Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, America, Clothes, Creativity, Culture, Curiosity, Jill, LaLaLand, Otis, Planners, Planning, Relevance, Research, Respect, School
I appreciate the title of that post may be misleading because – let’s face it – my posts are pants everyday, except this time I’m literally talking about pants.
These pants …
I saw them on Sunday morning while going on my daily walk.
They were near the library … and given I do this walk everyday and they weren’t there the day before, it would suggest they appeared in the last 24 hours.
And while I could say they symbolise someone having a great – or terrible – Saturday night/Sunday morning … the reality is I have no idea and without wanting to sound a perv, I’m kind-of fascinated to know more about them.
The story that led to them appearing there.
The choice of that particular pattern and design.
The feelings of having ‘lost them’.
It’s a bit like the painting I bought at Otis’ LA hippy kindergarten ‘fund raiser’ back in 2017.
The Al Pacino meets Chuck Noris thing with out-of-proportion arms.
The painting the organisers couldn’t believe someone would pay for because it’s awful.
I bloody love that painting.
I love that someone did it and I wish I knew who and why.
Given it’s 40 years old, I doubt I’ll ever know … but I’ve tried.
And while it is more a burglar deterrent than a gallery star, there’s something about it ‘everyday, anybodyness’ that is like a beacon to me.
Like those pants.
Because there’s a story there.
May be funny … may be lovely … may be tragedy.
And while I would not take them – let alone pay for them and then hang them up in my house, like my piece of ‘art’ – there’s a story there.
Which serves as a great reminder than for all the curiosity our discipline has, the fact we spend more time talking about systems and processes rather than the stories that literally surrounds us highlights the tool we should be embracing more than others.
Opening our eyes.
___________________________________________________________
I’m off to Australia tomorrow for work, so there’s no posts till Friday. But I’m quite excited about that post, so even though no one cares – let alone will read it – I can satisfy my ego by writing this and pretending there’ll be a clamour to read it on Friday morning. Even though there won’t be. Ignorance is bliss. Self-awareness is a killer.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Creative Development, Creativity, Marketing Fail, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect
This kind-of carries on from yesterday’s post because I’m seeing a lot of strategists asking ‘is strategy a joke’.
I get why they’re asking it and some have some excellent takes on it but I can’t help but feel we’re all missing the point.
Because at the end of the day, there’s only one question to ask in relation to our discipline.
Is the work better?
That’s it.
That’s all we have to ask.
And if it’s not … it doesn’t really matter what we’re doing or how we’re doing it, we’re failing.
What absolutely bothers the fuck out of me is we continually avoid talking about the work.
Processes. Yes.
Ecosystems. Yes.
Frameworks. Yes.
But the actual work?
Not much … which is rather bonkers given our entire job is about enabling it.
Put simply, if there’s no work that is born from our strategy – and I mean that in the broadest sense of the word – then it’s utterly meaningless and potentially intellectually indulgent as fuck. And this is why I can’t help but feel if my old man was alive [who wasn’t a strategist or in advertising but – as a human rights QC/Barrister – knew a fuckload about strategy and was arguably a damn sight better at it than most of us] he would likely say strategy isn’t failing, we’re failing strategy.
And I think we are.
More obsessed with gaining personal notoriety than doing work that is notorious.
As I wrote yesterday, I kinda get why given the industry is increasingly rewarding popularity over creativity and actual change … but adopting that approach doesn’t make you a great strategist, it just makes you an opportunist.
There are some amazing creative thinkers out there.
People who push to make exciting change happen.
But there’s seemingly more people focused on doing anything but … preferring to talk up their models and techniques than letting the work speak for itself.
Edward Cotton – from yesterday’s post – wrote something recently that I found really interesting which was that in this hybrid world, there’s less chance for strategist to informally meet up and natter with creatives. Meaning a vital – but often invisible – part of the process is getting lost.
And while that is not the entire reason for where strategy finds itself at the moment – which ironically, is more in demand while being less demanding less of the work it helps create – it may explain where creativity finds itself.
I love my discipline.
I think it can play an important role in making exciting change happen.
It’s a role I fundamentally believe is creative in nature.
But it is also capable of being full of shit … which is why the answer to ‘is strategy a joke’, is it can be.
But only because the discipline is increasingly becoming its own punchline.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Creativity, Culture, Experience, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
Let me start by saying this post may sound harsh as fuck – especially if you’re relatively young, but hang in there.
If you can be bothered.
So a few weeks ago, I saw a chart by Edward Cotton that was designed to help planners identify their ‘super power’ to enable them to better identify their strengths and be more focused in their professional development.
It’s a generous thing to do from a generous person and yet I decided to question it.
Like a prick.
And why did I decide to do this?
Because I don’t know if people can self-define their ‘super power’.
I don’t know if people have the objectivity to be able to identify that.
More than that … I find the term ‘super power’ both misleading and potentially dangerous because what he was really helping people identify was ‘where they felt the most comfortable’.
Now I appreciate there is value in identifying – and validating – that, however it doesn’t necessarily mean that makes you good at what you do.
Which is why I challenged his chart … because as much as I appreciate it was done for absoluely good reasons, the entire industry seems to be moving further and further away from what strategy is supposed to be about.
Moving away from enabling change and creation to being a discipline that celebrates ‘self-serving, personal intelligence’.
It blows my mind how many people are writing how to do stuff without having actually ever done stuff.
Or at least, stuff of note.
To use a shit analogy, anyone can kick a ball, but few have won a European Cup.
And while everyone is entitled to an opinion, you don’t get to express it with the confidence of God when you have neither the experience or the objectivity to make an informed judgement.
But that’s where we’re at these days.
Everyone is an expert.
Everyone has ideas, opinions and viewpoints expressed as fact, law or established protocol.
Hell, even the acknowledged experts often lack the experience of making something great. Oh they’ve made stuff … but few have achieved something with gamechanging significance, and yet somehow they are positioned as commercial rockets when in reality they’re insurance salesman.
There’s nothing wrong with that except when you don’t admit that. But even then, they’re still waaaaaay better than the self-defined god.
On one level I get it.
The industry is rewarding popularity and ‘thought leadership’ [ahem!] over those who actually make stuff and so there’s a massive incentive to say/repeat interesting stuff rather than do interesting stuff … and nothing highlights how fucked our industry has become than that.
Just to be clear, I know not everyone is like this and contrary to what it may sound like, I am cool with anyone expressing their opinions and ideas.
I’m excited about it actually.
My issue is when it’s expressed with an attitude of self-righteousness.
Where any other opinion is a lesser, incorrect opinion.
Strategy is in danger of losing clarity on what it’s here to do and how we should be evaluating it.
We’re more obsessed with writing theories than doing stuff … resulting in us being in danger of becoming a discipline of paper pushers. Producers of endless digital landfill consisting of decks and newsletters that – in many cases – are not fit for purpose or usage. A back-slapping group of co-dependency … with a focus on achieving industry status rather than making work of note and change.
Now it has to be said that while it’s easy to blame the discipline, the reality is the lack of training that is being invested by agencies and companies that is a big driver of this situation.
Rather than invest in the knowledge, skills and quality of their people, they are – at best – outsourcing to 3rd parties or – at worst – leaving their people to find and fund their own development.
Seeking standardised approaches rather than valuing independent thinking.
What rubs salt into this already ugly wound is that many agencies either give away the strategy they do for their clients – preferring to make money on time and production rather than expertise and value – or acting like shit consultancies/corporate lawyers, creating endless ‘process loops’ so they can profit from keeping the problem alive rather than helping them move forward to a better place.
What the hell?!
Add to that the people agencies are outsourcing training to are often ‘teaching’ methodologies that are both generic and self-serving. And don’t get me started on the planners selling their ‘training’ when many never achieved a standard that justifies their right to teach … demonstrated by them constantly using examples they never made, post-rationalised or simply copied from those who actually did the work.
I get that sounds harsh, I get any training has some value … but this is serious stuff.
Standards matter.
Experiences matters.
Truth over harmony matters.
The reality is anything is easy for people who haven’t done it or don’t have to do it which is why I’m so enamoured with talent like Maya Thompson, Joel Goodhall, Priscilla Britton, Ayo Fagbemi, Tarik Fontenelle and Carina Huang – to name but a few – because where so many choose outlets that reinforce what they want to feel about themselves, they’re about putting themselves in situations where they’re pushed to push the work they want to create.
As I mentioned, the biggest problem here is the attitude companies and agencies have towards training and development. No one – especially junior planners – should ever have to pay for this and the fact many have to, or feel they have to, is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as those planners and experts who exploit them for personal gain.
[Which is why I must reiterate what Edward did was for entirely good reasons because he gives a shit, even if I disagree with what he did on this occasion]
However I cannot stress enough that if you want to grow, follow the advice I was given recently by a very successful football manager that I found myself interviewing.
He said: Learn from winners, not players.
I wrote about it here.
Just to be clear, this is not about age. It’s about people who have done stuff.
Who have tried, failed, explored, experimented and ultimately achieved.
At the highest level. Preferably more than once.
Now I’m not saying it’s easy.
And I know for a fact it’s not comfortable.
But it is most definitely worth it.
Because rather than feeling good about who you are and how you think, you’ll discover what you can do and who you can become.
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, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Imagination, Logic, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Paula
Just to be clear, I am not anti-logic.
Of course not.
But I am anti-blinkered logic.
Where anything outside of established rules or norms are discounted because they’re outside of established rules or norms.
It was the foundation of our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative talk, last year at Cannes.
And ironically, if I thought it was important then … it’s become even more important now with people like Jon Evans waxing lyrical about ‘System 2’ thinking.
Have a look at the functional benefits he is stating:
+ Facts don’t care about your feelings
We all know how unreliable our feelings can be so why would you make a large business decision based on what people feel about it?
+ Measure Everything
I never understood at System1 why we worked so hard to reduce it down to a few key metrics. The results also came in this super easy online report rather than PowerPoint. Now you can have every measure you ever wanted in a shiny PowerPoint presentation with our ‘minimum page promise’ of 93.
+ Infinite personalisation at scale
We have finally achieved the holy grail of marketing reporting namely infinite personalisation at scale. With so much data at your disposal whatever conclusion you need to make we can provide it. We also present it in such a scientific way that no-one will be able to challenge your conclusion. Imagine that!
+ The Price is Right
One of the reasons you employ McKinsey is because they charge a lot of money and therefore must be making a huge impact on your business. We have followed this immutable logic to ensure this is the most expensive research you will ever pay for because, well, we’re worth it.
Now on one level, a lot of what he’s saying isn’t wrong. But by the same token … it’s also not entirely right.
The reduction of everything to a quantifiable – and historical – measure ultimately means you’re advocating, at best, for incremental change or, at worst, following a model of ‘best practice’ without remembering that best practice is past practice.
Of course some will love it. But then, some love beige office furniture.
Which is why this old ad kind of sums up my concerns with myopic approaches based on models designed to not fail rather than liberate possibility.
History is littered with once great brands and ideas that fell foul of ‘the research says no’.
What makes it even worse is often that research is based on the lowest common denominator of audience versus – say – the highest.
Resulting in commoditised mediocrity, hidden under ‘effectiveness and optimisation’ justifications.
Or said another way, outsourcing your cowardice to ‘for profit, external organisations’.
I am not saying what Jon is saying is wrong.
I am not saying using facts and data are wrong.
I’m saying his view – as I say about many people who sell their specific processes/programs as guarantees of success’ – is.
[For example, as the very brilliant Lee once told me, “if you’re measuring everything, then you don’t know what is important”]
As I wrote a while back, there’s many examples of brands who buck his view.
Hell, I work with a bunch of them, including:
SKP-S … the most profitable luxury retailer on the planet.
Gentle Monster … the fastest growing and selling eyewear brand across Asia.
Metallica … the 2nd most successful American band in music history.
… to name but 3.
The point is, for all the cleverness of Jon Evans – and he is very clever and I respect him, what he does and how he does it – the implied suggestion, whether intentional or not, that his way is the only to be successful, is wrong.
As is his new statement around ‘system 2 thinking’.
I get why he says it … just like I get why many people in that industry say it … because it’s as much what they believe and how they make money.
And while that is all well – plus they’re very good at what they do … especially with organisations who are conservative and/or have people with little formal training – they’re services are more like insurance products than business accelerators.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as you’re not claiming otherwise.
Which is why it’s important to remember – to paraphrase what Martin and I also said at our ‘The Case For Chaos’ talk in 2019 for WARC at Cannes – logic might give you what you think people want, but chaos gives them what they’ll never forget.