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: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Business, Chaos, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Honesty, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Music, Nike, Packaging, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Trust, Truth
I was recently interviewed by a music company about the work I do for artists.
They – quite rightly – wanted to know what I did and how it was different to what I normally did.
And I explained the difference was made clear pretty much in my very first meeting.
Because I was told this …
Now I can’t be sure they used those exact words, but that was the general premise.
And that was what was amazing.
Because when working with brands, they want you to use creativity to engage audiences, but with bands – at least the ones I’ve been exposed to – it’s the opposite.
I don’t mean they want to alienate people – though they understand the importance of sacrifice better than almost any brand marketer I’ve ever met – it’s just they are the creativity … they are the product … and so the last thing they want is some fucker placing a layer of ‘marketing’ on top of their artistic expression which can be twisted, diluted or fucked with so what they want to say and what it means to them, has no consideration whatsoever.
Now I admit I’m very fortunate the artists I’m working for are of a scale where they have the power to not just consider this issue but do something about it.
Many don’t.
However by the same token, when you’re of that scale, the potential for things to get messed up in some way is much greater.
Which is why they ensured I knew my role was not to market them, but to protect their truth.
Do and explore things that amplify who they are not just flog more product.
And because what they create is an expression who they are … they can express their truth without falling into endless streams of cliched brand consultant speak.
+ So no buzz words.
+ No ambiguous terms.
+ Just stories, experiences and considerations that have defined all they do.
And that’s why they don’t really care if you like their music. Sure, it helps, but they don’t want fawning fandom, they want people who understand what they value, believe and give a fuck about so everything associated with what they do expresses it.
Or said another way, they want people who can ‘speak their tongue’.
Now I am the first to admit there have been some mistakes.
Some things you go, “why did you do that?”
But in the main, I’ve not seen much of it and even when I have called stuff out, they have [generally] appreciated it, because – as I was also told on my first day – I’m being paid to give them truth not comfort.
I’ve always said people should not aspire to be a planner, but get away with the things a planner can get away with. And I’ve got away with a lot as a planner. Done all manner of weird and wonderful.
While I’d like to think that’s what helped me get this gig … the reality is I got it because of an introduction from someone I know.
And while in theory any strategist could do what I’m doing, how I do strategy and how I have been asked to view what it’s role is, has highlighted that’s not the case.
Not because of capability, but what the industry currently wants and expects.
And this is manifested in increasingly not being given the time, support or standards to do things right.
Where speed is more important than substance.
Process more valuable than output.
I wrote about this and more, here.
But it’s more than that, it’s also what clients think strategy is for …
Packaging rather than changing.
Wanting quick wins rather than long term value.
Targeting needs, not a point of view in the world.
Chasing convenience not authenticity.
If anything, doing this work has made me even more grateful to the bosses, agencies and clients I’ve worked with over my career.
Because when I look back, the truly great ones were basically like a band.
Born of belief. Defined by a point of view. Wanting to attract not chase anything popular.
And that’s a big part of why they have been able to remain at the forefront of their individual discipline, category and/or sub-culture.
Because they never saw strategy as a tool for marketing, but to amplify their truth.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relationships, Respect, Trust, Truth
Recently there has been a number of cases where we’ve sadly seen companies take creative ideas from one agency and have them made, without acknowledging the original creator, by someone else.
We saw it with the Coinbase Superbowl spot and I saw it with an ex-client of mine.
What is especially amusing is that when these people are called out, their first inclination is to try and bluff it out … despite you being able to prove it was your work thanks to specific dates, presentation materials and information about who was in attendance.
In my case, the individual in question literally asked “what’s your problem?”
With a comment like that, they were either being deliberately ignorant or, well you get it …
So we launched legal action against them.
At the time, some said this was sour grapes.
That we were being petty and alienating future business as it would make companies want to keep away from us.
But they were wrong.
Because this was never about the specific piece of work they took from us had gave to someone else – while not paying or acknowledge us for the origination, it was about respecting relationships and valuing what you do.
It’s fine to have differences of opinion.
It’s fine to realise a relationship – regardless how long and fruitful it has been – should end.
But that doesn’t mean you can act like the relationship never happened and you can do whatever you want with the things you did together.
Creativity is hard enough without all the commercial obstacles it needs us to jump over.
Brand assets.
Processes.
Eco-systems.
Appropriation.
Corporate politics.
Pre-testing.
Post-testing.
Measurement criteria.
Short timelines.
The last thing the industry needs is to have to start worrying about the integrity of the people you’re working with/for … which is why we took legal action, because our view was if we didn’t, we would be complicit to it when it happens again in the future.
Maybe not to us. But to someone.
And for the record, while they didn’t let it go to court, we were recompensed fully and it never did us any harm in winning other business. Quite the opposite in fact.
Now doing this doesn’t mean you have to it with public fanfare and maximum embarrassment, we didn’t – though I should point out I think what Kristen did with CoinBase was both brilliant and utterly justified – but it also doesn’t mean you should just forget about it and put it down to ‘experience’.
Whatever way you look at it, this is NOT how business works and nor should it.
Look, we all make mistakes.
Some can be bloody massive ones.
Hell, I’ve made bloody millions.
But how you deal with those reveals who you really are and sadly, the industry is seeing quite a few people who don’t seem to believe this sort of behaviour is in any way wrong.
Sure this attitude might work for them in the short term.
Sure they can try and deflect and deny blame for as long as they like.
But while I was going to end this post about the more transparent the relationship, the better the work … I decided it would be better to end with two [paraphrased] pieces of advice I got from Dave Luhr, the now retired Chief Operating officer of Wieden+Kennedy.
For those people who know who I’m talking about, you will hopefully hear his voice as you read it … though in conversations with me, he would always start with “Campbell …”
“Anyone who thinks they were successful by themselves is an asshole”.
“No one does their best work for assholes”.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Content, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Digital, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Entertainment, Happiness, Honesty, Imagination, Inclusion, Innovation, Insight, Long Copy, Love, Marketing, New Zealand, Perspective, Purpose, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Sentimentality, Truth
As many of you know, I’m quite the emotional guy.
[OK, I get it … that’s an understatement. Let’s leave it there]
But while this can sometimes result in me having an ‘Elton John’ moment [™ Elton John] I have always been a huge believer in the value and importance of empathy.
Part of this is because my Mum always told me to be interested in what others are interested in, but as I got more and more into my planning career, I realised that if you can truly understand the feelings and emotions someone is experiencing, it enables you to make work that others will also feel and resonate with.
A perfect example was this work we did ages ago for Nike in China.
It had already been decided the idea for the global 2012 Olympics Campaign was going to be Greatness. The problem was that when we spoke to kids all over China, they didn’t feel they were ever able to refer to themselves as great.
They felt that was a term saved for the chosen few. The people who the government deemed as having done things that raised the entire nations profile and success.
Of course they didn’t articulate it like this … we got there by spending time with them and slowly pulling away the layers of codes and confusion so we could understand what they wanted to say rather than what was being said.
Or said another way, we wanted to understand rather than get answers.
Now I am not denying it took a while … and I also accept being an Olympic campaign, we had the time and the money to do things right. But the thing is this rigour was worth it … because not only did it turn into an incredible campaign … not only did it become China’s most successful ever campaign … it helped changed attitudes towards what greatness is and allowed millions of kids to feel they could feel valued and valuable.
This is the work.
The reason I say this is because for the past few months, I’ve been working with The University of Auckland’s Creative Thinking Project in exploring new ways to use creativity to engage and deeply resonate with audiences.
Thanks to the work of Sir Richard Faull, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at The University of Auckland and Nuala Gregory, a fellow of the National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries – also at The University of Auckland – we have explored and experimented with a whole host of different creative formats to identify which one can create the best conditions for connection.
The findings have been astounding.
While the vast majority of communication spend goes towards television, digital and outdoor advertising … none of these had the same impact on audiences as the power of the poem.
In fact, when poems were used as the content for television, digital and outdoor, the increase in engagement went up on average 13.3%.
THIRTEEN!
OK, I know that may not sound a lot on first impression, but when you consider last year, companies spent SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE BILLION DOLLARS GLOBALLY on advertising … if this can improve connection to potential audiences by 13%, then it has huge commercial opportunity.
[And by that, I mean for brands, creativity and the University of Auckland]
Now I suppose on one level, none of this should be a surprise.
Rap is a kind of poetry.
A way to communicate that’s felt as well as heard.
But while we have started to explore this, our focus has been on poetry and the results, as I detailed above, have been fascinating.
Sir Richard believes this may be heavily influenced by the challenges the World has faced over the past few years. Where the feeling of isolation of helplessness has created an yearning for any sort of emotional connection. And while TV may have their manifestos, they often come over as contrived … whereas poems have a fragility to them that enables them to better resonate and connect to audiences.
For example … of the literally thousands of poems tested, this was one that achieved one of the highest scores, despite being from an anonymous author.
Now this mountain I must climb
Feels like the world upon my shoulders
But through the clouds I see love shine
It keeps me warm as life grows colder
While it is deliberately ambiguous, it appeared to connect to audiences as they saw it as capturing the struggles they felt in life. Where there is still an expectation for progress and yet the conditions people find themselves having to deal with are increasingly harsh and difficult.
Other poems that resonated – and follow a similar theme to the previous example, except it is by contemporary poet, Ocean Vuong – include this:
And when your fears subside
And shadows still remain
I know that you can love me
When there’s no one left to blame
So never mind the darkness
We can still find a way
As well as a piece from his work entitled ‘Life’, which has a much darker theme:
Loneliness is my hiding place
Breast feeding my self
What more can I say?
I have swallowed the bitter pill
We are still working on the research but have set up an instagram that lists the poems that have tested particularly well.
I would love it if you could visit the page and let me know how the poems affect you. If they do.
Now I appreciate this leaves me open to all sorts of ridicule.
And I assure you that I am not trying to suggest poems are the future of effective advertising.
This is simply a project to see if there are techniques that allow us to better connect emotionally to audiences without necessarily needing to spend months in the field meeting endless people.
While I am part of this work, it is ultimately the property of Auckland University.
Fortunately, they have said I can promote the work because they would love to have more respondents take part. So if you are interested in discovering more – and helping see where this creative adventure could lead, can I ask you to sign up here.
That said, I would recommend you do it today … because studies have found April 1st is the optimal day to get people to sign up to ‘research’ that is actually just some 80’s song lyrics from Foreigner, Guns n’ Roses and Queen.
Have a great day. I know I will.
Filed under: America, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Culture, Cunning, Daily Mail, Egovertising, England, Fear, Government, Honesty, Imposter Syndrome, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Politics, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Social Divide, Trust, Truth
Recently I was reading an article on Brexit when I came across a comment that stopped me in my tracks.
The reason for it is that in a few words – literally a few – it not only highlighted the issue with many of the shortsighted fools who voted for leaving the European Union – and likely voted for the election of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – but also could be used to explain the decline of so many companies, institutions and individuals.
This is it …
What a perfectly constructed sentence.
A devastating set of words that places you perfectly in a corner you can’t get out of.
It’s almost a Hollywood movie line it’s so crafted in its underlying viciousness.
But of course, the people it challenges won’t accept it.
They will continue to refuse to acknowledge their complicity in the situation millions now face.
Because as I’ve written before, people has difficulty understanding something when their credibility and reputation depends on them not understanding something.
It’s why they will continue to cast blame on everyone else.
Why they will continue to claim the opposition are more dangerous than the government they voted in … the government that has brought an entire nation to its knees.
But let’s be honest, the reason for their attitude is even uglier than not wanting to own up to what they contributed to. Because for all their claims of wanting a ‘better Britain’ … the real reason behind their choice was to create a barrier between them and people they think are beneath them.
A way to feel socially, morally, professionally superior to those around them, while conveniently choosing to ignore they were either given great advantage from birth over the vast majority of people or seek to mitigate their situation by blaming everyone else for what they have not achieved, despite starting from greater advantage.
I get it. It’s kind-of human nature. It’s also the unspoken truth of democracy – where the reality is we tend to vote for what works for you rather than what’s right for the nation.
Of course the unspoken truth is still better than the alternative … however given the way politics and business are increasingly allowing spin, vitriol and lies, it seems we’re seeing ‘post truth’ as an accepted and embraced business strategy.
And that’s why the independent voice has never been so important.
Not just in the public domain, but within organisations, governments and individual groups.
Not to attack, destroy or dethrone – as is the current trend – but to protect.
To ensure the people making decisions – or the people asking to decide on the options – are aware of the range of possibilities and outcomes that could occur rather than just blindly following a blinkered promise of what will happen.
Not delivered with hyperbole or exaggeration, but with quiet, informed context and facts … delivered by an individual or organisation without political affiliation and respected for their independence.
It doesn’t mean it will stop things like Brexit happening, but it will ensure people who knowingly bend the truths to suit their own agenda or were deliberately ignorant to the choices they made are held to account. Because without that, we carry on down this sorry path where governments, organisations or individuals can choose to ignore previous choices they made, ignore the passing of time that changes the context of everything and ignore the realities others may have caught up and left us behind.
I am under no illusion that the truth hurts, but delusion damages us forever.