Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, China, Chinese Culture, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Distinction, Government, History, Influencers, Luxury, Marketing, Perspective, Politics, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Revenge, Truth
Once upon a time, when I lived in Singapore, I popped into the restaurant next to where we lived on Club Street, to get some takeaway.
As I was waiting for my noodles, I saw a man at the bar having a drink.
He had a nice face but the only reason I noticed him was because he had a mark on his head that made him look like Mikhail Gorbachev.
The next day I found out, it was.
While Club Street was blessed with lots of nice restaurants and bars, seeing the ex-head of the Soviet Union having a drink next door to where you live, was not the sort of thing you expect to see.
But then Mikhail was good at the unexpected.
Like the time, in 2007, he turned up in a Louis Vuitton ad.
Back in the days when being an ‘influencer’ meant you had done something to impact the world rather than existed to simply flog product.
But Mikhail was an inspired choice for a whole host of reasons …
One was the visual metaphor he represented for Russia’s journey from communism towards capitalism.
The symbolism of a new era in Russia. And the rest of the world.
And while this ad came out in 2007 – 16 years after he had seen the dissolution of the USSR – what he represented was still clear. Made even more obvious by placing him in the back of a car – in a photo taken by Annie Leibovitz – driving past the Berlin Wall … another symbol of capitalism triumphing over communism.
For many who read this blog, the impact of this change may fly right past you.
I get it, especially if you’ve lived in Western countries, so to give you some context, let me take you to Communist China.
The modern metropolis that you see in photos of China today is certainly not what I found when I first moved there. Especially when you stepped out of central Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou. Though, to be fair, that’s still the case in many parts of the country – including Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou – despite the Middle Kingdom’s incredible modernisation and rise.
Anyway, when I first moved there, Louis Vuitton had a reputation – and nickname – of being ‘the mistress brand’.
There was a simple reason for it …
People who owned it were seen as ‘girlfriends’ of high-level business people or government ministers.
Basically the belief was that because their lovers were one of the few people who were allowed – or could afford to – leave China with ease, they’d buy LV products on their travels and then give them to their lovers as presents on their return.
Was it true?
Not entirely, but there was definitely a ‘second wives’ economy that existed and likely still does.
There was a street near where we lived where every shop was allegedly funded by a generous ‘benefactor’. And you could believe it, because we never saw a customer enter a single store and yet the owners – always young and attractive – were driving the latest Bentley’s. Ferrari’s or Maserati’s.
It was a different world.
And while China has been the centre of the luxury universe for decades, I still remember the Government banning all luxury outdoor advertising in Beijing every now and then to both show their power to the luxury brands who make billions from them as well as reminding the people who live there ‘they were still a communist land’.
Sometimes.
What is interesting is that when Russia and China opened up, Louis Vuitton were one of the quickest brands to see what this could mean for them and their category.
They recognised very early the importance – and confidence – luxury brands could play in culture and so they upped the branding on their products dramatically.
And that’s why these ads, from Ogilvy, are so interesting to me. Because at a time where the cult of luxury was on the rise, these ads attempted to separate LV from the competition by trying to position them with greater significance and purpose.
Presenting LV almost as something you ‘earned the right’ to have rather than something anyone could just buy.
Treating the LV iconography as a badge of honour, not simply wealth.
Reinforcing status as much about how you live, rather than simply what you have.
Maybe this was a reaction to the way Putin was starting to shape Russia to his will.
If you look closely at the bag next to Mikhail, you will see a magazine with the headline ‘Litvinenko’s murder: They wanted to give up the suspect for $7000.’
That headline was on the magazine, New Times, a liberal Russian publication that regularly criticised the Kremlin.
That headline was a reference to Alexander V Litvinenko – the former KGB spy who died in November 2006 after being poisoned in the UK. The former KGB spy who had accused Putin of orchestrating his murder.
While Ogilvy and LV dismissed the significance of that magazine headline, I think it’s pretty safe to say that’s bullshit.
There is no way that is a coincidence.
I get why they said it, but the symbolism of Mikhail … with that magazine poking out his bag … driving past the Berlin Wall … was a pretty blatant message of how far Putin’s Kremlin had taken Russia back to the ‘bad old days’ since Gorbachev had left.
It may have been a condition for Mikhail to feature in the ad.
Only he, Ogilvy and LV execs would know.
But I do admire their stance.
Let’s be honest, there’s absolutely no way that would ever happen now.
Which is as much of a statement on how safe advertising and brands have become as it is of the dangers of Putin and his actions.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Food For Thought, Health, Honesty, Influencers, Insight, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Prejudice, Relevance, Resonance, Social Commentary, Social Divide, Social Media, Standards
I’ve been watching a lot of movies that made a big impression on me in the late 80’s/early 90’s.
What a massive mistake.
Apart from Die Hard, Terminator and Point Break … everything else has been pretty horrific.
Seriously, either we had really, really, really low standards back then, or someone was putting something in the water.
Face/Off, Bad Boys and The Rock are particularly bad.
I LOVED those movies when I was younger. I thought they were amazing … but zoom forward 30 years and you want to scrub your eyes and brain with a wire brush.
It’s not the bad effects – I can understand them being rubbish – it’s everything else.
The lack of subtlety. The horrific dialogue. The insane levels of over-acting.
It is obvious that directors back then thought audiences were as thick as shit because the way they signpost every moment in the movie with overt ‘clues’ is insane.
From clunky dialogue that attempts to explain the implausible, to off-centre camera angles to highlight the ‘bad guy’, to music that blatantly tries to communicate how you’re supposed to feel or what you should be ready to experience.
One of the worst of all the moves I’ve seen recently is the 1991 Julia Roberts movie ‘Sleeping With The Enemy’.
I remembered this movie as one that tackled domestic violence at a time where it was hardly ever discussed.
That might be the only bit of it I remembered correctly.
Quite simply, it’s pants.
Filled with more holes than Edam cheese and more over-acting than an episode of ‘Crossroads’ from the 70/80′ … the only positive elements are the name of the film, Julia Roberts amazing smile and the house that features heavily in it.
What makes it all worse is the trailer doesn’t give any of that away.
I know trailers are designed to do exactly that, but the difference between what they set up and what you get is dramatic.
Here’s the trailer.
OK, so you either have to trust me this is setting you a false experience or you have to watch the movie for yourself and know it with all certainty … but none of this is actually the point of this post.
You see when I watch movies, I have this annoying habit of having to investigate their history while watching it.
The thing that caught my eye when I was watching Sleeping with the Enemy was that house.
Look at it.
So grand. So imposing. So much a symbol of wealth.
And while I saw places like that when I lived in the US, I was surprised to learn it was made just for the movie.
Of course I know this happens, but they tend to be on a set, not on a real beach … but here we were, with that exact situation.
And while it looks the home of the wealthy from the front, when seen from behind – it left a different impression.
That’s right, it looks like the sort of rubbish they used to make on Blue Peter with some cardboard and sticky black plastic.
And while this shouldn’t surprise me, it does highlight how much of life is an illusion.
From the social media we read to the pitches we embark on to the relationships we forge to the jobs we covet.
Of course, not everything or everyone is like this.
Some are like the famous Steve Jobs quote, “paint behind the fence”. … where their standards, values and attitude means they will do things others may not ever know or see, but is important to them as it not only gives them confidence of a job well done but let’s them feel they’re working for a company they can believe in.
However they are sadly the exception, even if they should be everyone’s ambition.
So as we enter 2021 with our hopes and dreams, it may be worth remembering so much of life is like the Sleeping With The Enemy house. Where what we are asked to see is not a true indication of what it going on.
And while that doesn’t mean it’s all bad, it does mean you can go into things with open eyes, you can avoid disappointment, you can set some boundaries, you can identify the real opportunity that will excite you, you can stop feeling bad if you have questions or doubts and you can be OK if you’re not living up to what others claim they’re living up to.
Because when we talk about a healthy work/life balance, it’s worth remembering it’s not just about time, it’s about attitude.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Chaos, China, Confidence, Consultants, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Influencers, Innovation, Insight, Internet, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Prejudice, Pretentious Rubbish, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Social Divide, Social Media
When I was at R/GA, we got invited to do a big pitch in China.
I was travelling a lot so asked some of my brilliant colleagues to help me with developing the overall strategy.
When I came back, I found they had done a ton of work.
Huge amounts of research.
Huge amounts of analysis.
Huge amounts of thinking.
It was fantastic, there was just one problem.
It was all wrong.
Not because what they had done wasn’t true or accurate, but simply because they’d fallen for planners achilles heel.
‘What they thought was interesting and new wasn’t interesting or new for the audience they needed to talk to.’
While they will never make that mistake again, you’d be amazed how much this happens.
I used to see it in China all the time.
Westerners coming into the country for the first time and throwing down all the things that they found fascinating without realising what they were saying was just normal life for anyone there.
The vast populations of cities.
The local alternatives to twitter, youtube and facebook.
Wechat’s amazing array of features that are embedded in everyday life.
The incredible migration of the country during the New Year festival.
The amount of money spent on 11.11
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.
It’s such an easy and dangerous mistake to make.
Driven by a pinch of arrogance here … a sliver of laziness there … and underpinned by a big dollop of what I wrote about a while back.
I see it all the time … doesn’t matter whatsoever if it’s strategists talking about cultures of other nations or cultures in other parts of their own nation.
Hell, some of the stuff I heard spouted in London planning circles have been bordering on embarrassing.
From using data without any element of context to allegedly reveal ‘why Northern values are unique values’ right through to a continuous barrage of repurposed and reclaimed ‘trend reports’ which enables them to state with utter certainty they know how ‘TikTok is shaping culture’ … despite never once referring to China, where the platform has been in operation for years and where culture there are literally light years ahead of the West in terms of how they use it and how they are influenced by it.
Seriously, when I see or hear this stuff, I wonder if they realise it say’s far more about them than the people they are supposedly expertly explaining?.
Look, I totally appreciate there are many reasons why this situation is occurring.
And as I said, there are many parties guilty of this situation.
But – and it’s a big but – we, as individuals and a discipline, have to take some blame for it.
Thinking we don’t have to interact with people to talk about people.
Believing having an answer is more important than having understanding.
Valuing individual revelation more than contextual appreciation.
All this does is lead to work that satisfies our ego while boring our audience to death.
We can be great.
We can be valuable.
We can push the potential of creativity.
But it won’t happen if we continue to think if it’s new to us, it must be new to everyone.
Filed under: Advertising, America, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Crap Products In History, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Honesty, Influencers, Legend, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Premium, Relevance, Resonance, Scam
Recently we’ve been seeing a lot of collabs between brands and artists.
I don’t mean bullshit influencer social content, but proper collaboration in terms of product creation … albeit that it often ends up being just ‘logo swapping’.
Of course that is still marketing, but it’s a bit more effort than a celebrity just fronting a TV or print campaign.
Or is it?
You see, while the people at the brand all think they’re going to become cool and rich by associating with someone influential with millions of fans, the reality is somewhat difference.
Maybe once upon a time that was always the case … and when it’s done right it can absolutely still be the case … but for a lot of the bullshit collabs we’re seeing being pimped out by certain brands [you all know the ones, especially the tech bros desperately trying to look like they’re part of youth culture even though all they are is a fucking ‘productivity tool”], they don’t understand the artist and their fans have a very different view of the ‘partnership’.
To them, the association is not an act of endorsement.
Nor does it make the brand partner cool.
And it absolutely won’t define their loyalty.
The reality is the association is nothing more than a ‘get rich quick’ scheme for the artist and their fans love them for it.
Unlike previous generations, they don’t see it as an act of selling out.
In fact it couldn’t be more opposite because they see it as an act of awesome.
Taking millions off a brand for a moment in their day.
Something that will be forgotten as soon as it’s done.
A novelty for the fans to buy but not to keep buying.
Basically, playing the corporations at their own game but they end up the real winner.
That’s success right there.
Not that most brands understand that.
Most of them still think they’re playing the artist. That money means they can get whatever they want out of them. Why wouldn’t they, brands have been using, abusing and stealing from artists for decades.
But it’s very different now.
Years ago, I was working with a very famous brand who did a collab with a very cool, up and coming rapper.
The brand were beside themselves because they thought this association was going to change their fortune forever.
On set, the artist was a bit of a nightmare – not saying or doing anything the brand wanted them to do – in fact they even used their social channels to tell their fans they weren’t doing this because they loved the brand, but because they were getting big money.
Unsurprisingly, the brand team were not very happy about that, but they reasoned that the association would still be worth it for them in terms of awareness and sales.
And maybe it was … but the real winner was the artist because their fans thought what they’d done was even more cool.
Talking shit about the very people who had hired them and still getting paid millions upon millions for a few hours work.
That’s power.
That’s influence
That’s a life goal we should all have.
So while collabs can be cool when done for the right reasons and the right ways, many brands need to understand that while – at best – they may have a boost to their short-term profits, the cool doesn’t actually rub off on them. In fact, if anything, their desperate desire to look cool to millions has just made them the laughing stock to the very millions they wanted to appeal too.
Because while they think they’re hustling the artist, the artist and their fans are hustling them.
Welcome to the new definition of power.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Evil, Embarrassing Moments, England, Influencers, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Positioning, Pretentious Rubbish, Revenge, Social Divide, Social Media
The media – and marketing – have perpetuated all manner of stereotypes over the years.
They spend enormous amounts of time and money painting psychological beliefs into society so they can profit from others shortcomings or vulnerabilities.
They don’t care if it destroys lives, to them that’s just canon fodder in the quest of riches, so everything is justifiable.
Which explains why we see so many things being labelled by the media and marketing industries … because it’s the perfect way to achieve mass social psychological manipulation.
You name it and they’ll have given a name to it.
Superfast.
Superfoods.
Superhair.
Supersoup
They’ll use a label to sell anything … from kale to self-help books to gender roles.
And while that is a fucking horrible way to behave, there is one thing that is pretty impressive and that’s their ability to not just never stop doing it … but to never stop inventing new bullshit labels to fuck with people.
Take a look at this …
A CEO body?
A fucking CEO body?
What does that even mean?
Do all CEO’s share a particular physical format?
I mean, I know Elon and Jeff went from dweeb to muscle mountains, but I’ve still met a bunch of CEO’s with very different body shapes to them.
Also, what sort of CEO are they talking about?
A CEO of a big company? A start-up company? A fast-food company?
Do they lead 3 employees or 33,000 employees?
Are they heading up a profitable company or a crypto disaster?
Do they write thought leader pieces on Linkedin or are they living in a social media blackhole?
And why are you only showing a man?
A white man.
Is it because you think only white men can become a CEO?
Have you inadvertently just explained the real reason behind corporate racism, prejudice and the glass ceiling all in one go?
And while I’m at it, can you explain what you mean by the term ‘midlife’ in your headline?
What is that?
Is it a specific number?
Is it 30?
What about 40?
I bet it’s a mid-number like 45 or something … just to mess with us.
Come on, don’t keep it to yourself. Is there a standard ‘midlife’ no one told me about.
You can tell me. I know at 52 I’ve likely passed it, but I’d still like to know.
Finally – and I really don’t want to be picky here – but why are you telling everyone what the 16 foods ALL men should be eating are?.
Is it CEO food?
Don’t CEO’s eat fancy and expensive stuff?
And if all men eat it, does that mean all men will become CEO’s?
How will that happen? Are there enough CEO jobs to go round to make that happen?
And what about the women who are CEO’s? Do they eat that food as well? Is that how they got to the top … they ate like a man and had a body like a man?
I’m so confused.
In fact the only thing that’s clear to me is how you’re using marketing labelling bullshit to add even more expectation and judgement on people’s lives just so you can attempt to profit even more from making society question how they are supposed to look and live.
All this coming from The Times newspaper.
The fucking Times!!!
Once the pinnacle of journalism and standards, now a peddler of utter horseshit.
Even more so when you think what their CEO’s body is like …
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure no one would want to look like that, let alone be like that.
And if The Times think they do, it may help explain why their readership keeps falling.
Dickheads.
Oh I really enjoyed writing that.