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: 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, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Complicity, Culture, Daily Fail, Daily Mail, Diversity, Dysgraphia, Education, Empathy, England, Fatherhood, Hope, My Fatherhood, New Zealand, Otis, Perspective, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
OK … so yesterday I said the posts this week were all superficial shite, but that was until I read an article that has pissed me off.
Have a look at this headline:
On one side, it’s from the Daily Mail – so this sort of divisive headline is to be expected – but what made me especially angry is the daughter in question is not ‘rebellious’, she has dysgraphia and dyscalculia … so she finds writing, reading and maths incredibly difficult.
NOT because she isn’t smart or capable, but because she has a neurological condition so she learns in a different way to the one the education system is set up to teach.
To be fair to the school in this article, it sounds they tried to help … but it also sounds they were so stretched that the way they approached it was more about giving them time off school rather than adapting their approach to schooling.
I’ve written about this in the past given Otis has dysgraphia and his school has been active in trying to adapt to help. Even then it’s not been easy – or perfect – but at least Otis knows he’s seen, heard and valued … which is more than the woman in this article probably feels.
Imagine being neurodivergent and having a national newspaper refer to you as rebellious and having your own Mum be OK with that.
Worse, the Mum makes it all about her and ‘her struggles’.
Yes, it can be hard … and yes, it can be stressful … but it’s a fuck-of-a-lot worse for kids going through this sort of thing. They feel stupid. They feel left behind. They feel discarded and useless. So the last thing they need is a parent – and an education system – labelling them rebellious or lazy when what they’re dealing with is neurological. To make matters worse, this neurological challenge doesn’t impact their capacity to learn, just the way they do learn … so they have huge amounts of potential but with too few people wanting to see it, recognise it and liberate it.
This article could have been about the need to relook at how we educate. It could have been about the importance of needs rather than standardisation. It could have been about progress rather than judgement. Instead this ‘newspaper’ decided to write a piece that shows they view compassion and encouragement as weakness and unfairness.
Shame on them.
Shame on the mother for allowing this headline.
Shame on the people who commented negatively without understanding.
You have to be pretty fucking vile to be jealous some kids need special attention from their schools.
It’s not elitism you pricks, it’s dealing with an issue not of their making and helping them stand a chance of having a life that is bigger than the one people like you want for them.
Fuck you. All of you.
You’re welcome.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Colleagues, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Diversity, Education, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Friendship, Honesty, Individuality, Insight, Loyalty, Marketing, Martin Weigel, Paula, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Presenting, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Social Commentary, Social Divide, Standards, Wieden+Kennedy
Hello. I’m back.
And because you’ve had no posts for basically 2 weeks, this is going to be a long one.
Yes, I know my posts are already waaaaaaay to long. Sorry, but deal with it.
I had a great time in LA and before that Australia.
Well, I say Australia – but it was in Perth which is closer to Singapore than Sydney.
Met lots of people.
Had good conversation.
It was fun … so thank you State of Social, for inviting me to come over.
I have always loved to go to talks. The stress of putting it together isn’t fun … but for me it’s also about visiting new places, hearing new perspectives and just generally chatting to new people.
And on the rare occasion I get to do a talk with people I know and love, then I get the added benefit – as screenwriter/director Nora Ephron once said was one of the happiest feelings on earth – of enjoying dinner with friends in a city or country none of you live in.
It’s one of my favourite feelings too.
And that’s why Cannes was so special to me.
The event – if I’m being honest – wasn’t that great. Certainly compared to previous times I’d been … and I’ve never really liked it in the first place. But this time it felt the whole industry was in full-on heads-in-the-sand mode.
Nothing highlighted this more to me than the relief/confidence the industry media reported a comment made by Torr – from Apple – in his speech when he said Apple will always need and use agencies. That may be true, but it doesn’t take a data scientist to realise Apple are doing more and more creative work in-house and even their specialist agency – MAL – is seemingly doing less for them.
But I digress …
Because my favourite thing of doing a talk at Cannes was this …
I love these two.
And I love this photo … me, Paula and Martin.
I didn’t exactly have to bully them to do the talk, but I knew I only wanted to do it if they said yes. And the reason for that was we would get to hang out properly for the first time ever.
By that I mean, physically be in the same place … because throughout our time together, we’ve either only met on Zoom or been in situations where just 2 of us would ever be in the same place/country.
So it was special. It was also different.
Because being in the same place – away from the responsibilities of time/life – meant we could properly connect. A deeper way to interact … argue … debate. I totally get why some people prefer working from home. I appreciate the financial impact of travel and time – but you get something more out of being with others ‘in the flesh’, so to speak.
Just like you can learn about other countries from the internet … it’s not the same as actually going there or working there.
But many are discounting this. Claiming they can do their job perfectly well from the comfort of their home. And they probably can … but the question is whether they’re growing and evolving doing it that way. OK, so many will think they are … and many may not care … but there’s a massive difference being immersed in an environment rather than sitting on the outside of it.
I still remember trying to hire someone for W+K Tokyo. They were keen but it was their first overseas move so were rightfully apprehensive. They eventually turned it down and when I asked why, they said they had spoken to someone they knew and they’d advised against it. So I asked if that person had ever lived overseas and they said no – but they’d ‘visited a ton of countries’.
And I am sure they had, but just like looking up a place on the internet doesn’t give you a full understanding about the culture or nuances of a country, either does ‘visiting’ one for a week or two on holiday.
Of course there’s huge amounts you can learn from wherever you are. And there will be stuff that is amazing, important and unique to your situation and nation. But to think there is nothing to learn from outside experiences, perspectives and interactions, is crazy.
And that’s why being with Paula and Martin was so wonderful.
Because we’re bonded by what isn’t common.
We come from different countries.
We all live in different countries from where we were born.
We have all lived in multiple different countries – in my case, double figures.
We [now] all work at different companies and on different clients.
We all have different experiences that has led to different viewpoints.
And while by today’s nationalistic philosophies, it shouldn’t work – in fact we shouldn’t even want to interact – it does. Because perspective and growth comes from the environments, interactions and challenges we embrace … even the stuff that isn’t comfortable.
Sure, it’s all about how you do it – and we do it with respect for the global experiences, exposure and standards we all bring to the table and the knowledge no one is doing it to hurt the other, but to expand perspectives and considerations – but it still can be challenging and we may still may not agree.
Then there’s the fact that we are three, white, privileged adults … so despite having lived in multiple countries and worked with brands on a whole range of challenges and audiences … there’s still huge amounts we want to learn from others outside our frames of reference or understanding.
And while I totally appreciate some don’t want to – or can’t do that – to discount its value says more about the people putting up the barriers and blinkers than it does about the value of the alternative.
And that’s why things like Cannes is important.
The engagements and lessons and interactions.
I wish it wasn’t so expensive so more people could immerse themselves in it rather than just play on the outskirts of it … but wanting to be grow is a noble thing.
And while we were talking at Cannes and had an opinion we wanted to share … we went there wanting to grow too.
And that’s why it was so good to be there. With them.
To listen. To learn. To debate. To argue.
But most of all, to want to be challenged, so we can grow.
I’m lucky to have them in my life. I’m even luckier I got to spend time with them in person.