Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Culture, Finance, Michael Jordan, Nike, Sport
A few weeks ago, I saw this on Linkedin.
Given NIKE paid MJ US$250+ million last year for the sale of his shoes – despite [properly] retiring in 2003 – it’s fair to say:
1. He got NIKE to pay.
2. Nike know how to monetise athletes.
3. Jordan is a true cultural icon of sport.
What do I mean by cultural icon?
To be honest, I’m not sure.
It’s more than just about success … because there’s plenty of athletes who have achieved that. It’s more than their continued standing … because there’s athletes who have achieved that as well. And it’s more than simply being popular with people who are not interested in their particular sport … because there’s examples of that too.
OK, so it could be those rare athletes who could feature in all 3 of those filters … but even then I don’t know if it’s that.
If I really think about it, it’s probably about how they changed the game.
Not just in terms of what they won, but how they won.
Where their style of play becomes the benchmark all others are judged by.
Their ruthless competitiveness.
Their commitment and drive.
The level of attention opposing teams give them.
The excitement they ignite when they are in the game.
The athletes and/or teams who you never write off … the ones who can change outcomes, defy records and evolve the game.
There’s not many of those.
At least not in terms of being able to do it over a long period of time.
But MJ is one.
And he’s still doing it even when he’s stopped playing competitive sport.
Which is why MJ’s greatest talent may not be playing basketball, but knowing his worth.
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Egovertising, Finance, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Standards, Strategy, Technology
One of the topics that is everywhere right now is the topic of AI.
What I find particularly amazing is how many people are talking with such certainty about it, given the reality is it’s still in its early days of infancy and possibility.
The reality is – like most things – it will likely have good and bad uses.
As I wrote a while back, my brilliant son – Otis – has dysgraphia.
Dysgraphia is a form of dyslexia … except it’s less about mixing letters and more about a difficulty in writing them. In essence, dysgraphia has an impact on your motor skills and while it won’t affect his ability to learn, it will affect how he does it and what he may be able to do because of it.
More than that, there’s no ‘cure’, but with things like ChatGPT … I can see how AI could enable him to express his stories and imagination that otherwise, he would struggle to convey.
I cannot tell you how much that fills me with joy and it serves as a good reminder to stop judging and evaluating new technology by the rules, standards and experience of established technology.
But we do.
We all do.
Desperate to throw our opinion in the ring with the confidence and certainty of a mediocre white man.
[That’s for you, Chelsea]
However the recent story of Twitch streamer, Atrioc, highlights how AI can definitely be used for terrible, terrible things.
Brandon ‘Atrioc’ Ewing was live-streaming when he accidentally showed a tab that showed he had been visiting a deepfake pornography site featuring popular female Twitch streamers.
Popular female Twitch streamers he had previously claimed were his friends.
As if that wasn’t despicable enough, the site he was on requires a subscription to view its content and the page he was on was centred entirely around making deepfakes of famous Twitch streamers … which means he didn’t just choose to do it, he paid for the privilege of doing it.
Paid. For. It.
Which highlights another narrative that maybe we should also be considering about AI.
Maybe we need to discuss the character of the developers behind the tech rather than simply arguing about the value or threat of the tech.
Or said another way …
Why aren’t we having conversations about why investors place greater value on speed of monetisation than focusing on educational or humanitarian benefits of tech.
Please do not me wrong.
I’m not making any excuse for Atrioc … that fucker made his choice and there’s no way he gets to blame that on anyone else but himself … however for all the talk about the good or bad of AI, I’m not seeing much conversation about the character of the people behind it – technically and financially – when ultimately, it’s their intent and influence that shapes what it is and what it can become.
As the old saying goes, follow the money and you find the truth.
The industries problem is we have too many following their ego.
Coming from me, that say’s a lot. Hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Consultants, Culture, England, Finance, Government, Money
So I saw this job ad doing the rounds …
Now I appreciate, £66,500 is a lot of money.
Especially at a time when the world is facing economic pressures.
But this is for the Head of Digital Currency.
At the Central Bank of England.
On behalf of the Government’s Treasury Department.
Maybe I’m mad, but shouldn’t this position require someone of such economic and political standing … understanding and experience … that they can command a much, much higher salary than this?
I mean, I earn more than that and I got 2% in Mrs Kirk’s maths class.
Who is going to take this job?
Why are they going to take this job?
Who is going to decide who gets this job?
It’s just laughable.
Laughable … because this is coming from a Tory Government who claim to be the economical responsible party but have put the country into financial oblivion with delusional lies like Brexit.
Laughable … because the government is led by a PM who wants to kill the arts in favour of more maths classes, because he feels that will drive more earning potential for people.
Laughable … because an important financial position is hiring down to a price, rather than paying up to a standard.
As I said, I get almost 70 thousand pounds is a lot of money.
But for what we need, I doubt it’s anywhere near enough.
And here’s the thing … if we get someone who can actively help ensure our kids have a better chance of a better future than their parents – which currently is widely acknowledged as not being the case – then I’d be more than happy to see more of my taxes going to them. Because being fiscally responsible is not about how cheap you go, but how much value they offer.
That said, the bigger question is whether I trust whoever is responsible to hire this person … because not only did they decide what salary to offer, but they may also be as under-qualified as the person they want to hire or – more likely – another blinkered, arrogant and ignorant Tory who helped get us in this mess in the first place.
And politicians wonder why the public don’t trust them anymore …
Filed under: Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Bank Ads, Brand Suicide, Creativity, Culture, Education, Finance, Management, Marketing, Money, Premium
OK, so Friday’s post was an April Fool joke.
I say that because some people seemed to believe it until they got to the very last line. Which obviously made me very happy … no doubt helped by the fact April Fools Day started upto 20+ hours before some parts of the World.
But today’s post is real, even though it’s even more of a joke.
It starts with a tweet I saw a few weeks ago …
I don’t mind admitting, I laughed my socks off when I saw it.
Because it’s true.
The amount of people – read, men – who talk about crypto like it’s a guaranteed money earner despite [1] not looking into how it actually works [2] realising there are a vast amount of choices that are out there and [3] all have experienced incredible and – in many cases – huge losses, is amazing.
But I also kind-of get it.
Because the sniff of winning big can be intoxicating.
Especially if you don’t think you otherwise have a chance.
And for many people they don’t …
Not because they’re not smart or talented or capable … but because life is unbelievably unfair.
Which is why for all the questions that need to be answered about the role, legitimacy and even legality of certain crypto, the reality is many people think the chance of making it big on what is essentially a giant wheel of roulette is still better than the chance of doing OK following ‘traditional’ paths.
I get it. I was in that situation.
I was living in Australia, broke … with a seriously ill Dad and a Mum who couldn’t pay the bills.
I didn’t know what I was going to do when someone I knew asked if I wanted to get involved in a pyramid scheme.
Out of desperation – and a belief I didn’t think I had anything to lose – I said yes.
Of course that is mad, because I did have a lot to lose, from the initial ‘investment’ to the chance to get out of my situation within a year.
I ended up being very lucky.
Because I got in very early. I made back many times my initial investment within 2 weeks.
[I should point out that while I was able to help my Mum and Dad out as soon as this happened, I never told them what I’d done. Part of this was because they’d have been fuming and part of it was because it was hard enough to get them to accept presents from me, so if they knew, then I’d never be able to financially help them out again]
And while the time between ‘investing’ and ‘vesting’ were some of the most exciting, intense and scary weeks of my life, the minuscule chance of making something sizeable out of it drowned out the highly likely chance of losing all of it.
Would I do it again?
No. I am in the incredibly fortunate position to be in a good position now. But I get why people would do it and why crypto is so tempting for so many.
Nothing brought this home than some information Natwest Bank sent me last week.
It was their interest rates.
I say ‘interest’ but what I mean is arrogance.
Have a look at this …
What the hell?
Seriously, what the absolute hell?
Do they think this is good?
Do they think this is going to make people want to invest with them?
Even with their ‘bonus’ percentage, their ‘best’ rate is 0.05%.
And that’s their best. The rest are 0.01%.
ZERO POINT ZERO ONE PERCENT.
Not just many times less than inflation.
Not just many times less than the amount you’ll be charged in fees.
But less than fuck all.
Why would anyone choose to invest their money with a bank?
And I mean anyone … from someone with one pound to one million.
Seriously, you somehow manage to get a million quid and Natwest will reward you with 100 pounds in interest.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
So much for all their talk of ‘caring about your future’.
Of course, they think they can get away with it because they think they hold all the cards.
And right now they probably do.
But for all their advertising claims that are seemingly designed to make the board of directors happy rather than their customers, the vast majority seem to have failed to grasp the one thing that could undermine them all.
People go where the chances are.
Doesn’t matter if it’s not perfect. Doesn’t matter what the research says. If what’s on offer is dramatically better than what the establishment offers – and it’s ‘generally’ legal even if it’s highly risky – then they’ll explore it.
I never imagined I’d be the sort of person who would be part of a pyramid scheme – but circumstances of desperation meant I did. Which means I am pretty sure there’s a hell of a lot of people you’d never imagine would be into crypto, who are.
Not because they’re money hungry assholes – though there’s definitely a bunch who are that – but because with banks taking the piss out of their hopes and dreams with a miserly 0.01% interest rates, suddenly the risk of crypto looks like the most sensible investment for the future they can make.
And then, it’s not just the banks who will be screwed, we all will be.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Finance, Honesty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Relevance, Social Divide, Social Media
Back from a nice long weekend.
Hey, if this makes you feel bad, imagine how my poor colleagues feel.
Anyway …
I recently read the book Hype, by Gabrielle Bluestone.
It is depressingly brilliant.
While it covers a huge range of topics, it centres on the actions and behaviours of Fyre Festival founder [or should I say, scammer] Billy McFarland.
Now I appreciate with worldwide coverage and 2 documentaries on the subject, you may think you know all that needs to be known, but apart from Gabrielle bringing some new information to the table, what makes it especially interesting is how she compares his actions to others who are regarded as business geniuses.
Like Elon Musk.
Now you might think that sounds like the actions of someone desperate to create hype for their new book. But no. It’s incredibly well written and researched … and as you turn page after page, with hustler/liar story after hustler/liar story, you come away thinking the whole world has fallen for the Emperors New Clothes trick.
Not to mention that either Billy McFarland is unlucky to be sentenced to jail or Elon Musk – and countless other business people and influencers – are lucky not to be.
Society loves its success stories.
It loves trying to ‘codify‘ the system.
But while only a few ever succeed, it doesn’t stop people blindly following some ‘proven’ rules. Often losing themselves in details rather than appreciating context.
All the while making the originator [or person who shouted the loudest, quickest] even more powerful and famous … before they end up a caricature of what they once were.
I’m seeing a lot of this in marketingland at the moment.
Now, I am not suggesting these people are doing it to ‘con’ anyone. Far from it. In fact their intentions are pretty wonderful. But somewhere along the line, their perspective has developed into a ‘system’ and that system now has a number of unquestionable and unshakeable rules attached to it which, ironically, is starting to negatively affect the very industry they want to help.
To be fair, they are not entirely responsible.
They are a bit … because they give their ‘system’ names that suggest intellectual superiority when it’s really ‘an educated beginners guide’, plus they conveniently turn a blind eye to how many of their students are executing what they learnt – without context or real audience understanding – so it ends up just being lowest common denominator thinking. But the real reason this situation is occurring is too many companies aren’t investing enough in talent or training, so they send people off to do courses with fancy names so they can all look and feel like they are.
Putting aside the fact this also highlights how many companies lack a philosophy regarding their approach and value to marketing, what this ‘one size fits all’ approach is doing is educating a whole generation of marketer/advertiser/company that talent, standards and creativity are not nearly as important as having people who can follow – and police – process, formats and parity.
We’re in danger of getting to the point where independent thinking is seen as dangerous.
Or weakness.
Or anything other than strength.
And while understanding how things work is important, creating a singular approach and process where building brands and creativity is approached like an airfix model – where the outcome is always the same, albeit with different brand names/colours attached – seems to be more about undermining the purpose of marketing rather than liberate it.
What makes this even more amusing is the brands who are attracting the greatest cultural momentum, loyalty and brand value right now are not following any of these ‘process rules’. More than that, they’re building their reputation and value through the creation of distinctive brand ideas that talk directly to their audiences rather than focusing on brand attribution that aims to be slightly memorable among their category.
[Please note, I’m talking about brands with a real business behind them, not just social hype]
Now I appreciate the context and circumstances of cultural brands and the brands who are adopting a marketing ‘system’ are very different … but what I’m trying to highlight is that we now find ourselves in this weird situation where the ambition for many brands is to not find ways to get ahead but to not be left behind – all the while bombarding the market with claims of innovation, new thinking, new opportunities.
And that’s why I loved reading Hype so much.
Not just because it pulled back the curtain on the hypocritical bullshit of so many self-appointed ‘business icons’, but it revealed where we’re all heading if we’re not careful … even though I know there will be people out there who read it and see it as their goal rather than their ruin.