Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Childhood, Dad, Daddyhood, Emotion, Family, Fatherhood, Happiness, Hong Kong, Jill, Love, Mum, Mum & Dad, Otis, Parents
So it’s 5am on the day of the US election.
The results are far too tight than anyone would hope – which means the US population have far too little empathy for their fellow humans, given Trump is still in with a good chance.
I know. The lying, cheating, bullshitting, racist, hate-monger is still adored by around 50% of the US population. Nothing shows how sick that country is than that.
So because of this, I thought I’d write something that may momentarily take our minds off hate. One that is inspired by the post I wrote yesterday for Mum’s birthday.
It’s about death.
Yes, I know that sounds a terrible thing to do, but it won’t be.
Or I hope it’s not.
[I’ve turned the comments off so I’ll just have to assume it’s the case]
You see death is utterly horrible.
There’s a chance it might even be worse for the people left behind.
I’ve written how long it took me to get over Dad dying.
10 years. TEN YEARS.
And part of that is because I had been denying Dad was ill for almost the entire duration of his illness. Thinking one more stroke would bring him back to ‘normal’, just as quickly as that one stroke had robbed him of it.
It is what led me to talking about the need to talk about death.
I get it’s not a subject anyone wants to talk about, but as we’re all going to be going through it – it’s better to have a healthy relationship with it rather than a bad one.
By doing it, I was able to deal with Mum dying with far greater balance.
Of course I was devastated and ripped apart …
It was not meant to happen at that time.
But because the door to discussing death had happened when Dad passed, it meant we were in a slightly better place to deal with it.
The problem with ageing is that it happens more around you.
It will force itself into your life, whether you like it or not … so talking about it, as uncomfortable as it may seem, actually helps everyone.
But … and there’s always a but … it doesn’t mean you are able to just move on after the event.
It helps you deal with the event with more clarity, but the emotions never really go.
Even if years have passed.
And it’s normal.
In fact, it’s beautiful … because it means the people who mattered most to you still matter.
How wonderful is that.
There’s been a number of times this has happened to me.
And while in the moment it is an emotional tsunami, it’s something you find yourself treasuring.
Because for a moment, you’re back together.
And that’s when you realise that while you thought you had everything in control, the reality is you’re just trying to control everything around you – so when something comes from left field, your walls are unable to hold anything back and the raw emotions come out with a force that takes your breath away.
I’ve had these situations with both Mum and Dad.
With Dad, it tends to be people who have eyes similar to his.
He had the most beautiful blue, expressive eyes I’ve ever seen.
I remember when I was living in Singapore, I was waiting for the lift in the lobby of the building I worked in.
Suddenly this man I’d never seen before came around the corner and waited at the other end of the lifts.
He was older, dressed smartly but his eyes were identical.
I kept looking at him – trying to remind myself it wasn’t actually my Dad while feeling it was.
And then, as quickly as he appeared, he was gone … never to be seen again.
I have a similar sensation when I see the actor Anthony Hopkins eyes … not just the colour, but the wrinkles around them.
Whenever he is on TV, I stare at him because it feels – even if for a moment – it’s like my Dad is starting back at me.
But the experience that got me the most was when I was living in LA.
I was at the local Thai restaurant in Manhattan Beach … waiting by the till to pick up my order.
Out of my eye, I saw an elderly woman sitting down waiting for her food as well.
It’s not that she really looked like my Mum, but there was something about her energy that felt like she was there.
Like the situation in Singapore, I found myself stealing glances while telling myself it’s not her.
And as much as I knew it wasn’t, it felt like it was and as much as I tried to stop looking, I craved that chance to be close to Mum again.
It was such a powerful sensation that I felt tears in my eyes. It was both a mix of the sadness she was gone and the happiness she felt like she was there.
This lovely lady noticed and asked if I was OK.
I apologised and said I didn’t mean to make her feel uncomfortable, but she reminded me so much of my Mum and I miss her.
And that’s when she said something I’ll remember forever.
“Would you like a hug?”
Oh my god, I did … but I also didn’t want to look like a total weirdo so I thanked her for her kind offer but said no.
As I said that, her food came and as she left, she told me it was so lovely to see someone love their Mum as much as I did.
And she walked out.
And I watched her.
And then I went outside and said …
“Excuse me, would it be possible to have that hug after all?”
She put her food down and opened her arms and I rested my head on her shoulder and she hugged me and I cried my eyes out.
Seriously, I think about it now and I’m amazed the restaurant owners didn’t call the Police.
We were like that for a minute, but it felt like hours and it was liberating for me … a release of all the situations I had try to control to ensure I didn’t lose control.
And like the man in Singapore, I never saw her again, but I’ll remember her – and him – forever. Because while they weren’t my parents, they let me feel – for a second – they were still here and that was the best feeling in the World.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, America, Comment, Emotion, Empathy, Family, Fatherhood, Friendship, Imagination, London, Love, Otis
When we lived in LA, Otis met a little girl called Elodie.
Quickly they became inseparable.
While I didn’t write too much about them – though I did here – anyone who knew us in LA will know how deep their connection was.
To help you understand, here’s some evidence.
It was so beautiful. They protected each other, looked out for each other and – as much as a 3 year old can – loved each other.
In all honesty, the hardest thing for me moving from America was breaking the friendship Otis and Elodie had, so I was utterly thrilled when she and her Mum came to visit us in London in 2018.
While there was a hint of nervousness when they first saw each other, within minutes they were back to their old selves.
Now I don’t mind admitting that what has helped is Elodie’s Mum and Otis’ are best mates – so they stay in touch even if they didn’t want to. But what’s wonderful is it’s not ‘just staying in touch’ … it’s two people who share something special.
The same energy.
The same compassion.
The same – albeit shortly lived – history.
Which leads to the reason for this post.
A couple of weeks ago, Otis was playing Roblox when Elodie’s Mum facetimed Jill.
Now you have to understand Roblox is Otis’ god.
HE LOVES IT.
When he’s in the Roblox world, we basically have lost him to it.
But then he heard Elodie’s voice and immediately put his iPad down, ran to his Mum’s phone and started nattering away.
Talking about what they were doing.
How old they were.
Playing daft games that made them giggle.
Then they showed each other their cats.
Then their feet.
Then Otis showed Elodie around his new house.
His new bedroom.
And Elodie showed him her garden.
And it went on and on and on for ages.
Seeing and hearing 2 kids who have been in different countries for over 2 years – which is half their life – reconnect with the force as if they had never been away was absolutely beautiful.
Life for many people is a bit shit right now.
There’s not much good news out there … especially with insane politicians trying to make it worse for all of us.
So I’m just going to leave you with a photo.
A photo of Otis talking to his beloved Elodie and hopefully that smile on his face … and the back story I’ve just written about … will remind you it’s not all doom and gloom out there.
And while it can’t change your own challenges and situations, it will hopefully put a smile on your face.
Like it did for me.
Have a good weekend.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Imposter Syndrome, Innovation, Insight, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Pretentious Rubbish, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance, Social Media, Stubborness, Unfair Life
Of all the blog posts I’ve written over the years – and let’s face it. there’s been loads – there’s been a few I have constantly referred to.
One is Harrison Ford’s the value of value.
The other is Michael Keaton’s if you’re an employee, you’re still a business owner.
If you hadn’t worked it out by now, both are about ensuring you are not just paid for your creativity, but paid fairly.
You’d think that was obvious, but so many people seem to have forgotten that … including the creative industry, who have decided their value is better placed on the process of what they do rather than what they actually create and change.
Insanity.
But underpinning this is the creative person’s insecurity.
Somewhere in our psyche is the belief that if we charge money for what we create, we’re not being truly creative.
That we’ve sold out.
That we are imposters … capitalists in creative clothing.
Now there is an element of truth in all of this – because the moment you are working for someone else’s dollar, that someone has some influence over what you create. But that’s not unique to the creative industry. Nor does it mean you are selling out on your creative integrity by accepting payment for what you do.
Please note I said ‘payment for what you do’.
That does not mean we should be ignoring the needs, ambitions and goals that our clients want us to help them achieve, but it is acknowledging we should also be paid well for the creativity, craft, experience – and unique way of looking at the World – that goes into creating the work that allows us to achieve their needs in ways others can’t.
The reality is as much as many – especially in the creative industry – like to suggest money is the enemy of creativity, it’s not.
It can allow us to do amazing things.
Break new ground.
Explore new possibilities.
But more than that, while it may be differing amounts, we all need money.
And – to a certain extent – we all want money.
There is nothing wrong with that, just like there’s nothing wrong with being paid for what we do.
The real question should be how did we earn it and what did we do with it when we got it.
That’s how you can judge a persons integrity, not the fact you got paid for what you did and the talent you invested in it.
Sure, struggling may sound romantic in a Hollywood movie, but few of us want a lifetime of that and who can blame them!?
I still remember when Lars Ulrich of Metallica copped all manner of shit because he was the face for recording artists fighting against the role of Napster on the recording industry.
The insults he copped.
The distain he was thrown.
And all he was doing was trying to protect the value of his – and millions of other bands – creativity.
Why was that wrong?
Was it because, at that stage, he was already wealthy?
Is there some sort of rule to say that there is only so much you’re allowed to make before creative people need to shut up and be grateful for what they’ve got?
And what is that amount? No doubt, somewhere between ‘enough to live but not more than the rest of us’.
However somewhere along the line, society has decided to reposition creatively minded people as idealists … naive or even weak. Ignoring reality so they can wank-off on some self indulgent project that only interests them.
Which is total bollocks.
Apart from the fact I’ve never met a creative who isn’t insanely focused on the challenge they’ve been given – even if they have a very different opinion on how to get there to the client or the rest of the agency – the fact is we’ve now surrounded them with 10,000 different types of ‘strategist’, with 10,000 different opinions and agendas … which forces the conversations to be more about the importance of a discipline than the actual potential of the work.
And don’t get me even started on the fact a lot of these new forms of strategy are either [1] not really new or [2] not doing actual strategy, but executional management!
However all that aside, the reality is in all this, creative people have to take a responsibility for the situation they find themselves in.
Or, potentially even more specifically, the people who are training and developing them.
Because they are complicit in maintaining the belief your creative value and integrity is somehow linked to not being ‘diluted’ by payment. Which, when you think of it, is utterly ridiculous given value is created by what others will pay for it.
Schools … universities … agencies … everyone has an obligation to change this.
Not just for the future of their students or employees, but also for their own value.
Appreciating the economic value of what you create and what that creates is not dirty … it is the opposite of that.
It’s purity.
It means you have power in the conversation.
A right to fight for what you believe rather than what is convenient.
Creativity comes in many forms but right now, the form of ‘engineering’ is winning.
Where it’s less about what could be created and more about how you create something that has already been defined. Worse, something that has already been done.
So if you’re in the creative industry or thinking about it or know someone already in it.
Or, alternately, if you’re a teacher involved in the arts – or any subject for that matter – or careers advisor or a parent of someone who is in, or wanting to be in, the creative industry … then please read this article by Alec Dudson [the founder of Intern] because in it, he explains why ‘the economic value of creativity’ skill still remains largely absent from creative education … the impacts of that omission and, most usefully, how you can change it.
Creativity can change outcomes, possibilities and culture.
It has played a pivotal role in every great brand, product, idea and invention.
But not as insane as the people capable of creating it, also being complicit in it.
Know your worth. Charge your worth. Build your worth.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Fake Attitude, Focus Groups, Honesty, Imagination, Innovation, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Relevance, Resonance, WeigelCampbell, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a topic that I’ve been bothered by for a very long time.
I touched on it last week in the post about my recent webinar for WARC.
It also formed part of the presentation I did with the amazing Martin Weigel at Cannes in 2019 … also for WARC.
Frankly, I’m seeing far too much work that is literal.
Literal in the problem.
Literal in the strategy.
Literal in the execution.
It’s like all the work is repackaging the client brief and just adding some fancy words, a bit of a gloss and that’s it.
No real understanding of the culture around the category.
No real distinctive expression of the brand behind the work.
No real lateral leaps in the creativity to make people give a shit.
It’s dot-to-dot communication based on lowest common denominator logic … and while I get it will pass research processes and client stakeholders without much pushback … what’s it actually doing for anyone?
Few will remember it.
Even fewer will respond to it.
And no one feels good at the end of it.
Don’t get me wrong, we have to make work that makes a difference for our clients.
I get that.
But that means finding out the real problem we need to solve rather than the solution we want to sell. Means finding out what how the subculture really uses the category in their life versus how the client would like them to use it. Means allowing the creatives to solve the problem we’ve identified rather than dictating the answer. Means being resonant, not relevant. Means having a point of view. Means dreaming of what it could be rather than what it already is. And – most of all – means letting people feel rather than just be told.
It’s why you remember Dancing Pony over that Vodafone spot.
Because while I’m sure both overcame all manner of research obstacles and client stakeholders requirements, there is one thing one campaign remembered, and it’s what Martin once said:
“You can be as relevant as hell and still be boring as fuck”.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Honesty, Imagination, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Packaging, Pepsi, Perspective, Positioning, Premium
One of the things I have always found fascinating is hearing how agencies explain their work.
It’s always so brilliantly detailed.
So articulate and precise.
So different to how any of the work I’ve been a part of came about.
In my personal experience, the process to the creative work has looked like this …
That’s right. A bloody mess.
Chaos rather than clarity.
Back and forth rather than a clear line.
Exploration and rabbit holes rather a smooth and efficient act of precision.
Got to be honest, I prefer it that way.
The idea of everything being so pure that you know the answer before you get to the answer scares the hell out of me.
Maybe that’s why I like giving creatives the best problem rather than a good solution.
Let them work out a way to solve it rather than expect them to just execute my answers.
The reason I say all this is because I recently saw this colour chart …
Putting aside that some of the brand/colour associations they’ve suggested make no fucking sense at all [ie: Nike = neutral/calm balance] it is interesting and frightening how much brands align with a colour stereotype.
Or should I say, a suggested colour stereotype.
OK … I’m being a dick, I know there is a lot of research in this field, but that doesn’t mean that just because your brand logo is in a character defined colour, you automatically convey that character.
But of course, this is what a branding company would say in their pitch …
“We chose orange as orange is a colour that conveys friendliness and we believe this makes you even more accessible”
But the reality is colour theory is the driving force behind logo colour recommendations, I would say it’s because of 2 reasons:
1. It’s how the brand wants to be perceived. [Ego]
2. It’s to hide how the brand is really perceived. [Fear]
Am I being a prick?
Probably. But as they say in the movie Dangerous Liaisons … people don’t answer questions with the truth, they answer questions in ways that protect their truth.
This is why I’ve always talked about ‘dirty little secrets’ … because often insights end up being about ‘convenient explanations’ of actions/behaviours/beliefs whereas the real driving force is something more personal. More conflicting. More interesting.
It’s why I find it far more interesting BP are in the green colour – nature, health and growth – than Animal Planet.
It’s also why I find BP far more differentiated than the friendly, orange colour of Gulf Petroleum.
Because while colour choice for logo design is important, anyone who tries to claim it defines what the brand is and/or how it is perceived in culture is either a fucking bubble-dwelling idiot, a ‘category convention’ sheep or someone who believes the Pepsi logo design strategy is up there with Leonardo Da Vinci.