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.
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, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Collegues, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Nike, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relationships, Reputation

So this is the last post till next Thursday.
I know … I know … I’ve only just come back from China but now I’m off to the US, so you get 3 more days free from me. Given this month has had an alarming lack of posts given I’ve found myself in Fiji, Australia, China and America, you should consider October my early Christmas present to you all.
So to make up for that, here’s a relatively long post.
Which by my standards, means extra long.
So recently I caught up with an ex-colleague from cynic.
Given they were a bloody nightmare when we worked together, I’m still in shock how they are now a very senior figure in a very high profile company.
Damn them, hahaha.
Anyway, we were chatting and they said how bad they thought agencies were in pitches.
Specifically, their desperation to be liked.
They said they thought the business plan for many agencies is to out-pander the competition.
It got so bad that apparently in a recent meeting, they asked the agency:
“If we’re so good and doing so well, why would we need you?”
Aggressive?
Provocative?
Yep … but they have a point.
I remember once being told to not challenge the clients previous work as someone in the room might have made it … even though we were literally in a pitch to reinvent the clients work.
And while it was an exception in my career [which I ignored and – guess what – we won!!!] the reality is I am hearing this happening more and more, which is why my friends commentedjust seemed to underline its validity.
Which leads me to some questions …
What do agencies think our job is?
What do agencies want to do and change?
And for the companies that buy into this, what do they want their agencies to do for them?
I appreciate I have been incredibly fortunate throughout my career by working with/for/under people, agencies and clients [not to mention my parents] who deeply value debate and provocation to get to better places. I also acknowledge there is an art to HOW you challenge … rather than go in with fists and elbows.
But the idea of pandering rather than provoking seems insane to me.
Sure, you have to have a point of view rather than just have a desire to be controversial … but while you can’t be blind to the good stuff people are doing, neither should you be to the bad.
I swear part of the problem is this attitude we are part of the ‘service’ industry.
That our job is to serve.
To stay silent.
To satisfy needs.
And while we are there to serve our clients … it’s in the quest of helping them be better, not be subservient to. But increasingly it feels that is what a lot of people are expecting – and why a lot of agencies are pandering – which is why I will always treasure something my brilliant ex-NIKE/FFI client and friend – Simon Pestridge – once said to me:
“Middle management want to be told they’re right. Senior management want to know how to be better”.
He’s right.
He’s never been more right.
It’s why the people who worked for him are also great clients … because he set great standards, of which one of them was understanding that transparency, truth and challenge are ultimate signs of respect not confrontation.
Debate isn’t bad.
In my mind, it means you both want to get to somewhere better.
Where you’re holding each other to standards and ambitions you hold dear.
Of course, to do this properly you need to share ambition, standards and trust … not just philosophically, but in terms of the actual work and change you want to create together.
I mean … if you can’t be provocative during a pitch – when a client is literally looking for new ideas – when the hell can you be?
Which all reinforces something my parents used to say to me …
Everyone wants to be liked, but you go further when you’re respected.
Another month forward with a totally un-topical post.
Kinda.
So a while back, I was walking through Heathrow Airport and saw this …

A Top Trumps vending machine.
Top. Bloody. Trumps.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Top Trumps … hell, we even made some for a project cynic had with NASA … but I was surprised as hell to see a vending machine dedicated to them.
Of course they’re perfect plane/holiday material … but in a smartphone world, it was still a surprise to see them because they’re proper old school.
Mind you, so are Rubik’s cubes – which in a few days, you’ll read a post about – so maybe there’s a growing desire to get back to more simple but immersive stuff.
Maybe.
Whatever the reasons, I liked it and I like the line on the side of the machine: “Whatever you’re into, so are we”.
OK, so they could have dropped ‘so are we’ – and not just because it would make it sound better – but I like they’re basically communicating that they see everyone, regardless what weird shit they may be into. Better yet, they do.
OK, so while they definitely don’t have a pack for everything people are into [ahem] there’s an incredible range [see the Spitting Image pack] and there’s the chance to make your own, which would have been great if they had that 20 years ago, ha.
So well done TT … you may be old, but you’re aging better than most. Me for a start.


