Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Communication Strategy, Context, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Professionalism, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Trust, Truth
Back in 2021 – on April 1 no less, even though it was not a joke – I wrote how I had spoken to a hostage negotiator.
Among the many things he said to me, one that stood out most was this:
“If you have clients that think words – and how you say them – don’t matter, bring them to me. After all, my job is marketing too”.
Of course, the idea hostage negotiating is similar to marketing is absurd … but what I guess they were trying to say is that by understanding the needs, triggers and context of your ‘audience’, you increase the odds of being successful.
Please note the words ‘increasing the odds’.
I say that because the way our industry talks about ‘certainty’ is disturbing.
That doesn’t mean we’re a stupid risk.
Nor does it mean we can’t be more successful than anyone hoped.
But if you’re working with someone ‘guaranteeing’ the outcome, then they’re either downgrading the metrics and criteria for what they classify as success. Messing with the numbers to suit their own needs. Or just bullshiting.
And there’s a lot of bullshitting out there …
Because so much of what we do is only notionally focused on the needs of the audience.
The reality is the vast amount of attention is directed on the wants of our clients.
On one level, I get it. Our job is to help our clients be more successful than they dared imagine. But often we’re not given the chance to do that, because context and criteria has been set. Using data that is has been focused only on the point of purchase … as if there is absolutely no interest whatsoever in who they are, how they feel, the tensions they face and the situations they deal with.
Said another way … how they live, not just how they buy.
And that’s why the comment from the hostage negotiator was really what they thought marketing should be, rather what it often ends up being.
Which is why the real opportunity for us is to learn from them, not the other way around.
Because they’re proof the more you understand your audience – rather than just what you want your audience to do – the more you can make a difference, rather than just make a sale.
To prove that, I encourage you to watch this.
It’s long. But – as is the case with anything you emotionally engage with – it’s worth it.
Especially when you see how much it means to the negotiators. Let alone the hostages.
Which challenges you to think when was the last time you worked with someone who cared so much about who they served, rather than what they could sell them.
Who knows, it might just change your life or career. Or even save it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Focus Groups, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mischief, Positioning, Purpose, Research, Resonance
Recently I read the story behind Angostura’s strange bottle.
For those of you who don’t know what Angostura is, it’s a bitters used in cocktails.
For those of you who don’t know what is strange about their bottle, it’s this:
Yep, that’s their normal product.
A bottle, hidden inside fucking massive packing.
The story – as told by Abraham Piper – is the business was taken over by the founder’s sons in 1870.
To help grow its awareness, they decided to update the ‘look’ and enter the finished product into a competition in the hope the exposure would drive the business.
They didn’t have much time so to maximise efficiency, one brother designed the label and the other, the bottle.
One slight problem … they didn’t discuss the size.
Another slight problem … they didn’t realise until they brought both sides of their work together and by then, they didn’t have enough time to alter things before the competition was due to commence.
So they decided to enter it anyway.
Unsurprisingly, they lost.
Except one of the judges told them they should keep it exactly as it was because no one else was going to be stupid enough to make that sort of mistake … which means it was unique and would stand out.
So they did.
And that dumbass mistake – the sort of dumbass mistake that captures Dan Wieden’s classic Fail Harder philosophy, perfectly – was the foundation of a business that continues to evolve and grow to this day.
Now there is a chance this is not true.
They don’t mention it in their history timeline on their website for example.
But history is littered with happy accidents … from making Ice Cream to making Number 1 hit records … so there’s just as much chance it is.
And if that is the case, I’d bloody love it.
Because in this world where everything is researched to within an inch of its life, the products/brands that gain a real and powerful role and position in culture – not to mention whatever category they operate in – are increasingly the ones who keep the chaos in, rather than actively try to filter it out.
Whether that’s because they know it’s better to mean everything to someone rather than something to everyone is anyone’s guess. There’s a good chance they’re just lucky-accident dumbasses. Or they might understand the value of resonating with culture, rather than being relevant to the category.
Whatever it is …
The brands with the strongest brand attribution, assets and audience are increasingly the ones who never have to talk about it, let alone spend their marketing dollars trying to create it.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Confidence, Consultants, Effectiveness, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Research, Respect, Standards
A company in the UK was recently invited to be part of a big pitch in China.
A very big pitch.
Because I know the founder of the company – and she knows my history with China – she asked if I could cast my eye over what they were proposing.
She’s a good friend so I said yes.
So over a few hours on zoom, they took me through all their work.
They’d been very busy …
Huge amounts of research.
Huge amounts of analysis.
Huge amounts of thinking.
It was really good, there was just one problem.
It was all wrong.
Not because what they’d discovered wasn’t true or accurate, but simply because they’d fallen for what I call, the planners achilles heel: What you think is interesting and new, isn’t interesting or new for the audience you want to engage’.
Look around and you see it happening everywhere.
From people who think they’ve discovered a new brand that’s been around for years, to consultants who proclaim they’ve invented a new business model that other industries have been using for decades to adfolk spouting theories their predecessors were applying before they were even born.
And while I get there can be innocent reasons for this happening, the inconvenient truth is it’s driven by a pinch of arrogance here … a sliver of laziness there … and a big dollop of the issues that continue to undermine the value and potency of the discipline of strategy within business and agencies.
There is craft in what we do.
A set of practices, standards and values that are designed to help us do better and be better.
Practices, standards and values that were developed over time by brilliant women and men.
Now that doesn’t mean we can’t add to it … play with it … challenge it or reinvent it …but it seems the goal for many is less about what is created and more about how they appear.
Hey, I get it …
We all like recognition and right now, the industry rewards that more than it rewards those who create the work that gets the recognition. Which is utterly terrifying.
But while I would never want to stand in the way of people making a truckload of cash, the desire to satisfy our ego is having an adverse, negative effect on the work we make and the audiences we serve.
Put simply, we’re boring them to death.
Because what we think is cutting edge innovation – whether in creativity or consideration – has been seen before, done before, known before and replaced before.
Or said another way …
Regardless what we want to believe, dDuplication is not innovation and degrees of change is not revolution.
I genuinely believe this industry can be great, innovative and valuable.
But it won’t happen if we continue to ignore rigour and reality in favour of believing if it’s new to us, it must be new to everyone.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Positioning, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Standards
Brands love to say they know their customers.
They love to go on about the research they do to ‘get’ the needs of the people who use them.
And some genuinely do. Looking to understand how people live not just how they use, choose or buy their brand or a competitive product.
But sadly this group seem far more in the minority these days … with the preference being to outsource research needs to a ‘for profit’ external partner, who are asked to provide answers to drive immediate sales rather than to build long-term understanding.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a massive fan of research, but I’m reading far too much that seems to be about telling the client what they want to hear rather than what they need to understand.
To be fair, that is also true of agencies as well, and so much of that is because a lot of companies have already decided what they want to do and say and they expect everyone else to fall in line with it. And I get it, in a quest to streamline process and maximise productivity, that makes perfect sense.
Except it doesn’t.
Because as George used to say ALL THE TIME, it’s like going to the doctor and prescribing your own medicine. And as much as people/brands may think they know what’s wrong, that doesn’t mean they know how to fix it …
Agencies and research companies should be paid for their independent thinking and approach to solving problems NOT paid to execute what someone else wants the solution to be. The great tragedy of brand communication these days is that somehow, independent thinking has been labelled as dangerous when the real danger is when there isn’t any.
When solutions are decided by financial hierarchy rather than expertise – and by expertise, I mean that in terms of what an organisation is actually an expert on, rather than what they think they are – you tend to end up with a pile of shit that then ignites a game of blame storming.
Here’s a perfect example of it …
Now I appreciate printer, photocopier, fax [?!!!] sales must be very difficult.
I get companies may only give them a second thought when they go wrong or run out of ink.
But … but … who the fuck approved this shit?
I mean, it’s bad enough they say they know what we need – which makes them sound like some sleazy office colleague – but then they come out with this gem of bollocks.
“Like twins who understand each other completely”.
What??? WHAT???
Apart from the fact it’s utterly, utterly pants. if they really had a telepathic understanding of ‘what we need’, surely they wouldn’t have to pay to have this shit printed in a magazine and they’d just turn up at their customers office with the requirements of their machine – even before their customer knew they needed it.
But that’s not the case because they don’t know their customers, they don’t know what they need and they sure as shit don’t know how to communicate to them.
I get people think communication and creativity is easy.
I get people think they know their customers better than anyone else.
I get they want everything to be as efficient as is physically possible.
But if anything should tell them what they think and what is true are very different, it’s rubbish ads like this. And while I appreciate this is especially bad, there’s a whole lot more expensive versions of this wherever you look.
Great creativity and research is born from independent thinking.
A desire to create value by giving you what you need not what you want.
Which is why companies who place greater value on what they can make their agency partners do – including how they do the job, how many people can do involved in job and how long they’re allowed to do if for – the more complicit they are when things are less effective than they could be.
I’m not saying agencies and research companies are perfect.
And they sure-as-hell aren’t all the same standard and quality.
But they’re much better when they can give you truth and possibilities than blind complicity.