Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, China, Colleagues, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Diversity, Emotion, Empathy, HHCL, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mum & Dad, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Police, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy, Stubborness, Truth, Wieden+Kennedy
When I started in this business, 10,000 years ago, I was a pain-in-the-ass.
OK, I admit … I still am, but for different reasons these days.
Because back then, my annoying trait was driven my eagerness to learn.
Not just from the people around me, but anyone who I thought had – or was – doing something interesting.
It meant I had no boundary as to who I spoke to.
Not just in the agency, but out of it too.
It resulted in me talking to all manner of different people – regardless of their role or level – the only requirement being they had to doing something I thought was interesting.
Not because I was trying to gain favor.
Not because I wanted to earn ‘social clout’.
But because I was, as my Mum had taught me, interested in what other people were interested in … and I thought who better to look at than the people who had, or were doing, something that interested and intrigued me.
What this meant was I not only built up my context and breadth of knowledge pretty rapidly, it also meant I built connections that I may otherwise not ever get to. Not that, my goal was that, it was just a byproduct of it.
And while I definitely got this trait from my parents, at the time I just thought it was normal … something everyone did. Until I realised it wasn’t.
One day I got called into one of my bosses office and asked what the fuck I was doing.
A client had mentioned to him I’d been in touch [in a nice way] and my boss couldn’t work out for the life of him, how – or why – that had happened.
As he started telling me that I need to spend my time focused on my job rather than interrupting people from doing there’s … I told him that I was doing my job. That I’d not let anything fall through the cracks and it was at that point he inadvertently gave me one of the best lessons I’ve ever had in my career.
You see, when he realised I was meeting/chatting to all these people but still fulfilling my responsibilities, he knew he didn’t have a leg to stand on. Worse, he knew I knew.
And that kind-of liberated me to go after anyone or anything I found interesting.
It’s how I met Paul Britton, the Forensic Profiler who brought the discipline to the UK.
It’s how I met Clotaire Rapaille, the author of The Culture Code – which has had a huge influence on my work.
It’s how I met Lee Hill … who I am incredibly grateful is still in my life as my mentor and friend.
And despite all that being decades ago, I have continued to do it throughout my career – resulting in me getting to learn and understand perspectives from International Football Managers to Sex Workers.
Or said another way …
By following what interests me rather than what is expected of me, I’ve ended up with a wonderful range of wonderful people who continue to inform, educate and advice me on what I do and how I do it.
The reason I say this is that I am pretty surprised how many people only want to engage with people of a similar level to them. Not all, admittedly … but far too many.
I don’t know if it is nerves, respect, the fear of looking like a social climber or even the bloody class system but what I can honestly say is that my ‘informants’ [as I called them in Heather Lefevre’s great book, ‘Brain Surfing’] still provides me with more insight and creativity than all the frameworks, systems, social listening tools and focus groups – put together.
Which is why when people ask me what they can do to develop their skills, I tell them to not follow the words of the Linkedin pundits and gurus, but wherever their curiosity takes them or intrigues them. Because if you only play where you’re comfortable, you’ll never see everything you want is on the other side of it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Creative Development, Creativity, Differentiation, Distinction, ECommerce, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, R/GA
When I worked at R/GA, they got very excited about D2C brands.
Part of this is because they got a lot of business from brands who wanted their help to design the infrastructure for their D2C ambitions. Part of it was because they loved to talk about transformation and saw this as a major shift in brand development. And part of it is because a lot of their work – especially with NIKE – revolved around this type of thinking.
[Though I did laugh when a couple of their senior people in NY tried to convince me ‘Fuel Band’ was more valuable and important to NIKE than ‘Just Do It’ … and hated the fact I refused to buy their logic]
Look, I really liked R/GA – specifically the first year I was there – but I always felt the whole D2C approach was flawed. Didn’t have to be, but the way people/brands/companies saw it, made it that way.
When I at Wieden, P&G asked our opinion on the Amazon dash button.
They were massively excited by it as they saw it as a way to drive sales while being able to massively cut their marketing costs.
For those who don’t know what the dash button was, it was a piece of tech – connected to a specific item – that allowed customers to order from Amazon at the press of a button.
So if you spotted you were running out of washing powder, you could press the dash and within a day or so, you would get a new box delivered.
All good in theory except the only real winner would be Amazon.
And we told them that. Because the moment you let your brand become a commodity, your value is destroyed as is all the work you’ve put in to get into that position.
But that didn’t stop every man and their dog seemingly bang on about the virtues of D2C.
Nor did that make companies who had previously talked about the importance of brand, jump on the bandwagon.
And while some went on to achieve great success with this strategy – albeit, having to spend millions on building the brand value of their D2C org – the vast majority crashed and burned after, at best, a small moment in the spotlight.
That’s not to say new ideas are wrong – far from it – it’s to say that too much of the industry, despite what they may claim, are obsessed with the quick wins and short-term gains.
Worse, the reason for this is often less commercial and more egotistical.
A desperate need to look like they’re ‘in the know’ to those around them. A desire to be part of the cultural clique rather than risk being left behind by those who are skeptical, cynical or closed-minded.
I get it … no one wants to look slow or old or out-of-date and everyone wants a shot to elevate themselves up in collapsed time.
But as much as new ideas require a leap of faith – and that leap often takes a degree of courage – when it also requires you to let go of all you know and believe, then it says more about what you want to be than who you are.
Now of course, we all have our egos and ambitions – and that’s natural – but when your strategy to get where you want to go is chasing trends rather than following your values, that’s when you can find yourself in a whole heap of trouble.
Because following the pack without objectivity, values or context doesn’t make you an entrepreneur – it makes you an ambulance chaser – and once you have that reputation, you end up doing to yourself what D2C did to many companies … and that’s a position no one who claims to be ‘an expert in brands and brand building’ should ever find themselves in.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Design, Jill, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Paula, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Women
I know it’s Halloween, but how I’m choosing to ignore it because I wrote this post ages ago and I can’t be arsed to write a new one to celebrate the ghosts and ghouls.
Hey, at least I’m being honest.
So anyway, I love design.
In fact, I would go one further …
I think design can see opportunities most strategists could never pull off.
This is not because my wife is one.
And some of my closest friends.
It’s because design can make the impossible, happen.
It can make a teetotaler buy alcohol.
It can make static images move.
It can make you want to pick up a specific product on an aisle of identical products.
It can open possibilities to people who have been denied for years.
And it can make you pay a premium for something that does exactly the same thing as everything else.
This last one is exemplified by something I saw when I was recently in China. Specifically this:
How lovely is that?
Yes, I really am talking about IT and mathematical equipment.
And while I assume the manufacturers are trying to attract a female skewed buyer – given its lipstick pallete inspiration [Don’t shout at me, I said skewed, not exclusively women because I totally appreciate the role cosmetics play across culture] – it’s such a refreshing change from the old, lazy, sexist and conformist ‘just make it pink’ bullshit that so many marketers used to think was the most efficient and effective way to engage the ‘female customer’.
Like this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
But it’s not just because it’s an update on the lowest-common-cliche we’ve seen – and still see – from brands. No, what I also love is the craft and consideration that has obviously gone into all of it.
It’s wonderful.
It’s refreshing.
It’s something I bet few planners would ever come up with, because one of the biggest problems we have as a discipline is our desire to reveal our self-appointed ‘intellectual superiority’ and frankly, creating a set of IT equipment that has been inspired by lipstick palettes is probably something the vast majority of us would see as ‘beneath us’.
And that’s problematic for a whole host of reasons.
From the fact we prefer to give answers rather than gain understanding right through to our motivation seems to be more about impressing our peers than doing things that actually change outcomes. Not in reality, but theoretically. Hence we read so many ‘hot takes’ about what’s wrong with work from people who have never made anything of note whatsofuckingever.
It all reminds me of something my Dad used to say, which – because I love the Lucille Ball quote about the same issue – I’ve paraphrased to this:
A person who wants others to know how intelligent they are may be smart, but they’re not very clever.
And that is why I adore what my wonderful and brilliant friend, Paula Bloodworth, recently spoke about at a conference when she said, ‘the smartest thing a planner can be, is stupid’.
Happy ‘trick or treat’.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Fear, Fragrance, Human Goodness, Humanity, Management, Men, Perfume, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Prejudice, Professionalism, Provocative, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
So this is the last post for a week as I’m travelling for work.
I know … I know …
And while you may claim it’s another freebie holiday, it really is work. Albeit this time, it’s work that is mental in terms of crazy and exiting … which I hope I can talk about someday as it’s definitely one of those moments I’d like everyone to know about because its huuuuuuuuge bragging rights, hahaha.
Anyway, given I’ve probably already screwed my NDA, let’s get on with this post shall we?
A while back I wrote a post about the fragrance naming of Tom Ford. Specifically, the ‘Vanilla Sex’ variant.
Someone commented they found it interesting that I – and likely all men – would immediately interpret this as ‘boring/average sex’ when vanilla is the most universally accessible scent so it could easily mean the scent represented ‘sweet smelling sex’.
I responded by saying that while it is true vanilla is the most universally accessible scent, it is also widely accepted that using that word in association with ‘sex’ had very different connotations … and that interpretation had nothing to do with gender, but maybe age.
They deleted their comment.
I am unsure why they did, but I can guess and that is disappointing.
Of course, I appreciate men make A LOT of interpretations, associations, and confident claims about things they know little about. They are the undisputed champions of arrogant stupidity.
I also appreciate get utterly fucked that is … especially when they wade into subject matters that exclusively revolve around women, or more associated with women or people who identify as a woman.
You see it a lot – in fact, it happened to one of the brilliant members of my team last week – Meg – when she wrote something on Linkedin about a Bumble campaign … and was immediately hit with men not just telling her she was wrong, but then telling her what she should be thinking.
Which is why when that shit happens, they need to be called out.
But when that isn’t the case – or you realise it isn’t – then deleting your involvement doesn’t help.
Of course I get why people do it … but it doesn’t help build connections, understanding and bridges.
And frankly, we need more of that.
The divide in our industry is insane.
People are actively looking for the wrong in what others say or interpreting any alternative perspective as a personal attack.
OK, sometimes that is justified, especially on platforms like Linkedin … but not always.
The reality is people make mistakes.
We all do.
Hell, in the league table of misadventure, I would definitely be in the top 10.
But the key – at least for me – is about context and intent and my belief is the vast majority of people don’t want to be assholes. More than that, they want to actively learn and grow.
Now I appreciate it may not always seem that way … I get some people are trolls who, for reasons I will never really understand, get off on being violent with their words on all platforms of social media [though it confuses me even more when they do it on Linkedin, given we can see who they are], but I’m pretty sure most people aren’t like that. I think most people are decent but that can only be seen when there is an openness and calmness to debate and discussion. From both sides of the debate.
Sadly, men also find this incredibly difficult to achieve.
Especially men who seem able to permanently reside on the social media platforms.
And while some of them are egotistical, judgemental pricks – literally and metaphorically – the majority aren’t and that is why I feel the best way we can help the industry unite and evolve is if we lose the ego and apologise when we’re wrong and not gloat like dicks when we’re right.
To actively encourage and embrace the new, even if we don’t understand it.
To be open to challenges but in the spirit of curiosity and growth rather than destruction.
And to be open to be wrong and own it rather than try to disown it.
Of course, this is a two-way street, but given men are probably the reason for the vast majority of this behaviour – or ‘normalizing’ it – it’s only fair we take the lead in trying to change it.
Or said another way … take the lead in creating the conditions that let everyone else feel safe to discuss, debate and disagree.
And while that may sound very fucking Disney – especially from me – the reality is if we don’t do that, then for all the cleverness we claim our discipline offers– we’re showing we’re not that smart.
Worse, we’re acting as a barrier to brilliant people entering the industry, wanting to enter the industry or being able to thrive in it.
And yes, I appreciate how ridiculous the heaviness of this post is given it was inspired by a comment about a perfume called Vanilla Sex … but sometimes the craziest things create crazy outcomes.
Which is why maybe Tom Ford could launch a perfume for the strategy discipline entitled ‘vanilla debate … a scent designed to put our focus on creating work that leaves a lasting aroma rather than a discipline that’s starting to smell a bit like a sewer.
And with that, I’ll see you on June 4th, because – bizarrely – New Zealand has a day off on the 3rd for King Charles birthday. Which is great, but also stupid given what Colonialism did to the rightful people of this land. But before I digress into another rant, I’ll leave you with one teeny bit of information about the 4th June. And that is it will be 8 days before my birthday … so if you send your cheques now, they should reach NZ just in time for my special day.
You’re welcome.
See you soon.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Creative Development, Creativity, Marketing Fail, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect
This kind-of carries on from yesterday’s post because I’m seeing a lot of strategists asking ‘is strategy a joke’.
I get why they’re asking it and some have some excellent takes on it but I can’t help but feel we’re all missing the point.
Because at the end of the day, there’s only one question to ask in relation to our discipline.
Is the work better?
That’s it.
That’s all we have to ask.
And if it’s not … it doesn’t really matter what we’re doing or how we’re doing it, we’re failing.
What absolutely bothers the fuck out of me is we continually avoid talking about the work.
Processes. Yes.
Ecosystems. Yes.
Frameworks. Yes.
But the actual work?
Not much … which is rather bonkers given our entire job is about enabling it.
Put simply, if there’s no work that is born from our strategy – and I mean that in the broadest sense of the word – then it’s utterly meaningless and potentially intellectually indulgent as fuck. And this is why I can’t help but feel if my old man was alive [who wasn’t a strategist or in advertising but – as a human rights QC/Barrister – knew a fuckload about strategy and was arguably a damn sight better at it than most of us] he would likely say strategy isn’t failing, we’re failing strategy.
And I think we are.
More obsessed with gaining personal notoriety than doing work that is notorious.
As I wrote yesterday, I kinda get why given the industry is increasingly rewarding popularity over creativity and actual change … but adopting that approach doesn’t make you a great strategist, it just makes you an opportunist.
There are some amazing creative thinkers out there.
People who push to make exciting change happen.
But there’s seemingly more people focused on doing anything but … preferring to talk up their models and techniques than letting the work speak for itself.
Edward Cotton – from yesterday’s post – wrote something recently that I found really interesting which was that in this hybrid world, there’s less chance for strategist to informally meet up and natter with creatives. Meaning a vital – but often invisible – part of the process is getting lost.
And while that is not the entire reason for where strategy finds itself at the moment – which ironically, is more in demand while being less demanding less of the work it helps create – it may explain where creativity finds itself.
I love my discipline.
I think it can play an important role in making exciting change happen.
It’s a role I fundamentally believe is creative in nature.
But it is also capable of being full of shit … which is why the answer to ‘is strategy a joke’, is it can be.
But only because the discipline is increasingly becoming its own punchline.