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, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Culture, Diversity, Effectiveness, Honesty, Inclusion, Politics, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
Recently I came across this photo.
I have to be honest, I absolutely love it.
Two extreme sides of society coming together.
Or that’s what I first thought because after a bit of consideration, I realised that maybe they’re not that different.
Because while the context, history and day-to-day realities they faced were very different, they shared a desire to break a system actively working against their recognition, individualism and progress.
Similar to when the LGBTQ+ community supported the miners strike in the UK in the 80’s … and then, later on, the miners came out in force to back the LGBTQ+ community in their fight for rights and a future.
Different Worlds brought together by a common objective/enemy and realising the power both bring to each other in their goal.
Now the reality is all the groups mentioned in this post continue to face challenges and oppression from the establishment. They continue to be dismissed and attacked by the powers-that-be.
But while you could argue that means this approach doesn’t work, I disagree.
Because even when the result doesn’t go the way you want – or at least, in the timeframe you want – knowing you are supported goes a long way.
It keeps you believing.
It keeps you fighting.
It keeps you hoping.
And the more people who see what you’re fighting for is simply a different context to things you are fighting for, the more the momentum of change can swing.
I get this may sound idealistic.
I get the World right now is pretty shite.
But in the last few years we have seen issues that were previously ignored by companies and governments, gain awareness, acceptance and advocacy.
From mental health, to the climate crisis to trans-rights to countless other issues … change is happening that not long ago was not even recognised as an issue worth talking about.
We could do with more of this.
Because when we recognise the issues being faced rather than get distracted by the individuals involved, we may just see we are far more alike than different.
And then the establishment can’t blindly and wilfully ignore change that threatens their control.
A long time ago, I watched a documentary called, This Divided State.
It’s very old … but it’s about the University of Utah inviting Michael Moore to speak at a student organised event.
There is uproar.
Students are divided.
Parents are incensed.
And the university is sued.
What makes things even weirder is that the other speaker – Fox News Hypeman and false news peddler, Sean Hannity – is allowed to come and spout his rubbish without so much as a turn of the head.
It’s a brilliant example of how politics in America is not based on issues and solutions, but tribal blinkered loyalty … where you stick with your party through thick and thin and view anyone who acknowledges the opposition has a good point is a traitor.
This is the trailer:
The reason I write this is because I recently saw the modern day equivalent of this situation.
Again in Utah.
Spencer Cox, the 18th Governor of Utah, was recently asked to pass a vote on trans rights,
Given how many people hated Michael Moore coming to their local university to ‘corrupt’ the kids minds, it’s no surprise that [1] they are a deeply republican state and [2] many don’t agree with trans rights.
Which is why what Mr Cox did is incredible.
Because he voted against the bill.
Or – said another way – he voted against the will of his constituents.
But what I respect even more is his explanation on why he did that.
He doesn’t shy away from the unpopularity of his decision.
He doesn’t shy away from complicated this decision is.
He just explains the reality of the situation and that for the people this affects – the people often forgotten about in debates literally about them – it is about belonging, not disrupting.
I don’t know Spencer Cox.
I don’t like much his party represents.
But I do know that by doing this, he is a politician who is actually doing what his job is supposed to be about – which is represent ALL the people in his state, not just those who voted republican.
Let’s hope the republican voters of Utah and the senior figures in his party don’t view him as the enemy for that. Sadly, history suggests they will.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Digital, Egovertising, EvilGenius, Fake Attitude, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Politics, Relevance, Social Commentary, Social Divide, Technology
OK, I should point out I actually think the Metaverse has incredible potential.
It could revolutionise education, medicine and ignite the creation of industries that don’t even exist yet. Which is why I am still utterly baffled why Zuckerberg thought the best way to sell the technology was by putting out that utterly shit video … where you saw him and his ‘mates’ not only do things that are all possible right now, but were worse in terms of quality, creativity and interactivity.
And then I saw this picture and everything became clear …
Maybe Zuck doesn’t give a damn about the Metaverse.
Maybe he doesn’t want to help humanity evolve and develop.
Maybe the only reason he’s doing it is for the same reason a lot of conmen do things …
Because when you can distract your target, you can rob them when they’re not looking.
Now before Mr Z’s lawyers try and sue me for every penny I’ve got for saying that, I would like to point out two things.
1. I said ‘maybe’ …
That means I am absolutely not suggesting Mr Zuckerberg is a conman or only doing Metaverse for conman purposes. I am only suggesting that could be possible, however unlikely that is. Similar to me saying I could be a catwalk model.
2. Be honest. That photo is very, very creepy.
Whoever allowed that photo to get out at Facebook … I mean Meta … was either an idiot or a hero. Because when I look at that photo, I can’t help but think of this ad … except with a totally different ending.
Rather than everyone being saved in the nick of time – thanks to the hero coming in at the last moment and destroying the screen that is hypnotising and blinding the audience so they follow the words of evil – no one comes to save them, so evil walks past all of his hypnotised and blinded victims, smiling to himself that’s he got them exactly where he wants them.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Colenso, Comment, Consultants, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Happiness, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Metallica, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Politics, Premium, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin, RulesOfRubin, Standards, Uncommon, WeigelCampbell, Wieden+Kennedy
So I know I said last week was the last of the Rules By Rubin … but then I did also say there may be some more in the future.
Well consider this the future.
Shit isn’t it?
Don’t worry, it’s just for today and tomorrow then we go back to normal.
So just as shit. Sorry.
Anyway this is about the state of the creative industry.
Whereas once, it was filled with companies all wanting to create wonderful things to put into the world – regardless of their individual discipline or expertise – the emergence of consultancies has led to the industry now falling into 2 groups
Those who can’t help finding ways to put creativity out into the world in interesting ways and those who seemingly do all they can to never put anything out whatsoever.
While I sort-of understand the theory why agencies would like the idea of being like a consultancy, what I’ve found especially bizarre is that in doing that, they’re seemingly happy to dismiss making any actual creativity at all.
At first I was really confused how they thought they’d stay in business.
I mean, there are as many competitors as there are in adland.
Their entire model is designed around making actual creative work.
The lack of C-Suite engagement is more individual than entire industry.
Then I thought maybe I was completely wrong.
That they did want to make work.
After all, why else would their excellent strategists continually write 100 page decks filled with charts, ecosystems, frameworks and playbooks to every single client meeting?
Surely that is a sign of a company actually wanting to make something.
But then on closer inspection, I saw a lot of those decks had no creativity mentioned in them whatsoever.
And the conversation around audience was simplistic, generalist and utterly contrived.
In essence, they talked a hell of a lot but actually said very little.
“What the hell was going on?” I would ask myself.
And then on a cold night one Wednesday, I worked it out.
Those planners aren’t writing strategic decks, they’re creating remuneration landfill.
Thank fuck for the others.
The ones who know who they are.
The ones who push rather than pander.
The ones who create opportunities not wait for them.
The ones who run to the edge rather than run on the spot.
The ones who finish interesting things to start making more interesting things.