Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Collegues, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Nike, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relationships, Reputation
So this is the last post till next Thursday.
I know … I know … I’ve only just come back from China but now I’m off to the US, so you get 3 more days free from me. Given this month has had an alarming lack of posts given I’ve found myself in Fiji, Australia, China and America, you should consider October my early Christmas present to you all.
So to make up for that, here’s a relatively long post.
Which by my standards, means extra long.
So recently I caught up with an ex-colleague from cynic.
Given they were a bloody nightmare when we worked together, I’m still in shock how they are now a very senior figure in a very high profile company.
Damn them, hahaha.
Anyway, we were chatting and they said how bad they thought agencies were in pitches.
Specifically, their desperation to be liked.
They said they thought the business plan for many agencies is to out-pander the competition.
It got so bad that apparently in a recent meeting, they asked the agency:
“If we’re so good and doing so well, why would we need you?”
Aggressive?
Provocative?
Yep … but they have a point.
I remember once being told to not challenge the clients previous work as someone in the room might have made it … even though we were literally in a pitch to reinvent the clients work.
And while it was an exception in my career [which I ignored and – guess what – we won!!!] the reality is I am hearing this happening more and more, which is why my friends commentedjust seemed to underline its validity.
Which leads me to some questions …
What do agencies think our job is?
What do agencies want to do and change?
And for the companies that buy into this, what do they want their agencies to do for them?
I appreciate I have been incredibly fortunate throughout my career by working with/for/under people, agencies and clients [not to mention my parents] who deeply value debate and provocation to get to better places. I also acknowledge there is an art to HOW you challenge … rather than go in with fists and elbows.
But the idea of pandering rather than provoking seems insane to me.
Sure, you have to have a point of view rather than just have a desire to be controversial … but while you can’t be blind to the good stuff people are doing, neither should you be to the bad.
I swear part of the problem is this attitude we are part of the ‘service’ industry.
That our job is to serve.
To stay silent.
To satisfy needs.
And while we are there to serve our clients … it’s in the quest of helping them be better, not be subservient to. But increasingly it feels that is what a lot of people are expecting – and why a lot of agencies are pandering – which is why I will always treasure something my brilliant ex-NIKE/FFI client and friend – Simon Pestridge – once said to me:
“Middle management want to be told they’re right. Senior management want to know how to be better”.
He’s right.
He’s never been more right.
It’s why the people who worked for him are also great clients … because he set great standards, of which one of them was understanding that transparency, truth and challenge are ultimate signs of respect not confrontation.
Debate isn’t bad.
In my mind, it means you both want to get to somewhere better.
Where you’re holding each other to standards and ambitions you hold dear.
Of course, to do this properly you need to share ambition, standards and trust … not just philosophically, but in terms of the actual work and change you want to create together.
I mean … if you can’t be provocative during a pitch – when a client is literally looking for new ideas – when the hell can you be?
Which all reinforces something my parents used to say to me …
Everyone wants to be liked, but you go further when you’re respected.
Filed under: Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Cannes, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Experience, Fake Attitude, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relationships, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Toxic Positivity | Tags: om
Obviously I have a soft spot for Google.
From cynic to Colenso, they’ve been a constant in my professional as well as personal life.
They are intimately involved in so much of what I do every single day and I appreciate the possibilities they have enabled me to embrace because of them existing.
I know … that sounds unbelievably gushing doesn’t it.
That doesn’t mean there’s not stuff that drives me nuts …
From the way some of their products work [Google Slides, I’m looking at you] through to the passive behaviour they are increasingly showing in the face of challenges that their smarts/money/tech could fundamentally change for the benefit of millions – if not billions – of people. However even with all that, it pales into comparison to this:
What. The. Hell?
Not only is it an absolutely terrible attempt to make a terrible pun, I still don’t know what ‘the new way to cloud’ is. Or means. Or why I should give a second of attention to it.
For a company so full of smart people, how can this happen?
Seriously, this sort of work does the absolute opposite of what Google want.
It makes people question how smart the company is.
It makes people ask if Google know how to talk to people.
It makes people wonder if Google know how to make tech that understands our needs.
It makes people ask if this is the sort of organisation we should trust to shape our future.
Sure, it’s just a random billboard … but for a brand that once represented humanities hope for ensuring technology enabled and empowered a better, brighter, more equal future for all, this work feels more like a politician pretending to smile while they’re busy oppressing us.
I know this isn’t the case, but bloody hell, it’s rubbish.
Which leads me to this.
I don’t know who is behind it. I don’t know if it’s an agency or an internal group. But I have to believe this was made because senior people mandated it or influenced it. Either directly, or indirectly. Which serves as a really good reminder about the dangers of corporate structures.
As Martin, Paula and I said in our Cannes talk, toxic positivity is ruining brands and people.
The idea that ‘team’ is now interpreted as blind complicity and conformity is insane.
But it’s happening. We all see it or have experienced it.
Worse, there’s an underlying attitude that the only way to get ahead is manage up. What I mean is that rather than do the right thing for your audience, you do the right thing by your boss. Doesn’t matter if it makes no sense. Doesn’t matter if it actively confuses the people it is actually designed to communicate to. As long as it hits the ‘cues’ your boss likes, you’re good.
As I wrote recently, toxic positivity is leading to the systematic destruction of knowledge and experience. Great ideas and people are literally being moved out of organisations to be replaced by conformists and pleasers.
Yes, company culture is important.
It has an incredible power to achieve great things.
But here’s the thing too many companies just don’t seem to get.
If you’re mandating it, you don’t have it.
Because real company culture is born from the people within the company. Yes, the people at the top shape and influence it – often through beliefs and a way to look at the world – but the moment you try to dictate or define it, you lose it.
But here’s the thing …
Even when a company gives you something to believe in, they know the real key is to give every employee the power to feel they can be themselves. That they trust them to want to make things better, rather than break things apart.
Which is why they encourage debate.
They value different opinions and ideas.
Because as long as it’s not in a self-serving, divisive manner … it’s almost the ultimate demonstration you want to help make things better.
There are a lot of companies who get this.
There’s sadly far more who don’t.
And everyone loses because of it. Because if companies stopped thinking of company culture in-terms of efficiency and optimisation – and more about standards and quality control – we would all get to better places faster.
Or at the very least, less ads that say everything by saying absolutely nothing.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture, Customer Service, Effectiveness, Food, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Membership, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Trust
So Kevin Chesters recently posted some work from the far distant past.
It was work that I adored at the time and even now, I feel is one of the best pieces of communication ever made.
EVER. MADE.
But it’s not NIKE. Or Apple. Or anything approaching ‘cultural cool’ … it’s for a supermarket.
Oh, but wait … there’s more.
Because it’s not a brand ad – though it does a ton for the brand – it’s a retail ad.
But instead of starbursts and shelf wobblers … it’s a masterclass in craft and smarts. Where the majestic charm and wry humour not only treats the audience with intelligence, but communicates price in a way you see value both in the product and the company selling it.
Regardless of the item.
Regardless of the audience ‘segment’.
Regardless of whether it’s selling food or their loyalty scheme.
It’s incredible and what’s more … it’s from the early 2000’s.
I think.
But despite being almost 20 years old, it’s still one of the best examples of a brand that knows who they are, knows who their audience is and knows the relationship they would like to have with their audience.
More than that, they know the problem they’re solving.
Not just in a general sense … but in terms of the potential barrier for each item.
In a world of wish-standard Nike knockoffs, this is an example of advertising not just communicating, but undeniably contributing to the growth, value and reputation of the company it represents.
When it wants to be – and when it’s allowed to be – this industry can be outstanding.
While we can’t control the standards other parties may demand, we can control what ours are.
Of course, in these ‘procurement-led times’ you could say ‘you get what you pay for’.
And I get that.
But watching the value and standards of what we do fall down a drain doesn’t seem a particularly good business approach.
Which is why I find myself repeating what an old boss of mine used to say to me.
“What happens next is up to us”.
He’s never been more right.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Prejudice, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Succession, Toxic Positivity, Trust, Truth
I appreciate that at my age, the title of this post may suggest I’m going to whine about companies overlooking people of a certain age for younger, cheaper, hungrier individuals.
I’m not. I get it.
Not only that, while age and knowledge have some level of interconnectedness … I’ve met countless young people who are bloody brilliant [not relative to their age, just bloody brilliant] as well as plenty of people with ‘experience’ who, frankly, aren’t.
What I’m talking about is the blinkered confidence some companies place in their people simply because they’re their people.
On one hand I suppose I should celebrate it, given its not that long ago that companies overlooked internal capability for the external shiny and new.
And while this post does not reflect any of the clients I specifically work with directly, I am seeing and hearing more and more companies go to this other extreme and worse … enabling a level of arrogance in their people that results in any objectivity they face – regardless of the knowledge and expertise of the person delivering it, let alone the desire to help make things more successful – as a threat.
Complicity is the name of the game these days.
Blind acceptance that whatever the person ‘in charge’ says, is right.
A belief internal employees are better informed about every topic than people who are experts in specific topics … so companies can feel great about themselves.
Of course, the issue with this approach is that when things go wrong – or don’t go right enough – everyone else gets the blame. Not just by the person in charge [which you almost expect] but by the company they work for, despite the fact the only reason they gave this employee the project is because they knew a bit more about a subject than senior management, so they saw them as [1] an expert in the field and [2] a cheaper option that bringing in external expertise.
Now you’d think the fear of this outcome would ensure people would stand up for what they believe is right.
Not because they’re arrogant, but because they know their experience and knowledge can disproportionally benefit the end result.
And some do. At least the really good ones …
But even they are under increasing pressure to go along with the whims and wants of certain people/companies … because the whole industry is seeing more and more work being handed to people and companies who simply say yes to whatever is wanted.
Or said another way, convenience and fawning is more valued then expertise, knowledge and standards.
Now of course, it’s human nature to believe we can do more than we actually can.
We all like to think we are ‘special’.
We all like to be acknowledged as important.
We’ve all heard the ‘fake it till you make it’ philosophy.
But the truly special are the ones who know that however good they are, having people around them who are better than them – in different fields – can make them even more effective.
It’s why the World’s best athletes have coaches.
It’s why the World’s best musicians have producers.
It’s why my brilliant ex-NIKE/FFI client, Simon Pestridge, said: “middle management want to be told they’re right. Senior management want to know how they can be better”.
The reason I say all this is that I recently reached out to one of the best organisational psychologists in the World. They work with the CEO’s of some of the most respected and successful companies in the World including Apple, NIKE, Ferrari and Electronic Arts to name a few.
This is what they said when I talked to them about what I was seeing:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“I call them professional imposters and the reason so many succeed in corporations is because they target other imposters. It becomes a co-dependent relationship where they ensure their ego, status or promotion opportunities won’t be challenged.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To be honest, I was not shocked by their view, I was more shocked by the acknowledgment.
Of course, I probably shouldn’t be. It’s hardly a new phenomenon and we also had one of the most successful shows in TV history shine a light on it …
Succession was a celebration of the role of co-dependence and complicity within organisations.
As I wrote recently, Tom was the epitome of it.
But this post is about Tom before he ‘won’ [even though he is still a pawn to the real power] … this is about Tom when he just wanted to please to win favour. Where he thought nothing of being vicious and vindictive to those beneath him because he knew that didn’t just please the people above him, it let him feel he was above everyone around him.
And so Tom eventually gets promoted beyond his capability …
Where the illusion of power and external fawning is more important to him than pay checks.
Where his belief is he is superior to all, regardless of knowledge or experience.
Where his understanding of situations is the only understanding of a situation.
Yeah, it’s bleak. It’s fucking bleak. Because while Tom was fiction, Trump got to be President of America. And what makes it worse is we all see it. Hell, we’ve probably all been exposed to it. And yet it goes on.
If companies truly want to be great, then they’ve got to kill and stop rewarding toxic positivity … because value will be revealed when they allow more people to say no to them and they say yes to more people.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Comment, Japan, Music, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Spotify, Wieden+Kennedy
Years ago, when I was helping launching Spotify in Japan at Wieden, we did a bunch of work on understanding what music fandom really meant.
Given this was in Japan – the land of extreme perfection – we knew it was going to be interesting, but after a short while, we realised we may have missed the point.
You see while we met a whole lot of people who had a deep relationship with music – including someone who had something like 74 different vinyl versions of Dolly Parton’s ‘Jolene’, not to mention a rather un-nerving 40 year old bloke who was obsessed with everything Japanese, female heavy metal band BabyMetal, did … the reality is they weren’t fans of music, they were fans of a song or an artist or a genre.
And when we realised that, that’s when we started to get real clarity on what a real music fan was and went down a road that led to work that helped Spotify enter Japan and take a leadership position … despite being late to a market where vinyl still was the dominant format and where there was a ton of streaming competitors who all offered more music – especially local music – than Spotify.
However, on our journey to this point, we interviewed a bunch of people who were fans of a particular band – or genre – and asked them what they thought were the characteristics that defined someone as a ‘hardcore fan’.
We got such a range of answers …
Some cliched. Some intriguing. All expressed with earnest authenticity.
My favourite group with the heavy metal/heavy rock fans.
Part of that is because I love that style of music and part of that is because it seems to actively want to disassociate itself from anything associated with popular, mainstream or universally accepted culture.
Hence we got lots of comments relating to dress … places to drink … where you stand at gigs … how many gigs you’ve been to … influences … deep cuts … history … a never ending set of criteria that apparently separated authenticity from wannabe.
I say all this because I recently saw something no one mentioned in our conversations. Something that – for me – defines a real metal fan.
It’s this …
Because it doesn’t matter how many tattoo’s, leather jackets, bottles of Jack Daniels or gigs you go to, nothing – NOTHING – is more metal than driving a Suzuki Swift with a ‘Slayer’ number plate. 🤘🏻