Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Evil, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Fake Attitude
I love new business.
I love the thrill of getting stuck into something new.
The inquisition into how a business runs.
The exploration of how others see it and the category it plays in.
The history of why it started not just what is is doing.
All coming together to help formulate a point of view for the discussions you’ll have.
I’m not saying it’s easy. And in this economy, it will not only be harder to encourage new ways to tackle old problems … they’ll be more companies trying to do the same thing, often using price as their leverage rather than rigour.
Oooooh, look at me being all judgemental. But I’ll stick with it.
Anyway, the point is, new business is the lifeblood of all business.
What you do and how you do it may alter, but bringing in new clients and projects is oxygen. Not simply for the financial strength of the company, but the ability to reinvent who you are with every assignment.
Now there’s lots of ways people and companies approach new business but one I loathe is the speculative letter. Blanket and blind correspondence trying to make you care about something that you didn’t ask for and don’t really want to consider.
But as bad as that is, there’s now one that is even worse.
The blanket and blind lazy letter.
I know … I know … what could be lazier than blanket and blind?
Well, I’ll tell you, this …
Everything about this is hateful to me.
+ The suggestion they know someone who has told them what I am looking to do at work.
+ The blatant disregard for who I am, what I do and what my company does.
+ The claims of experience and reputation, despite their previous sentences proving otherwise.
+ The idea that the only difference between finding entry level talent and senior level talent is simply the payment of an additional $15 an hour.
+ The desperate attempt to close with a call.
Does this approach work?
Does anyone take them up on this scam?
What makes it even more of a joke is the Clustox website claims they ‘build software that grows businesses and startups’.
What software is that exactly? Spam software.
I tell you what would help you Clustox … know who the fuck you are talking to.
It’s not hard.
At the very least, make sure the person you’re writing to has some relevance to what you’re flogging. Has some connection to the industry you claim to serve and can assist with.
In fact the only effective thing this piece of unsolicited communication has done is ensure I will never work with you – even if I suddenly want to hire oodles of tech engineers.
And that’s exactly what I’ll tell Patricia when we talk next week.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Business, Confidence, Context, Culture, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Membership, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Pretentious Rubbish, Revenge, Twitter
Over the last 12 months, one of the things I’ve had an almost adverse reaction to is twitter.
I can see Andy reading this – and I expect an email from him reinforcing this – and shouting:
“Now you know why I always called it twatter”
And he may … just may … be right.
I used to like twitter.
It had a similar feel to the early days of blogging.
Community. Supportive. Elevation of knowledge and debate.
But now …. well, it’s a cesspit of hate, ego and imposters.
Full of people on self-made pedestals claiming to be the next incarnation of Christ. Who believe they are better and smarter than the bastard love-triangle-child of Weiden, Edison and Ocasio-Cortez. Who are disturbingly confident in their claims of being more knowledgable about companies histories, operations and decision making than employees – or even founders – of those very companies. Or even the CIA.
And yet, when you look for any of the work these genius’ have actually made … what you tend to find is more tweets.
Tweets about what others are doing wrong.
Tweets about how they could do things better.
Tweets about how they know the answer to everything and beyond.
Tweets about how they want others to give them answers to questions that someone else is paying them to provide.
Tweets about how they claim ownership for business or societal behaviour change via articles that they had nothing to do with that talk about business or societal behaviour change.
Tweets about how their ego, arrogance, aggression, bitterness and dismissal of others know no bounds.
Tweets. Tweets. Tweets.
And this was before Elon Musk, the World’s comedy villain, overpaid for the bloody thing.
Of course not everyone is like this. There are still some amazing people on there who are generous and open with their comments and consideration … who can disagree without aspiring to demolish those who have a different point of view … however they’re increasingly becoming the minority, drowned out by wave after wave of hateful, spiteful, vicious commentary which – for the first time in my life – pushed me away for my mental health.
This was shocking to me for 3 reasons.
1. Having worked in this industry for so long, I have the thickest of thick skin.
2. I’m a social-media tart. Not just in terms of platforms I belong to, but in terms of ‘content’ I churn out.
3. No one was personally attacking or abusing me.
Basically, twitter has become exhausting to me.
A firehose of cliquey, self-congratulatory, pseudo-intellectual commentary that tries – and fails – to hide it is ego and insecurity shouting into an echo-chamber.
Personally this has devastated me.
I loved twitter – like I loved blogs – because I genuinely felt they helped me be become better at things I do or wanted to do.
It gave me a direct line to people I respected where I was able to listen, learn, interact, explore and debate.
Twitter wanted me to be better.
It wanted me to be exposed to new ideas, ideals and considerations.
But not now.
Now it’s like a digital version of The Hunger Games.
Destruction in 280 characters.
Words used as bombs and swords.
People elevating themselves by bringing others down … through verbal attacks, gaslighting or building a wall of imagined exclusivity between them and others, even if it only exists in the minds, ego and insecurity of those who post so often, you wonder how the hell they have time to do their actual job.
Anyway, the reason for all this is that I recently read a quote from Musk about what he thought Twitter was:
I couldn’t agree with him more.
In fact, I think he encapsulated why I have fallen out-of-love with his $44 billion indulgence.
Because mediums are neither rare nor well done.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Confidence, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Education, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, EvilGenius, Fake Attitude, Fulfillment, Honesty, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy, Wieden+Kennedy
Tone of voice has always made me smile.
A list of cliched terms that somehow supposedly captures the distinctive characteristics of a brand, despite using 90% of the same language.
Fun … but aspirational.
Premium … but approachable.
Smart.
Human.
Innovative.
Blah … blah … blah …
What ends up happening is two things.
1 It ends up all coming down to a ‘look’.
2 It ends up with some people ‘getting the brand’ but never being able to articulate what it is beyond those same cliched words every brand uses.
That’s why I loved when Dan Wieden said …
Brand voice was given a huge amount of focus and time at Wieden.
It wasn’t some scribbled words shoved on a brief at the last second that everyone ignored … it was really delving into the soul of the brand.
How it looked at the world.
The Values and beliefs.
It’s point of view.
Oh, I get it, that sounds as pretentious as fuck doesn’t it … but that’s why you can tell a NIKE spot within 1/10th of a second … regardless of the sport, the audience, the language it’s in, the country it represents or even the style of ad.
That’s right.
They get brand attribution and can be as random as fuck.
And before you say, “oh, but that’s just NIKE” … Wieden [who are/were the undisputed champions of this] did the same thing for Honda, P&G, Chrysler, Converse and any number of totally desperate brands.
The reality is, when you really invest in getting the brand voice right – both from an agency and client perspective – it becomes something far more than a look or a tone, it’s a specific and individual feeling.
And that’s why I find this obsessive conversation about ‘brand attribution’ so amusing.
Oh I get it, it’s important.
But the simplest way to get it is to simply do something interesting.
An expression of how you see the World without constraint.
A point of view others may view as provocative but actually is born from your truth.
That’s it.
It’s not hard and you’ll get attribution automatically.
And not just any attribution … but the sort that has short and long-term commercial value rather than begrudged and meaningless familiarity.
However so many brands – and the brilliant Mark Ritson has to take a lot of the blame for this – think attribution is built on the repetition of brand assets.
And while there’s some truth to that … the difference is when ‘brand assets’ ARE the idea rather than born from it, then you’re not building a brand or creating change, you’re literally investing in complicity and invisibility.
Especially if those brand assets are so bland and generalistic that to not make any impact in the real world whatsoever.
Here’s an uncomfortable truth …
You can’t have commercially advantageous attribution and be traditional at the same time.
Oh I know there’s a lot of agencies and consultancies who say you can, but they’re literally spouting bullshit.
I’ll tell you something else …
If you’re relying on opening logos, watermarks or number of brand name mentions per execution to ensure your work is being attributed to your brand … then you’re not just likely to be showing your neediness and desperation, you’re probably admitting that you’re not saying or doing something that is worthy of making people care.
In fact the only thing worse is if you hire a ‘celebrity’ to front your campaign, then have to label who they are because no one knows them.
Sorry.
Now I appreciate this sort of approach may get you a ‘Mini MBA’ from the Mark Ritson school of marketing … and it may help with internal consistency and familiarity … but I can assure you that it won’t get you a sustainably disproportionate commercially advantageous position in your category, let alone culture.
And maybe that’s fine, and that’s OK. But if it is, then own it … rather than put out press releases announcing your leadership position in the market when really what you’ve done is dictate the blandification of everything you say or do because your marketing strategy is based more on ‘blending in, than standing out’.
And nothing shows this more than tone of voice.
An obsessive focus of playing to what you think people want rather than who you are.
It’s why I always find it interesting to hear how planners approach what a brand stands for.
So many talk a good game of rigor but play a terrible game of honesty.
Spending weeks undertaking research and holding ‘stakeholder’ interviews to learn who the brand is – or wants to be – rather than going into the vaults and understanding not only why they were actually founded … but the quirks of decision they made along the way.
Don’t get me wrong, research and interviews have a place, but for me, learning about a brand at the start of life is one of the most valuable things you can do because it reveals the most pure version of themselves. Or naïve.
No contrived brand purpose … not ‘white space’ research charts … just a true expression of who they are and what they value.
Or wanted to be.
And when you start piecing those things together, you discover a whole new world.
Better yet, you get to a very different – and authentic place.
Oh, the things I’ve learned about companies over the years.
Not for contrived, bullshit heritage stories … but to understand the beliefs and values that actually shaped and dictated the formation and rise of the company, even if down the line it failed and/or modern day staff don’t know any of it.
There’s a reason The Colonel purposefully chose bigger tables to be in his restaurants when he started KFC. There’s a reason Honda made their own screws for their machines. There’s a reason Prudential helped widows and orphans.
It’s not hard, it just needs effort, commitment, transparency and honesty.
That’s it.
And while I could say this quick-fix, fast-turnaround, communication-over-change world we live in means good enough is good enough … the reality is for a lot of companies and agencies, they don’t think they’re sacrificing quality. They don’t think they’re sacrificing anything. They think they’re creating revolution and that’s the most fucking petrifying bit about the whole thing.
Inside the vaults lie the stories and clues that help you get to better and more interesting places. Not for the sake of it, but because of it. And when you get there, it will naturally lead you to bigger, bolder and more provocative acts and actions. And when you do that, then brands get all the attribution they could ever wish for, because by simply being your self, you will be different.
_______________________________________________________________________________
For the record, I truly respect Mark Ritson.
He’s smart, knowledgable and incredibly experienced.
He has also added a level of rigour in marketing that has been missing for a long time.
I also appreciate some of the issues I talk about are a byproduct of many other things – from talent standards, corporate expectations and plain misunderstanding.
However, when you say a course is the equivalent to gaining a Mini MBA, it not creates a false sense of ability – to to mention gets more and more brands thinking, behaving and expressing themselves in exactly the same way – it suggests the focus is on personal gain over industry improvement and you run the risk of becoming the beast you wanted to slay.
That said, he’s still much smarter than I’ll ever be.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Business, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Education, Effectiveness, Experience, Facebook, Fake Attitude, Honesty, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, New Product Mentalness, Perspective, Planners, Relevance, Resonance, Scam, Social Media, Standards, Technology
After the amazing drama of yesterday, I need to calm things down.
Not for you, but for me … because my heart can’t take nerves like that.
And yet it’s going to have to do just that in a little over a week.
Bloody hell.
So to slow things down, let me take you back in time …
Back in 1985, the band Dire Straits launched a song called Money For Nothing.
It became famous for a whole host of reasons.
It was the first song of theirs that actually sounded slightly modern.
It had ‘modern’ day references in the lyrics.
It had Sting – from The Police – singing on it.
It had this video …
Did you watch it?
You didn’t did you?
You lazy bastards …
Well, to get back to the point of this post, here’s a screen grab from it …
Now while that image may not strike you as cutting edge, back in 1985, it was revolutionary.
Digital characters living in a digital world, where their universe was a blend of normality and possibility.
Hang on, does that sound like something else?
Something that a huge amount of the tech and marketing industry have been wetting their pants over?
Something that sounds suspiciously close to this …
Did you watch this?
You didn’t did you?
You über-lazy assholes …
Well, to get back to the point of this post, here’s a screen grab from it …
Yep.
Yep it does.
A music video from 1985 by the most snooze-rock band ever formed, not only communicated the metaverse, it did it in a style pretty close to what Facebook and every other brand have shown as ‘the standard’.
How terrifyingly embarrassing is that?
All these hip, technologists, futurists and strategists trying to look like they’re on the edge of culture creation and all the bollocks they’re banging on about was expressed by bloody Dire Straits 37 years earlier.
THIRTY SEVEN YEARS.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
I mean … when that Zuck video first broke, I wrote a post about how it was missing the point by showing things we can already do, but now – thanks to errrrrm, Dire Straits, I realise it was even worse than I imagined.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe technology and – the metaverse, even though what is being celebrated as it, isn’t what it is – will have the possibility to make a huge, positive difference to humanity. Eventually.
But making – and lauding – a film and idea that looks awfully similar to a bloody 1985 music video isn’t doing them any favours. If anything, it shows how much of this industry is filled with individuals who crave attention or adoration or just desperately seek relevance.
Not helped when you learn that, unsurprisingly, the main reason Zuck is so into the Metaverse is not for changing the world but upping his bank account.
Given how much Facebook tried to label Apple as ‘anti-business’ for the amount they charged creators and partners – which is a lot less than 47.5% – it makes the whole Meta situation even more laughable.
Don’t get me wrong, I know the new is often misunderstood.
And new technology should not be judged by the standards of established technology.
But when the ‘icons and industry leaders’ stand on soapboxes and stages to promote the future in a similar way that Dire Straits brought to the World almost 4 decades ago … it’s only fair to question if these people care about the future or simply their own career image.
Even though, sadly, we keep seeing hyping can get better career growth, than grafting.
If the Metaverse could fix that, then maybe we’d all sign up.
Then again …
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Effectiveness, Fake Attitude, Grifting, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Scam, Strategy
I’m all for people expressing their opinion.
I’m all for people being excited about things they see as having great possibilities.
I’m all for people trying to find new ways to evolve, grow and make money.
But come on …
It’s getting to the point where Linkedin should be renamed Disneyland given how much fiction and fantasy are going on.
What’s worse is among all the ‘consultants’ and ‘new business development people’ claiming expertise, are a bunch of strategists.
Now I know as a discipline we think we have the answer to everything … but we don’t.
Fuck, even the people who are developing the technology, don’t.
But what bothers me is the reason behind why so many people are claiming expertise.
OK, so I know some have a real understanding of the technology and its possible implications. And in that, I include certain strategists – we all know who those brilliant people are.
And I also appreciate some mistakenly believe that because they’ve used ChatGPT, they think they now know everything about the technology.
But others – and this is potentially the majority of them – are doing it because they see it as a chance to personally gain from it.
In essence, their perspective is that as long as a subject matter is highly topical and others – especially companies – don’t know about it, then they can profit from it because they can say anything because no one will know enough to tell them they’re wrong.
You can tell who this group are because they’re the one’s who are either the loudest to declare their knowledge or the first to say they had identified the trend … despite never doing anything with their ‘expertise’ or because of their ‘vision’.
Putting aside how this sort of behaviour can damage the reputation of real experts, disciplines and entire industries … the issue I have is how it is often justified as hustle culture.
I’ve written my issue with hustle culture in the past, but the fact is, this isn’t hustling … it’s grifting and the impact of it is not just damaging people and companies, but it killing the potential of technology before it has a chance to find it’s real possibility.
I appreciate this is quite a heavy post from what was just a piss-take image of Homer … but the best comedy is always based on a truth we often like to deny.