Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planning, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Systems
Choices. Choices. Choices.
We’re surrounded by them.
Alternatives, options, added features … the choices are so endless that making any choice has become endless.
It’s why I spend so much time working out what the real problem is. Finding out what the real thing that that needs addressing … changing … challenging or owning.
Not just because that’s how the job is supposed to be done …
Not just because that’s how you make creativity, effective …
But because the more options we have, the more likely we are to see ‘Frankenstein-ing’ – where people want to take a little bit of one thing and shove it onto another, regardless of them being different ideas and by doing this, you literally dilute the potency of both ideas.
It’s the curse of people being blind, blinkered and seduced by features not focus.
Of abundance not sacrifice.
And that’s why I’m of the belief that the best way to make something great happen is not spend time creating endless options but instead, put all your energy into doing one thing fucking right and well. Or said another way, kick the shit out of needing ‘option B’.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brands, Cliches, Collegues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Success
It’s been a while since I’ve had an all-out rant, but here we go.
So recently, I saw a quote recently I loved.
It was by Arnold Glasgow, the American businessman and satirist who said:
“Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have trying to change others”.
I say this because too many brands – and agencies – think they can.
Worse, they think they can with an ad … an ad that either tells people specifically what to do/what they should do and/or a list of product attributes that they believe will make someone immediately stop whatever it is they have been doing for decades and change tact because they’ve suddenly been ‘enlightened’.
Of course, this is not entirely the fault of agencies and clients.
Too often, it is backed up by some for-profit research group who has said their findings prove – without any possible doubt – this is what people will do and, even more importantly, want to do.
Now this is not an anti-research stance. Or an anti-agency or client diatribe.
The reality is we need some sort of foundation of information to make choices and decisions and research – when done well, like everything in life – is a universally established way to achieve that BUT … and it’s a big but … the definitive and delusional nature of how our industry talks borders on bonkers.
I get we don’t like risk.
I get what we do is bloody expensive.
I get there are big implications on getting things wrong.
But nothing – and I mean nothing – can be guaranteed and yet so much of the business acts like it can be, conveniently choosing to ignore the landfill of failings from organisations who have researched every part of everything they do for in every aspect of their life.
Sure, it can increase the odds of success … like advertising.
Sure, it is better than not doing anything at all … like advertising.
But everyone acting like whatever they are going to do is ‘a dead cert’ is an act of commercial complicity and co-dependency that borders on Comms Stockholm Syndrome.
A long time ago, when I was maybe a bit more of a menace, a media agency told a client – with me in the room – that they could guarantee they’d HIT their sales target if a particular amount was invested.
I asked, “but you don’t know what the idea is yet and surely that has a role in the level of impact and/or investment that needs to be made?” … to which they said their ‘proprietary data’ gave them the commercial insight that helped their clients achieve their goals.
So back at the office – pissed off – I sent them an email saying this was the work.
Obviously, it did not go down well, but then neither did their ‘strategy’ of just throwing money at the wall until they hit the magic number.
Again, I appreciate we all need information to base choices and decisions on, but we’re getting way too generalistic, simplistic and egotistic in our approaches and methodologies – which is why the sooner we remember how hard it is for us to change any part of who we are, the sooner we may start accepting it takes far more than a business goal … a focus group commentary … a marketing methodology or an ad to get people to even consider doing what you want them to do and so maybe – just maybe – it will encourage us all to start playing up to a new standards rather than down to complicit convenience.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath, which is why I finish this rant with a post that I saw recently I also loved – albeit with ‘paraphrased interpretation’.
Thankfully not everyone is like this.
As proven by the fact, they tend to be the ones behind the stuff we all wish we were behind.
Or as my friend said recently, ‘they’re the ones who play to create change, not communicate everything exactly the same’.
Oh, I feel better for that. Thank you for [not] reading, hahaha.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Linkedin, Planners, Planning, Standards, Strategy
I know I said there would be no more blog posts this week, but even though I’m away, I thought this might be an opportune time to post this.
[Or at least if I’ve not fucked up the WordPress auto-post feature]
Why?
Because this post will be the first thing anyone who stupidly comes to this blog will see for 4 days so I can see if my blog is more successful than Linkedin – where no one responded when I posted this on there a few weeks earlier. [except a strategist from the Netherlands and two from China, all of whom I massively appreciated took the time to show any interest whatsoever, even – if truth be told – they were more curious than up-for-it]
That said, I appreciate the real reason for all the silence in this corner of the World could be because the idea of working with me is the worst idea in the World [which is possible, I guess], or there are no strategists/senior strategists in NZ who want to move job … which would be kinda-awesome given how many in the global industry have lost their role following company ‘re-orgs’ … or all the 1-3 year strategists out there have left the industry because they didn’t get the training and support they wanted and were instead ‘outsourced’ to a for-profit outside org who told them to follow their system – regardless of category, client or situation – rather than help them find and express their own planning voice [maybe] … though I really, really it’s because Linkedin isn’t quite the professional platform it likes to think it is or pretend it is.
Guess we’ll find out.
So anyone who is into it – preferably in Australia or NZ – can either email me here or find out more about us here.
For what its worth, you’d be working with a brilliant and talented strategist in a team of brilliant and talented strategists … which is my way of saying you wouldn’t have to interact with me too much if that makes you feel any better. Haha.
So with that in mind, I’m going to go back into the shadows and wish you a good weekend …
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Colleagues, Comment, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Planners, Planning
One of the most complex relationships in advertising is the one between planner and creative. I don’t mean it because they don’t like or respect each other … but sometimes there are situations where the relationship can feel like you are coming from different places.
Of course, the irony is you both want – or should want – the same thing.
To use creativity to solve a problem in the most powerful, magical, effective way.
But we work in an industry where – for all the ‘science’ – there are no dead certs.
Oh there’s people out there who claim there is … often people with a ‘for profit’ service to sell … but at the very best, their ‘methodology’ is increasing the odds of success rather than guaranteeing it.
But often, that approach ends up inhibiting the potential of the creativity.
Caps it.
Limits it.
Tames it.
And while I understand why people may do that, they are also forgetting the other thing they’re doing is robbing the potential of the work to be even better than the ‘insurance policy’ level of effectiveness they mandated/hope for.
It’s why I love this quote I read recently about a gardener.
Nice eh? It’s good advice too.
It’s basically a story containing many parts.
Trust.
Respect.
Honesty.
Care.
Transparency.
Simplicity.
Understanding.
It’s why I think one of the best bits of advice for any strategist working with a creative is knowing when to either get the fuck out the way or focus on getting stuff that could kill ideas too soon out the way.
The reality is, when you’ve spent time discussing, sharing, debating and thinking about what needs to be done, the skill is to not then try and add things to the seeds the creative has carefully planted in a bid to try and get things to grow faster, stronger or whatever the fuck you want it to do.
In my experience, the best creative/planner relationships are based on trust and transparency. That’s not built by time together, that’s built by time in the field together.
Letting seeds grow, and doing all you can to not let them be cropped or killed too soon.
You may not always get the work you want, but if you remove the barriers rather than add more shit – you stand a much better chance of having a garden rather than a wasteland.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Focus Groups, Grifting, Logic, Love, Luck, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Process, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Status, Stupid
We’re surrounded by processes and systems.
Each and everyone proclaiming to be ‘the right way’ to do something.
A way that claims effectiveness … efficiency … accuracy and performance are all but guaranteed.
And while it is true that in many cases, they increase the odds of good things happening … that’s all they do.
Sure, many have a ton amount of data accompanying them to back things what they say … but as we all know about data, when used right [or wrong] you can make it say or prove anything you want it to.
The reality is our industry, pretty much all these systems are less a shortcut to wealth and prosperity, and more an insurance policy against failure and destruction.
Nothing wrong with that other that it does the opposite of what many claim and instead, champions conformity more than liberation. But then what do you expect when many of the people doing the spouting of systems and processes have a vested interest in everyone using those very systems and processes.
Again, I’m not suggesting you ignore all these things. As I said, many play an important role in developing products and brands … however when someone suggests they’re ‘the secret to success’ and must be embraced to the letter – then you need to think about whose success are they really talking about.
It’s why I bloody loved this interview with Marc Andreessen – the businessman, venture capitalist, and [former] software engineer. Specifically the bit about ‘why hyperlinks are blue’.
OK, so he tries to rationalize it at the end, but fundamentally what he says is: “blue is my favorite colour”.
That’s right … the colour of our hyperlinks were chosen.
By a human.
Because he liked that colour.
Kind of reminds me of the ‘wings’ on a Cadillac.
There was absolutely no functional reason for them to exist other than the fact the designers just thought it looked better with them.
That’s it.
And with that, they turned a car into an icon. And here lies a key lesson …
Sometimes, the things we like are simply because we like them.
There may be many alternatives.
There may be other possibilities.
But at the end of the day, some choose things for no other reason than it works for them.
And at a time where everything needs to be justified … rationalised … reviewed and tested … I think those people deserve credit for backing their belief, judgement, vision and preference.
It’s easy to do what a system tells you to do.
It’s easy to follow what others tell you is right.
But it takes confidence to embrace what you believe is the right thing to do. And while I acknowledge some will suggest this approach is an act of ego and arrogance … when you consider how many of these ‘dot-to-dot logic™ systems and ‘researched-to-within-an-inch-of-their-life’ campaigns/brands/products fail to perform [often because the impact or output they create is deemed secondary in importance to the adherence of every step of whatever system or logic process you have committed to using] you could argue the person who backs their judgement is no less an idiot than the person who outsources all their responsibility to someone else?
Whether we like it or not, sometimes the best things are a product of someone doing something they preferred.
They will justify it.
They will rationalize it.
But underpinning it all, is their acknowledgment that before they can think about satisfying others, they need to satisfy themselves … and frankly I find that a pretty honourable act.