Filed under: Advertising, America, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Crap Products In History, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Honesty, Influencers, Legend, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Premium, Relevance, Resonance, Scam
Recently we’ve been seeing a lot of collabs between brands and artists.
I don’t mean bullshit influencer social content, but proper collaboration in terms of product creation … albeit that it often ends up being just ‘logo swapping’.
Of course that is still marketing, but it’s a bit more effort than a celebrity just fronting a TV or print campaign.
Or is it?
You see, while the people at the brand all think they’re going to become cool and rich by associating with someone influential with millions of fans, the reality is somewhat difference.
Maybe once upon a time that was always the case … and when it’s done right it can absolutely still be the case … but for a lot of the bullshit collabs we’re seeing being pimped out by certain brands [you all know the ones, especially the tech bros desperately trying to look like they’re part of youth culture even though all they are is a fucking ‘productivity tool”], they don’t understand the artist and their fans have a very different view of the ‘partnership’.
To them, the association is not an act of endorsement.
Nor does it make the brand partner cool.
And it absolutely won’t define their loyalty.
The reality is the association is nothing more than a ‘get rich quick’ scheme for the artist and their fans love them for it.
Unlike previous generations, they don’t see it as an act of selling out.
In fact it couldn’t be more opposite because they see it as an act of awesome.
Taking millions off a brand for a moment in their day.
Something that will be forgotten as soon as it’s done.
A novelty for the fans to buy but not to keep buying.
Basically, playing the corporations at their own game but they end up the real winner.
That’s success right there.
Not that most brands understand that.
Most of them still think they’re playing the artist. That money means they can get whatever they want out of them. Why wouldn’t they, brands have been using, abusing and stealing from artists for decades.
But it’s very different now.
Years ago, I was working with a very famous brand who did a collab with a very cool, up and coming rapper.
The brand were beside themselves because they thought this association was going to change their fortune forever.
On set, the artist was a bit of a nightmare – not saying or doing anything the brand wanted them to do – in fact they even used their social channels to tell their fans they weren’t doing this because they loved the brand, but because they were getting big money.
Unsurprisingly, the brand team were not very happy about that, but they reasoned that the association would still be worth it for them in terms of awareness and sales.
And maybe it was … but the real winner was the artist because their fans thought what they’d done was even more cool.
Talking shit about the very people who had hired them and still getting paid millions upon millions for a few hours work.
That’s power.
That’s influence
That’s a life goal we should all have.
So while collabs can be cool when done for the right reasons and the right ways, many brands need to understand that while – at best – they may have a boost to their short-term profits, the cool doesn’t actually rub off on them. In fact, if anything, their desperate desire to look cool to millions has just made them the laughing stock to the very millions they wanted to appeal too.
Because while they think they’re hustling the artist, the artist and their fans are hustling them.
Welcome to the new definition of power.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Crap Campaigns In History, Creativity, Culture, Embarrassing Moments, England, Government, Marketing, Marketing Fail
Just as the UK Government announced the second wave of COVID rules – ie: work from home and stay at home, despite the fact a couple of weeks earlier, they had announced go to your offices and go out and eat and drink with people – I saw this ‘ad’ on Twitter.
Comic timing genius.
Maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe it’s not ridiculous after all.
Maybe it’s designed to inspire Brits to visit their country when the Government do their next u-turn on thinking again.
Or maybe it’s an example of the brilliant ‘direct to consumer’ targeting we hear so many companies go on about.
But if that’s the case, I would suggest they made a mistake targeting me, because surely the individual they should be talking to is Dominic ‘I visit castles’ Cummings?
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Fake Attitude, Focus Groups, Honesty, Imagination, Innovation, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Relevance, Resonance, WeigelCampbell, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a topic that I’ve been bothered by for a very long time.
I touched on it last week in the post about my recent webinar for WARC.
It also formed part of the presentation I did with the amazing Martin Weigel at Cannes in 2019 … also for WARC.
Frankly, I’m seeing far too much work that is literal.
Literal in the problem.
Literal in the strategy.
Literal in the execution.
It’s like all the work is repackaging the client brief and just adding some fancy words, a bit of a gloss and that’s it.
No real understanding of the culture around the category.
No real distinctive expression of the brand behind the work.
No real lateral leaps in the creativity to make people give a shit.
It’s dot-to-dot communication based on lowest common denominator logic … and while I get it will pass research processes and client stakeholders without much pushback … what’s it actually doing for anyone?
Few will remember it.
Even fewer will respond to it.
And no one feels good at the end of it.
Don’t get me wrong, we have to make work that makes a difference for our clients.
I get that.
But that means finding out the real problem we need to solve rather than the solution we want to sell. Means finding out what how the subculture really uses the category in their life versus how the client would like them to use it. Means allowing the creatives to solve the problem we’ve identified rather than dictating the answer. Means being resonant, not relevant. Means having a point of view. Means dreaming of what it could be rather than what it already is. And – most of all – means letting people feel rather than just be told.
It’s why you remember Dancing Pony over that Vodafone spot.
Because while I’m sure both overcame all manner of research obstacles and client stakeholders requirements, there is one thing one campaign remembered, and it’s what Martin once said:
“You can be as relevant as hell and still be boring as fuck”.
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Gaslighting, Culture, Fake Attitude, Linkedin, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Prejudice, Technology
Over the past few weeks, I’ve had 2 very unpleasant interactions with LinkedIn.
The first was when I discovered my personal account had been blocked by them.
No warning.
No reason.
Just blocked.
I had to look on Google to find out how I could get in contact with them, and after discovering that I had to submit proof of my ID – they got back to me to say that someone had found a post I’d written offensive due to it’s adult content … and as they felt it contravened some LinkedIn policy I’d never heard of, they needed me to apologise to them before they would reinstate me.
Now I appreciate the image I chose was provocative, however it was not just for shock value … it was part of a presentation/post I was giving about the terrible, sexist, bullying behaviour men subject women to in the work place every single day – so I found it remarkable they ignored the context – which was clear – and just banned me and demanded an apology.
I told them I refused to apologise because it’s a genuine presentation about a genuine issue … however, as they appeared to be OK with that sort of behaviour, I would report them to the workplace commission for equal rights as well as the #MeToo organisation.
Unsuprisingly they reinstated my account saying ‘they appreciate I wasn’t trying to be offensive’, despite having previously said they agreed with whoever complained about my post and – contrary to most legal protocols – regarded me guilty, even though they had not sought any information or context about the post from the person being accused.
But pathetic and annoying but that was nothing compared to what was yet to come.
So a week later – which seems a very strange coincidence – the Corporate Gaslighting LinkedIn account was banned.
Again no warning. No explanation. Just banned.
So I went through the same thing and then they got back to me with this …
Yep, the issue is simply the account is under Corporate Gaslighting’s name rather than my own – despite all contact details are.
But here’s where it gets even more annoying.
“Due to the nature of this account, we won’t be able to remove the restriction and/or merge this account with another one.”
That’s right.
It’s blocked. Forever.
Not because they couldn’t link it to my account but because they didn’t want to. Because of the ‘nature’ of the account.
And this is where I’m confused because surely the nature of the account is perfect for LinkedIn?
In fact, when I read the LinkedIn ‘purpose’, which states:
‘Connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful’
… then I can’t think of a more perfect partner for LinkedIn.
But no. They don’t want it.
It’s fine to have shady recruiters taking money from their clients to spam anyone they can get to. It’s fine to have men use their site to hit on women. It’s fine to pretend you’re a z-grade shrink with a guaranteed answer to everything you could ever wish for. It’s fine to allow ‘members’ to spout blatant lies about their achievements or sales tools. It’s fine to have people use the platform to talk about the conformity of professional appearance … but it’s not OK to have someone who is dedicated to helping professionals being systematically undermined by bad leaders, because the way I filled in their form is a violation of the LinkedIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.
I’ll tell you what’s a violation – LinkedIn’s claims they are a community. That they want to help people succeed. That they want to connect people together.
LinkedIn wants everyone to follow their orders. What they have decided is right. What works in their best interests. And if for some reason that doesn’t happen, then they let their god complex run riot – before hiding behind anonymous people and policies that don’t allow for context or conversation … just a brazen and contrived ‘computer says no’ guilty verdict, with all the humanity and consideration of an ATM machine.
Dear LinkedIn. You are in danger of becoming the absolute opposite of what you claim to be about, because if you were, you’d have created your own version of Corporate Gaslighting, but no, you’d rather just ban it. But then, when you’re paying your CEO almost $14,000,000 per year, I appreciate the last thing you’d ever want to do is to take any sort of stand against any sort of professional misconduct, for fear of alienating the companies who allow your CEO to be paid such an obscene amount.
Linkedin has incredible potential to be a real force for good.
Not just for corporations, but employees too.
It could influence real, positive change.
It could drive shifts in values, attitudes and rewards.
It could challenge the rules of what ‘professionalism’ supposedly means and looks like in the modern age.
It could help shape the future of work in ways that benefit all.
And while some could say they are doing this in their own way, the past few weeks have suggested to me their focus is on keeping the C-Suite happy rather than helping people create a new version of the C-Suite.
It’s a shame, because the whole industry is begging for some sort of major change but instead, they not only prefer to keep things exactly the same … they are using their power to ensure it does.
If you – or someone you know – are having your confidence systematically undermined, by colleagues … you are not alone. There is help out there. Not at Linkedin.com but at TheyTriedToKillMeButI.Live
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Content, Corporate Evil, Crap Products In History, Daily Fail, Daily Mail, Diversity, Home, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Prejudice, Viz
The Daily Mail.
God, how I hate it.
Pedlars of hate, half-truths and prejudice, while all the time claiming they are a ‘family newspaper’ that practices the highest standards of journalism.
For anyone who may be in doubt of how bollocks that is, I suggest you do one of four things.
1. Read a single edition of their rubbish.
2. Read about some of their biggest lies, that they tried to claim were true.
3. Read how they – and others – value convenience over journalism.
4. Read the rest of this post.
OK, I know I’ve written a lot about my hatred of the Daily Mail but just recently, it appears their arrogance of getting away with any old bullshit is reaching new heights.
I absolutely appreciate how hard it must be to fill a newspaper every day.
I can’t imagine the pressure they must be under given they always start from zero.
But I still don’t get how they can consider themselves a serious journalistic force when they post stories – on their front page – like these …
… and …
I mean, come on.
This is what they consider news?
A ‘find the obvious soldiers’ game and a ‘grey is the colour of chavs’ article?
Seriously, the wonderfully ridiculous adult comic Viz is more mature than that and they once ran a piece that said cat food manufacturers should be launching a ‘cat arse’ flavour, rather than chicken or fish or duck.
Look, I get in a war situation the enemy may find it difficult to spot a couple of SAS soldiers dressed in white from a distance when it’s snowing. But on a close up picture where they literally tell you there’s SAS soldiers dressed in white … well, it is even easier than those shitty hook-a-duck games you get at dodgy fairs around the country.
And as for positioning people who paint THEIR OWN HOME grey as enemies of British culture, well surely they’ve just hit peak Daily Mail condescending judgement?
What next, an ‘expose’ on how people’s choice of curtains, flowers or sunglasses are ruining Britain?
Christ, it’s grey.
It’s not like that person who built a fibreglass shark on their roof.
Or pained their house with red stripes, specifically to fuck-off the neighbours.
Or placed the Freddie Mercury statue from the Dominion Theatre roof in their garden.
The way the Daily Mail are going on, you’d imagine they were the national newspaper of the communist party.
If the colour of a house makes them – and their readers – so angry, it makes me want to hire a team to find the home addresses of all the editorial staff at The Mail and their readers and have them go round and paint their buildings different shades of grey and pink.
Instead, I’ll just be happy that my house is partially grey and that will deeply offend anyone associated with The Daily Mail.
And to think I didn’t believe I could love my house even more …