Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Fashion
After the heaviness of yesterday’s post, I’ve decided to lighten it with today’s.
By ‘lighten’ I mean, go even more superficial than normal.
So recently, I saw a guy wearing this shirt …
… and I couldn’t help wondering if it was an animal sanctuary or a Donald Trump ‘alternative truths’ factory.
On the positive, I paid more attention to it than I do most of the ‘dot-to-dot, cookie cutter, social landfill’ marketing-practice advertising that floods our every channel [and – ironically – ends-up triggering our internal firewalls more than our emotional desires or interest] because not only do all of them look, say, sound and behave the same as everyone else, they annoy the fuck out of us with their desperate attempt to shove their ‘brand asset’ down our throats when they’re not even a feature let alone an asset.
God, someone got out of bed the wrong side this morning didn’t they.
On the positive, this shirt should be a shoe-in for the Grand Prix Effie.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Community, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Education, Egovertising, Food For Thought, Imposter Syndrome, Individuality, Influencers, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Professionalism, Reputation, Strategy, Sydney, Yahoo
A few weeks ago, I went to Sydney where I had the very real honour of spending a few days mentoring a bunch of talented people who were all relatively new to the industry.
One of the things that I heard from quite a few of them was the pressure they felt to build their reputation as a ‘thought leader’ on platforms like LinkedIn.
After telling them that a good 90% of what you read on there is nothing more than ego landfill [of which I am perfectly placed to make that statement given I’ve been spouting rubbish on the internet for over 20 years] … the reality is the best reputations are built on what you do, not what you say.
But I get it.
When you’re starting out, you’re desperate for professional acceptance and/or validation so you can find yourself blindly following whatever or whoever is currently popular amongst your peers – even more so if you’re based outside of the big cities where so much of the industry focus is concentrated.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is anything wrong with expressing your thoughts and ideas.
Frankly, it can be a brilliant way to learn, evolve and grow.
Hell, one of the best things about doing this blog for so long is seeing how some of my opinions have changed or been honed through the feedback/commentary/abuse I’ve received from so many people on here.
Of course, it helps that most were/are very smart and talented, but I fully acknowledge their input to my output has had a huge impact on what I do and how I think. But – and it’s a very big but – you only get real value out of expressing your thoughts and ideas if you’re doing it because [1] you want to – rather than feel you have to – and [2] you never adopt a tone of self-righteous, condescending, smugness.
If you do that, you may as well have a blinking neon sign over your head that screams, ‘Delusional, egotistical, blinkered dickhead’.
[I say ‘dickhead’ because, sadly, 95% of these sorts of people are men. White men.]
And yet, despite this, there’s still a hell-of-a-lot of people out there who adopt a tone that suggests they believe everything they do – and I mean EVERYTHING – is ‘unquestionably and undeniably right’ and anyone who dares to have a counter point of view, regardless of their experience, success or knowledge of their industries history, is automatically wrong.
A certain academic is a poster child for this sort of behaviour.
With these people, I always remember something my old man used to say, which was: “if someone needs to let others know how smart they are, they’re not that smart” – or said another way – if you meet someone who wants to be seen as a thought leader, they’re probably not and they probably won’t be.
Which is why the best advice I can give is to say ‘be you and no one else’.
I get the desire to feel like you belong.
I appreciate popularity has seemingly become more important than experience these days.
But if you ever feel pressured into writing on Linkedin because that’s what ‘thought leaders do’, remember this quote from Dennis Thatcher and save your energy for when you do have something to say or explore.
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.
Filed under: Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Bands, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Crap Products In History, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Egovertising, Embarrassing Moments, Fashion, Marketing, Marketing Fail
One of the worst things marketing has done is destroy the meaning of the English language.
I don’t mean with their desperate attempts to make their slogans and tropes part of popular vernacular – though that is also true – I mean it in terms of them literally and consistently destroying the meaning of words.
Over the years, I’ve seen all manner of examples …
From positioning a new brand of toilet cleaner as an innovation.
To claiming a new flavor of ‘Chicken Tonight’ is revolutionary.
And just recently, the most 80’s of 80’s band, being promoted as a symbol of rebellion.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Duran Duran.
Hell, back in my session guitarist days, I even played with Simon Le Bon … but even when they went through their ‘Wild Boys’ macho phase, they were about as dangerous and rebellious as Paddington Bear.
What the hell are the people behind this thinking?
Do they actually think Duran Duran are a badge of rebellion or is it more a case of them suggesting you’re a rebel if you actively choose to wear a shirt that does not feature the name of a modern music icon emblazoned all over the front?
If that’s the case, then I must be Satan personified. Or I was, prior to losing weight – hahaha.
But regardless of the reason, they’re either gaslighting, exploiting or as delusional as fuck.
What next, the color beige gets branded as controvertial?
Or maybe green ‘Starbursts’ get called confrontational?
Or possibly the entire marketing industry claims they are dangerous-as-fuck?
To paraphase Ronald Reagan and Lee Hill [who made his comment in relation to companies who have to overtly state and explain why their company, product or campaign is revolutionary/innovative/rebellious or even effective] …
“If you have to explain it, you’re probably not it”.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Focus Groups, Grifting, Logic, Love, Luck, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Process, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Status, Stupid
We’re surrounded by processes and systems.
Each and everyone proclaiming to be ‘the right way’ to do something.
A way that claims effectiveness … efficiency … accuracy and performance are all but guaranteed.
And while it is true that in many cases, they increase the odds of good things happening … that’s all they do.
Sure, many have a ton amount of data accompanying them to back things what they say … but as we all know about data, when used right [or wrong] you can make it say or prove anything you want it to.
The reality is our industry, pretty much all these systems are less a shortcut to wealth and prosperity, and more an insurance policy against failure and destruction.
Nothing wrong with that other that it does the opposite of what many claim and instead, champions conformity more than liberation. But then what do you expect when many of the people doing the spouting of systems and processes have a vested interest in everyone using those very systems and processes.
Again, I’m not suggesting you ignore all these things. As I said, many play an important role in developing products and brands … however when someone suggests they’re ‘the secret to success’ and must be embraced to the letter – then you need to think about whose success are they really talking about.
It’s why I bloody loved this interview with Marc Andreessen – the businessman, venture capitalist, and [former] software engineer. Specifically the bit about ‘why hyperlinks are blue’.
OK, so he tries to rationalize it at the end, but fundamentally what he says is: “blue is my favorite colour”.
That’s right … the colour of our hyperlinks were chosen.
By a human.
Because he liked that colour.
Kind of reminds me of the ‘wings’ on a Cadillac.
There was absolutely no functional reason for them to exist other than the fact the designers just thought it looked better with them.
That’s it.
And with that, they turned a car into an icon. And here lies a key lesson …
Sometimes, the things we like are simply because we like them.
There may be many alternatives.
There may be other possibilities.
But at the end of the day, some choose things for no other reason than it works for them.
And at a time where everything needs to be justified … rationalised … reviewed and tested … I think those people deserve credit for backing their belief, judgement, vision and preference.
It’s easy to do what a system tells you to do.
It’s easy to follow what others tell you is right.
But it takes confidence to embrace what you believe is the right thing to do. And while I acknowledge some will suggest this approach is an act of ego and arrogance … when you consider how many of these ‘dot-to-dot logic™ systems and ‘researched-to-within-an-inch-of-their-life’ campaigns/brands/products fail to perform [often because the impact or output they create is deemed secondary in importance to the adherence of every step of whatever system or logic process you have committed to using] you could argue the person who backs their judgement is no less an idiot than the person who outsources all their responsibility to someone else?
Whether we like it or not, sometimes the best things are a product of someone doing something they preferred.
They will justify it.
They will rationalize it.
But underpinning it all, is their acknowledgment that before they can think about satisfying others, they need to satisfy themselves … and frankly I find that a pretty honourable act.