Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Bands, Brands, Cannes, Creativity, Delusion, Effectiveness, Grifting, Metallica, Miley, Mr Ji, Music, Paula, Planners, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin
When I was going to move to Australia, I was severely stressed.
Part of it was because it meant moving away from my beloved parents.
Part of it was because I would be leaving a job I loved and had worked hard it.
And part of it was because I was moving for a woman who I hadn’t known too long.
While I knew in my heart I wanted to do it, the risk of it was huge – personally, even more than professionally – so I went to see my first ever therapist to ask for help.
This was a big thing for a whole host of reasons – most of which was that ‘therapy’ was an American thing and not the sort of thing done widely in England. But I needed to talk to someone so having found someone relatively close, I went to them and explained my situation.
I’ll never forget his response.
“Yes, what I was thinking was full of risk but the highest risk always offered the greatest reward and I was going into it with my eyes wide open and I should embrace that fact”.
I’m not saying that was the comment that led to me doing it – having my parents support and encouragement was the most important thing – but it did help me feel more peace with my choice … and while my relationship with the woman I went there for, didn’t work out, I can honestly say that everything in my life to this day – bar my relationship with Paul and his ex-wife, Shelly – is because I went.
I say this because I read something that Jeff Bezos said recently that I loved. It was this:
Now I appreciate he is not suggesting you let go of all common sense in your business operations – and nor should you – but at a time where so many of the industry ‘guru’s’ are selling systems that claim to ‘guarantee success’ [when in all reality, they are promoting complicity and insurance] it’s a pleasant change to hear a positive take on being ‘experiment positive’.
Just recently I saw one ‘guru’ announce their new ‘success stack’ for effective marketing.
To great acclaim, they announced this is how you ensure your marketing is successful.
Now I am in no doubt there is value in what they’re selling, but the problem I have is their approach is so myopic, systemized and one-size-fits-all that at best, they’re simply ensuring you hit guideline metrics rather than achieve actual growth.
Add to that, they’ve never made any work of note and are simply analyzing work that has achieved success based on their definitions and metrics, that people should – at best – be treating it as a guide rather than a blueprint.
But no … our industry is so messed up right now, we value the words of – excuse the analogy, because it’s not a good one – the pundits rather than the players.
By that, I mean those who are paid to find fault versus those who create change.
As I said in our speech at Cannes a few weeks ago, it’s like saying that because music has mathematical contexts behind it, we should trust a school maths teacher more than an actual musician.
We’ve gone mad. Or at least, deliberately ignorant.
Of course I appreciate risk is scary for companies.
I also get the numbers involved are huge and the implications even bigger.
But for all the talk of grawth and effectiveness we, as an industry, are far too comfortable playing within the rules, systems and codes of people whose entire ‘for profit’ business model is built on igniting fear and judgement in what you do, when the brands and businesses that experience the greatest growth always allow creativity – in whatever form it takes – some space to play, explore and experiment.
Sure, it might be a relatively small percentage compared to their core business, but they do it and do it without the boundaries and limitations that we are continually forced to adhere to, because they see it as a commercially important investment rather than an act of marketing practice defiance.
And given so many brands are currently acting, looking and communicating the same thing in the same way – because of their blind adherence to certain people’s one-size-fits-all marketing practice protocols, I’d argue there’s less risk leaving space for experimenting than there is following the same systems as everyone else.
Or to quote David Richards – from Paula and my talk at Cannes – it may explain why ‘companies have consumers but artists have fans.
[Of course, the ‘factual’ reason behind my declaration is that I work for the the most profitable luxury Retailer in the World, the most successful fashion and street culture investor in global fashion, the fastest growing eyewear brand on the planet and – of course – the 2nd most successful American band in music history, among others]
As an aside, if you’re interested in hearing the talk Paula and I gave, drop us a line here. If there’s enough interest, maybe we can do it. Not because we think it what we presented is THE ONLY way brands should think, but to ensure no one is daft enough to think there is only one way fullstop.
Happy weekend.
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.
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, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
This is a month or so old, but I am finding it impossible to get out of my mind.
Like a car crash. Which this is.
Have a look at this.
What you’re seeing is part of a research report a company put out recently in NZ.
Look at it. Look!
This is where a bunch of ‘for profit’ research companies are these days … spouting ambiguous rubbish that [I assume] they believe is insight gold.
What makes it worse is some companies will no doubt have read this … been amazed by it … and then paid them handsomely for more of this … resulting in everyone [and I mean everyone, bar the company flogging it] losing.
Not just losing in the present, but in the future.
Which begs the question, how bad/ignorant/blinkered/out-of-touch are some organisations that they’re ‘informed’ by this? Worse … how bad/ignorant/blinkered/out-of-touch are some organisations that they’re satisfied with this level of superficiality?
For me, this sort of thing is an act of social criminality.
Actually, that’s not harsh enough, it’s an act of commercial criminality.
And the reason people are getting away with it is because too many companies have leadership who value ‘scalable convenient answers’ rather than truth, context and real commercial understanding. Only wanting news that paints them and their plans in the most positive light, regardless of what the reality may be. In other words, they seek ‘information’ that feeds and/or reinforces their God-complex … and far too many companies are happy to oblige because it’s an extremely profitable business approach for them.
But even this isn’t enough for some, with many now aspiring to become their clients strategic consultancy … meaning the work they do is as much about their future as their clients … and that’s why I’m so grateful for the researchers and research companies who believe in the craft, role and truth of the discipline.
The people who want to reveal rather than package-up.
Who see people as more than just walking wallets.
Who understand nuance rather than the optimisisation of efficiency
[to maximise their own profitability].
Who look for the why, not just the what.
Who are more interesting in exploring truth than flogging their ‘proprietary system’ … which more often than not, involves using bots and AI that are – to paraphrase Top Gun – are writing cheques reality can’t cash.
In other words, I’m grateful for people/companies like Ruby Pseudo, ON ROAD and a few others who play up to a standard not down to a convenience.
Research is important as hell, but only if it’s good research and there’s far too much out there being peddled that falls far short of that standard. And that’s why the discipline – and us, as an industry as a whole – need to expect more, demand more and most importantly, respect real stuff more. Because witnessing mediocrity is one thing, but when we let it undermine what we do – and can do – is another thing altogether.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Empathy, Honesty, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Professionalism, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
A few weeks ago, I saw this post from the CEO/Founder of Liquid Death …
Putting aside that another bunch of kids somewhere in the US had done a similar thing with my ol’ mate Rick Astley … Mike at Liquid Death’s admiration for what they did kinda explains why I like hiring people who have done interesting stuff rather than those who just know interesting stuff. Even more so when the interesting stuff they spout is something someone else actually did or said.
Don’t get me wrong … opinions, considerations and evaluations have an important role to play in the industry, but if you haven’t actually made any actual work worthy of note, then the question is ‘do you really understand what it takes?’
The challenges.
The decisions.
The choices.
The craft.
The reality is anything is easy if you’ve never done it or have to do it … which is why those who try – even if they fail – will likely have more interesting perspectives than those who just express from a pedestal or vacuum.
It’s why I find so many of those newsletters being flogged on Linkedin amusing … because many are written by people who are not associated with any work of note. Or any work for that matter. And so while they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, it is just that – an opinion with a bit of context rather than the ‘undeniable fact’ they like present themselves as having.
To a much lesser degree, the same could be said about certain marketing practice experts who love to suggest they have all the answers and yet have also never actually made – or built – something of significance. Unless you count their own publicity machines.
OK, I know I’m being a condescending bastard. And the reality is I don’t mean it as much as I’ve made it sound.
[At least where the marketing practice experts are concerned anyway. Or some of them, ha]
But here’s the thing …
Do you know what else is massively condescending?
Listening to people who have never actually made anything of note putting down the credibility, expertise and knowledge of those who have … just so they can raise their own profile and ego.
Shockjocking for the clicks.
Shameless in their desire for the attention.
One minute claiming a discipline is dead … and then next minute, flogging their own ‘system’ that’s basically the same discipline they said was caput. But with added over-inflated academic value and self-congratulations for personal pleasure and good measure. Or associating themselves with famous work because they were employed – albeit for 2 seconds – at the company who originally made it. Despite not working on it or even being within 1000 feet of it. But still offering tips on how to make it like they are the CEO of said brand.
OK Rob, calm-the-fuck-down.
B-R-E-E-E-E-E-E-A-T-H-E-E-E-E-E-E.
OK, I feel a bit better now.
Look, I’m not saying there isn’t value in what they think and do – there is. Or at least with many of them. But the way they dismiss the work and value of those who literally create the stuff they claim to be an experts in – despite having never made it at that level, or in some cases, at all – is pretty shit.
And do you know what the great irony of all this is?
The reason there’s so much bad work out there is because of them. Because these ‘hypeists’ have succeeded in getting senior execs to believe their opinion is more valuable than the people who have actually been there, done that and keep doing it.
So instead of listening to those with the real experience, they are choosing to follow those who talk loudly from their self-built pedestal.
Where they talk and shout about why they are right.
Talk and shout about what they say is good work.
Talk and shout about why only their process is the one to follow.
Despite the fact – at best – they’ve never made the work they reference or – at worst – have never made any work at all. Certainly not at anything approaching the level their ego plays at.
So sure, I’m probably being a condescending asshole, but then so are the people who casually dismiss the value of those brave enough to put their ideas out into the world to be judged by people who don’t even know how to create it, let alone actually make it.
You don’t have to like it. But you should acknowledge you’ve also never done it.