Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Colleagues, Craft, Culture, Customer Service, Emotion, Experience, Fake Attitude, Japan, Luxury, Marketing, Mercedes, Money, Packaging, Resonance, Respect
Over the years I’ve written a lot about brands who spend time and money ensuring their customers feel they’ve purchased something of significantly greater value than the functional cost of the item they’ve purchased.
The original ‘brand experience’ as it were.
There’s Tiffany with their iconic ‘little blue box’.
There’s Apple with their packaging and attention to detail.
Hell, there’s even Absolut with their special edition bottles – though I accept that’s more a satisfying novelty than something that builds real additional value for the brand.
But what I find interesting is for all the talk of ‘brand experience’, most brands – except those truly in the luxury space – suck at it. And that’s not counting the masses of brands who don’t even bother with it – often believing their customers should consider themselves fortunate for owning whatever it is they’ve just handed over their cash to buy.
But that aside … the problem with a lot of ‘brand experience’ is it’s starting point is the cost to do it, not the emotion they ignite because of it – so we end up with countless Temu versions of whatever it is they want to do or what they think people want to get.
Now I am not saying that these approaches don’t work or aren’t liked, but we end up in parity status very quickly – which has the result of completely nullifying whatever ‘value’ you hoped you would get from it in the first place.
The reality is experience is less about what you do and how you do it …
Not just for distinctiveness.
Not just for memorability.
But because it conveys what you value and the standards you keep.
This should be obvious as hell – but the problem is, when companies evaluate it against the cost – or time – many view it as an expense rather than an investment in their brand and customer relationship, so before you know it, they strip things back to its most basic form.
It’s why I love how Japanese brands tend to approach brand experience.
As a society, care and attention seem to be built into the DNA.
You just have to see how they package anything to realise they – if anything – over engineer brand experience.
It’s a culture that places high importance on standards, respect and consistency – which is why I like this video of someone picking up their new Lexus car.
On one level, it’s not that different to a lot of car manufacturers around the world who place a bow or blanket over a car when it’s about to be picked up, however when they do it – you know the amount of effort involved in executing is minimal, whereas this – whether part of a fixed process or not – requires commitment and time.
Is this overkill?
Yep.
Is this more culturally influenced than category?
Undoubtedly.
And is the whole thing a bit awkward?
For many, it absolutely would be.
However, the point of the Lexus example is less about what they do and more a case of showing a brand who are committed to expressing who they are and who they’re for – because where brand experience is concerned, too many companies approach this key part of the ‘sales process’ with passive energy whereas Japan is almost aggressive in ensuring its point of view in expressed in an active and engaged manner.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brand, Brand Suicide, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Cannes, Collaboration, Comment, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Fast Food, Food, IMU, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Packaging, Paula, Planners, Provocative, Qantas, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Smell
Over the years, I’ve written a lot about collabs.
The good.
The bad.
The ridiculous.
But recently there has been one that has somehow achieved all three. AT ONCE.
That’s right, the glorious, overpowering flavor of Pickled Onion Monster Munch and Heinz mayo.
It’s the combination no one asked for … no one expected and no one imagined could work.
And it doesn’t, and yet it does.
It’s possible the unhealthiest and most unpleasant thing you could ever put in your mouth and yet – if you’re like me – and love Monster Munch, it’s something you could not possibly resist from trying.
Hell, when we moved to London back in 2018, it was literally the first ‘British’ food item I got Otis to try – literally the morning after we arrived – and the fact he liked them [at least he did, then] made me burst with so much pride, I could overlook his development of an American accent. Just. Check it out below..
But here’s the thing, similar to when the Absolut Disco Ball packaging made me buy alcohol, despite having not drunk anything since I was FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, this collab made me go to absolute lengths to get it into my hands.
You see you couldn’t buy it in NZ so I had to adopt different means.
I wrote to Heinz.
I joined their ‘fan club/DTC’ service.
I explored supermarkets in both America and Australia.
I contacted courier services about getting it and delivering it to me.
In the end, a plea on social media was answered by the incredible thoughtful Jestyn on Twitter/X … who not only got it for me, but sent it to me as well.
And while I would not get it again … the fact is I was not only more excited about it than 99% of brands out there, but I went to greater lengths to get my hands on it than I would for 99% of brands despite the fact I knew it was overtly bad for you and I’m Mr Healthy these days so I was perfectly aware that I’d only ever taste it once.
While there are many possible lessons we could learn from the creation of this, albeit, novelty product – be if fandom, communities or unexpected relevance – the real lesson is to follow, and then protect, the excitement.
The stuff that captures the imagination.
The stuff that changes the conversation.
The stuff that keeps people on their toes.
The stuff everyone keeps referring back to, even when logic tells them not to.
Because as Paula, Martin and I explained at our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative talk at Cannes back in 2023 … the greatest strategy doesn’t start from a place of logic, it finds the point of most excitement and works back from there.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Packaging, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
This is a shop near where we live.
Now I appreciate the above is basically an adoption of the TK Max strategy – reframing ‘random stuff’ to the joy of discovery and exploration – but I love it.
I especially like that it offers a far more compelling reason for people to keep visiting than simply saying ‘cheap stuff sold here’.
Now I get on face value, reframing is easy to do – but based on a bunch of effectiveness papers I’ve read – it isn’t.
Right now, the basic approach to a lot of strategy appears to be either ‘state the bloody obvious’ or ‘live in a dream-world’.
Logic or fantasy. [Though it’ll be called ‘laddering’ to make it sound smart]
But what I love about the Opportunity Shop is that it does neither of those.
What they’ve done with that name is take something inherently true and then convey it in a way that opens possibility.
Elevation rather than explanation … helping you connect to it because it doesn’t ask you to reject your perceptions, but invites you to interpret them in a new way.
It’s part of the reason why I loved living in Asia so much … because there was so much that operated in similar ways there.
When we lived in Singapore, there was a market near our apartment on Club Street.
A bric-a-brac place … full of stuff like single shoes or jigsaw puzzles with pieces missing. Totally random stuff.
But one of the reasons it was popular was because of the name it had … the ‘thieves’ market’.
How great is that?
A name that not only defines the weird shit you will find there, but also gives you a reason why you would want to keep going there.
A proper reframe. Not trying to associate with stuff they wish they were associated with but acknowledging the starting point of how they’re actually seen.
Emotional self-awareness rather than blinkered ego.
And that is why most companies get ‘reframing’ wrong …
Because they want to hammer home how they want to be seen.
So they repeat it ad nauseum … regardless of perception, reference, context or reality.
And the irony of this approach is rather than capture people’s attention, imagination and emotion, they kill it.
Pushing people away rather than inviting them in. Kind of like a lot of the effectiveness papers I’ve read.
Where I have to keep re-reading them to try and work out what the hell they’re trying to say.
What their idea is.
Why it’s right.
How it worked.
A constant stream of explanation which – ironically – never really explains.
And while I appreciate effectiveness papers require a lot of information, there’s 2 quotes that I feel everyone should think about when defining an idea, be it for an effectiveness paper or to get a client to buy.
The first is something we heard from a chef when doing research for Tobasco who said: “The more confident the chef, the less ingredients they use”.
The second is even more random.
It’s from ex-US President, Ronald Reagan, who said, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”.
[You can read about them more here and here]
Think about those and you’re basically being given the rules to develop a reframe that can change minds, behaviours, and outcomes rather than build cynical – or just indifferent – barriers through rationality, fantasy or bullshit association.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Packaging, Perspective, Positioning, Pride, Purpose, Reputation, Respect, Steve Jobs, Technology, Values
I’ve written a lot about the bullshit of brand purpose.
Or should I say the hijacking of purpose by marketing departments and agencies.
Far too often, we see companies where their ‘purpose’ has no day-to-day impact on the operations or decisions they make beyond pushing their marketing messages and promotions. For these orgs, purpose is positioned simply as ‘something we hope might change’ rather than actively doing stuff that actively pushes it.
As they say in the UK, “the truth of the pudding is in the eating”, and a lot of corporate brand purpose tastes like bullshit.
That doesn’t mean the concept of purpose is entirely wrong.
Oh no.
However the reality is true brand purpose is born rather than manufactured – especially by a marketing department – so for every Patagonia, there’s a Unilever … which is why I find the easiest way to see who is talking truth versus shite is simply by exploring how much inconvenience they’ll accept and embrace.
Recently I saw an interesting example of a brand who not just embraced inconvenience, but demanded it.
An example which I imagine caused all manner of friction and tension throughout the company.
And yet, when you think about who the company were and – more importantly – who they wanted to become, you see it as absolute commitment to their beliefs and ambitions.
Take a look at this …
Now I appreciate some would read that and only see the problems … the costs … the disruptions … the impact on productivity … the C-Suite ‘bullying’. But they’re probably the same people who think purpose is about ‘wrapping paper’ rather than beliefs and actions … which is why I kinda-love this.
I love how much they were pushing it and how they pushed it.
It was important to them.
Not for virtue signaling, not for corporate complicity – though I accept there’s a bit of that – but mainly because a company can’t talk about technology, creativity and the future while asking your very own colleagues to embrace the cheap, the convenient and the conformist.
Just to be clear, this is VERY different to companies who mandate processes.
That’s about control and adherence.
A desire to keep things as they are rather than what they could be.
And to me, that’s the difference between those who ‘talk’ purpose and those whose actions are a byproduct of it.
Every day in every way.
Because as the old trope goes, it’s only a principal if it costs you something and the reality is – like strategy – too many talk a good game but will flip the moment they think they could make/save a bit more cash.
Apple may have a lot of problems, but fundamentally, they mean what they say and show it in their actions – both in the spotlight, but also in the shadows … where very few people will ever see – as exemplified by Jobs famous ‘paint behind the fence‘ quote.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Context, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Differentiation, Effectiveness, Entertainment, Happiness, Innovation, Luxury, Mischief, Packaging, Planning, Professionalism, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
This is the last post for a week because I’m off again.
I know … I know … it’s getting ridiculous, but consider my jet-lag, your mental health.
Talking of mental health … I’ve not had a drop of alcohol for 38 years.
THIRTY EIGHT.
But despite that, I do find myself buying it on occasion … mainly when those occasions are an extremely rare dinner invite and/or a desire to show gratitude towards someone in particular.
And when that happens, I remind myself how easily influenced I can be.
Because as we saw in 2007, my biggest motivator is the packaging rather than the quality of the product.
Well, I say that, but it has to be a brand I’ve at least heard of – a brand I associate with some sort of quality – but fundamentally, it’s all about the packaging.
Recently I wanted to get something for our old neighbour in LA.
It was his birthday … he’s an amazing human … and he invited me to his dinner. [I was in town, so it wasn’t some totally empty gesture]
So I rushed to a bottle shop and was immediately hit with a wealth of choices and options and so what did I end up choosing?
This.
Yep, a bottle of Veuve in a pseudo orange SMEG fridge.
Frankly it looked ridiculous … hell, it is ridiculous … but it’s also my kind of ridiculous, despite even my low-class tastes thought that for 2 brands that are supposedly ‘premium’, the way they combined looked cheap and tragic.
But unsuprisingly, my inner Dolly ‘it-costs-a-lot-of-money-to-look-this-cheap’ Parton, took over and I handed over my cash and walked out full of smugness and slight humiliation.
Now I don’t know the background to this collab.
I don’t know the process they took to get here,
And while on one level it makes some-sort-of-sense, it also is completely and utterly bonkers … and that’s why I love it.
Because in a world of sensible, it’s nice to see ridiculous win.
Yes, I appreciate Apple’s ‘ceremony of purchase’ packaging strategy is next level … but in terms of what I call, ‘social luxury’, the use of ridiculous packaging – as seen in the fragrance industry – is arguably, the most sensible thing they can do.
For all the processes, models and eco-systems being pushed by so many people right now, it’s interesting how few actively encourage searching for the weird edges. Ironically, they build approaches where the aim is to filter these out before they even have a chance to see what they can do. Which is why as much as the we laugh at the superficiality of fragrance companies and some alcohol brands, they can teach us more about standing out than all these models that seem obsessed with making sure we all ‘fit in’.
So who are the stupid ones now eh?