Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Imagination, New Zealand
I am not a DIY person.
Once, when I was at school, I literally sawed through my finger in a woodwork class and just last week, I stabbed my hand with a serrated knife while trying to cut through some plastic.
With this in mind, it’s fairly obvious that I don’t give a fuck about anything associated with DIY.
Well, I say that, but there have a couple of occasions where I’ve given a damn.
One was the first time I used a drill which – arguably for the first time – made me feel ‘a man’. The downside was I got so into using it, I put so many screws into the fuzzball table I was trying to fix, that the removal men couldn’t take it apart when we kept moving country.
The other was – bizarrely – a ladder, which we bought in the UK.
It was nothing special but like experiencing a smart TV after years of using an old school piece of shit, I thought I had entered a parallel universe given its ability to fold down to a fraction of its size. I know … I know …
But maybe that’s why I was so captivated when I saw this …
Yes, it’s a ladder – a very short ladder – built onto the back of a car.
And while NZ is a rugged land, there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever to ever get on your car roof when you live in Auckland. And yet I love it. It adds a dimension of ‘explorer’ that transcends even the biggest and most modern of SUV’s.
Of course, if that ladder was on its own, you’d think it was the most pointless, shit thing ever. But add it to the back of a car and suddenly you’re Indiana bloody Jones, climbing up on it for any old reason.
Which serves as a reminder that ideas are driven as much by context as need and the more we embrace that, the more we allow imagination to work it’s magic than purely logic.
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.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Empathy, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Planners, Relevance, Strategy
So the good news for you all is this is the last post for 2 weeks.
Yep, you’ve guessed it – I’m on a holiday, I mean a work trip.
Or should I say trips. Plural.
First to Europe. Then Australia. Then LA … I know, I know, I’m a prick.
Now given I pre-write my posts [for example today is the 25th Jan] I appreciate I could still cover this period, but let’s be honest – after 18 years, I’m running out of things to say so we could both do with the break from each other.
What that means is this is the last post until March 4.
MARCH!!!
How the fuck have we got there so soon? Oh, I suppose we haven’t yet have we … but anyway, March 4 is a Monday, so you get to have multiple weekends before I ruin your week again.
You’re welcome.
So now what do I do after writing that long-winded introduction?
Fuck knows.
But recently I saw a couple of things that I thought were particularly good and both revolve about intelligence in marketing rather than the egotistical commodification of it.
As I’ve written a few times before, I’m a bit fed up of the ‘hustle culture of commentary’ that our industry has got itself into. Where everyone seems to speak like they’re gods and gurus who have invented or reinvented the World.
That doesn’t mean they’re idiots – many say stuff that is genuinely interesting – but so much of it has an air of self-interest. Hijacking topicality for self-capitalisation.
Though the ones who claim they’ve got the answers to everything make me laugh – especially when they do nothing with it other than pedestal spouting. I mean, how stupid is that if they think it’s going to change the world. But maybe its because somewhere along the way, they’ve realised what they’re claiming is not ‘new’, just new to them and all they’re doing is reinforcing how little they know about their industries history or life outside their bubble.
That’s not wrong, we all do that to a degree, but it tends to lead to people changing their ways rather than doubling-down on their ego.
But even those people aren’t as annoying as the ones who claim some sort of ownership over something someone has actually done, because they spouted something vaguely associated with the topic on Twitter/X about 6 years earlier.
As I said a while back, it will only be a matter of time before someone makes a paper plane and claims they’ve invented flight.
Look, I’m all for thinking out loud – hell, I’ve been doing it on here for almost 2 decades – but when it’s conveyed with the confidence of a mediocre white man [copyright Chelsea] then that’s where the problems start. At least for me.
There are some brilliant people out there … genuinely brilliant. People who do stuff or try stuff with what they think and say. And a lot of them aren’t even on social media. But unfortunately there seems to be a lot more who are camped out on social platforms … churning out an endless stream of strategic myths, obviousness or bullshit … using a tone that suggests they’re innovators and anyone who dare challenge them, is a luddite.
It’s kind of the Trump strategy and sadly, like Trump, it works with many.
Which makes me wonder, ‘what if I’m wrong?’.
And you know what … I could be. And I’m open to be.
But popularity is not a sign of originality … or accuracy … or smarts … and I think those things are pretty important too.
That said, if we’re going down this imitation intelligence path, at least make people think rather than try to demand how they should think. And recently I saw two things that did just that.
The first was this:
Now I appreciate a strategist supporting a message of not getting lost in planning may sound a bit weird … but apart from everything else, it makes a welcome change from the overly complex schtick we seem to be celebrating and advocating for right now.
Of course thinking things through is important. But one thing we don’t seem to talk about a lot is the importance of knowing when to stop. So you can put things into motion rather than putting them into an endless loop of consideration.
I got given a piece of advice once I’ve held on to for a long time.
“Be rigorous as hell until you find something exciting …
… then stop and protect it at all costs.”
Now I appreciate the person who told me this was very successful so could afford to say that, but their point was that it was this approach that had got their position. In essence, they advocated for planning to show them the way not obscure it.
I like this view.
When I was starting out, strategy was valued when it was powerful simple … delivering a path to the bigger, better places with sharpness, potency and focus.
But now it seems we’re not like that.
The general narrative appears to be ‘we live in different times with different considerations’ and so we need a completely different approach to the work we do.
And while they’re not wrong about a lot of that … we’re forgetting what strategy is for so now we’re at this weird place where it appears the value is in the complexity rather than the potent, fierce, simplicity.
Please note I say simplicity, not simplistic – which is another thing some people do in an attempt to look like Einstein, when all they’ve done is reduce Liquid Death’s success to “a can that looks different to all other water cans”.
But I digress …
The reality is strategy that is all about complexity is harder to execute, easier for people to hide and more focused on what is done rather than why we’re doing it in the first place.
And that’s why I liked the clip above … because it was a reminder we need to protect what we want to do rather than only care about where the process will lead us.
Which is why I also liked this:
Sure, I get it’s a retrospective, observational view … but it’s interesting and simple.
And funny.
Plus if it was true, it would be a piece of fucking amazing reframing strategy.
Not that people would say that or see that.
Or at least not as simply as the originator articulated.
Which reminds me of the image we used in our Cannes Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative talk with the image of all the different strategic frameworks that say the same thing in ever more complicated ways.
My Dad once said that people who want to show how smart they are, aren’t that smart.
That their need to demonstrate their brain is a demonstration of their insecurity.
I wonder what he’s say if he was alive today and saw how a lot of my industry was behaving.
Because I think he’d have a different view.
That their talk is not about insecurity, but distraction.
It’s why I loathe when I hear people say ‘we’ve done all the work so you don’t have to’.
Oh my fucking god.
But I appreciate this post is getting so long that I’ll be back by the time you’ve finished reading it. That is if anyone did read this, so I’ll just leave you with this …
There is no ‘secret’ to being good.
Even the most talented people work hard at developing it.
In a world promoting hustle, we need to give more value to graft.
I get that’s not a popular thing to say, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
So stay open to different views but be cautious of definitive claims.
Especially from people who can’t point to what they’ve done beyond how many people follow them. Because you just might find they value speed over substance and you don’t want their ego to be at the expense of your growth.
Huge apologies for the epic rant, a bit like old time – ha.
See you in March.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Cannes, China, Comment, Complicity, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Effectiveness, Honesty, Imagination, Marketing, Martin Weigel, Metallica, Nike, Paula, Planners, Point Of View, Provocative, Succession, Uncorporated, Wieden+Kennedy
When Tiger and Nike recently ended their relationship after close on 3 decades, there was a lot written about why.
Hot takes.
Wild ideas.
Conspiracy theories.
But among them all was a post by Tom Bassett – a brilliant ex-Wieden strategist who was there when so much of what became Nike folklore was written.
The reason his voice stood out is because it wasn’t WHY the relationship ended, but why it started.
At the heart of his story was the brief Phil Knight gave for NIKE Golf.
He said: “Get NIKE to be #1 in golf or we get out the category all together”.
Having had the errrrm, pleasure(?) to meet and present to Mr Knight a few times, I can literally hear him saying/barking this … and what I love about it is the stubborn, blinkered ambition.
We seem to live in a world where the majority of conversation is around optimization … efficiency … brand assets … and basically how to get the most out of what you’ve got.
There’s nothing wrong with that, except it’s all about not being wrong than being as good as you can be.
Or said another way, being comfortable with what you’ve got as opposed to being impatient for what you want to have.
Get to #1 is a proper goal. One where the evaluation criteria is very fucking simple.
No hiding behind incremental growth or internal metrics … #1 is a criteria that dictates decisions and investment rather than the other way around.
Sure, there are ways #1 could be reframed in an attempt to look like you’re doing better than you are . Let’s face it, we see this sort of shit in the ad industry all the time, especially around award time … but Phil Knight wasn’t about skewing results but going right at them … which is why he didn’t place any additional burdens on how to achieve goal, other than demand it was true to the sport and how NIKE see’s the athlete.
Sounds easy, but it isn’t.
To do that takes a lot of confidence.
Confidence in who you are … confidence in your team … confidence in what your company stands for and confidence your company is full of people who know what that translates to in terms of behaviour, consideration and action.
And that’s why we often undermine the value of confidence and right it off as bravado.
Of course it can be that, but it is also about trust, experience, knowledge and openness.
As a chef once told me when we were doing Tobasco research at W+K, “the more confident the chef, the less ingredients they use”
And that’s why I love the clarity of Phil Knight’s objective.
He could have added a million mandatories, but he knew that would add a million reasons why his objective would then be almost impossible to achieve.
At least in a realistic timeline.
Which is why, as difficult as the objective was, he increased its chances of success by being clear as fuck and – to a certain degree – open as fuck. Enabling the team to not just tackle the project head on – rather than tap-dance around politics and restraint – but to also place responsibility back on the company in terms of what it needed them to do to help make it happen.
Not just in terms of money, but action and change.
It is one of the many reasons why I loved my time in China … why I loved Branson’s brief for the Virgin lounge … why I love working for Metallica and Mr Ji.
Sure, in China’s case, it was often more the ambition and scale than the clarity … but for the others, it is/was the single-minded, stubbornness of their objective, the trust they placed in the people they were asking to help them do it, the commitment of the whole organisation to give it the best chance of making it happen and the willingness to walk away rather than accept a poor substitute of what they wanted to change.
We need more of that.
Creative work would be more amazing for that.
Effectiveness would be more powerful for that.
But sadly we’re in a world where it’s all about hedging bets, outsourcing responsibility and managing internal politics rather than being focused, fierce and open on creating change.
Proper change.
Real change.
Massive change.
It all kind of ties in with the ‘Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative’ talk Martin, Paula and I did in Cannes last year.
The obsession with playing to the process while being continually outsmarted by those who are focused on enabling the possibility.
And while some claimed we were being irresponsible, unrealistic and even unprofessional in what we were saying, the reality is we have – and are – in the incredibly fortunate position of working with brands/people who prove the most responsible way to create powerful and lasting change is not by hedging your bets, but being willing and open to fight for it all.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Empathy, Honesty, Marketing, Media, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Provocative, Relevance, Resonance, Wieden+Kennedy
This blog has been going for a loooooooong time.
Which means, it’s had its fair share of April Fool posts.
Some have been very good [even though I say it myself] with different industry people picking it up and commenting on it thinking it’s real.
And some being utterly, utterly shite.
But this year I decided not to do one.
Not because I couldn’t be bothered.
Nor because I couldn’t think of what to do.
Not because it was an Easter holiday on April 1.
But because after a while, it just becomes a bit boring.
I say this because a lot of brands don’t seem to get that. Instead, they keep doing the same thing over and over again without realising the audience have moved on.
That might be because of ego. That might be because of a lack of self-awareness. That might be because they don’t even know who the fuck their audience is … but whatever the reason, they keep doing what they do regardless.
And one of those things they keep repeating is ‘hijacking culture’.
By that I mean either during or after a topical event … they hire a van, slap a billboard on the back, put some headline on it that refers to whatever event they are ‘leveraging’ and then drive back and forth so a photographer can snap it in situ and then send it to the press or put it on the socials.
Hey, sometimes it’s really good.
But often, it just feels pretty sad.
Especially when lots of companies are all trying to do exactly the same thing for the same event at the same time.
Look I get it … it’s a way to get boost attention.
It’s also a way to show your client – or their bosses – you’re ‘on the ball’.
Can’t criticise that … except in many cases, it also seems to have a subliminal admission that they need to borrow from others to make people care about them.
Which is less good.
Yes, I know I’m being a bit of a pedantic asshole here, but here’s the thing … when people expect brands to do this stuff, then you have to accept that you’re no longer ‘hijacking’ anything, you’re simply conforming.
Of course there are ways to do it well.
Wieden were the masters and – arguably – the originators of it.
Which was basically to do stuff that ‘added to the cultural conversation, not just stole from it.
They did it with NIKE for literally decades.
Olympics.
Superbowls.
World Cups.
Winning.
Failing.
Achievements.
Retirements.
Fines.
Spectaculars.
But achieving it wasn’t simply down to great talent, great clients or being quick at doing stuff like this, it was down to 3 things.
Creatives co-run/run the account, not simply make the ads.
They understand the culture around the category, not just the category.
They think in terms of owning the brand voice, not just launching campaigns.
What the combination means is everyone feels there role and purpose is more than just making advertising, but finding how … where … when and who the brand can/should a voice and point of view. It’s more than just being pro-active, it’s a confidence in your preparation.
You know what the brand will say.
You know how the brand will say it.
You know what the culture of the audience want and need.
You’re moving things forward because you’re always moving things forward. Seeing your role as far more than simply fulfilling ‘campaign requirements’ and ‘unexpected opportunities’ but directly and continually driving, shaping and influencing the behaviour and energy of the vision and role of the brand in culture.
Many people will say they do that, few do.
Instead they just churn out stunts or puns that often end up being more for the ego of the people involved than the benefit of the audience it is supposedly for.
Which is the heart of what, in my opinion, separates brands/agencies who get it and those who pretend they do.
Because the wannabes and imposters talk about how they will make the masses love their brand, whereas the real deal know it’s about the brand showing and expressing who they love and who they are for.