Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand, Brand Suicide, Clients, Clothes, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Craft, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Details, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Entertainment, Fans, Fashion, Film, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Media, Mediocrity, Metallica, Netflix, New Zealand, Premium, Privilege, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Respect, Standards, Steve Jobs
For 50 years, I never dressed particularly fashionably.
I had a ‘style’, but it was never one people looked at and thought, “I want to dress like that”.
Questionable t-shirts, ripped jeans and a pair of birkies tend to have that reaction.
Part of this is because growing up, I was never exposed to anything ‘fancy’. Despite my Mum being Italian and going to Italy a lot … my version of designer clothing was stuff from Burton’s and C&A and nothing more.
But over the years, I got more and more exposed to the high-end fashion houses.
Projects with Prada and Chanel introduced me to people, stories and experiences that taught me there was far more to who they were than big prices and even bigger pretentiousness. But even that was not enough to convince me this was something for me.
Hell, I still remember the utter shock I felt when I heard a mate tell me they’d spent 70 quid on a t-shirt.
Sure, this was a 1000 years ago, but back then I didn’t know how that was even possible.
T-shirts were 3 for a few quid from Asda so what on earth could justify 70 pounds for a single tee???
And that was how things carried on for decades until 2 events happened in my life:
I got healthy and I started working for the most successful and influential luxury and street-fashion investor on the planet.
And with those 2 things, everything changed …
I got to go behind the scenes of the highest level of the industry.
I got to talk to the creative directors of the houses and labels who define global fashion.
I got to meet the people who create, curate and craft the experiences that define how fashion makes us feel.
But most of all, (1) I could now actually fit in their clothes and (2) my client sent me shitloads of them for free.
Of course, I appreciate how lucky I am for that – and I massively appreciate that they were doing it to ‘keep encouraging me on my health journey’. But – and I say this with utter love and respect for them – I can’t help the real reason is because they didn’t want me turning up to their big meetings and fancy events dressed like a trainwreck. What maybe triggered this was the time I found myself sitting next to Phoebe Philo, ex-creative director of Celine and founder of her own label, who – on seeing my t-shirt, featuring a cat logo – said:
“I love this, who is it by?”
To which I replied:
“My son made it, and that’s our cat”.
To be fair, she was brilliant but I can’t help but imagine she was also thinking, “who the fuck is this nutter I’m next to?”
Bit like the time I was in the lift with members of the Prada family.
They were – literally – the best dressed people I had ever seen in my entire life.
Me? I was wearing ripped jeans, some Nike’s and a hoodie probably from Asda.
Again, they were kind, warm and welcoming – and never once did I feel judged, in fact the opposite – but it was not long after that I started receiving a lot of fancy clothes – hahaha.
But the point of this post is not that I am more fashionably dressed person than I’ve ever been in my life.
Nor is it that I am one of the luckiest bastards on the planet.
No, it’s that the last few years have completely changed my perspective of the industry.
Where once I may have just seen it as pricey and poncy, I now have a deep appreciation, understanding and respect it..
The creativity, the craft, the inspiration, the statements, the history, the details, the obsession.
Put simply, the belief that EVERY detail matters, no matter how big or small.
Steve Jobs once talked about the importance of ‘painting behind the fence’ – the belief that even if no one ever sees or recognizes the care and consideration you have put into your work, you know and that matters – and in many ways, he could have been describing the luxury fashion industry.
You only has to watch the Netflix Documentary ‘7 Days’ – specifically the episode about Chanel’s couture catwalk show – and you’ll see how much thought goes into how every single detail is presented.
Not simply because image is important to them, but because they want to honour the work they have created.
Make sure it is represented, seen and felt exactly as intended and created.
It is a similar approach Metallica have to their music.
It’s why they bought the best vinyl printing plants in the World.
It’s why they invested in the best live concert sound-system in the World.
It’s why they own the rights to all the music they create and have ever created.
It’s not ego. It’s not hyping. It’s about ensuring they honour the work they’ve made so everyone experiences it exactly as intended, versus letting someone else determine that.
So where the fuck is this all going?
Well, it’s because recently I saw this.
Yep, it’s a billboard for the movie Devil Wears Prada 2.
BUT WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON WITH THAT IMAGE???
How is a movie centered around the world of luxury fashion and media using such a badly designed, stretched and distorted billboard like that?!
Looking online, I can tell you that’s not the official image – at least as far as I can tell – plus I should point out the image has accentuated the lines of the digital billboard, which weren’t visible to the human eye.
But that aside, the image used looks like someone at the local distributor, media agency or billboard company decided, for reasons I don’t understand, to create – or adapt – their own version of the official artwork; the result of which is a visual that makes Devil Wears Prada 2 seems more Poundland than Prada.
Which highlights two very important reminders:
1. Everything communicates who you are and what you value.
2. For the best result, make sure all who work for you – or with you –know who you are and what you value.
I’m not saying price or speed doesn’t matter, of course it does … but what price does sloppiness, misunderstanding or a need-for-speed end up costing?
And to those who say that doesn’t matter, because no one cares … I say this in return.
Not only do you not understand marketing …
Not only do you not care about your company …
You sure as shit don’t understand your customers.
Which gives us one final thing to remember …
For all the systems, processes and marketing practice methodologies you can use … if you forget who its for and what its for, then you’re truly wasting your money.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Cannes, Creative Development, Creativity, Fans, Film, Jill, Management, Marketing, Martin Weigel, Music, Paula, Planners, Reputation, Strategy
Back in 2019, Martin Weigel and I were invited by WARC to do our talk, ‘The Case For Chaos’ at Cannes.
While it seemed to go down pretty well – despite me wearing a Louis Theroux t-shirt – we thought that was the last time it would ever happen and not just because COVID was to happen the following year.
However in 2023, WARC invited us to do it again, which – in my mind – was proof ‘long COVID’ was most definitely a real issue and it majorly affected people’s taste and judgement.
Anyway this time, the wonderful Paula Bloodworth joined us to present our infamous ‘Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative’ talk.
Again, it seemed to go down quite well – despite me wearing a Rosie Cat/Sky Budgie t-shirt – but now we were absolutely certain it would ever happen.
And yet, despite their being no global pandemic to mess with WARC’s minds, they’ve brilliantly/stupidly asked us to do something one more time.
This time, Paula and I will be presenting a talk entitled, ‘Secrets Of Effective Strategy From Artists Who Only Live Creatively’.
In essence, it’s a talk about what we have learned about strategy from working with artists and how they have fundamentally changed our minds on how it’s done and what it’s capable of doing.
Now I must admit, I feel a bit of a fraud doing this, because while I have/do work [part-time] with a number of stupidly successful and amazing artists, I’m basically their ‘cat litter tray’ – doing any ol’ shit they can’t be bothered to do themselves or can’t be bothered to work out – whereas Paula not only works for the incredible Idris Elba fulltime, she is his true strategic partner … both in terms of helping him explore and fulfil his creative and commercial ambitions as well as being the CMO of his IE7 group of companies.
Anyway, our talk is on Wednesday, 16th June at 5pm at the WARC Rotonde Stage.
The premise of our talk covers this:
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Despite all its research, resources, technology and talent, why is the ad industry continually out-played, out-thought and out-innovated by artists with zero marketing knowledge, training or experience?
Based on first-hand experience, this presentation discusses the unique mindset of the artist and how this enables them to fulfill their creative and commercial ambitions in ways our industry’s over-reliance on process, research and spend rarely achieves.
With examples from artists including Idris Elba, Metallica, Dolly Parton, Miley Cyrus and Queen, ‘ Secrets Of Effective Strategy From Artists Who Only Live Creatively’ provides lessons every strategist, creative and marketing director can use to reignite the excitement, intrigue, creativity and commercial power in their own work.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
So if you’re there, come for the brilliance of Paula and stay for whatever tragic t-shirt I choose to wear on the day, which – if I’m being honest – will probably feature the words “Sorry Jill”, given I’ll be missing her birthday for this. Eek.
On the brightside, I’ve lost so much weight since I last presented at Cannes, people may think I’ve been on the Ozempic to fit in with the look of the celebrities we’ll be talking about – haha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Audio Visual, Brand, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Collaboration, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Distinction, Emotion, Environment, Fans, Film, Imagination, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Metallica, Miley, Money, Music, Perspective, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin
So we got through the first week of this blog in 2025.
Congratulations … we all survived and no one died. I think.
That said, the subject matters of the posts have been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster with things such as anger, frustration and loss. So with that in mind, I thought I’d end the week on a more positive tone.
Kinda.
One thing I have always actively rallied against is stringent strategic processes.
That doesn’t mean I don’t care about rigor or standards – obviously I do – however I don’t think that is demonstrated by blindly following a set process that has pre-determined what is or isn’t of value.
There’s 3 main reasons for this.
1. It automatically narrows and filters what can be used.
2. It ignores differing contexts, situations and categories.
3. You are actively stopping the chance for happy accidents and/or better answers.
It’s one of the main reasons I love working with artists, because at the end of the day – they are the creative – so for them, they determine success by what they FEEL is better rather than what the process tells them it is.
Nothing brought this home more to me than a scene in the documentary about the making of Do They Know It’s Christmas back in 1984.
Bob Geldof and Midge Ure had got together to write a song that they hoped would raise money for the starving in Africa. The single – launched in December ’84 – featured many of the up and coming posters of the era, ‘bullied’ into turning up by the irrepressible Geldof.
Over the space of a chaotic 24 hours, singers … duo … bands … all traipsed into SARM studios to record a song that had just been written and no one knew. Amazingly, there were few egos, with everyone focused on what they had to do, but it’s here that we see a brilliant example of letting the process play second fiddle to perfection’.
George Michael was at the mic and told how to sing his line.
He did it, but while sounding good, he felt it did not reflect the power he wanted to put into it.
So he suggested changing the intonation and sang it.
And he was right, it did sound better …
In fact, it became an iconic moment in the song.
But it might not have been if he was working with people obsessed with following the process than valuing what the process is supposed to deliver.
Fortunately, George was being produced by 2 other singers – and the incredible Trevor Horn, who owned SARM – who recognized that what they had suggested was no where near as good as what he had delivered. And so while it had an impact on how the following lines of the song were structured, they embraced it because ultimately, they knew it was better.
Have a look at this:
[As an aside, you should watch this fascinating interview where Geldof explains how self-awareness about his career meant he was uniquely positioned to identify the need and opportunity for the Band Aid single]
Now you may think this is obvious and I shouldn’t be making a big deal out of it.
And you’re right, it is … except we live in an age where too many companies focus more on the systems, processes and marketing practices than what they produce.
If you think I’m talking rubbish, ask yourself this.
Is there more conversation, debate and value placed on the process being put forward or the work delvered?
I would hasten a guess it’s the former.
It blows my mind.
As I said, process is important – but often its developed without any consideration to what it needs to create or change … blindly believing that if the process is ‘right’, then whatever comes out the other end must be too.
Which – as history and marketing has continued to prove – is bollocks.
Almost as bollocks as people sticking with whatever is made – even though they know it’s not as good as it could be – because ultimately they can point to ‘a process’ and outsource any responsibility of output to that.
How fucking cowardly.
But musicians don’t do that.
Musicians play for the song. Always.
Which is why they’re open to possibilities because the goal isn’t control, it’s expression.
Here are two other examples of it …
First Rick Rubin with his suggestion to Jay-Z on how to start 99 Problems
And Eddie van Halen, rearranging Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ so the solo sounded better:
Let’s be clear here, Jay-Z is hardly a shrinking violet. Same for Jackson. And yet they were open to their guests making a suggestion because they [1] knew it was coming from a good place and [2] it was better.
How often does that happen in our line of work?
How often does someone with ZERO experience in a particular discipline tell someone with a track record how to do their job. How to make something better?
It’s why I laugh when people like Mark Ritson comment on what is/isn’t good creativity.
Don’t get me wrong, he knows a huge amount about marketing practice … he offers real value in developing important marketing 101 rules and behaviours, but he knows fuck all about creativity or innovation.
And I wouldn’t care a less if he didn’t bang on like he was God.
As I said, he is very smart and can make a huge difference to certain sorts of companies. But – despite what he likes to think – not all companies. And the reason why I will always value someone like Rubin more than Ritson is that Rubin plays for the work, not for his own ego.
Open to someone being better. Or smarter. Or just making a better idea.
Not because they don’t care about the process, but because they care more about what it’s supposed to deliver.
Musicians often get dismissed as ramshackle and chaotic.
But if you look at some of the approaches adopted by artists such as Bjork, Metallica, Miley, Travis Scott, ABBA, Radiohead, Dolly Parton, The Black Keys, Rihanna, Marillion, Kendrick Lamare, Prince, Queen, Def Leppard, Pharrell and a whole host more – covering everything from crowdsourcing, business models, brand extensions, distribution management, brand assets, copyright investment, differentiation and distinction, gaming, brand experience and overall innovation in communication to name but a few – you will see they have pioneered more business and communication approaches and practice than almost any of the brands and gurus out there. Or at least done it before most of them.
Part of that is because they’re driven by their need to express themselves with total authenticity. Part of that is because they’re very aware of the context they’re entering – rather than blindly thinking what worked before will automatically work again. And part of that is because the process stops when things outside the process offer something better.
Which is why if you want to increase the odds of making something truly special happen … think like a musician, not a marketing practitioner.
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, Attitude & Aptitude, Creative Development, Creativity, Cunning, Film, Marketing, Music
For a lot of people, creativity is just fuck about until something interesting comes along.
And for some, that’s exactly how they approach it.
But for others, creativity is also about taking on challenges.
Three years ago I wrote how the inspiration behind The White Stripes ‘Seven Nation Army’ was because they wanted to see if they could write a compelling song that had no chorus.
[Having resisted the post, it’s quite good … and not just because of the comments. For once]
It’s similar to Brian May’s inspiration behind We Will Rock You … which was to create a song where the audience didn’t just participate, but were integral to the rhythm.
Or when SONOS created their incredible logo that was designed to show moving sound waves, despite being a static image.
But then we shouldn’t be surprised because all creativity solves some sort of problem … whether personal or commercial.
The reason I say this is because I recently heard a story behind the theme tune of Mission Impossible.
We all know how it goes, but just in case you’ve forgotten – or are an idiot – it’s this …
As movie tunes go, it’s one of the most memorable.
And while I assume memorability is an important element in movie recognition, it’s the story behind the tune that is amazing.
Because the main element of the music – 2 long notes, followed by 2 short notes – are actually the morse code for the letters M and I.
How amazing is that?
Obviously it wasn’t by chance … composer, ‘Lalo’ Schifrin saw his idea as something both creatively inspiring and challenging, which resulted in something pretty iconic.
And while I love that it celebrates the intelligence of creativity – which is something too often dismissed – I also love that this ‘easter egg’ keeps this piece of music alive in culture.
Now I appreciate some of you – if I still allowed comments – would be throwing shit at me because ‘news’ has been known for years.
But in my defence, I would like to point out 2 things.
1. This blog has never been topical and you know it.
2. At least I’m not as bad as people who don’t know but have worked on the movie for years.