Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Creative Development, Creativity, Differentiation, Distinction, ECommerce, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, R/GA
When I worked at R/GA, they got very excited about D2C brands.
Part of this is because they got a lot of business from brands who wanted their help to design the infrastructure for their D2C ambitions. Part of it was because they loved to talk about transformation and saw this as a major shift in brand development. And part of it is because a lot of their work – especially with NIKE – revolved around this type of thinking.
[Though I did laugh when a couple of their senior people in NY tried to convince me ‘Fuel Band’ was more valuable and important to NIKE than ‘Just Do It’ … and hated the fact I refused to buy their logic]
Look, I really liked R/GA – specifically the first year I was there – but I always felt the whole D2C approach was flawed. Didn’t have to be, but the way people/brands/companies saw it, made it that way.
When I at Wieden, P&G asked our opinion on the Amazon dash button.
They were massively excited by it as they saw it as a way to drive sales while being able to massively cut their marketing costs.
For those who don’t know what the dash button was, it was a piece of tech – connected to a specific item – that allowed customers to order from Amazon at the press of a button.
So if you spotted you were running out of washing powder, you could press the dash and within a day or so, you would get a new box delivered.
All good in theory except the only real winner would be Amazon.
And we told them that. Because the moment you let your brand become a commodity, your value is destroyed as is all the work you’ve put in to get into that position.
But that didn’t stop every man and their dog seemingly bang on about the virtues of D2C.
Nor did that make companies who had previously talked about the importance of brand, jump on the bandwagon.
And while some went on to achieve great success with this strategy – albeit, having to spend millions on building the brand value of their D2C org – the vast majority crashed and burned after, at best, a small moment in the spotlight.
That’s not to say new ideas are wrong – far from it – it’s to say that too much of the industry, despite what they may claim, are obsessed with the quick wins and short-term gains.
Worse, the reason for this is often less commercial and more egotistical.
A desperate need to look like they’re ‘in the know’ to those around them. A desire to be part of the cultural clique rather than risk being left behind by those who are skeptical, cynical or closed-minded.
I get it … no one wants to look slow or old or out-of-date and everyone wants a shot to elevate themselves up in collapsed time.
But as much as new ideas require a leap of faith – and that leap often takes a degree of courage – when it also requires you to let go of all you know and believe, then it says more about what you want to be than who you are.
Now of course, we all have our egos and ambitions – and that’s natural – but when your strategy to get where you want to go is chasing trends rather than following your values, that’s when you can find yourself in a whole heap of trouble.
Because following the pack without objectivity, values or context doesn’t make you an entrepreneur – it makes you an ambulance chaser – and once you have that reputation, you end up doing to yourself what D2C did to many companies … and that’s a position no one who claims to be ‘an expert in brands and brand building’ should ever find themselves in.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Collaboration, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Distinction, Effectiveness, Experience, Honesty, Individuality, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Mediocrity, Metallica, Money, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Strategy, Success
I recently interviewed a successful artist.
What made them especially interesting to me was less their fame and more the fact they’d left a very popular group to go out on their own.
Not because they were ‘guaranteed’ success, but because they didn’t like how their management and record company dictated what they had to do.
As they told me the thinking that went into their decision, they said something I loved:
“Working for yourself is like being an artist in a studio. You’re free to create … you’re open to possibilities. Where most people have a dream, those with the lust to go out on their own stand the most chance of making their dream happen. Even if I failed, I would have felt good I had failed on my own terms”.
How good is that?!
Of course, I appreciate that when you’re successful it’s dead easy to say you would be OK to have failed … but I believed them.
Part of that is because they walked away from a very successful group. Part of that is they did in the knowledge their contract stated they would no longer be eligible for royalties. Part of that is before they launched their own career, they took time off to reclaim who they were. But most of all, I adore how they equated working for yourself as an artist who is in their own studio.
Despite having – and still – working for myself, I’d never thought of it that way and in the big scheme of things, the work I do for myself is the most indulgent, wonderful shit I have ever done. Not just in terms of freelance work, but in my whole career … and a lot of that has been pretty wonderfully indulgent.
But even with that, I looked at working for yourself much more in the way Michael Keaton looks at working for yourself …
Put simply, you love that you have more freedom, but you’re also aware you are the business … so every decision is weighted with more consideration or deliberation.
It’s why the two things that have helped me embrace what excites me rather than do what makes sense is Harrison Ford’s know the value of your value and the conversation I had with Metallica’s managers before I started working with them.
Now I say all this, but the fact is I also work for Colenso – however the reasons I did that were less about financial security and more about appreciating what makes me happy:
1. I need to work with people and build teams. I’m good at it, it makes me happy and I love seeing people grow and the reality is, when you work on your own, you rarely get the chance to do that.
2. Colenso is a place I’ve always loved and so to have the chance to work at a place that truly believes in creativity when so many just want to monetize any-old-shit was both hugely appealing and exciting.
3. They were totally open to me working a different way, which – for all the talk – few companies would ever consider, let alone allow.
4. When you work on your own, your development is more influenced by the projects and clients you work with, whereas when you are part of a team, your development is pushed and prodded every day. And I like that.
5. It offered us a chance to leave COVID-stricken Britain, even though within months … it hit NZ, ironically via the parents of a planner in my team. The second country brought to its knees by someone I’d managed. Oops.
So while I completely appreciate the privileged position I was in – and am in – the point is there was a lot of consideration about working on my own and working at Colenso … not just in terms of what I can gain but working out what I don’t want to lose.
Of course, there are going to be sacrifices along the way … but if you don’t think it through, you may find you’re running away from something rather than running towards something.
For me, that differentiation is a really important one to identify.
Don’t get me wrong, I get that sometimes you just have to escape the situation you’re in, regardless of where you’re going to end up.
I’ve experienced that situation twice in my life and it was horrible. Horrific even. And so getting away was real, urgent and necessary.
But I’m not talking about people in those situations, I’m talking about the folk who simply didn’t want to work for someone else. Didn’t want to deal with the expectations, the politics, the time pressures and the bullshit.
I get it.
I appreciate the appeal.
I basically covered it in a conversation with WARC back in 2020.
But there’s a major difference between not wanting to do things and creating the conditions to ensure you never have to do them and I’m surprised how often people haven’t done that.
Especially planners.
For example:
Do you know enough people at a high enough level who could be clients?
Do you have the experience that can command the rate you want/need to make?
Do you have the reputation that can protect you from commodification?
Do you have the expertise that ensures you don’t just shitty jobs no one else wants to do?
Do you have the network to ensure your abilities grow rather than stay where they are?
Do you have the commitment to keep learning and developing when it’s all dependent on you?
And while they may sound big questions, they’re not. Not really.
In many ways, they’re the difference between full independence and short-term escape.
I should point out I don’t mean this to sound like criticism.
I also don’t want this to be an obstacle to someone going out on their own.
My intent actually is the opposite. I want more people to prosper on their own terms … and by prosper, I don’t just mean financially, but also professionally and emotionally.
This is not because I am some wannabe Saint, it’s because it’s the only way creativity and strategy can regain the influence, credibility and power over the whims, wants and egos of agencies and companies.
Of course not all agencies and companies are like this … but sadly it seems more are than not.
And the more they try to commoditize the value of the independent professional – and boy, do they want to do that – the more we all end up paying the price.
Because suddenly people have to take whatever they can get.
Have to do whatever someone wants them to do.
Has to accept what someone wants to pay them.
I don’t blame them. Fuck, if I was in their situation, I’d do whatever it took – or whatever I could get – to put food on the table.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, or at least the odds can be improved if we – as an industry – talk more about how to think like an independent rather than talk about the benefits of it.
You see, while I love the sentiment of the artist I interviewed and their definition of ‘working for yourself’, I also deeply value the attitude of Michael Keaton. And maybe you need to embrace both to ensure you can be as free as you choose and be able to stay that way for as long as you want.
Because while the benefits of independence are very easy to see … it takes a fuckload of hard work to achieve it.
But it’s worth it. Or at least worth giving it the right shot to achieve it.
Just ask Zoe Scaman, Graham Douglas, Ruby Pseudo, Jason Bagley, Joy At Large.
And a million others who have done it. Not always the easiest way, but have done it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Authenticity, Bands, Brands, Business, Comment, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Imagination, Individuality, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Metallica, Music, Provocative, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Talent
Recently I watched a documentary on a band.
A household name. Not just in America, but around the World.
It was pretty good … but the most interesting part of it was the interview with the manager.
Specifically how he described what he was there to do:
He said: “My job is to do one or two things that change your life. Not ‘good moves’ but change your life”.
And while they turned out to be arguably more focused on their own fortune than the artists they represent, it cannot be denied they achieved exactly what they said for the band in question … helping turn them into the biggest band in the world for a period of time. An accolade they have managed to forge into a long-lasting career that sees them continue to be at the top end of their industry.
Now of course, there’s a lot of things that go into achieving success like that.
Songs.
Talent.
Drive.
Concerts.
Fans.
Distribution.
Copyright ownership.
But a good manager has a huge influence and role to play in all of this … which got me thinking.
What if clients saw their agency partners as people whose role was to do the same as this manager?
To help them fundamentally change the trajectory of where their business is rather than continually communicating – and reinforcing – where they are.
Dramatic change, not incremental.
OK, there’s some clients who actually do that – and a lot more who think they are, but are doing the opposite – but the reality is for all the talk of ambition and change, so much of it what is done is about keeping things exactly where they are.
Part of this is because of the influence of ‘industry guru’s’ who have positioned themselves as business liberators when really they’re more insurance salesmen [made even more hilarious by the fact the vast majority have never created any actual creative work or built a brand of note] … and part of it is because of a narrative that’s been going around that suggests agencies care more about taking clients cash through excessive timelines and pricing.
As I’ve written before, this attitude is more bullshit than fact … shaped by a procurement process that doesn’t value quality of work – just the price of it – and a corporate attitude where the expectation is complicity not challenge.
Of course that doesn’t ignore the fact some agencies have also played their part in creating this situation by devaluing creativity, devaluing training and agreeing to whatever gets them the revenue – regardless of the consequences – which just reinforces what a mess we’re in.
It’s why I loved that managers quote so much …
The goal being to create the conditions to be ‘the exception’ by being exceptional..
Not ‘a little bit better than before.
Not ‘a little bit better than those around them’.
But to fundamentally change the context and rules of the game.
Champions, not just players.
Of course, it’s easier said than done … but I’ve had the pleasure of seeing it in action up-close-and-personal through Metallica’s management, which is why I know it can be done and I know you can increase the odds of it being able to be done.
Because in their case, what they’ve helped achieve is remarkable.
Put aside the fact they have worked with the band for almost 4 decades. Put aside they’re the most successful music management duo in music history. And think about how they’ve enabled 4 old men – who write what can best be described as ‘mass niche’ music – not just continue to live at the forefront of popular culture, but do it in a way where their creativity is deeply respected by all.
Hell, they’ve become the second most successful American group of all time.
OF. ALL. TIME.
But it’s even more than that … because they’ve also helped the band find new ways to push, explore and expand what they do with their creativity and how they can do it.
Incredible.
Of course, none of this would be possible without the band having the hunger and desire to keep pushing, but their relationship – and trust – of their managers is a key part of what enables it to be possible.
Which is why there’s a couple of things Peter Mensch – one half of their management team – said to me that has had as much impact as the quote that inspired this whole post.
1. “Our job is not to market the band, but to protect their truth”.
2. “We’re not paid to kiss their ass, we’re paid to tell them the truth”.
And maybe that’s a couple of the reasons why Metallica have been able to build a business and a brand [even though they would hate those terms] which is wildly more successful –culturally and commercially – than many brands who spend tens of millions trying to be.
Not just because music connects to people in ways brands rarely can, but because many brands don’t actually know who they are and don’t want to listen to anything that asks questions of them, they don’t want to acknowledge or accept.
So it’s little surprise an agency can change a brands life when brands so often choose to delude themselves with where they currently are … where their version of a relationship is based on how much you cost and how easy you are to deal with, than the quality of the advice and results you help them gain.
For all the systems and processes our industry has latched onto in a bid to prove our credibility and method behind our approaches … how many brands can we say have fundamentally ‘changed their life’.
One?
Ten?
One Hundred?
Certainly not as many as you would expect from the US$87 billion dollars spent on market research in 2023 delivered.
Which is why I leave this post with another music reference … another perspective that had a profound affect on me.
This time it’s from the band – albeit they were more artists than musicians – The KLF, who not only captured what I believe defines a great manager, a great agency and a great brand … but what also creates the chance for someone, anyone, to properly change their life.
“Don’t give them what they want, give them what they’ll never forget”
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Film, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Provocative, Queen, Reputation, Success, Succession, Television
This is a long post.
Proper long.
And given I overwrite everything, that is probably a scary thought.
But I hope you hang in there, because it’s something important – at least to me. And who knows, it may trigger some thoughts – or hate – and I’ll consider that a win. Maybe, ahem.
So I don’t know about you, but I miss the TV show, Succession.
I miss the characters … the writing … the inconvenient truth how companies – and some families – work.
And while there are many articles and reports dedicated to explaining what ‘worked’, I recently read something that captured how it worked.
I love that write up.
I love it for a whole host of reasons … of which one is acknowledging that to make something that can capture so many people’s attention for so long, is an act of creative magnificence.
And while we may all nod our heads in agreement, the thing is we forget that.
We forget the challenge of keeping millions engaged and interested over a period of time.
Or maybe more specifically, we have forgotten HOW to do it.
Let’s be honest, the attitude of many brands is ‘keep things the same’ or ‘don’t fuck it up’ … while not realizing the biggest risk to achieving what they want to achieve is literally doing the same thing, in the same way, over-and-over again.
Of course, a big reason for their attitude is their quest for attribution.
Where the brand is synonymous and attributed to what they do/say/communicate.
However, rather than achieve this by doing interesting things that audiences value and can engage in – which is literally, the fastest, most effective way to build active, interested, engaged and committed attribution – we see more of the lazy approach. An approach sold by people with methodologies that mistake repetition as reputation.
Hence, we see countless campaigns featuring ‘consistent fictional characters’ doing variations of the same thing no one really cares about or relates to as if they’re trying to do a homage to the ‘Gold Blend’ coffee ads from the UK. WHICH CAME OUT IN THE 1980’S!!! Or the modern equivalent, where every element of every piece of communication is plastered with cues of whatever colour a brand is associated with. All the while ignoring the fact what it actually does is pull people out of their engagement with the communication because they’re questioning/wondering/laughing what sort of person drives a red car, lives in a red house – with red wallpaper – and only eat red vegetables. But even that isn’t the lowest of the low. No … that belongs to the work that shoves a watermark of the brand logo/name into the top left-or-right-hand-side of all their work … as if acknowledging their communication is so boring that the only way to know who it is from is to literally shove it in front of their faces.
I’m not saying ‘brand assets’ aren’t a thing … but they only become that with creativity.
Over time.
Continually reinforced … expressed … added to.
Without that, you end up with things that are more like weights than rockets.
And that’s the problem I have with so a bunch of the marketing practice being peddled …
Because they fail to appreciate the difference between recognition and value.
Or meaning.
Or resonance.
Or connection.
As I said to a client recently, just because I know what the swastika is, doesn’t mean I want to be a Nazi.
But that’s where we’re at right now … repeat, repeat, repeat.
Which is why that comment on Succession is so important.
Because they understand the importance of constantly adding to the narrative, not repeating it.
Keeping viewers not just interested … but on their toes.
Which leads to them engaging with the show, even when they’re not watching it.
Talking, discussing, sharing, commenting, deducing, arguing.
A program where none of the characters had many redeeming features, kept millions around the world coming back to them.
To learn. To listen. To grow. To hate. To debate.
Is that hard to do?
Of course.
Is it impossible to do?
Nope … especially when you hire proper talent and let them do what they’re great at, rather than value talent on how little they cost and then tell them what to make. Even though you don’t have experience in knowing how to make things people want to engage with.
But as a friend said to me recently, there were no conversations about ‘attribution’ with Succession were there!?
Nope. Not one. Not even from the first episode.
And maybe that was because they didn’t start the show with the intent of creating the lowest common denominator of recognition … then repeating it over and over and over again. No … their intention was to make something interesting … and then keep adding to that so their audiences would keep giving a fuck.
Look, I have no problem with marketing practice.
It is important and has a real role and value in building brands and driving effective marketing.
But that role and value is only released when it is done well and honestly … and right now, it feels there’s a lot of soundbites and not a lot of depth.
Selling systems that promise simplicity but ultimately are outsourcing responsibility.
Outsourcing responsibility to people who can profit from it, despite having no experience in actually creating it.
The irony is we all want the same thing.
Hell, we all need the same thing.
But there’s a major difference between playing not to lose and playing to win so maybe there needs to be more conversations about that, rather than blindly follow people who present themselves as business liberators when really, they’re good insurance salespeople.
Of course, the reality is that, despite what some may say, there’s not one ‘all encompassing’ answer to all this.
I get how expensive everything is so the temptation to stick and stay with what you know and what is working for you, is high. But regardless who you are, it will not last forever and it’s far better to own the change than be left behind by it.
Just ask the Disney execs how they’re feeling as they watch their Marvel universe start to implode.
Building anything is a journey that goes through highs and lows along the way.
But it’s the people who think – or say – they can stop that, who end up creating branded mediocrity.
Or should I way, ‘mediocrity attribution’.
Which is why there is one final example of the commercial value of adding to a story rather than repeating it and that’s Queen.
Specifically their recent sale of their back catalogue for ONE BILLION POUNDS.
Whether you like the band or not, you can’t say that is not an impressive number.
And while even I – a massive Queen fan – accept that in 1986, they stopped being musicians and became entertainers [aka: ‘turned crap’] … it’s the music they made until that point that gave them their legacy, fans and economic value.
Because rather than basically repeat their first hit over and over again … they kept taking people to different and interesting places.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brands, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Nike, Perspective, Provocative, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
Take a look at this photo of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe.
How good is it?
Two icons of tennis …
Hell, for people of a certain age, they’re still icons, despite this pic being taken in 1978.
But this isn’t about them, this is about McEnroe’s shirt.
McEnroe’s NIKE shirt.
Notice anything about it? Anything different at all?
Well let me put you out of your misery, because the answer is there’s absolutely nothing different about it whatsoever.
It’s the same logo as you see today.
It’s the same font as you see today.
It’s the same flawed genius athlete as you see today.
It is a demonstration of a brand who has always known who the fuck it is, what/who it stands for and what it believes.
A brand that made that logo ‘an asset’ through the decisions it makes and the athletes it associates with.
For over 50+ years.
No ‘relaunch’.
No ‘brand purpose’ statement.
No ‘one colour’ brand systems.
No ‘system 2’ decision making.
Hell, they’re even OK with making mistakes because they are focused on fighting, challenging, pushing and provoking athletes and sport rather than chasing popularity and convenience.
In fact, the greatest irony is the reason they’re currently in the shit is because certain people decided their 50+ years of pushing who they are, what/who they stand for and what they believe was now out of date. Irrelevant. Not ‘optimising or maximising’ their commercial value enough. So they turned their back on who they are to embrace what many modern marketing guru’s said they should be … ignoring the fact these people have never done – or achieved – anything close to what NIKE has and does.
Now it is very true there are certain things NIKE have been slow to embrace. Some are mindblowingly ridiculous and stupid. However, I would argue that is more because they shed so many people who loved and live for sport while replacing them with people who love and live for marketing processes and practices.
Because while there is – if done correctly – value in those things, it’s important to remember they never MAKE a brand, they – at best – help empower it. A bit.
That we’ve chosen to forget this to enable us to profit from an increasing number of companies who seek to disguise the fact they don’t know who they fuck they are, what/who they stand for and what they believe, highlights how much marketing has become an industry of platitudes, not provocation.
Which is why I will always remember what a friend of my Dad once told me.
He was a lawyer, but his words were very pertinent for marketing.
Especially a lot of what passes – or is celebrated – in marketing today.
He basically said: “Great companies don’t change who they are but always fight to change where they are”
Sadly, it feels too many have got things the wrong way around these days.