Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Collaboration, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Distinction, Effectiveness, Experience, Honesty, Individuality, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Mediocrity, Metallica, Money, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Strategy, Success
I recently interviewed a successful artist.
What made them especially interesting to me was less their fame and more the fact they’d left a very popular group to go out on their own.
Not because they were ‘guaranteed’ success, but because they didn’t like how their management and record company dictated what they had to do.
As they told me the thinking that went into their decision, they said something I loved:
“Working for yourself is like being an artist in a studio. You’re free to create … you’re open to possibilities. Where most people have a dream, those with the lust to go out on their own stand the most chance of making their dream happen. Even if I failed, I would have felt good I had failed on my own terms”.
How good is that?!
Of course, I appreciate that when you’re successful it’s dead easy to say you would be OK to have failed … but I believed them.
Part of that is because they walked away from a very successful group. Part of that is they did in the knowledge their contract stated they would no longer be eligible for royalties. Part of that is before they launched their own career, they took time off to reclaim who they were. But most of all, I adore how they equated working for yourself as an artist who is in their own studio.
Despite having – and still – working for myself, I’d never thought of it that way and in the big scheme of things, the work I do for myself is the most indulgent, wonderful shit I have ever done. Not just in terms of freelance work, but in my whole career … and a lot of that has been pretty wonderfully indulgent.
But even with that, I looked at working for yourself much more in the way Michael Keaton looks at working for yourself …
Put simply, you love that you have more freedom, but you’re also aware you are the business … so every decision is weighted with more consideration or deliberation.
It’s why the two things that have helped me embrace what excites me rather than do what makes sense is Harrison Ford’s know the value of your value and the conversation I had with Metallica’s managers before I started working with them.
Now I say all this, but the fact is I also work for Colenso – however the reasons I did that were less about financial security and more about appreciating what makes me happy:
1. I need to work with people and build teams. I’m good at it, it makes me happy and I love seeing people grow and the reality is, when you work on your own, you rarely get the chance to do that.
2. Colenso is a place I’ve always loved and so to have the chance to work at a place that truly believes in creativity when so many just want to monetize any-old-shit was both hugely appealing and exciting.
3. They were totally open to me working a different way, which – for all the talk – few companies would ever consider, let alone allow.
4. When you work on your own, your development is more influenced by the projects and clients you work with, whereas when you are part of a team, your development is pushed and prodded every day. And I like that.
5. It offered us a chance to leave COVID-stricken Britain, even though within months … it hit NZ, ironically via the parents of a planner in my team. The second country brought to its knees by someone I’d managed. Oops.
So while I completely appreciate the privileged position I was in – and am in – the point is there was a lot of consideration about working on my own and working at Colenso … not just in terms of what I can gain but working out what I don’t want to lose.
Of course, there are going to be sacrifices along the way … but if you don’t think it through, you may find you’re running away from something rather than running towards something.
For me, that differentiation is a really important one to identify.
Don’t get me wrong, I get that sometimes you just have to escape the situation you’re in, regardless of where you’re going to end up.
I’ve experienced that situation twice in my life and it was horrible. Horrific even. And so getting away was real, urgent and necessary.
But I’m not talking about people in those situations, I’m talking about the folk who simply didn’t want to work for someone else. Didn’t want to deal with the expectations, the politics, the time pressures and the bullshit.
I get it.
I appreciate the appeal.
I basically covered it in a conversation with WARC back in 2020.
But there’s a major difference between not wanting to do things and creating the conditions to ensure you never have to do them and I’m surprised how often people haven’t done that.
Especially planners.
For example:
Do you know enough people at a high enough level who could be clients?
Do you have the experience that can command the rate you want/need to make?
Do you have the reputation that can protect you from commodification?
Do you have the expertise that ensures you don’t just shitty jobs no one else wants to do?
Do you have the network to ensure your abilities grow rather than stay where they are?
Do you have the commitment to keep learning and developing when it’s all dependent on you?
And while they may sound big questions, they’re not. Not really.
In many ways, they’re the difference between full independence and short-term escape.
I should point out I don’t mean this to sound like criticism.
I also don’t want this to be an obstacle to someone going out on their own.
My intent actually is the opposite. I want more people to prosper on their own terms … and by prosper, I don’t just mean financially, but also professionally and emotionally.
This is not because I am some wannabe Saint, it’s because it’s the only way creativity and strategy can regain the influence, credibility and power over the whims, wants and egos of agencies and companies.
Of course not all agencies and companies are like this … but sadly it seems more are than not.
And the more they try to commoditize the value of the independent professional – and boy, do they want to do that – the more we all end up paying the price.
Because suddenly people have to take whatever they can get.
Have to do whatever someone wants them to do.
Has to accept what someone wants to pay them.
I don’t blame them. Fuck, if I was in their situation, I’d do whatever it took – or whatever I could get – to put food on the table.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, or at least the odds can be improved if we – as an industry – talk more about how to think like an independent rather than talk about the benefits of it.
You see, while I love the sentiment of the artist I interviewed and their definition of ‘working for yourself’, I also deeply value the attitude of Michael Keaton. And maybe you need to embrace both to ensure you can be as free as you choose and be able to stay that way for as long as you want.
Because while the benefits of independence are very easy to see … it takes a fuckload of hard work to achieve it.
But it’s worth it. Or at least worth giving it the right shot to achieve it.
Just ask Zoe Scaman, Graham Douglas, Ruby Pseudo, Jason Bagley, Joy At Large.
And a million others who have done it. Not always the easiest way, but have done it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Cars, Communication Strategy, Context, Creativity, Culture, England, Experience, Insight, Leadership, Legend, Luxury, Management, Marketing, Mercedes, Perspective, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Retail, Strategy, Success
I’m back.
Worse, I’m back and ready to make ‘amends’ for not writing any posts for 5 days … I’m going to be writing some extra-long ones. Even by my overlong standards. However the good news is – unlike my usual standards – they are pretty good. I think. At least some of them.
So years ago I worked with on a global project for Mercedes.
One of the people they said I should meet was a dealer principal of a local Mercedes dealership in Derbyshire, England.
To be honest, I was thrilled as many companies try to keep you away from ‘the coal face’ to ensure their carefully constructed ‘delusion of perfection’ can be maintained … but they were pretty insistent I met this person.
What made it even more intriguing is when I asked them why, they replied, “Oh you’ll see”.
So, a week or so later, I found myself on a train heading to Derby to meet this gentleman.
Now let’s be honest, car salesman have a certain reputation …
A lot of the stereotypes are most likely bullshit – or shaped by a few bad eggs rather than the whole industry – but I admit I went in slightly cautious as to who I’d meet.
But the person I sat down with was one of the sharpest marketers I’ve ever met.
I also loved that – despite owning multiple different Mercedes dealerships, something like 20 – he called himself a ‘car salesman’.
He was passionate about the brand and equally as passionate about selling them and didn’t want to hide that fact.
He also said his Mum had told him she was embarrassed he introduced himself that way to people … which had motivated him to be even more focused on making his business successful.
One of the best examples of his attitude was his story about how he chose where to build a new dealership.
He was going to open a dealership in a new city and wanted it to be where all the competitor car dealerships were located. His attitude was it was better to be where everyone goes than to try and convince people to go somewhere out-the-way, just for him.
Apparently, there were a few available locations he could have built, but he had his heart set on one place … next to the local BMW dealership.
They were something like number 110 and he was going to be 111. [I can’t remember the exact numbers, but you get the point]
Anyway, by his own admission, he overspent on buying the land – but for him, there were three major reasons he wanted to be there.
The first was that he knew BMW was his main competitor and so if he was located next to them, most people in the market for that level of car would end up visiting both dealerships.
The second was that he knew many people saw the BMW and Mercedes brand as interchangeable. By that I mean their ‘quality and status’ were pretty similar so often the choice of vehicle came down to service standards and/or price.
Which led to his 3rd reason …
Because he wanted customers to feel Mercedes was the more ‘prestigious’ car to own before they had even entered the dealership – to increase the odds/desire to own – and so by choosing that specific location, he could run ads that signed off with:
Visit your local Mercedes dealership. One up from BMW.
Yep, he spent all that extra money just so he could do that with his ads.
And you know what?
It worked, because it became the most successful Mercedes dealership in the UK.
Of course, these days no one would ever do that sort of thing – at least in terms of marketing – because you’d have some ‘guru’ state ‘when you use a competitors name in your advertising, you’re promoting your competitor’.
It’s the same myopic thinking that has led to certain clients having a negative reaction to anything they perceive as negative … even if it is [1] just in the brief and/or [2] being used to elevate the value of your brand.
Now you may think this post is going to take a dark turn, but it’s not …
Because I tell this story because I saw something wonderful on Twitter/X about Everton Football club.
A story that reminded me of that Mercedes car salesman and his commitment to always finding ways to paint a particular image in people’s minds.
And while I appreciate in this case, it is so subtle that many may miss it … once you know, you’ll not only node your approval for their genius but – if you’re an Everton Fan – you’ll feel pride that you got one over the ol’ enemy.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Film, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Provocative, Queen, Reputation, Success, Succession, Television
This is a long post.
Proper long.
And given I overwrite everything, that is probably a scary thought.
But I hope you hang in there, because it’s something important – at least to me. And who knows, it may trigger some thoughts – or hate – and I’ll consider that a win. Maybe, ahem.
So I don’t know about you, but I miss the TV show, Succession.
I miss the characters … the writing … the inconvenient truth how companies – and some families – work.
And while there are many articles and reports dedicated to explaining what ‘worked’, I recently read something that captured how it worked.
I love that write up.
I love it for a whole host of reasons … of which one is acknowledging that to make something that can capture so many people’s attention for so long, is an act of creative magnificence.
And while we may all nod our heads in agreement, the thing is we forget that.
We forget the challenge of keeping millions engaged and interested over a period of time.
Or maybe more specifically, we have forgotten HOW to do it.
Let’s be honest, the attitude of many brands is ‘keep things the same’ or ‘don’t fuck it up’ … while not realizing the biggest risk to achieving what they want to achieve is literally doing the same thing, in the same way, over-and-over again.
Of course, a big reason for their attitude is their quest for attribution.
Where the brand is synonymous and attributed to what they do/say/communicate.
However, rather than achieve this by doing interesting things that audiences value and can engage in – which is literally, the fastest, most effective way to build active, interested, engaged and committed attribution – we see more of the lazy approach. An approach sold by people with methodologies that mistake repetition as reputation.
Hence, we see countless campaigns featuring ‘consistent fictional characters’ doing variations of the same thing no one really cares about or relates to as if they’re trying to do a homage to the ‘Gold Blend’ coffee ads from the UK. WHICH CAME OUT IN THE 1980’S!!! Or the modern equivalent, where every element of every piece of communication is plastered with cues of whatever colour a brand is associated with. All the while ignoring the fact what it actually does is pull people out of their engagement with the communication because they’re questioning/wondering/laughing what sort of person drives a red car, lives in a red house – with red wallpaper – and only eat red vegetables. But even that isn’t the lowest of the low. No … that belongs to the work that shoves a watermark of the brand logo/name into the top left-or-right-hand-side of all their work … as if acknowledging their communication is so boring that the only way to know who it is from is to literally shove it in front of their faces.
I’m not saying ‘brand assets’ aren’t a thing … but they only become that with creativity.
Over time.
Continually reinforced … expressed … added to.
Without that, you end up with things that are more like weights than rockets.
And that’s the problem I have with so a bunch of the marketing practice being peddled …
Because they fail to appreciate the difference between recognition and value.
Or meaning.
Or resonance.
Or connection.
As I said to a client recently, just because I know what the swastika is, doesn’t mean I want to be a Nazi.
But that’s where we’re at right now … repeat, repeat, repeat.
Which is why that comment on Succession is so important.
Because they understand the importance of constantly adding to the narrative, not repeating it.
Keeping viewers not just interested … but on their toes.
Which leads to them engaging with the show, even when they’re not watching it.
Talking, discussing, sharing, commenting, deducing, arguing.
A program where none of the characters had many redeeming features, kept millions around the world coming back to them.
To learn. To listen. To grow. To hate. To debate.
Is that hard to do?
Of course.
Is it impossible to do?
Nope … especially when you hire proper talent and let them do what they’re great at, rather than value talent on how little they cost and then tell them what to make. Even though you don’t have experience in knowing how to make things people want to engage with.
But as a friend said to me recently, there were no conversations about ‘attribution’ with Succession were there!?
Nope. Not one. Not even from the first episode.
And maybe that was because they didn’t start the show with the intent of creating the lowest common denominator of recognition … then repeating it over and over and over again. No … their intention was to make something interesting … and then keep adding to that so their audiences would keep giving a fuck.
Look, I have no problem with marketing practice.
It is important and has a real role and value in building brands and driving effective marketing.
But that role and value is only released when it is done well and honestly … and right now, it feels there’s a lot of soundbites and not a lot of depth.
Selling systems that promise simplicity but ultimately are outsourcing responsibility.
Outsourcing responsibility to people who can profit from it, despite having no experience in actually creating it.
The irony is we all want the same thing.
Hell, we all need the same thing.
But there’s a major difference between playing not to lose and playing to win so maybe there needs to be more conversations about that, rather than blindly follow people who present themselves as business liberators when really, they’re good insurance salespeople.
Of course, the reality is that, despite what some may say, there’s not one ‘all encompassing’ answer to all this.
I get how expensive everything is so the temptation to stick and stay with what you know and what is working for you, is high. But regardless who you are, it will not last forever and it’s far better to own the change than be left behind by it.
Just ask the Disney execs how they’re feeling as they watch their Marvel universe start to implode.
Building anything is a journey that goes through highs and lows along the way.
But it’s the people who think – or say – they can stop that, who end up creating branded mediocrity.
Or should I way, ‘mediocrity attribution’.
Which is why there is one final example of the commercial value of adding to a story rather than repeating it and that’s Queen.
Specifically their recent sale of their back catalogue for ONE BILLION POUNDS.
Whether you like the band or not, you can’t say that is not an impressive number.
And while even I – a massive Queen fan – accept that in 1986, they stopped being musicians and became entertainers [aka: ‘turned crap’] … it’s the music they made until that point that gave them their legacy, fans and economic value.
Because rather than basically repeat their first hit over and over again … they kept taking people to different and interesting places.