Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Stubborness, Trust, Truth
I love this clip from South Park about how they think Netflix works.
Sure, it’s taking the piss out of the streaming gods – suggesting their quality control is all over the place because they say yes to every pitch – but in some ways, I can’t help but feel it would be brilliant if more clients embraced this approach.
Now before you think I’m mad, there is a reason for this.
About 14,000 years ago, I wrote a post saying clients should say yes more often and agencies should say no. The main reason for this was I kept hearing companies suggest their agencies didn’t understand their business. That they were more interested in what they wanted to make rather than what their clients needed.
They’re wrong … because in my experience, agencies absolutely want to do the best things for their clients.
That they have different ways to achieve their clients needs and goals is a good thing.
More than that, it’s literally what they are all about.
But right now it seems more and more clients are trying to dictate and mandate work … when, with the upmost respect, many haven’t got the faintest idea what good work is, how to get it, and how to get their audience to be interested and motivated in what they’ve got to say.
Now to be fair, this is not entirely their fault.
It doesn’t help many agencies have sold creativity so far down the river, that the only thing they care about is the head hours they can sell. It doesn’t help many companies only enable their people to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. And it doesn’t help company procurement departments have an outsized influence on the approach and people their agency gets to work with – which directly impacts the work that gets produced – which is why you can see how this often turns into a complete shit show.
But that still doesn’t explain why some clients think they know more about creativity than their agency.
Which is why I think the ‘for profit’ research agencies they surround themselves with have to shoulder some of the blame. Part of that is because supporting what the client thinks and wants is in their personal interests. And part of that is because many of them make the mistake of judging work by clarity of message rather than enjoyment of content.
To emphasise this last point, there’s a brilliant story about Spielberg when he was starting Dreamworks.
You see despite him and his partners being some of the most successful producers and directors of all time, their external investors wanted everything to go through focus groups to ensure everything was geared for success.
Spielberg said no.
He said he made films that were true to his vision, not other people’s.
In fact he was so insistent on this point that the whole deal was nearly off until Spielberg agreed to do it on the condition that any focus group was based around answering just one question and he had the right to decide what to do with the answer, once he’d got it.
They asked him what was the question.
“Were you entertained?”
That’s it.
One question.
One simple question … but arguably the most pertinent question.
Just to be clear, I am not saying research isn’t important.
It is. It’s vital.
In fact I love research. I love what it can uncover and reveal and help you understand.
But it shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate judge and jury.
It shouldn’t be about definitive answers.
The funny thing is I often find company research people understand this very well. They have incredible knowledge while also being very self aware. An openness to explore and consider. Where the most blinkered and stubborn thinking happens is when working with external organisations who harbour ambitions to be strategic partners. Where their goal is to control rather than inform.
Not of course, not everyone is like that. There’s many amazing companies out there … but there’s also a bunch whose commercial interests end up accelerating the disconnection of brands with truth and potential rather than enabling it.
But I digress.
The point of this post – and that South Park clip – is in the quest to not make any mistake or risk upsetting anyone – often their own board of directors – companies end up creating work that says nothing and does little. Meanwhile, with Netflix actively looking for the next big, they’re saying yes rather than no … and while that leads to a lot of stuff that may not perform, their commitment to pushing and exploring means they also have a lot of epic. Which has created a lot of longterm value.
Or said another way, Netflix see the commercial value of trust, creativity and exploration.
And while I know the two can’t really be compared, I’m going there … not just to reinforce the point that self-awareness is commercial intelligence, but because if brands want people to love them, it might be good if they did stuff for them, not about themselves. And it might be good if more agencies got back to valuing creativity rather than just saying they do.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Comment, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Effectiveness, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Respect, Stupid
One of the things I find fascinating is how everything these days is ‘a sprint’.
The urgent need for an immediate solution to enable a brand or business to move forward.
Except it’s not true is it? Not really.
I mean – I get that there are occasions where circumstances demand an extremely quick response.
A terrible event.
A moment of opportunity.
An act forced by an aggressive client.
But in the main, these ‘sprints’ have nothing to do with that.
They’re for a new product launch.
A brand campaign.
An annual event.
If they need a sprint for those, then surely that means they haven’t [or just as likely, their bosses, bosses haven’t] got their shit together because those things don’t ‘just happen’ do they? It’s not like the Paris authorities are going to wake up on the 1st of July and suddenly realise they have to hold the Olympics in a few weeks time so need construction companies to engage in ‘a sprint’ to knock up a few stadiums in time.
Now if my Dad was alive and found himself in this situation he would say – as I often heard him tell clients who had failed to plan appropriately – “your emergency is not my problem” … however in adland, we tend to jump in and try to help.
Yay us!
Except quite often, when we do this, we’re made to feel like we’re the reason they’re in this mess and so rather than see us as someone trying to help, we’re seen as someone holding them back.
It’s so weird.
Even more so when they then question our hours and fees.
Which is why my attitude is that unless there is a real reason for the urgency – and a respect for what you’re asking people to do – you should probably say no. I get it may be unpopular, but you’re not going to win in this situation.
And don’t get me started when companies brief agencies before a major holiday.
OH MY GOD.
I used to see this in China a lot … and we [as in Wieden Shanghai] would always say no.
Sure, if it was a client of ours who was in a pickle for legit reasons, we’d do all we could to help them … but if it was about ego or mismanagement, we’d politely decline.
And yet, from what I see and hear from others – and occasionally experience – this situation seems to be happening more and more often … the defecto rather than the exception.
What’s even more bizarre is that the supposed urgency for a solution gets more and more delayed as additional contexts, mandatories, and approval processes get added to the list of deliverables … resulting in you wondering how urgent this really was as a supposed ‘sprint’ turns into a marathon.
Of course, the reality of these situations is it’s actually about money and time.
Or said another way, the desire to reduce it.
I get it, developing work can be time-consuming and expensive … but here’s the thing, shortening the time doesn’t automatically mean it makes it the work better.
Cheaper, maybe.
But not better.
In my experience, there are 3 main reasons this situation continually and persistently occurs:
1. The client doesn’t value creativity.
2. The client doesn’t understand creativity.
3. The client doesn’t actually know what they want or need.
For far too many, creativity is seen as expressing what you want people to know about your brand/product before adding ‘some wrapping paper’ around the messaging to make it ‘creative’.
I’ve talked about the folly of this ‘wrapping paper’ analogy before … but that perspective continues to grow. Worse, some agencies actively reinforce it in an attempt to show ‘they get the client’ or they ‘get business’, all the while undermining their single most valuable asset.
Which means that maybe they don’t know business as much as they think.
Don’t get me wrong, it is entirely possible to spend too much time on something. But there sure-as-hell can be too little. And when you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t know what they want – so use creativity to try and work it out and then judge it as if its your fault – then any length of time is too much time.
And yet it feels like ‘quality’ has now become defined by the speed it takes to create rather than the effect it creates … often reinforced, as I said a couple of days ago, by ‘for profit’ research companies and gurus who focus on clarity not interest.
No wonder so many clients are asking agencies about what their AI approach is.
Now as I said at Cannes, I think AI – and tech as a whole – offers a whole world of possibilities and opportunities for brands to evolve, grow and connect. Hell, we just did it with our Pedigree Adoptables campaign that literally wouldn’t be possible without it. But that’s not what a lot of clients mean when they ask that, they’re looking for cheaper and quicker output. Optimising the optimized.
The great irony of this is that when you talk about AI affecting their business – especially if the competition embrace it against them – many react like you’ve just tazered them.
They’ll say there’s no comparison.
That their product price-point is based on the value of their expertise, craft and innovation.
And for some, that’s true. But it’s some … not all.
Which is very similar to the post I wrote a while back about how many brands like to think of themselves as premium, but their actions and values are all about how cheap they can be.
A while back I spoke to someone who is one of the most influential luxury expert in the world.
They own, invest and consult with the best of the best … new and old, classic and innovative.
And they said to me they believe the future of luxury will be about recognizing the value of humanity.
The custom, craft and care.
Because in a world that is increasingly about speed, scale and optimization, the brands who will command the greatest value, influence and price will be the ones who offer their customers the most human interaction, engagement and service experience.
It’s a fascinating thought … one that could separate the real from the wannabes.
Or, said another way, the companies who those who talk about valuing their brand and audience and those who actually do. Because one only cares about the sprint, where others appreciate the jog.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, America, Clothes, Creativity, Culture, Curiosity, Jill, LaLaLand, Otis, Planners, Planning, Relevance, Research, Respect, School
I appreciate the title of that post may be misleading because – let’s face it – my posts are pants everyday, except this time I’m literally talking about pants.
These pants …
I saw them on Sunday morning while going on my daily walk.
They were near the library … and given I do this walk everyday and they weren’t there the day before, it would suggest they appeared in the last 24 hours.
And while I could say they symbolise someone having a great – or terrible – Saturday night/Sunday morning … the reality is I have no idea and without wanting to sound a perv, I’m kind-of fascinated to know more about them.
The story that led to them appearing there.
The choice of that particular pattern and design.
The feelings of having ‘lost them’.
It’s a bit like the painting I bought at Otis’ LA hippy kindergarten ‘fund raiser’ back in 2017.
The Al Pacino meets Chuck Noris thing with out-of-proportion arms.
The painting the organisers couldn’t believe someone would pay for because it’s awful.
I bloody love that painting.
I love that someone did it and I wish I knew who and why.
Given it’s 40 years old, I doubt I’ll ever know … but I’ve tried.
And while it is more a burglar deterrent than a gallery star, there’s something about it ‘everyday, anybodyness’ that is like a beacon to me.
Like those pants.
Because there’s a story there.
May be funny … may be lovely … may be tragedy.
And while I would not take them – let alone pay for them and then hang them up in my house, like my piece of ‘art’ – there’s a story there.
Which serves as a great reminder than for all the curiosity our discipline has, the fact we spend more time talking about systems and processes rather than the stories that literally surrounds us highlights the tool we should be embracing more than others.
Opening our eyes.
___________________________________________________________
I’m off to Australia tomorrow for work, so there’s no posts till Friday. But I’m quite excited about that post, so even though no one cares – let alone will read it – I can satisfy my ego by writing this and pretending there’ll be a clamour to read it on Friday morning. Even though there won’t be. Ignorance is bliss. Self-awareness is a killer.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Alcohol, Apathy, Asia, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Beer, Campaign Magazine, China, Chinese Culture, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Empathy, Environment, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Shanghai, Singapore, Strategy
I have a history of working on clients I don’t really have a right to work on.
Sport.
High Fashion.
Female Haircare.
OK, so I have a real relationship with sport, but I think the reason I have been able to [even though I say it myself] be so successful with the other categories is that I get so into what I am working on. I get kind-of obsessed with learning and understanding everything about it and throw myself into reading all I can about the culture, history and category before I then interview everyone I can meet who is authentically connected to it.
No outsourcing to superficial focus groups … it’s about graft. Working with the people who create and push the category rather than those who simply buy the product.
It’s served me well – underpinned by clients who care about their audience rather than just see them as walking wallets and me being being self-aware enough to know my perspective is from an outsiders point of view, so I need to explore everything while assuming nothing.
I say all this because one of the other categories I’ve worked on that I shouldn’t, is alcohol.
Why shouldn’t I?
Because the last sip of booze that passed my lips was in 1985.
NINETEEN EIGHTY FIVE … so 39 years ago!
And yet over that time, I’ve worked on everything from Heineken, Guinness, Johnnie Walker and the development of Blackened, for Metallica.
Beer advertising in particular is fascinating because there tends to be 2 states:
Sponsored jokes or pretentious bullshit.
Now I get why it falls into these 2 states because client/agencies tend to either want to reaffirm their beer is ‘fun and social’ or ‘important and crafted’.
But for every Guinness Surfer, Carlton Draft Big Ad, John Smiths No Nonsense, DB Export Brewtroleum or going right back, Heineken Refreshes … there’s a whole heap of contrived, lifestyle rubbish.
Lazy headlines placed over generic Getty image photography.
One I saw recently was this from Tiger.
Now I appreciate the photo does not do it justice, but the headline reads:
Tiger Crystal.
Ultra Low Carb.
Extra Refreshing.
The reason this does my head in is two-fold.
First is you have to understand Tiger is very close to my heart.
Not only was it one of the first brands I worked on when I first moved to Asia, I also won the worldwide account – literally on my own – against 4 network agencies back in the early 2000’s.
Apart from that allowing me to work with some brilliant people on some brilliant assignments, it also resulted in Campaign Magazine featuring me on their front page in all my sweary glory, which is obviously a career high, hahaha.
But the other reason is that copy makes no fucking sense.
What the hell does ‘extra refreshing’ mean?
Oh I know how they’ll justify it …
With less carbs, the beer tastes even better to the drinker. Not literally, but emotionally.
And while there may be an element of truth to that … it doesn’t make it EXTRA refreshing. More drinkable maybe, but not extra refreshing. But here’s the thing, if it’s that good, why don’t they make ALL their beer like this?
Why don’t they bring their ‘extra refreshing’ premise to all their products?
I’ll tell you why, because it’s bollocks.
It’s lazy marketing … another example of vacuous superlatives being churned out to sound exciting without any thought, consideration or any excitement. An act of arrogance, demonstrating how important the brand thinks it is and how little they think – or understand – the audience they literally serve.
Now I appreciate some may say, ‘why does it matter, no one will pay much attention to it’?
And I get that … except that’s the point really.
Our job is to try and make people pay attention.
To give a shit.
They’re not going to think it changes their life, but they shouldn’t blindly ignore it.
It’s this sort of arrogance that demonstrates the lack of self-awareness that has permeated the industry. A blind belief that everything we do is great simply because we did it … despite the fact in the real world, all we’re doing is adding to the social landfill and social pollution of shit advertising.
Where is the pride in who we are, what we do and the intelligence of who we engage?
Where?
We’re so much better than this. And just to be clear, I’m not solely blaming whoever did this awfulness, it’s also the clients, procurement and ‘for profit’ research companies who created the environment where this ends up being deemed ‘worthy’.
I swear the biggest problem the industry has is every department and discipline has its own agendas and metrics for success.
There’s no alignment.
No agreement on what we want and need to make.
Just distain, distrust and self-interest.
Of course not everyone is like this – thank god – but if clients want to see the potential of their brand and agencies want to push the possibilities of their creativity, there has to be a moment where we stop hiding awfulness under the blanket of marketing justifiable rationales, because for all the NPS, system 1, best-practice approaches we may proudly shout about, there are two questions that trump all.
Is it true and does it make us give a shit?
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, China, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Grifting, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Respect, Standards
Once upon a time, I did some work with the Google exec, Jonathan Rosenberg.
He was very kind and generous to me, more kind and generous than he should – which I suppose means extra kind and generous – but there’s one thing he said to me that has specifically stayed with me.
We were talking about a book someone had written about google and to paraphrase, he said, “they made us sound more interesting than we were”.
Now I remember this for 2 reasons.
1. At the time I was shocked he thought google wasn’t that interesting … because at the time, they were probably the most interesting and exciting company on the planet.
2. I realised that the book he was referring to was written by an observer, not a participant.
There’s a lot of good things being an observer.
You often see things those inside are too close to realise.
An objective perspective that shines a light on things others may take for granted or not even considered.
But … and it’s a big but … there’s also a shitload of danger.
Because ultimately, you are evaluating from your own perspective which is laden with your own prejudices, contexts and opinions.
Now that’s not necessarily wrong, where it goes dodgy is when you ignore that and just write your view as fact. That what you see is declared as a statement that suggests everyone thinks this way. Which is – generally – ego bollocks.
I used to see this all the time in China.
People coming in making big points based on their observations of the country without realising what they think is important, is only because it’s new to them rather than realising its normality to the people they’re referring to.
It was like they couldn’t wait to shout and share.
To position themselves as ‘in the action’, when really they were just casual observers.
Desperate to broadcast to the mass rather than take the time to consider others contexts and cultural references.
There’s a lot of that around at the moment.
Post rationalised, personal perspectives expressed as unquestionable fact.
Or worse, unquestionable genius.
God complex pricks … as a friend of mine refers to them.
And worse, it attracts others like them who value shortcuts than substance.
Look on Linkedin and it’s everywhere. Opinions spouted as fact by people who have the most tenuous relationship with what they are talking about.
Now don’t get me wrong, outsiders have an important role for reasons mentioned above … but that only works when they’re focused on gaining understanding rather than demanding answers and accepting their view may have to evolve with additional knowledge and information … because when they do that, they’re creating contexts based on their own personal blinkers/ego and everyone suffers for it.