Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Cannes, Colenso, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Entertainment, Martin Weigel, Mischief, Paula, Planners, Planning, Relevance, Resonance
Systems.
Processes.
Models.
Theories.
We’re surrounded with ways to do stuff and yet it feels we’re surrounded by more boring stuff than ever before.
By boring, I mean derivative.
A production line of repetition, albeit with different brand names emblazoned on the front.
I’ve said this before, but while a process is important … when we place more emphasis on that, than what it produces – or what we want it to produce – then we’ve got our shit the wrong way round.
It’s why I’ve also talked about the commercial effectiveness of creative ridiculousness.
A way to make an impact by the simple nature of not following the same patterns and processes of everything that has come before.
I don’t mean in terms of ‘differentiation’ [which is still based on using category norms] but – to steal from TBWA mainly because I don’t see them doing it much anymore – disruption.
Which is my way of saying why I love this …
Yes, it’s got cats on it.
And yes it says it will let me talk to them.
But even I know it’s not true … and yet I bought it and paid a premium for it, which is more than I would ever do for any other form of gum.
Fuck, I don’t even buy gum normally which reminds me of this post back in 2007 that reinforces the power of packaging.
Planning is important.
It has a real role to play for business and creativity.
But when that role ends up being shaped exclusively by the rules of the category, the competition and the ‘average consumer’ … then we’re not moving our brands forward, we’re in danger of cementing them where they are.
Of course I appreciate the difference between a novelty candy and a major brand with global distribution … but the premise remains the same.
If you let your blinkers only allow logic to influence your choices, you’re not liberating opportunities … you’re stifling it. Or – as Martin, Paula and I said at last year at Cannes – you’re being strategically constipated and only imagination can be your laxative.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Linkedin, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Standards, Strategy, Trust, Wieden+Kennedy
There is a lot of talk about a new term in marketing, called ‘UBR’.
UBR stands for Universal Buying Reason and there’s a lot of people seemingly wetting their pants over it. In essence, UBR is when a brand owns a position within a category that arguably, anyone within that category could have had, but they were first or the most consistent or invested in making it their or were simply, the biggest spenders behind it.
If you’re thinking this is not exactly new, you’d be right … but many people seem to be more obsessed with being associated with new terminologies or methodologies than actually making stuff that pushes brands and business to new places.
That’s why UBR feels like the next terminology trope in a long line of terminology tropes …
Brand Assets.
Brand Eco-Systems.
Global Human Truths.
Overly simplicitic labels that promote conformity under the guise of effectiveness or efficiency.
[And yes, I know Dan Wieden used to talk about Global Human Truths … and as I told him, he was wrong. Because while all Mum’s may love their kids, a Mum in Wuhan shows it in very different ways than a Mum in Washington, and to ignore that nuance is to ignore truth for convenience and complicity. And as anyone worth their salt will tell you, often it’s the nuance that is the difference between doing things for people or about them]
Of course, like all trope trends, there’s some value in what is being said about UBR – after all, its hardly a new concept given countless brands and categories have used this approach for literally decades, from alcohol to jewellery.
But what some of the people pushing UBR are seemingly forgetting – or not understanding – is that even at the most functional level of category marketing, it requires depth and consideration to fully release its potential … and frankly the lack of discussion about that highlights the industries obsession with providing clients with easy answers/solutions rather than encouraging/pushing/provoking them to appreciate the rewards [and shareholder benefit, let alone expectation] of putting in the hard work to identify how they can consistently build their value, role and position.
What scares me most is that some of the people ‘fluffing UBR’ – but thankfully not all – are in jobs where they’re paid to help clients with their business … and yet they talk in incredibly generalistic and simplistic terms about something that has context and complexity.
Where the hell is their objectivity?
Where is the understanding?
Where is the nuance?
It all feels like a desperate play to be seen as an industry thought leader, where the goal is to highjack whatever seems to be getting industry traction and then aligning themselves to it.
What’s worse is we’ve seen how this approach works as more and more people value and aspire speed and status over substance and experience … and I don’t really care that makes me sound old, because it actually has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with valuing what our industry can do when we do it with craft, understanding and ambition.
What sums it all up [for me] is how one of the brands the UBR advocates bang on about is Tesco’s.
I get why, because on face value, Tesco’s is a supermarket like every other supermarket.
But …
All it takes is a quick look at Tesco’s history – from their foundation in 1919 through to the many acts and actions they’ve embraced and led over 100 years, from the ‘computers for schools’ program to challenging EU law to give their customers access to products at the same price as their European cousins and a million things in-between – and they’d see the ‘Every Little Helps’ position is not something ‘anyone’ could say, but something far more specific to them specifically … something they’ve continually reinforced and invested in through retail, customer and cultural innovation as opposed to just the repetition of a category trope.
It’s yet another example of people needing to know their history before they can claim they’re creators of it.
Or – said another way – why clients and the industry at large, need to get back to valuing those who have DONE and DO shit, rather than just talk it … regardless how popular or well-meaning they may be.
[OK, ‘talking shit’ is harsh, but it sounded good in that sentence, so forgive me]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for pushing knowledge and possibilities, I’m just not for people putting lipstick on a dead sheep and calling it Ms World.
And don’t get me started on how many of these people are ultimately downplaying someone else’s creative excellence to make it all about them.
Wow, that’s like a rant from 2010. Felt good. Thanks industry trope for waking me up.
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: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, China, Chinese Culture, Comment, Content, Context, Corona Virus, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Distinction, Effectiveness, Emotion, Entertainment, Environment, Fashion, Imagination, Individuality, Innovation, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Metallica, Perspective, Point Of View, Positioning, Resonance, Respect, Shanghai, Strategy, Technology
I appreciate the title of this post sounds dodgy.
Not to mention that photo. Let’s face it, me and fashion are hardly bedfellows.
But that photo [which is real, by the way] is to celebrate that next week I’m in China to attend the WWD World Fashion Summit.
I know … I know … it all sounds like I’m making something up so I don’t have to write any blogposts next week, but it isn’t.
I am an invited guest at one of the fashion industries most important conferences.
Of course it’s not because of how I dress, but for the work I do for one of my clients … the godfather of global street culture and the founder of the most successful, progressive and innovative luxury [contemporary and street culture] retailers on the planet: SKP and SKP-S.
I wish I could talk more specifically about the work I’ve done for him over the past 3+ years … because it has been some of the most creatively rewarding, commercially informing and artistically collaborative times of my career.
Put simply, he is one of the most audacious people I’ve ever had the privilege of working with.
Even François-Henri Pinault – the CEO of Kering – calls him one of fashions greatest pioneers.
And he is …
Hell, when I met him, one of the first things he said to me was:
“I want people to get used to living on another planet, because one day – based on how we keep treating this one – they’re going to have to do just that”.
Sure, it’s the words only a billionaire can say, but who wouldn’t be captivated by that?
But he’s not crazy …
In fact, the more time I spend with him, the more I recognise his genius.
I could write a 1000 blog posts about what I’ve learned from him …
What real entrepreneurship is.
What true conviction in your beliefs means.
What category disruption and innovation really looks like.
What you do to ensure luxury embraces the influence of street culture.
But that’s maybe for another day. What I will say is that despite being one of the most important and influential figures in fashion, he also loves his anonymity – preferring to make statements through the work he does … from pretty much every up-and-coming street culture brand you can point a stick at … to helping build the next-gen of fashion icons like Fenty and Gentle Monster through to building the most brilliantly bonkers [and most profitable luxury store on the planet] SKP and SKP-S.
[To give you an idea of how bonkers, their new offering in China, features a tapestry of gardens – designed by the architects of The High Line, in NYC – that is ¾ of a mile wide. And the reason they were able to do that is because all the infrastructure has been placed beneath ground, so it’s invisible to the naked eye until you are in the place. And if you think that’s bonkers, every location is wildly different in look and theme … but connected by a unifying story that’s more Marvel than BusinessWeek.]
But if that wasn’t enough, I get to go back to China.
The last time I was there, was Jan 3rd 2020 … just before COVID closed the World.
I think everyone knows what China means to me. It is the most special place in my life.
Yes, I know there’s a bunch of fucked up stuff that happens there, but there’s a bunch of fucked up stuff that happens everywhere … and in my 7+ years of living in Shanghai, I can honestly say I was blessed with generosity, friendship and acceptance.
It’s why I am proud Otis was born there.
It’s why I will challenge any prejudice or ignorance spoken about there.
It’s why I am so happy that I get continue to work with clients who are based there.
Of course, I know a lot will have changed in the intervening 3 years.
We used to say that the speed of China was so fast, that it was like a new generation was born every six months. And while it’s not anywhere like that now, it’s still more dynamic than most countries … which is why it makes perfect sense to hold one of the most important global fashion conferences there.
For all the ‘superficiality’ people say about fashion, I can honestly say that the more I’ve spent deep in the industry, the more inspiring I’ve found it.
The craft.
The imagination.
The focus on society, art and design.
The openness to different influences and ideas.
The desire to continually explore, imagine and challenge.
Or said another way … the stubborn commitment to allowing creativity to thrive, wherever it may take you.
Like with Metallica, this client has invited me to places I never even knew existed, let alone ever imagined I could be.
Magical people … imaginative ideas … insane possibilities …
But what’s made it even more amazing is they have asked me collaborate with these people and ideas … to find new ways to allow creativity to flourish – be it architecture, robots or writing stories that unite different worlds in different ways.
I appreciate it sounds like I’m bragging.
I guess I am.
But the reality is it’s more shock and gratitude.
I do think I am good at what I do, but to have all this – especially at my stage of career – does feel like I’ve won some sort of creative lottery.
And in some ways I have.
But the prize is not simply the work – or the cash – but the reminder …
Because the ad industry often sees creativity only through the lens of ads.
Oh sure, we’ll talk about craft and design, but it tends to always be in the context of communication.
Hell, we bang on about ‘big ideas’ when all we’re really talk about is big ‘advertising’ ideas.
There’s nothing wrong with that … advertising is creative and important.
But creativity is more than ads.
It has the power to shape and influence.
To create new meaning to old things and ignite deep emotions in the new.
It values culture and imagination far more than media channels and eco-systems … which results in the work being far more than ‘packaging’ for selling stuff, but creating the things that are worth buying.
I love the industry I work in. It has given me a life richer than I could ever have imagined. But somewhere along the line, it seems we love everything but the thing we’re supposed to love. Distracted by terminologies and techniques that – ironically – makes more things the same than different.
But fashion isn’t like that.
My client isn’t like that.
Which is why – you will understand – I’m so happy I won’t be here to write any posts for another week.
For once, your gain … is also mine.
So until the week after next, have fun. I know I will be.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Embarrassing Moments, Emotion, Empathy, Fake Attitude, Government, Insight, Internet, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Nike, Planners, Point Of View
OK, I’m back.
Again.
And this time, I’m not going to be going away for …. hmmmmm, actually let’s not go there.
Let’s move on shall we?
So before I start, there’s 2 things to say.
1. Some may have seen this before, because I accidentally put the wrong publish date on it.
2. This is a week of long and – for me – serious posts. So don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The good news is that on Friday, you’ll be rewarded for it, with some news that benefits you as much as it does me.
Kinda.
Maybe.
OK, so one thing that drives me nuts is when brands talk in totally different voices to different audiences.
But there’s something that gets to me more, and that’s when the brand in question has tried to position themselves as some sort of ‘brand of the people’.
Case in point, Reddit …
I really like Reddit.
I think their ‘front-page of the internet’ is a brilliant place to play.
And then I saw this …
‘Where Engagement Meets Results’.
What the fuck is that about?
Oh I know what some will say …
“They’re trying to reach business people who discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform”.
And maybe they are. But the irony is the easiest way to discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform is having clients on there who only can communicate in the corporate monotone of the meaningless mission statement.
How insincere is a brand who speaks to their customers one way and business another?
How crazy is it that some think business people are a different species to ‘normal’ people?
How badly will Reddit’s audience react to work from companies who only speak business?
Now some may think I’m going over-the-top … they will remind me that we all ‘change’ our tone and personality dependent on who we are talking to.
And that’s true … to an extent.
But this isn’t a tonal change, this is character.
I read that and it’s a brand I don’t recognise …
Feels more like they should be called Beigeit rather than Reddit.
The ability to adapt your voice to different audiences shouldn’t mean changing who you are.
People who play golf have a dramatically different view to sport than those who play football … but Nike still do it in a way where you know and feel it’s them. Just like CTO’s in major corporations has different requirements to those who want a laptop for home … but you never feel Apple changes who they are to communicate with them.
Brands who fundamentally change their personality in a bid to engage different audiences literally don’t know who they are. Worse, their customers may start to question that too.
Reddit are amazing.
Their audience is diverse, engaged and productive.
And while I appreciate some in business may not understand that, if you have to alter who you are, do you want them anyway?
Years ago I was doing work for Triple J … a government funded, youth radio station in Australia.
Unlike other ‘government funded’ media, Triple J was someone with real credibility, driven by championing and breaking new artists, discussing topics commercial radio wouldn’t touch with a barge pole and absolutely no advertising.
So when they came to us asking for help, we knew straight away that whatever we did had to ensure their current audience didn’t feel Triple J was selling out by advertising for more listeners.
While you may think this meant we went niche, we did the opposite.
Built off an idea we called, ‘enemy of the average’ … we went into mainstream media with messages that challenged audiences about the mediocrity they were engaging with.
Radio.
Newspapers.
Cinema.
Magazines.
Nightclubs.
Television.
Wherever mainstream audiences were, we were there too.
And while many hated our work [it was even discussed in Australian Parliament] it not only attracted the largest audience increase in Triple J’s history, it reinvigorated their existing audience because they saw the brand they love stay true to who they are, despite wanting what they didn’t have.
I get we’re in different times.
I appreciate the idea of any risk is unpalatable for so many.
But nothing is as dangerous as changing who you are to attract people who aren’t your audience.
The brand voice is more than how you talk. Or look. It’s how you look at the world … and if you’re consistent with that, then you can express yourself in a million different ways and always be yourself.
But too many brands, despite what they say, don’t want to be distinct.
They see it as having the potential to alienate an audience.
To which I say this …
While you may think being something to anyone means you can engage more people, the fact is, the most power to build the value of your brand is when you are everything to someone.