Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.
Filed under: 2024, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Brands, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Contribution, Corporate Gaslighting, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Differentiation, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, End of Year, Experience, Fake Attitude, Honesty, Influencers, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Only In Adland, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Pretentious Rubbish, Professionalism, Provocative, Purpose, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Ridiculous, Standards, Status, Status Anxiety, Strategy, Stubborness, Stupid, Success, Talent, Toxic Positivity, Truth
As tomorrow is one of those terribly indulgent ‘thank you and goodbye to ’24 post’ [the blog equivalent of boring someone with ‘what they dreamed about last night’], I thought today should be a RobMegaRant™ post … ending the year as I hope to start next year, hahaha.
So with that, take a look at this bloody amazing picture.
How awesome is it?
I have absolutely no idea where it’s from or when it’s from but I can’t stop looking at it.
The browns.
The clothes.
And then – of course – the egg salad machine.
You can imagine that at the time, this was a demonstration of innovation.
Of technological advancement.
Of commercial optimisation.
A glimpse into an automated world of high efficiency and effectiveness.
Removing barriers and friction to provide audiences with consistent, satisfying results.
Except it wasn’t was it?
Not in the long-term … and most likely not in the short-term either.
Oh sure, there’s machines that make industrial amounts of egg salad to shove in cheap and cheerful sandwiches you get at the local petrol station … but in 54 years of being on – and around – this planet, I’ve never once seen any ‘public egg salad maker/dispensers’.
Not even in Japan.
And that’s because it’s a shit idea, for a shit-ton of reasons.
Taste.
Quality.
Consistency.
Health and safety.
The fact no one wants egg salad every single day of their life.
And that’s before we even get to issues such as ‘appetite appeal’.
Looking at the picture and you can’t help but wonder, “what the fuck were they thinking”?
Except our industry does a similar thing ALL. THE. TIME.
An endless production line of ‘proprietary’ systems, processes, models and formats … promising the world and promoted using almost identical language and benefits that was likely used for that bloody egg volcano machine.
Innovation.
Automation.
Optimisation.
Advancement.
Transformation.
Effectiveness.
Efficiency.
Put aside that in most cases, the only ‘proprietary’ element is the name that’s been given to it.
Put aside that in many cases, the people behind it have never created something of disproportionate value and impact.
Put aside that the vast majority of these ‘innovations’ are more about not being left behind rather than moving you forward. [Read: marketing transformation]
Put aside that in many cases, the real purpose of the product is to reinforce the ego – and/or bank account – of the person claiming to have all the answers.
Put aside that many of the companies who flock to it tend to be those who choose to abdicate and outsource their responsibility for decisions and choices.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some really good innovations in our industry. There are also far too many people who dismiss change simply because they don’t like it. And we cannot forget that we unfairly expect new ideas to deliver the results of established ideas.
However, when certain parties peddle their products, tools, services, models, formats with the attitude of it not just being the right way, but ‘the only way’ – where they guarantee success regardless of category, country or spend – then frankly, not only should we see their declarations as an admission of [at best] blinkered thinking or [at worst] evidence of being a chancer and/or hustler … we should be asking ourselves why the fuck are we blindly trusting the self-serving voice and opinion of those whose only major commercial achievement is elevating their own name and image.
I am over efficiency and optimisation being peddled as innovation and progress.
I am over process being regarded as more important than output.
I am over loose association being reframed as expertise.
I am over easy being more valued than quality.
I am over people thinking being good in one thing means they’re excellent in all things.
We need to stop thinking of insurance salesmen as pioneers.
Sure, the good ones have a role to play – especially when companies are downgrading training for their employees – but it’s not as a leader of marketing/brand/creative innovation. Even more so when the reality is many are either riding on the efforts and achievements of someone else or simply communicating the 101 of particular disciplines under the guise of it being at the highest academic standard.
Forgive me for my skepticism, but even if it was true – which it isn’t – I don’t see many universities achieving cultural status and influence through their marketing approach. Hell, most universities don’t even know how to differentiate themselves from each other.
Please don’t read this as being anti-education. God no.
The reality is the industry needs more teachers. Or should I say better ones.
Not the self-appointed guru’s who peddle their self-serving blinkered services for profit, but those who have been there and done that. Who have consistently done things at a standard that goes way beyond just basic levels of achievement. Who can talk from the perspective of being at the coalface, not from a pedestal. Watching on with their binoculars. We need to celebrate those with actual experience, not just assoicated opinions.
Or said another way, we need chefs not egg salad salesmen.
Lets hope in 2025, we get back to valuing the ingredients, not just the convenience.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Complicity, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Curiosity, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Mum, Mum & Dad, My Childhood, Parents, Perspective, Point Of View, Positioning, Provocative, Purpose
In many ways, this post is a continuation of yesterdays … except this was written 3 weeks ago and yesterdays – in an alarming moment of relevance for this blog – was written yesterday.
So let’s get on with it shall we?
Oh the 80’s.
The decade of excess.
Excess living.
Excess spending.
Excess movie stars.
Excess fashion styles.
Excess exuberance. Excess. Excess. Excess.
But as is always the case, too much of one thing causes a correction and different nations and generations have been dealing with the byproduct of that for the last 40 odd years.
However, over the past few years, there has been a narrative coming from the industry that suggests all this economic instability has changed attitudes and behaviour.
More frugalness.
Less materialism.
Higher levels of thrifting
Greater emphasis on life more than work.
Increased importance on values and purpose.
And while this is absolutely true for millions, to suggest everyone on the planet thinks and acts this way, highlights how the marketing and advertising industry loves to jump on bandwagons and then conveniently ignore – or fight againt – any voice that challenges their view.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’d be less annoyed if people acknowledged there were multiple segments but they were deliberately choosing to focus on one for reasons that suit their values/product/ego … but I am amazed how many orgs and experts talk in absolutes and not even acknowledge there are other groups/ways/approaches.
Nothing highlighted that more to me than this …
Yes, it’s a company that will take your everyday credit/debit card and make it look like an AMEX Centurion – also known as the AMEX ‘black’ card.
For those who don’t know what the Centurion is, it’s a credit/charge card for AMEX’s most wealthy customers.
And while it comes with a host of ‘perks’, you only get to apply for it if your annual spend/payment on another AMEX is US$500,000 per year … and even then, you have to pay thousands of dollars per year as an annual fee.
Except this isn’t an AMEX Centurion is it. It’smore likely a Natwest Debit card with an overdraft facility of £500 … so you may well be asking why would anyone do it, especially because when you use it, I imagine it tells the retailer it’s absolutely not an AMEX card whatsoever. Add to that, more and more people are using their phone to pay for goods, which means no one even see’s what card you’re using and you have to wonder what’s the point. Except it doesn’t take much looking around to see there’s millions of people who see the fake [reframe: replica] and/or toxic [reframe: alt/anti-woke] materialism lifestyle symbols, an investment.
An investment in their ego.
An investment in their belonging.
An investment in their status.
An investment in their ‘in-the-know’.
An investment in their delusion.
An investment in their taste.
An investment in their ambitions.
An investment in their quest for equality.
An investment in their need to not feel being left behind.
An investment in their connections.
An investment in their truth.
An investment in who they are or want to become.
And while we may not understand all of them … agree with all of them … even like all of them, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist or that their views and opinions don’t have any validity [even if it’s just to them], so dismissing them, ignoring them, judging them or being deliberately ignorant to the reality of them doesn’t help anyone, including yourself.
Because nothing sets you up for failure than only choosing to see, relate or value the people who are the same as you, which is why I find it so funny that for all the research companies invest in, so many of them only focus on what lets them them feel better about themselves rather than what reveals the truths and reasons they need to know.
Or at least acknowledge.
And that’s why the older I get, the more grateful I am to my Mum for instilling in me the importance of “being interested in what others are interested in”.
Not because you’ll always agree with them … or even end up liking them … but because when you make the effort to understand how – and why – they see the World, you better understand how you see it too.
We could all do with more of that … because being blinkered often stops you seeing who you can be, not just who others are.
Don’t get me wrong, taking a position is very important … but it only has value if the journey towards that point of view has come from understanding, rather than arrogance and ego.
Talking of 2024 being like the excess of the 1980’s …
There will be no posts next week as I’m off on a ridiculous trip.
Los Angeles.
Sydney.
Melbourne.
And errrrm, Hobart in Tasmania.
I know … I know …
But as I pointed out at the beginning of this post, for every action there’s a reaction … which in this case means you’re free from a week of my blogging rubbish, so if anything should highlight the benefits of acknowledging the different sides of situations, it’s this.
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, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brian Clough, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Empathy, Football, Grifting, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Nottingham Forest, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Process, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Standards, Strategy, Success, Systems, Work
A little while ago, A few months ago, the ‘25/’26 Premiership football season started.
Following an incredible season the year before – which saw Forest get into Europe for the first time in 30 years – their first match was against our bogey team, Brentford.
We won. 3-1.
But this post isn’t about the victory … nor is it about the implosion of the team thanks to the ego of the owner and his disastrous and potentially ruinous hiring of Ange Postecoglou who, at this point, has not won a match in 7 attempts and has seen our European and League dreams already end because he’s shit, arrogant and never cared about Forest, just the money he would get from the job [can you tell I’m bitter?] – it’s about the goal Forest scored when Nuno was still our wonderful, beloved manager.
Specifically, THIS goal.
Now I should point out this post is not about the outrageously brilliant pass from Elliott Anderson to Chris Woods that allowed a goal out of nowhere.
Nor is it about how Chris Woods started sprinting towards goal before Elliott had even reached the ball, let alone made the pass.
It’s actually about what Chris Woods did next …
Yes, he scored, but it’s how he scored that I found interesting.
Truth be told, if it hadn’t been for a post-match interview with an ex-Nottingham Forest player, I may not have realized the significance … but when I heard him talk about ‘the successful strikers mindset’, I suddenly realized how valuable – and relatable – this could be to strategists.
You see in the interview, the ex-player – Gary Birtles – talked about how decisive Chris Woods had been when running towards the goal. How he had decided very quickly how he was going to deal with the on-coming keeper. How once he had made his choice, he was going to stick with it which, according to Gary Birtles, gave him an immediate advantage over the goalie. He went on to say how Brian Clough – the iconic and ridiculously successful Forest manager he played under in the late 70’s/early 80’s and someone I’ve written copious amounts about, over the years – had always told him this:
“When you’re in a one-on-one situation with the goalkeeper, make your decision immediately and don’t second guess it. It might not always come off, but if you wait or hesitate, you give the competition the split second they need to adapt and then you lose the opportunity of even having an opportunity”.
I love that.
I love that because it gets to the heart of what sometimes strategy needs to do.
Because contrary to what many say – especially those who make their money flogging for-profit systems and models – the reality is the ‘answer’ very rarely reveals or presents itself, you come to a point – once you’ve done the hard work and rigor – of making a call on what you think is best.
It may be to enable a fast result.
It may be to enable a more effective outcome.
It may be to enable a more interesting solution.
But at some point, you have to decide which side of the fence you’re going to jump on and back yourself.
We don’t talk about that enough.
We don’t talk about the importance of the independent mind.
We don’t talk about the value of experience, perspective and belief.
Right now, everything we talk about is systems, models and processes. And while there is a role in those – or at least some of those – if we are outsourcing all decisions and choices to that, then not only should we be asking exactly what the fuck we’re adding to the outcome, we also have to ask why on earth we think we’re going to get to a different outcome that every other fucker following the same one-size-fits-all, the-computer-told-me-to-do-it approach.
Look, I appreciate what we do costs a lot of money.
I also appreciate that means companies are seeking more and more certainty in their lives.
But while some may say allowing someone to make a call on what should happen next is a sign of insanity, I’d argue the crazier thing is to do nothing and let others make the choices and decisions for you.
Sure you need to have experience.
Sure you need to have put in the rigor and work.
But at the same time, you can’t play to win, if you follow a system designed to play not to lose.
Given all the gurus in our industry flogging their system on how to do the job – despite having never made any work of note – it probably can’t hurt to repost a talk I did years ago about what we can learn from Brian Clough about how to ‘win better’.