Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Business, Confidence, Context, Culture, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Membership, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Pretentious Rubbish, Revenge, Twitter
Over the last 12 months, one of the things I’ve had an almost adverse reaction to is twitter.
I can see Andy reading this – and I expect an email from him reinforcing this – and shouting:
“Now you know why I always called it twatter”
And he may … just may … be right.
I used to like twitter.
It had a similar feel to the early days of blogging.
Community. Supportive. Elevation of knowledge and debate.
But now …. well, it’s a cesspit of hate, ego and imposters.
Full of people on self-made pedestals claiming to be the next incarnation of Christ. Who believe they are better and smarter than the bastard love-triangle-child of Weiden, Edison and Ocasio-Cortez. Who are disturbingly confident in their claims of being more knowledgable about companies histories, operations and decision making than employees – or even founders – of those very companies. Or even the CIA.
And yet, when you look for any of the work these genius’ have actually made … what you tend to find is more tweets.
Tweets about what others are doing wrong.
Tweets about how they could do things better.
Tweets about how they know the answer to everything and beyond.
Tweets about how they want others to give them answers to questions that someone else is paying them to provide.
Tweets about how they claim ownership for business or societal behaviour change via articles that they had nothing to do with that talk about business or societal behaviour change.
Tweets about how their ego, arrogance, aggression, bitterness and dismissal of others know no bounds.
Tweets. Tweets. Tweets.
And this was before Elon Musk, the World’s comedy villain, overpaid for the bloody thing.
Of course not everyone is like this. There are still some amazing people on there who are generous and open with their comments and consideration … who can disagree without aspiring to demolish those who have a different point of view … however they’re increasingly becoming the minority, drowned out by wave after wave of hateful, spiteful, vicious commentary which – for the first time in my life – pushed me away for my mental health.
This was shocking to me for 3 reasons.
1. Having worked in this industry for so long, I have the thickest of thick skin.
2. I’m a social-media tart. Not just in terms of platforms I belong to, but in terms of ‘content’ I churn out.
3. No one was personally attacking or abusing me.
Basically, twitter has become exhausting to me.
A firehose of cliquey, self-congratulatory, pseudo-intellectual commentary that tries – and fails – to hide it is ego and insecurity shouting into an echo-chamber.
Personally this has devastated me.
I loved twitter – like I loved blogs – because I genuinely felt they helped me be become better at things I do or wanted to do.
It gave me a direct line to people I respected where I was able to listen, learn, interact, explore and debate.
Twitter wanted me to be better.
It wanted me to be exposed to new ideas, ideals and considerations.
But not now.
Now it’s like a digital version of The Hunger Games.
Destruction in 280 characters.
Words used as bombs and swords.
People elevating themselves by bringing others down … through verbal attacks, gaslighting or building a wall of imagined exclusivity between them and others, even if it only exists in the minds, ego and insecurity of those who post so often, you wonder how the hell they have time to do their actual job.
Anyway, the reason for all this is that I recently read a quote from Musk about what he thought Twitter was:
I couldn’t agree with him more.
In fact, I think he encapsulated why I have fallen out-of-love with his $44 billion indulgence.
Because mediums are neither rare nor well done.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Culture, Cunning, Revenge
I have an old job reference that states:
“Rob is driven by hate”.
Amazingly, they meant it as a compliment.
Despite my friend Michael believing I am incapable of such an emotion [but then he’s a beautifully misguided German] they’re right.
OK, maybe hate is too aggressive [damn you Michael!] … because when I encounter something – or someone – I don’t like, I use it to push me further rather than push them down.
This is not a new thing.
I wrote about it way back in 2011 … but even now, hate – or whatever we want to call it – has the affect of pushing me to learn, grow and try more stuff than I’ve done before because I want to do things better than whoever or whatever the focal point of my distain, achieved.
Does it always work? Nope.
Is it obvious to them I’m doing it? Hopefully not.
Can it sometimes be ignited by me being petty and pathetic? Yep.
But for all the potential unpleasant side of this characteristic, it gave me a work ethic that helped me achieve far more than any talent I have, could achieve – hahaha.
I say all this because a friend of mine sent me a photo of another persons version of creative revenge.
This.
It’s it utterly glorious?
Apparently, they did it because their partner said they wouldn’t hang up the washing.
OK, so they’re not using their hate to drive themselves forward … but they’re definitely using it to release the anger.
An act of personal vengeance that leaves no pain or blood on the intended victim while, at the same time, gives the aggressor a sense of satisfaction, peace and revenge.
That’s not easy to do.
But creativity found a way.
It always does.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, China, Chinese Culture, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Distinction, Government, History, Influencers, Luxury, Marketing, Perspective, Politics, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Revenge, Truth
Once upon a time, when I lived in Singapore, I popped into the restaurant next to where we lived on Club Street, to get some takeaway.
As I was waiting for my noodles, I saw a man at the bar having a drink.
He had a nice face but the only reason I noticed him was because he had a mark on his head that made him look like Mikhail Gorbachev.
The next day I found out, it was.
While Club Street was blessed with lots of nice restaurants and bars, seeing the ex-head of the Soviet Union having a drink next door to where you live, was not the sort of thing you expect to see.
But then Mikhail was good at the unexpected.
Like the time, in 2007, he turned up in a Louis Vuitton ad.
Back in the days when being an ‘influencer’ meant you had done something to impact the world rather than existed to simply flog product.
But Mikhail was an inspired choice for a whole host of reasons …
One was the visual metaphor he represented for Russia’s journey from communism towards capitalism.
The symbolism of a new era in Russia. And the rest of the world.
And while this ad came out in 2007 – 16 years after he had seen the dissolution of the USSR – what he represented was still clear. Made even more obvious by placing him in the back of a car – in a photo taken by Annie Leibovitz – driving past the Berlin Wall … another symbol of capitalism triumphing over communism.
For many who read this blog, the impact of this change may fly right past you.
I get it, especially if you’ve lived in Western countries, so to give you some context, let me take you to Communist China.
The modern metropolis that you see in photos of China today is certainly not what I found when I first moved there. Especially when you stepped out of central Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou. Though, to be fair, that’s still the case in many parts of the country – including Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou – despite the Middle Kingdom’s incredible modernisation and rise.
Anyway, when I first moved there, Louis Vuitton had a reputation – and nickname – of being ‘the mistress brand’.
There was a simple reason for it …
People who owned it were seen as ‘girlfriends’ of high-level business people or government ministers.
Basically the belief was that because their lovers were one of the few people who were allowed – or could afford to – leave China with ease, they’d buy LV products on their travels and then give them to their lovers as presents on their return.
Was it true?
Not entirely, but there was definitely a ‘second wives’ economy that existed and likely still does.
There was a street near where we lived where every shop was allegedly funded by a generous ‘benefactor’. And you could believe it, because we never saw a customer enter a single store and yet the owners – always young and attractive – were driving the latest Bentley’s. Ferrari’s or Maserati’s.
It was a different world.
And while China has been the centre of the luxury universe for decades, I still remember the Government banning all luxury outdoor advertising in Beijing every now and then to both show their power to the luxury brands who make billions from them as well as reminding the people who live there ‘they were still a communist land’.
Sometimes.
What is interesting is that when Russia and China opened up, Louis Vuitton were one of the quickest brands to see what this could mean for them and their category.
They recognised very early the importance – and confidence – luxury brands could play in culture and so they upped the branding on their products dramatically.
And that’s why these ads, from Ogilvy, are so interesting to me. Because at a time where the cult of luxury was on the rise, these ads attempted to separate LV from the competition by trying to position them with greater significance and purpose.
Presenting LV almost as something you ‘earned the right’ to have rather than something anyone could just buy.
Treating the LV iconography as a badge of honour, not simply wealth.
Reinforcing status as much about how you live, rather than simply what you have.
Maybe this was a reaction to the way Putin was starting to shape Russia to his will.
If you look closely at the bag next to Mikhail, you will see a magazine with the headline ‘Litvinenko’s murder: They wanted to give up the suspect for $7000.’
That headline was on the magazine, New Times, a liberal Russian publication that regularly criticised the Kremlin.
That headline was a reference to Alexander V Litvinenko – the former KGB spy who died in November 2006 after being poisoned in the UK. The former KGB spy who had accused Putin of orchestrating his murder.
While Ogilvy and LV dismissed the significance of that magazine headline, I think it’s pretty safe to say that’s bullshit.
There is no way that is a coincidence.
I get why they said it, but the symbolism of Mikhail … with that magazine poking out his bag … driving past the Berlin Wall … was a pretty blatant message of how far Putin’s Kremlin had taken Russia back to the ‘bad old days’ since Gorbachev had left.
It may have been a condition for Mikhail to feature in the ad.
Only he, Ogilvy and LV execs would know.
But I do admire their stance.
Let’s be honest, there’s absolutely no way that would ever happen now.
Which is as much of a statement on how safe advertising and brands have become as it is of the dangers of Putin and his actions.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Cats, China, Comment, Culture, Martin Weigel, Paula, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Revenge
As it is the first of August, I thought I’d change the tone of the posts from the rather heavy ones of July to something a bit more ‘light’.
Which is why today I’m writing about cats.
As you know, I love those feline sods.
Specifically my feline sod … Rosie.
The things I’ve done for her.
Taken her around the World.
Got an import licence in China so we could get her her favourite treats.
Built custom ‘penthouse cat houses’ for her, so she could enjoy the outdoors in safety.
Got a company to make a bloody stuffed toy version of her for us.
In fact, it’s so realistic a client once thought she was stuck on a wardrobe during a zoom call.
And what do I get in return?
Complaints.
Demands.
Distain.
And a distinct lack of love or emotion.
Oh I know she loves me really.
Not as much as we love her, obvs … but there is affection there. Deep down.
However I recently saw something that not only summed her up, but summed all cats up which perfectly explains why some people hate them, and why some – like me – are at their mercy, will and command.
If humans treated humans this way, it would be considered an abusive relationship.
But cats powers of manipulation has managed to reframe that as ‘personality’.
Seriously, if you want to know the art of strategy, forget the Weigel’s, Bloodworth’s, Ritson’s and Collin’s and just study cats.
They’re bastards. But they’re brilliant bastards … as demonstrated by this photo that, for me, is the best encapsulation of cattidude you will ever see.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Evil, Embarrassing Moments, England, Influencers, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Positioning, Pretentious Rubbish, Revenge, Social Divide, Social Media
The media – and marketing – have perpetuated all manner of stereotypes over the years.
They spend enormous amounts of time and money painting psychological beliefs into society so they can profit from others shortcomings or vulnerabilities.
They don’t care if it destroys lives, to them that’s just canon fodder in the quest of riches, so everything is justifiable.
Which explains why we see so many things being labelled by the media and marketing industries … because it’s the perfect way to achieve mass social psychological manipulation.
You name it and they’ll have given a name to it.
Superfast.
Superfoods.
Superhair.
Supersoup
They’ll use a label to sell anything … from kale to self-help books to gender roles.
And while that is a fucking horrible way to behave, there is one thing that is pretty impressive and that’s their ability to not just never stop doing it … but to never stop inventing new bullshit labels to fuck with people.
Take a look at this …
A CEO body?
A fucking CEO body?
What does that even mean?
Do all CEO’s share a particular physical format?
I mean, I know Elon and Jeff went from dweeb to muscle mountains, but I’ve still met a bunch of CEO’s with very different body shapes to them.
Also, what sort of CEO are they talking about?
A CEO of a big company? A start-up company? A fast-food company?
Do they lead 3 employees or 33,000 employees?
Are they heading up a profitable company or a crypto disaster?
Do they write thought leader pieces on Linkedin or are they living in a social media blackhole?
And why are you only showing a man?
A white man.
Is it because you think only white men can become a CEO?
Have you inadvertently just explained the real reason behind corporate racism, prejudice and the glass ceiling all in one go?
And while I’m at it, can you explain what you mean by the term ‘midlife’ in your headline?
What is that?
Is it a specific number?
Is it 30?
What about 40?
I bet it’s a mid-number like 45 or something … just to mess with us.
Come on, don’t keep it to yourself. Is there a standard ‘midlife’ no one told me about.
You can tell me. I know at 52 I’ve likely passed it, but I’d still like to know.
Finally – and I really don’t want to be picky here – but why are you telling everyone what the 16 foods ALL men should be eating are?.
Is it CEO food?
Don’t CEO’s eat fancy and expensive stuff?
And if all men eat it, does that mean all men will become CEO’s?
How will that happen? Are there enough CEO jobs to go round to make that happen?
And what about the women who are CEO’s? Do they eat that food as well? Is that how they got to the top … they ate like a man and had a body like a man?
I’m so confused.
In fact the only thing that’s clear to me is how you’re using marketing labelling bullshit to add even more expectation and judgement on people’s lives just so you can attempt to profit even more from making society question how they are supposed to look and live.
All this coming from The Times newspaper.
The fucking Times!!!
Once the pinnacle of journalism and standards, now a peddler of utter horseshit.
Even more so when you think what their CEO’s body is like …
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure no one would want to look like that, let alone be like that.
And if The Times think they do, it may help explain why their readership keeps falling.
Dickheads.
Oh I really enjoyed writing that.