Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Business, Comment, Confidence, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Empathy, Entertainment, Equality, Experience, Film, Finance, Friendship, Happiness, History, Loyalty, Management, Music, Relevance, Resonance
Yes, this post really is about the movie The Blues Brothers.
The one where paroled convict Jake — and his blood brother Elwood – set out on a mission from God to save the Catholic orphanage in which they were raised, from foreclosure.
Where to achieve their goal, they not only have to reunite their R&B band and organise a concert so they can try to earn the $5,000 needed to pay the orphanage’s tax bill … but also have to navigate around a homicidal mystery woman, a bunch of Neo-Nazis, an entire police department hellbent on stopping them and a Country & Western band.
And yes, I am really saying we should be like them.
However this is not because I am advocating violence against authority [ahem], or even a return to the true definition of rhythm and blues [versus the sanitised version being flogged by record companies left, right and centre] but because of how Dan Aykroyd – the writer and actor of the movie – ensured the creative value of the artists appearing in the film was rewarded rather than exploited.
Music has a long history of exploiting artists.
Where their talent is used to fund the lifestyles of everyone other than themselves.
It’s been going on for decades and affected everyone – including those who got to ‘the top’ like The Beatles and Elvis Presley [there’s also a great book on how badly Bros got ripped off, which is worth checking out] … however no group of musicians has been as badly affected as black artists.
From not being paid to not being played … black artists has consistently been exploited and abused by white music industry leaders, from record companies to MTV.
To give you an idea of it, here’s a clip of David Bowie challenging MTV about their lack of black artists on the channel …
Bowie, as usual, was right.
Recently I watched a documentary where legendary musician, Herbie Hancock, talked about his iconic Rockit video and how they purposefully created something that didn’t really show his face to ensure MTV would play it in heavy rotation.
THIS IS NOT A LONG TIME AGO!!!
And while you may think the music business is now dominated with black artists, the reality is they are still getting screwed by organisations who want to profit from their talent.
Which leads me back to the Blues Brothers.
You see this movie was dominated by African American musicians – and while many studios would try and underpay them by saying the worldwide exposure they’d gain is commercially valuable to them, Dan Aykroyd did something else.
That’s right, he let them keep their publishing rights.
Which means every time a song or the movie was played, the artists behind the music would get paid.
Not the studio.
Not the writer.
Not the networks.
But the artists.
What’s sick is that 40 years later, this act by Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi is still rare.
Since then, we have consistently seen people of colour have their creativity exploited and profited from by others.
Whether that is through acts of cultural appropriation to corporate intimidation to down right theft.
Frankly, nothing highlights this more than the plight of Dapper Dan and his store in Harlem during the 80’s and 90’s. Here was an individual who created fashion that changed and impacted culture on an almost unprecedented scale … and yet he faced a constant barrage of abuse, exploitation and theft from organisations who appreciated his talent but just didn’t want to pay for it or acknowledge it.
Given black culture is the driving force of almost all youth culture around the World, it is disgusting how little of the money it helps generate ends up in the pockets of the black community … which is why I suggest another way companies can demonstrate their diversity and inclusion ambitions is to follow the approach of the Blues Brothers.
Included.
Represented.
Acknowledged.
Respected.
Paid.
Enabled.
Empowered.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Differentiation, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Finance, HHCL, Imagination, Innovation, Insight, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Meetings, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Premium, Professionalism, R/GA, Relevance, Resonance, Standards, Wieden+Kennedy
A while back I wrote a post about the best bit of advice I’d ever had regarding solving problems.
Or should I say, on how to present how you are going to solve a problem.
But this is dependent on knowing what is the right problem to solve … and quite often, it ends up being the problem we want to solve versus the problem that needs solving.
Now of course, we can only solve the problem that relates to our particular discipline.
For example, as much as adland likes to claim it can solve everything, we can’t build a car.
[Trust me, I’ve tried]
But that’s not what I want to talk about.
Too often, when there is a huge piece of business on the table, our goal is to get all of it.
Every last piece.
Doesn’t matter if it’s not our core expertise.
Doesn’t matter if the work won’t be interesting.
We. Want. It. All.
Now there’s many reasons for this – mostly around money – but what it often ends up doing is destroying everything we’ve spent decades trying to build up.
It burns out staff.
It undermines the creativity of the agency.
It forces quick fix solutions rather than ideas that create sustainable change.
It creates a relationship based on money. rather than creativity.
It positions the agency more as a supplier than a partner.
Now don’t get me wrong, money is important, but when you let that be the only focus – it is the beginning of the end.
Before you know it, the money becomes the driving factor of all decisions and – because you have had to scale-up to manage the huge business you’ve just won – you end up looking for similar sized clients to ensure the whole agency is being utilised rather than chase the business that can elevate your creative reputation.
Oh agency heads will deny this.
They’ll say they still value creative, regardless of the size of client they work on.
And maybe I’m utterly wrong.
But as I wrote a while back, we had a [small scale version] of this situation when we had cynic … and while we were making more money than we had ever earned, it had made us more miserable than we’d ever been.
Thank god we noticed in time, because we were in danger of seeing more economic value in the processes we were creating for the client than the work and then that would be it.
People would leave.
Our reputation would be damaged.
We’d have to pay more to bring people in to deal with the situation.
The profit margin money we were making from the client would be impacted.
Soon we would be doing work we didn’t like without even the excuse of making tons of cash.
The client would call a pitch.
We would have to do it because we were so dependent on them financially.
They’d pick someone who would do things cheaper.
We’d crash and burn.
We would hate ourselves.
OK … OK … that is a particularly bleak possible version of events and I know there’s a lot of big agencies that have found a way to manage doing work for big clients while marrying it with maintaining their creative credentials [but not as many as they would like to admit] but I am surprised how few agencies say which part of a big job they want to do.
I get why, because there’s fear the client will write you off because they want a simple solution rather than a complex.
But if you’re really good at something, then you have the power to change that mindset from complexity to effectiveness.
Of course, to pull that off, you have to be exceptional.
A proven track record of being brilliant at something few others can pull off.
Which means I’m not talking about process or procedures … but work.
Actual, creativity.
In my entire career, there’s only been 3 agencies I’ve worked at – and one of those I started – who have told clients they only want a slice of the pie rather than the whole thing.
More than that, they also told the client how they believed the problem should be handled rather than simply agreeing to whatever the client wanted in a bid to ‘win favour’. Of course, the slice they focused on was not only their core area of brilliance, but also the most influential in terms of positioning the entirety of the brand – the strategic positioning and the voice of the brand – so what it led to was a situation where the benefits for the agency far exceeded just an increase in revenue.
They had the relationship with the c-suite.
They set the agenda everyone else had to follow.
They were paid for quality rather than volume.
They made work that enhanced their reputation rather than drag them down.
They were more immune from the procurement departments actions.
All in all, they ended up having a positive relationship rather than a destructive one.
Now, I am not denying that in all 3 cases, the relationship lasted less time than those who were willing to take everything on. In many cases, once the initial strategy and voice work was done, many companies felt we were no longer needed. Not all, but a few.
And while many will read this and say my suggestion to choose the part of the work you want rather than take it all on is flawed … my counter is not only did all 3 agencies enjoy a reputation, relationship and remuneration level that was in excess of all the other agencies they worked with – and often delivered in a fraction of the time – but they ended up in a position where they attracted new business rather than had to constantly chase it.
In all business, reputation is everything.
Don’t make yours simply about the blinkered pursuit of money.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Corporate Evil, Culture, Cunning, Finance, Money
When Trump came to power he made a big deal of lowering tax for everyone.
Of course, what he really was doing was lowering tax for himself – which is weird, given he doesn’t pay any.
Anyway, when I left the country I was still waiting for my tax return to be processed.
A couple of weeks ago, I received this …
Yes, that’s a cheque for $1.
A cheque that probably costs more than $1 to produce.
But better yet, the bloody cheque is void because you only have a year to cash it and that passed on January the bloody 1st.
Given I have another US tax return in the system, I guess I should prepare to live groundhog day in about 12 months time.
You’ve got to admire Trump … he makes big promises that catch the headlines then makes sure they can’t actually happen to which he then blames the people in charge of the operation. The people that he forgets, he is the boss of. Tosser.
Filed under: Advertising, Bank Ads, Brand Suicide, Business, Communication Strategy, Crap Campaigns In History, Crap Products In History, Differentiation, Egovertising, Fake Attitude, Finance, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Positioning
OK, I know banking is an easy target but – as anyone who has read this blog over the years will know – I am more than happy to throw darts at them.
Recently I came across this gem from Nutmeg … one of those financial institutions who give themselves a cool name so they can pretend they’re ‘down with the people’ when everything they say and do demonstrates the opposite.
Have a look at this …
Apart from the fact that they say nothing about what they do or how they do it – because, let’s face it, compound interest is hardly a unique offering – I’m just surprised they are saying that if you leave £20,000 for 40 years you’ll get over £140,000 at the end of it.
First of all, £20,000 is a lot of money.
Secondly, putting £20,000 away that you’ll never touch is an amazingly big ask.
Thirdly – and I don’t want to sound a dick – but I don’t know if £140,000+ sounds that much after a wait of 40 years.
Sure, I wouldn’t say no to it and I appreciate it represents a huge growth on your initial investment, but after removing the £20,000 you put in at the beginning, that works out to be a return of £3,000 a year.
OK, that’s not bad, but it’s certainly not enough to live off and certainly not the ‘most powerful force in the Universe’ that Einstein supposedly said.
And let’s not forget that little bit of copy at the top of the ad that say’s ‘Capital at risk. Forecasts are not a reliable indicator of future performance’.
Yes, they really are saying that everything they’ve just said could be a load of bollocks.
Imagine what else you could do with that strategy …
“Eat chips 10 times a day and could be beating admirers off with a shitty stick*”
[* Your health is at risk. Forecasts are not a reliable indicator of future performance]
Or what about this …
“Buy this skin care and you will look 30 years younger*”
[* Your self esteem is at risk. Forecasts are not a reliable indicator of future performance]
Why hasn’t someone thought of using this cross-category before???
But getting back to Nutmeg … my question is who is this ad aimed for?
Is it for people who are worried about their future and will put all their life savings away to get £140,000 in forty years time – ignoring the fact, that in 40 years time, £140,000 will be worth around £2.77 in todays money?
Or is it aimed at the wealthy … who can afford the investment, but probably expect even higher returns?
Honestly I’m not sure, but one thing I am certain of is that a financial organisation who doesn’t tell me why I should choose them over every other financial institution that also claims if I give them my money for 40 years, they’ll [hopefully] give me more back – but no guarantees – doesn’t stand much chance of getting any of my money.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Confidence, Consultants, Content, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Design, Digital, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Finance, Honesty, Imagination, Insight, Internet, Legend, Love, Loyalty, Management, Metallica, Money, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin, Standards
I am a massive fan of Rick Rubin.
Actually that’s not quite right.
I am a massive disciple of Rick Rubin.
I think he is incredible. His ability to help others express their most powerful creative voice is amazing.
So much of this is down to how he see’s his role.
Not as a music producer, but as a sophisticated fan.
Someone who wants the band he loves to be their shameless best.
Protecting them from ever feeling they have to compromise on who they are or what they want to say because he fiercely believes the greatest return comes when you express your honesty and authenticity rather than play to be liked.
It’s why the artists he’s worked with reads like a ‘who’s who’ of the most culturally significant artists of their time.
Those who either defined a genre or validated it.
LL Cool J
Run DMC
The Beastie Boys
Slayer
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
Rage Against The Machine
The Black Crowes
The Dixie Chicks
Johnny Cash
Look at that list. Look at it.
Hip Hop. Rap. Rock. Metal. Thrash. Blues. Country. Funk.
No one should be able to be so successful with that range of genre and artist.
It’s hilarious and yet there are so many more artists I could mention because for almost 4 decades, Rubin has helped artists not only express their truth but recognise the economic power from doing so.
He has created icons.
He has revived icons.
He has shaped, pushed and provoked culture.
He has influenced, shaped and changed music forever.
When we hear agencies talk about ‘creating culture’, most haven’t come anywhere close to what he has helped create.
But what I love the most about Rubin is how he decides who he is going to work with.
Basically his entire decision making process is based on one simple process.
Taste.
If Rubin likes what he hears, then he’s up for it.
It doesn’t matter whether it has any connection to anything he’d done before, he see’s it less about the music and more about the artist needing help to express … find … or rediscover their voice.
Not their singing voice. Their soul.
It’s not that far off what we as an industry say we do for brands.
Except we’re increasingly forgetting what brand is because we sacrifice it time and time again for the quick win.
I get it, we’re fighting for our lives … but in our quest to show we have value, we’re destroying what makes us valuable.
Oh I know we won’t admit that.
We’ll point to words like purpose, experience and membership as proof ‘we get it’.
We’ll say they’re representative of modern brand building and all else is old.
We’ll show 1000 page decks that show how our unique processes ‘guarantee’ success.
And some clients will buy this, which means we can go away thinking we’ve got it all sorted out and we’re legends.
Except we haven’t and we aren’t.
Yes, all those elements play an important role in building a modern brand … however they’re never the lead, always a supporting actor because …
Sales without distinction doesn’t build a brand.
Purpose without sacrifice doesn’t build a brand.
Data without understanding doesn’t build a brand.
User journeys without nuance doesn’t build a brand.
Eco-systems without an idea doesn’t build a brand.
Personalisation without being personal doesn’t build a brand.
Wanting to be something to everyone rather than everything to someone doesn’t build a brand.
The harsh reality is we’re dangerously close to confusing commoditisation with brand building. Of course this is not all our fault, but continuing to perpetrate it, most definitely is.
While I appreciate Rick Rubin didn’t mean the photo/quote that appears at the top of this page to be interpreted this way … he pretty much sums up how to build truly distinctive and definitive, culturally resonant brands.
And he does it in 10 words.
TEN!!!
And that’s part of Rubin’s magic.
He understands how to get to the simplest expression of his viewpoint, because he knows the simpler it is, the less obstacles to deal with.
Simple lets truth speak and rise.
Simple lets possibilities flourish.
Simple lets distinctiveness be expressed.
Simple is unbelievable power.
Now the irony of simple is it’s not easy to pull off.
Simple is definitely not simplistic. To be simple requires a hard work, experience and confidence … and while as an industry we have known this and advocated this for decades, we seem to have recently decided the opposite – where we celebrate complexity.
What the hell?!
Maybe it’s because we’re making more money from this approach. Or just feel more important. But the endless playbooks, frameworks, processes, tools and strategies we’re producing aren’t building better brands, just bigger obstacles.
Again, there’s a place for them. But the way they’re being used – they’re more like hammers than brushes – forcing them into the process, competing with all around them and ultimately leaving people lost with what they’re following, what they’re building and what they’re actually doing this all for.
As someone recently said to me – someone hugely successful in business – when companies make the solution more complex than the problem, they’re just creating another problem.
Please don’t think this means you skimp on standards or rigour.
If anything, it’s the exact opposite … but because everyone knows what they’re working towards [rather than doing their version of what they think everyone should be working towards], it means they can be sharp and focused and that means your work can be expressed in ways that lift things up rather than bogs them down.
I get some people won’t like this.
I get some people won’t agree with this.
I get some clients would never sign off on this.
But apart from the fact I doubt any of them will have come close to influencing, shaping or creating culture in the same commercially infectious way Rubin has, if they really believe selling the complexity of intelligence is a smarter way to operate, I’ll leave you with something my dad – who was pretty good on this whole intelligence thing – used to say to his lawyers:
“If you have to show how clever you are, you aren’t that smart”.