES, YOUR WAY’ ad narrative that appears so often.
Communication that’s devoid of any sort of definitive or differentiated idea, other than utterly preposterous suggestion their product/service empowers you to conquer and counter all the rules, realities and science of the World that relates to your particular situation or need.
The imbecilic idea that people will believe this company/brand has the knowledge/technology/magic to achieve what no other organisation or individual can achieve.
ON THE PLANET.
Jesus Christ, it’s so lazy and unimaginative.
Sure, I get this approach works … but the whole business strategy appears to be ‘get a bit of the same pie everyone is eating’ rather than develop a point of view that will get you more of the pie.
But as bad as that is, I realise there’s something even worse than that
It’s all of the above generic shit … but with a headline that doesn’t even convey it with clarity.
Which is the real ugly side of beauty.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Stubborness, Trust, Truth
I love this clip from South Park about how they think Netflix works.
Sure, it’s taking the piss out of the streaming gods – suggesting their quality control is all over the place because they say yes to every pitch – but in some ways, I can’t help but feel it would be brilliant if more clients embraced this approach.
Now before you think I’m mad, there is a reason for this.
About 14,000 years ago, I wrote a post saying clients should say yes more often and agencies should say no. The main reason for this was I kept hearing companies suggest their agencies didn’t understand their business. That they were more interested in what they wanted to make rather than what their clients needed.
They’re wrong … because in my experience, agencies absolutely want to do the best things for their clients.
That they have different ways to achieve their clients needs and goals is a good thing.
More than that, it’s literally what they are all about.
But right now it seems more and more clients are trying to dictate and mandate work … when, with the upmost respect, many haven’t got the faintest idea what good work is, how to get it, and how to get their audience to be interested and motivated in what they’ve got to say.
Now to be fair, this is not entirely their fault.
It doesn’t help many agencies have sold creativity so far down the river, that the only thing they care about is the head hours they can sell. It doesn’t help many companies only enable their people to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. And it doesn’t help company procurement departments have an outsized influence on the approach and people their agency gets to work with – which directly impacts the work that gets produced – which is why you can see how this often turns into a complete shit show.
But that still doesn’t explain why some clients think they know more about creativity than their agency.
Which is why I think the ‘for profit’ research agencies they surround themselves with have to shoulder some of the blame. Part of that is because supporting what the client thinks and wants is in their personal interests. And part of that is because many of them make the mistake of judging work by clarity of message rather than enjoyment of content.
To emphasise this last point, there’s a brilliant story about Spielberg when he was starting Dreamworks.
You see despite him and his partners being some of the most successful producers and directors of all time, their external investors wanted everything to go through focus groups to ensure everything was geared for success.
Spielberg said no.
He said he made films that were true to his vision, not other people’s.
In fact he was so insistent on this point that the whole deal was nearly off until Spielberg agreed to do it on the condition that any focus group was based around answering just one question and he had the right to decide what to do with the answer, once he’d got it.
They asked him what was the question.
“Were you entertained?”
That’s it.
One question.
One simple question … but arguably the most pertinent question.
Just to be clear, I am not saying research isn’t important.
It is. It’s vital.
In fact I love research. I love what it can uncover and reveal and help you understand.
But it shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate judge and jury.
It shouldn’t be about definitive answers.
The funny thing is I often find company research people understand this very well. They have incredible knowledge while also being very self aware. An openness to explore and consider. Where the most blinkered and stubborn thinking happens is when working with external organisations who harbour ambitions to be strategic partners. Where their goal is to control rather than inform.
Not of course, not everyone is like that. There’s many amazing companies out there … but there’s also a bunch whose commercial interests end up accelerating the disconnection of brands with truth and potential rather than enabling it.
But I digress.
The point of this post – and that South Park clip – is in the quest to not make any mistake or risk upsetting anyone – often their own board of directors – companies end up creating work that says nothing and does little. Meanwhile, with Netflix actively looking for the next big, they’re saying yes rather than no … and while that leads to a lot of stuff that may not perform, their commitment to pushing and exploring means they also have a lot of epic. Which has created a lot of longterm value.
Or said another way, Netflix see the commercial value of trust, creativity and exploration.
And while I know the two can’t really be compared, I’m going there … not just to reinforce the point that self-awareness is commercial intelligence, but because if brands want people to love them, it might be good if they did stuff for them, not about themselves. And it might be good if more agencies got back to valuing creativity rather than just saying they do.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Childhood, Comment, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Love, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Zealand, Otis, Parents, School
Have a look at this …
What the absolute fuck?
I honestly thought it was a spoof when I first saw it.
But no … it’s deadly serious.
A visual of a kid who can’t be more than 3 … holding an adult-sized tennis racket … on a full-size tennis court … with a headline that suggests this is a company that can help your child become a professional athlete.
And if the idea of pushing a 3 year old to be a pro isn’t horrible enough, you then discover it’s a bloody private wealth company promoting that they can find tax benefits for sending your kid to a private school.
That’s right, your kid is a tax write-off.
The absolute fuckers.
OK, I admit I have a massive problem with private schools. Education … good education … should be free for all. Not because I’m some socialist fool [though I am a socialist fool] but because the smarter the country, the more prosperous the country.
Education is an investment in a nations future.
I hate schools can be massive profit centres. That some have more money than Councils, so can buy land for their elite kids, that could otherwise be turned into homes or parks or anything other than another elitist space.
OK, so there are some exceptions.
If your child has certain learning difficulties, I would understand it.
As I wrote a while back, too many schools are forced to teach as a one-size-fits-all, collective.
Where kids aren’t actually learning, they’re being taught to remember.
It’s why I’m so grateful to Otis’ school with his recent dysgraphia diagnosis.
Where they see his potential, not his problems.
Of course, if that wasn’t the case … then we would have to find a school that would help him on his terms, not their schedule.
And as much as I am vehemently opposed to private education, I’d have to do it.
But even then, it wouldn’t be about elitism, but equality. A chance for him to have a chance.
And while I get all parents want the best for their kids, a child is not a tax write-off and while Apollo Private Wealth are trying to position themselves as the ‘caring and considerate financial partner’, their motives are as transparent as a greenhouse.
So while this ad was not meant as a spoof … it did show this company is a joke.
Filed under: Advertising, Airports, Attitude & Aptitude, Crap Campaigns In History, Perfume
Over the years, I’ve written a bunch about perfume advertising.
How it must be the equivalent of an architect being asked to design a building in China or Dubai – because absolutely anything goes.
At the other end of the spectrum is airport advertising.
Like perfume ads, the goal is not to really sell … but to create illusion and impression.
A way to drive awareness or influence with a captive audience.
And while there are the odd moments of magic – like the Gentle Monster face I worked on – the vast majority are beige-as-batshit ads for banks, universities and fashion houses.
Of course they don’t think that, as I saw recently, they consider themselves the creme de la creme of prestigious ad placement …
Now don’t get me wrong, getting on a plane still has some element of glamour attached – a teensy bit – but a picture of a plane with the words ‘creative advertising’ under it hardly does them service.
And yet, like perfume advertising, there are some who think normal rules do not apply.
While in Croatia, I saw this piece of insanity …
What the fuck?
I mean, I know airports get all sorts of people passing through them.
And, as I said, ads in airport are more about awareness than driving immediate sales.
But … but … an ad for a war plane?
Who is going to pass through an airport and go, “oh yes, that would be perfect for the military coup I’m considering igniting”
Hell, even if it was in Duty Free with a 30% discount, I doubt you’d have to beat people off with a shitty stick to buy one.
And what the hell does ‘Challenge. Create. Outperform.’ even mean?
Then there’s ‘unbeatable combination’.
What’s that then … plane and death?
I am so confused and can only say that whoever bought/sold this ad, is either a genius, a maniac or a dictator.