Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Customer Service, Devious Strategy, Effectiveness, EvilGenius, Experience, Management, Northern, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Provocative, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Wieden+Kennedy
Maybe it’s because I’m British …
Maybe it’s because I’m naïve …
Or maybe it’s because I’m privileged …
But I’ve always been pretty shit when it comes to ‘negotiating’.
That changed quite dramatically when Metallica’s management taught me both ‘the value of value’ and how procurement is a game … but even now, there are situations where I feel weird to push back.
Ironically, the thing that snaps me out of it is not confidence, but disgust.
Recently a company sent me a bill that was 49% more than the previous year.
My situation hadn’t changed.
I was a long-term customer of theirs.
I had not used their services any differently than any time before.
And yet they sent me the invoice without explanation or consideration.
And I was pissed. Properly fucked off.
And while I could have just walked away, I wanted to play them at their own game.
I should point out my goal was not to get a price reduction; it was more so I didn’t feel a mug just blindly accepting their shit.
I wanted to feel I’d pushed back …
That I wasn’t a pushover …
And while I suspected they wouldn’t care – or maybe even notice – what I was doing, it was important for me that I did it.
Short story is I rang them up and ‘had a chat’ before ending up with all the price increase being removed.
Every last penny.
And while you may think that means ‘I’d won’, the thing is my definition of ‘winning’ had changed … which is why once I got the reduction, I informed the company I wouldn’t be working with them anymore and why.
Petty?
Sure.
Pathetic?
Possibly.
Pointless?
Maybe.
Unprecedented by me?
Errrrm, no.
But as my old Wieden boss – the great Jason White – once told some people, I’d asked him to meet,
“Be true. Be transparent. Believe they want to do the right thing with the right intentions. But if you suspect they think they’re hustling you … make sure you’re hustling them right back”.
Which is why, if you want to know the real art of ‘strategy’ – both in terms of effectiveness and creativity – don’t follow the methodologies or tools flogged by the never-ending list of Linkedin Pundits, study cats or petty bastards.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Documentary, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Provocative, Purpose, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Stupid, Success, Teamwork
A while back, I did some work for the rock band Journey.
The ‘Don’t Stop Believin’ mob.
Anyway, without going into too much detail – though a lot of what I’m going to say is common knowledge so I’m not contravening my NDA, and trust me, I asked – it was a rather tension-filled experience.
Not Red Hot Chili Peppers – or should I say Anthony Kiedis – levels of tension, but definitely not chill, put it that way – hahaha.
This time though, it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with 2 of the band members being at loggerheads.
As I said, the fracture in their relationship has been well documented – and I had been warned before hand – but by the time I was involved with them, it was bordering on toxic.
At this point I feel I should point out they were nothing but kind and considerate to me, but like a guest at a dinner party hosted by a couple who had obviously had a major row prior to your arrival – you could feel the tension in every interaction.
But this is less about that and more about the management teams amazing ability to facilitate and negotiate a truce.
Obviously I can’t go into the specifics, but I watched something magical literally unfold in front of my eyes,
Think of it like a cross between the lessons in the hostage negotiation book, ‘Never Split The Difference’, and Kim Papworth.
For those who don’t know who Kim is, he’s the brilliant ex-ECD of Wieden+Kennedy London – and longtime partner to the brilliant-but-bonkers Tony Davidson – who had this incredible ability to keep ideas he believed in on the table … even when clients were initially protesting against them. But here’s the thing about him that was so good.
It was never through bombastic actions.
Never through threats or intimidation.
Never through pandering or false promises.
But always through listening, then gently providing context, clarity, understanding and perspective.
Nudging them forward, rather than pushing them back.
This is similar to what I saw with Journey, with the result of this approach being this:
I have to say the ability to achieve this outcome was inconceivable to me..
Let’s be honest, you can tell from the tweet that it was not something that was easy. Hell, you can tell from the tweet it was not something even the band members expected to achieve.
But it happened because of the work of the management team – who happen to also be Metallica’s long-term management, so are well versed in knowing how to deal with ‘human differences’ as well as musical ones.
Anyway, having seen this happen up close and personal, I can tell you it is more than a skill, but an art. Well, that and starting the whole process with the steadfast belief there was a solution to be found, even if it no one knewwhere, how or when it would happen.
[I wrote another post about this sort of mindset, also involving hostage negotiator, here]
But it is these two criteria that allowed them to help take opposing forces on a journey they likely never imagined they could go on, let alone initially want to. But to achieve that and then get them to be thankful for it while never feeling pushed, cornered, provoked or bullied … is, to put it bluntly, fucking incredible.
I say all this is because I feel too often the way our industry deals with conflict is with more conflict. Or, alternatively, just putting our collective heads in the sand.
Sure, there are occasions – and individuals – where you have to be aggressive.
As Gloria Allred – the powerful US lawyer, of which there is an interesting documentary about her – once said: “Sometimes, power responds to power”.
But that has to be the exception rather than the rule.
In the vast majority of cases, the goal should never be one person gets battered into submission by the other. The key objective has to be ensuring you have properly listened and understood the issues causing the friction … because with this, you can then help both sides appreciate, value and identify what a mutually advantageous outcome could offer for both parties so they feel positive about taking a step closer towards each other.
I say this like you are an intermediary, but I also mean it when you are the one in the conflict.
Now of course this approach won’t always work, but too often our default setting is ‘submit or savage’ and frankly, no one really wins when we adopt either stance.
I appreciate for some people reading this, they’ll be thinking I have a hell of a nerve writing all this when I can have an argument in an empty house – however, over the years I have [slowly] learned that if you want to increase the odds of making great work actually happen, it’s not just about being good at your job … or having taste … or identifying and valuing a good idea you fine tune with craft … you need to know how to deal and address conflict.
Doesn’t matter what job you have.
Doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing it.
Doesn’t even matter what level of role you’re in.
The fact is, great opportunities are born more from unity, than friction.
So if you want to ensure you keep the tension in the work, rather than the relationship … learn the art of conflict resolution, because that will do more to help you actually create great work, brands and careers than any marketing process or ‘alleged’ mini MBA.
There’s no blog posts till Monday as there’s another holiday in NZ [I know, I know] … so have a great weekend and try not to get into any trouble.
Or if you do, use the context from this post to practice getting out of it, haha.
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, Agency Culture, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Audio Visual, Brand, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Collaboration, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Distinction, Emotion, Environment, Fans, Film, Imagination, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Metallica, Miley, Money, Music, Perspective, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin
So we got through the first week of this blog in 2025.
Congratulations … we all survived and no one died. I think.
That said, the subject matters of the posts have been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster with things such as anger, frustration and loss. So with that in mind, I thought I’d end the week on a more positive tone.
Kinda.
One thing I have always actively rallied against is stringent strategic processes.
That doesn’t mean I don’t care about rigor or standards – obviously I do – however I don’t think that is demonstrated by blindly following a set process that has pre-determined what is or isn’t of value.
There’s 3 main reasons for this.
1. It automatically narrows and filters what can be used.
2. It ignores differing contexts, situations and categories.
3. You are actively stopping the chance for happy accidents and/or better answers.
It’s one of the main reasons I love working with artists, because at the end of the day – they are the creative – so for them, they determine success by what they FEEL is better rather than what the process tells them it is.
Nothing brought this home more to me than a scene in the documentary about the making of Do They Know It’s Christmas back in 1984.
Bob Geldof and Midge Ure had got together to write a song that they hoped would raise money for the starving in Africa. The single – launched in December ’84 – featured many of the up and coming posters of the era, ‘bullied’ into turning up by the irrepressible Geldof.
Over the space of a chaotic 24 hours, singers … duo … bands … all traipsed into SARM studios to record a song that had just been written and no one knew. Amazingly, there were few egos, with everyone focused on what they had to do, but it’s here that we see a brilliant example of letting the process play second fiddle to perfection’.
George Michael was at the mic and told how to sing his line.
He did it, but while sounding good, he felt it did not reflect the power he wanted to put into it.
So he suggested changing the intonation and sang it.
And he was right, it did sound better …
In fact, it became an iconic moment in the song.
But it might not have been if he was working with people obsessed with following the process than valuing what the process is supposed to deliver.
Fortunately, George was being produced by 2 other singers – and the incredible Trevor Horn, who owned SARM – who recognized that what they had suggested was no where near as good as what he had delivered. And so while it had an impact on how the following lines of the song were structured, they embraced it because ultimately, they knew it was better.
Have a look at this:
[As an aside, you should watch this fascinating interview where Geldof explains how self-awareness about his career meant he was uniquely positioned to identify the need and opportunity for the Band Aid single]
Now you may think this is obvious and I shouldn’t be making a big deal out of it.
And you’re right, it is … except we live in an age where too many companies focus more on the systems, processes and marketing practices than what they produce.
If you think I’m talking rubbish, ask yourself this.
Is there more conversation, debate and value placed on the process being put forward or the work delvered?
I would hasten a guess it’s the former.
It blows my mind.
As I said, process is important – but often its developed without any consideration to what it needs to create or change … blindly believing that if the process is ‘right’, then whatever comes out the other end must be too.
Which – as history and marketing has continued to prove – is bollocks.
Almost as bollocks as people sticking with whatever is made – even though they know it’s not as good as it could be – because ultimately they can point to ‘a process’ and outsource any responsibility of output to that.
How fucking cowardly.
But musicians don’t do that.
Musicians play for the song. Always.
Which is why they’re open to possibilities because the goal isn’t control, it’s expression.
Here are two other examples of it …
First Rick Rubin with his suggestion to Jay-Z on how to start 99 Problems
And Eddie van Halen, rearranging Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ so the solo sounded better:
Let’s be clear here, Jay-Z is hardly a shrinking violet. Same for Jackson. And yet they were open to their guests making a suggestion because they [1] knew it was coming from a good place and [2] it was better.
How often does that happen in our line of work?
How often does someone with ZERO experience in a particular discipline tell someone with a track record how to do their job. How to make something better?
It’s why I laugh when people like Mark Ritson comment on what is/isn’t good creativity.
Don’t get me wrong, he knows a huge amount about marketing practice … he offers real value in developing important marketing 101 rules and behaviours, but he knows fuck all about creativity or innovation.
And I wouldn’t care a less if he didn’t bang on like he was God.
As I said, he is very smart and can make a huge difference to certain sorts of companies. But – despite what he likes to think – not all companies. And the reason why I will always value someone like Rubin more than Ritson is that Rubin plays for the work, not for his own ego.
Open to someone being better. Or smarter. Or just making a better idea.
Not because they don’t care about the process, but because they care more about what it’s supposed to deliver.
Musicians often get dismissed as ramshackle and chaotic.
But if you look at some of the approaches adopted by artists such as Bjork, Metallica, Miley, Travis Scott, ABBA, Radiohead, Dolly Parton, The Black Keys, Rihanna, Marillion, Kendrick Lamare, Prince, Queen, Def Leppard, Pharrell and a whole host more – covering everything from crowdsourcing, business models, brand extensions, distribution management, brand assets, copyright investment, differentiation and distinction, gaming, brand experience and overall innovation in communication to name but a few – you will see they have pioneered more business and communication approaches and practice than almost any of the brands and gurus out there. Or at least done it before most of them.
Part of that is because they’re driven by their need to express themselves with total authenticity. Part of that is because they’re very aware of the context they’re entering – rather than blindly thinking what worked before will automatically work again. And part of that is because the process stops when things outside the process offer something better.
Which is why if you want to increase the odds of making something truly special happen … think like a musician, not a marketing practitioner.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Cliches, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Product Mentalness, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Success, Technology
One of the things I find hilarious about a lot of strategists, agencies and companies is how they talk about their openness towards innovation, but do all they can to maintain the status quo.
Oh, they’ll claim they give things a chance, it’s just their version of doing that is to immediately compare/judge any new approach against ways of working that have literally had decades to evolve and iron out any quirks … and so, generally, it is always going to end up being the unfairest of unfair fights.
However sometimes dismissal is not even about a lack of effectiveness.
Many times, it’s driven more by personal ego … where rejection occurs because a particular individual fears that any new methodology may result in them losing power and control and because of that, they’re openly hostile [and subjective] to anything being presented for consideration.
So what happens is the industry invents terminology that allows them to feel they’re being innovative but actually it’s all about conformity.
It’s why we hear the word ‘transformation’ banded about so much.
Oh when you hear that you think of acceleration … revolution … category redefinition … but what does it tend to really mean?
That’s right … it’s companies who have been left behind by years of ignorance/arrogance/complacently who finally realise they need to get their shit together so spend a fuckton of cash simply to be where everyone else has already been. The irony with this approach is that despite making such a big deal of their ‘transformation’, they still end up behind their competition because while they’ve been trying to play catch up, everyone else has been moving forward. Again.
But just as much as fearing innovation is harmful to your growth and potential, so is blindly accepting whatever new thing is available to you.
Far too often we’ve seen some companies embrace the new, shiny thing for the simple reason they want to be associated with the new, shiny thing.
Worse, they embrace it and then talk about it like it’s the finished article only to quietly move things aside when [1] they realise it may be shiny, but it’s not worthy or [2] there’s a newer, shinier thing that they need to be seen aligning themselves with.
Sadly adland is one of the worst at this. But so are the tech industries. And basically everyone on Linkedin, hahaha.
New is wonderful. It needs embracing, celebrating and championing. But most of all it needs patience and objectivity.
Patience for the idea to evolve, develop and see where it can go or goes.
Objectivity for you to be able to assess without bias, whether you’re dealing with hype or hope … allowing you the clarity to know if you have to protect it or kill it.
The last thing to remember is that sometimes, the thing an idea needs to work is ‘good timing’.
When I was younger, I never believed it when people [read: girlfriends, haha] said it was ‘bad timing’.
I thought it was just their way of getting out of seeing me.
And maybe it was … however as I got older, I’ve realized timing is a thing. Often an intangible, unexplainable, unmovable thing.
It may be driven by coincidence. It may be driven by circumstance. It may be driven by attitudinal shifts. But there are countless examples of ideas that were made or died because of timing, regardless of who was behind it, how much they spent on it or their history in doing it.
One of my favorite examples is the Toyota Prius.
The general view is Toyota launched the car in response to societies increased awareness of the car being a threat to the environment.
It may be true, after all the concept of the electric car had been around well before Toyota launched the Prius, albeit with continual failure.
[As an aside, there’s a documentary entitled ‘Who Killed The Electric Car’ that is well worth a watch]
However, I was told the development of the Prius had nothing to do with environmental concerns and was a byproduct of Toyota experimenting with their engineering capabilities. By pure chance, they developed a viable electric car at a time where society was changing/evolving … both in terms of environmental awareness but also economic situation. In essence, Prius was a happy accident of timing rather than forward planning.
As with most things, history has a million different authors … but given the Prius was so far ahead of other car manufacturers – and very different to Toyota’s traditional approach to car manufacturing – it feels there may be legitimacy as to how and why it succeeded and it had very little to do with being culturally aware.
Whatever the answer, the issue of ‘new’ is a complex one.
Too many people dismiss it.
Too many people fawn over it.
All I know is we should value it and respect it.
That doesn’t mean you can’t challenge or question, but in a world where everyone wants to give their hot take in the blink-of-an-eye, the smart people give ‘new’ the time to surprise and evolve as well as remember that on the occasions something doesn’t work out, they acknowledge it may not be the idea, but the times.
And times are always changing.
Just ask the horse. Or Ed Klein.