Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mediocrity, Metallica, Nike, Paula, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Sport, Strategy
It is pretty obvious I have a major issue with a lot of the ‘best practice’ processes and practices certain members of my industry love to bang on about.
Not just because ‘best practice, is past practice’, but because these individuals position their approach as the legitimisation of the discipline they claim or suggest they are an expert in. Implying that anyone who does not strictly adhere to their process is an imposter and a danger to whatever organisation they’re working with.
It’s the sort of deluded arrogance that people who describe themselves as an ‘evidence based’ strategist embodies … attempting to infer everyone else is simply making things up and don’t give a fuck what happens afterwards.
It’s everywhere. Twitter. Linkedin. Conferences.
You name it and someone is bragging and banging on about it.
But what makes this hilarious is that many of these self-appointed experts have never made any work of any repute whatsoever. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Which means their entire viewpoint is either based on their own post-rationalised evaluation of another persons work or their narrow, naive and/or skewed viewpoint of what constitutes as ‘good’.
Don’t get me wrong, process matters.
In no way am I advocating you just chuck it all out.
However the difference is my processes does not require me to outsource my brain, imagination, curiosity, gut or ambition to fit into a format whose goal is to deliver a standardised, consistent response rather than enable the opportunity for greater possibility.
And that’s the big problem for me …
Because so many of these ‘models’ seem to care more about the process than what the process is meant to help enable. Actually, even that is wrong … because more and more of these models don’t even care about ‘enabling’ anything … they instruct you to simply follow the format and then do whatever the fuck comes out the other end.
No questioning.
No challenging.
No pushing.
Just blind adherence.
Martin and I talked about the folly of this approach in 2019 with our Case For Chaos talk at Cannes for WARC and then – in 2023 – Paula joined us on the same stage for our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative presentation.
But still this approach and attitude goes on … and while I don’t deny it can be effective, it rarely has the impact or influence as work that comes from a process shaped and flavoured by ideas, imagination or ambition.
But then I wonder if that is the goal anyway … because frankly, the obsession with efficiency means more and more companies don’t want to move towards where they could be and just want to optimize where they’re currently at. Adopting an attitude of ‘when we fall behind, we’ll simply catch up’.
Though they will never admit that publicly – oh no – what they is they’re investing in ‘business transformation’.
Hahahahahahahaha.
A while back I met one of these ‘dot-to-dot’ advocates at a conference I was attending.
Early in the discussion, they said their company had pioneered a process that “guaranteed success”. And then proceeded to talk about their system that ‘removed the risk of contaminated thinking’.
They literally said that.
I looked around the room waiting for someone to say something. Anything. But no one did.
Worse, they seemed to be nodding their heads in agreement. Or awe.
So I stuck my hand up.
Eventually I was seen and asked if I had a question, to which I replied:
“I was just wondering if you know what the words ‘guaranteed’ and ‘success’ mean?”
Yes, I know that was a total asshole move.
It alienated me immediately.
And while I regret how I asked my question, I don’t regret asking my question because that sort of declaration is insane. Not just because it’s not true, but because their ‘examples of proof’ are rarely more than a brand doing a bit better than it has before.
Now I appreciate that’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s hardly Metallica is it?
A band that plays a niche genre of music, has pensioners as members and yet is the 2nd best selling American group in music history. MUSIC HISTORY!
And I can tell you, that didn’t happen blindly adopting the latest best practice process.
Where are their examples of that sort of impact?
Oh I know … in the hands of the fuckers who do shit, not spout it.
Look, I am not dismissing process.
Nor am I devaluing rigour.
But I am redefining what they mean in comparison to how more and more people seem to be interpreting it.
As we said at Cannes, strategy is the first creative act.
A chance to leap not step.
An opportunity to leave the category behind rather than reinforce the category.
But you don’t achieve that by simply ‘filling in the blanks’ with your functional and rational data.
No … if you really want to have a shot at changing where you can go and where you can be, you have to heed the advice of Rob Strasser – the iconic Nike exec – who said this:
“A shoe is just a shoe until someone steps in it”.
By that, I mean don’t just follow a framework, put your whole self into it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Creativity, Culture, Insight
A few years ago, the APG asked me to do a presentation about how to get to interesting work and I summed it up by saying, ‘live an interesting life’.
While I appreciate that is a relatively superficial answer, there’s truth in it.
Put simply, what you find interesting is directly related to the experiences you have and the people you meet. The more experiences – and people – you have, the more interesting the possibilities.
But when I look around, it can feel like a cultural echo chamber.
Everyone reading the same things. Following the same people. Commenting on the same issues.
Sometimes I wonder if people even look at life outside of work. Hell, there were people over the festive season who used social media to only talk about ‘ad issues’.
WHAT THE FUCK?
Look, I get strategy means everything can have some sort of professional value … but there’s a big difference between looking at life with ‘professional blinkers’ and just doing shit for the sheer curiosity and interest of it.
It’s why I think there’s huge value in the messy stuff.
The weird … the strange … the ‘makes no sense’ …
That’s where you find the new and the different.
That’s where you gain understanding rather than answers.
That’s where you learn about people not ‘consumers’.
Of course it’s rare these days.
Now everyone is looking for short-cuts.
From online surveys to AI driven chat bots.
Optimise … maximise … squeeze every inch of efficiency out of what you’re doing.
And while some of that has value, it’s no where near as good as running with reality.
It’s why Wieden – despite being all about the work – has always been so good at strategy.
Because they celebrate those who are more than just professionally curious, but culturally.
The people who have a hunger and desire to get ‘in it’.
To get messy and lost in the opinions, behaviours, actions, viewpoints and nuance of the communities and subcultures they’re exploring and working with. Which is why they value being among them as much as reading every possible book about them.
A commitment to authenticity over advertising.
A commitment to adding to culture not just stealing from it.
A commitment to finding the interesting rather than repeating the tropes.
A commitment to fucking around and finding out rather than playing where you’ve always been.
Sure it takes more work. Sure it takes more time. Sure it probably adds more initial cost.
But putting aside the fact this helps get to better work – that plays to where the culture/subculture is heading rather than where it currently is, or worse, was – there’s the simple fact of doing things right. Because, as my Dad once said to me, if you’re not interested in doing that, then what’s the fucking point of doing it at all?
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Insight, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Resonance
I know ‘insights’ aren’t in vogue these days – but I am still a massive believer in them.
Sure, I don’t think there’s ever a ‘one insight fits all’ solution and I appreciate that what many people/companies pass as an insight is anything but … however to dismiss them out of hand seems idiotic, especially when you see what people are using in their place.
Observations.
Generalisations.
Global human truths.
Of course, there are other ways you can understand the issues and viewpoints society has towards issues and categories [which I am also a massive fan of] but the power of insights is that it gives you understanding WHY people do things not just WHAT they do and used correctly, can open up opportunities and possibilities that would otherwise never see the light of day.
I say this because I recently saw something that made me smile for the sheer truth of it …
I mean, for something we all do, it is amazing how we all have a relationship with our own toilet seats. Of course it has a lot to do with it being located in an environment that is ours – one we only share with those we know and/or are related to – but the ‘pull’ of doing our business on our own seat is something many will relate to.
But what I particularly like in that definition is the word ‘trust’.
The idea our bums have to trust ‘the seat’ is fascinating to me …
Raising all manner of issues from hygiene to history to relationships and god knows what else.
That’s not just insightful, it ignites a whole lot of ideas that could work for all manner of brands and products … an insight that elevates how you see what you can be, not just what you do. A way to connect and engage with people rather than just be about them.
Oh, I know what some people would say about this:
“But if this could be used for a range of products, it means it’s not unique to a particular brand … plus it’s hardly positive, so it’s unappealing for use”.
And to them, I’d say they don’t understand creativity … because putting aside the fact this isn’t ‘unappealing’, even if it was it wouldn’t mean the work would be, because insights are there to allow the work to take lateral leaps not be literal expressions of it.
But that’s where we are these days.
Which is why companies want insights that are directly linked to their specific brand/product rather than the audiences and contexts they deal in … even though [1] rarely do they actually exist and [2] if they do, they’re boring or lacking any motivational appeal.
As I’ve said many times, my problem with the industry is we’re more focused on the process than what the process is meant to serve. Obsessed with saying what we want people to think is important than saying what people find important. Obsessed with pleasing our bosses than our audiences.
Which is why one of the most important lessons all agencies and client should embrace is something Mr Martin Weigel said about 10,000 years ago …
“You can be relevant as hell and still be boring as fuck.”
Don’t blame insights. Blame what people think is an insight.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Linkedin, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Standards, Strategy, Trust, Wieden+Kennedy
There is a lot of talk about a new term in marketing, called ‘UBR’.
UBR stands for Universal Buying Reason and there’s a lot of people seemingly wetting their pants over it. In essence, UBR is when a brand owns a position within a category that arguably, anyone within that category could have had, but they were first or the most consistent or invested in making it their or were simply, the biggest spenders behind it.
If you’re thinking this is not exactly new, you’d be right … but many people seem to be more obsessed with being associated with new terminologies or methodologies than actually making stuff that pushes brands and business to new places.
That’s why UBR feels like the next terminology trope in a long line of terminology tropes …
Brand Assets.
Brand Eco-Systems.
Global Human Truths.
Overly simplicitic labels that promote conformity under the guise of effectiveness or efficiency.
[And yes, I know Dan Wieden used to talk about Global Human Truths … and as I told him, he was wrong. Because while all Mum’s may love their kids, a Mum in Wuhan shows it in very different ways than a Mum in Washington, and to ignore that nuance is to ignore truth for convenience and complicity. And as anyone worth their salt will tell you, often it’s the nuance that is the difference between doing things for people or about them]
Of course, like all trope trends, there’s some value in what is being said about UBR – after all, its hardly a new concept given countless brands and categories have used this approach for literally decades, from alcohol to jewellery.
But what some of the people pushing UBR are seemingly forgetting – or not understanding – is that even at the most functional level of category marketing, it requires depth and consideration to fully release its potential … and frankly the lack of discussion about that highlights the industries obsession with providing clients with easy answers/solutions rather than encouraging/pushing/provoking them to appreciate the rewards [and shareholder benefit, let alone expectation] of putting in the hard work to identify how they can consistently build their value, role and position.
What scares me most is that some of the people ‘fluffing UBR’ – but thankfully not all – are in jobs where they’re paid to help clients with their business … and yet they talk in incredibly generalistic and simplistic terms about something that has context and complexity.
Where the hell is their objectivity?
Where is the understanding?
Where is the nuance?
It all feels like a desperate play to be seen as an industry thought leader, where the goal is to highjack whatever seems to be getting industry traction and then aligning themselves to it.
What’s worse is we’ve seen how this approach works as more and more people value and aspire speed and status over substance and experience … and I don’t really care that makes me sound old, because it actually has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with valuing what our industry can do when we do it with craft, understanding and ambition.
What sums it all up [for me] is how one of the brands the UBR advocates bang on about is Tesco’s.
I get why, because on face value, Tesco’s is a supermarket like every other supermarket.
But …
All it takes is a quick look at Tesco’s history – from their foundation in 1919 through to the many acts and actions they’ve embraced and led over 100 years, from the ‘computers for schools’ program to challenging EU law to give their customers access to products at the same price as their European cousins and a million things in-between – and they’d see the ‘Every Little Helps’ position is not something ‘anyone’ could say, but something far more specific to them specifically … something they’ve continually reinforced and invested in through retail, customer and cultural innovation as opposed to just the repetition of a category trope.
It’s yet another example of people needing to know their history before they can claim they’re creators of it.
Or – said another way – why clients and the industry at large, need to get back to valuing those who have DONE and DO shit, rather than just talk it … regardless how popular or well-meaning they may be.
[OK, ‘talking shit’ is harsh, but it sounded good in that sentence, so forgive me]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for pushing knowledge and possibilities, I’m just not for people putting lipstick on a dead sheep and calling it Ms World.
And don’t get me started on how many of these people are ultimately downplaying someone else’s creative excellence to make it all about them.
Wow, that’s like a rant from 2010. Felt good. Thanks industry trope for waking me up.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Embarrassing Moments, Emotion, Empathy, Fake Attitude, Government, Insight, Internet, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Nike, Planners, Point Of View
OK, I’m back.
Again.
And this time, I’m not going to be going away for …. hmmmmm, actually let’s not go there.
Let’s move on shall we?
So before I start, there’s 2 things to say.
1. Some may have seen this before, because I accidentally put the wrong publish date on it.
2. This is a week of long and – for me – serious posts. So don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The good news is that on Friday, you’ll be rewarded for it, with some news that benefits you as much as it does me.
Kinda.
Maybe.
OK, so one thing that drives me nuts is when brands talk in totally different voices to different audiences.
But there’s something that gets to me more, and that’s when the brand in question has tried to position themselves as some sort of ‘brand of the people’.
Case in point, Reddit …
I really like Reddit.
I think their ‘front-page of the internet’ is a brilliant place to play.
And then I saw this …
‘Where Engagement Meets Results’.
What the fuck is that about?
Oh I know what some will say …
“They’re trying to reach business people who discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform”.
And maybe they are. But the irony is the easiest way to discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform is having clients on there who only can communicate in the corporate monotone of the meaningless mission statement.
How insincere is a brand who speaks to their customers one way and business another?
How crazy is it that some think business people are a different species to ‘normal’ people?
How badly will Reddit’s audience react to work from companies who only speak business?
Now some may think I’m going over-the-top … they will remind me that we all ‘change’ our tone and personality dependent on who we are talking to.
And that’s true … to an extent.
But this isn’t a tonal change, this is character.
I read that and it’s a brand I don’t recognise …
Feels more like they should be called Beigeit rather than Reddit.
The ability to adapt your voice to different audiences shouldn’t mean changing who you are.
People who play golf have a dramatically different view to sport than those who play football … but Nike still do it in a way where you know and feel it’s them. Just like CTO’s in major corporations has different requirements to those who want a laptop for home … but you never feel Apple changes who they are to communicate with them.
Brands who fundamentally change their personality in a bid to engage different audiences literally don’t know who they are. Worse, their customers may start to question that too.
Reddit are amazing.
Their audience is diverse, engaged and productive.
And while I appreciate some in business may not understand that, if you have to alter who you are, do you want them anyway?
Years ago I was doing work for Triple J … a government funded, youth radio station in Australia.
Unlike other ‘government funded’ media, Triple J was someone with real credibility, driven by championing and breaking new artists, discussing topics commercial radio wouldn’t touch with a barge pole and absolutely no advertising.
So when they came to us asking for help, we knew straight away that whatever we did had to ensure their current audience didn’t feel Triple J was selling out by advertising for more listeners.
While you may think this meant we went niche, we did the opposite.
Built off an idea we called, ‘enemy of the average’ … we went into mainstream media with messages that challenged audiences about the mediocrity they were engaging with.
Radio.
Newspapers.
Cinema.
Magazines.
Nightclubs.
Television.
Wherever mainstream audiences were, we were there too.
And while many hated our work [it was even discussed in Australian Parliament] it not only attracted the largest audience increase in Triple J’s history, it reinvigorated their existing audience because they saw the brand they love stay true to who they are, despite wanting what they didn’t have.
I get we’re in different times.
I appreciate the idea of any risk is unpalatable for so many.
But nothing is as dangerous as changing who you are to attract people who aren’t your audience.
The brand voice is more than how you talk. Or look. It’s how you look at the world … and if you’re consistent with that, then you can express yourself in a million different ways and always be yourself.
But too many brands, despite what they say, don’t want to be distinct.
They see it as having the potential to alienate an audience.
To which I say this …
While you may think being something to anyone means you can engage more people, the fact is, the most power to build the value of your brand is when you are everything to someone.