Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Imagination, Innovation, Insight, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Relevance, Resonance, Talent
I still remember buying a movie soundtrack only to discover none of the songs had actually featured in the movie.
When I looked at the cover, I saw “songs inspired by the movie” … in other words, the film company couldn’t get the rights to release the actual music, so they got some two-bit band to write some nondescript music supposedly after watching the film.
It wasn’t as bad as those albums where they got a covers band to sing a well known song – rather than the actual artist – but it was close.
The reason I say this is that I’m seeing a bunch of ‘write-ups’ of ads that seem to adopt the same position.
“Inspired by”.
“Influenced”
“Reinterpreted”.
Now there’s nothing really wrong with this … it’s something that’s been done by all manner of industries for centuries … however while there’s a common belief that ‘genius steals’, the counter to this is ‘lazy borrows’.
I know … I know … I’m being deliberately assholey, but the beauty of our industry is when we allow creatives the freedom to create.
To allow their crazy minds to take us all to crazy intriguing places.
But instead … thanks to budgets, timelines, dictatorial research, corporate fear, layers of management – and countless other things – we don’t.
Which is why we see so many pieces of work that are replications of a film, a meme, a song, a TikTok idea … basically a version of an album of popular songs that haven’t been played by any of the original artists.
Our industry is capable of brilliant things.
But we’ve sold creativity down the river in a bid to make things easier for people who don’t even value the power of creativity.
Nothing smacks of madness as much as that.
Meanwhile, culture leads change of behaviour, attitudes and choices through its endless energy to explore and express.
So while being inspired is one thing, duplicating is another and when certain brands expect people to spend hundreds or thousands on their products, it blows my mind they want to under-invest in the way they actually present themselves in their communication.
Oh they won’t see it that way.
They’ll talk about the celebrity they hired to front the campaign.
Or the music they licensed.
But underneath it all, they’ll they’re taking shortcuts.
They’ll kid themselves it’s working with charts on optimisation or efficiencies … but the reality is they’re trying to work out how long they’ve got before it all falls apart, because the difference between leading and chasing is not about spend, it’s about attitude.
Or said another way …
You either make music or you’re just a cover band.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Resonance
No matter how well planned you think you are.
How detailed you’ve been.
How many case studies you’ve watched.
How many focus groups you’ve sat in.
How logical your argument is.
People will always do what works for them, not works for you.
So think about that next time you try and claim your comms plan/user journey is a true reflection of how all people engage with brands and make purchase decisions.
For the record …
I get the role and value of comms plans/user journeys.
I have no issue with them. In fact they can make a real difference to the work.
Where I get pissy is when they’re presented as ‘fact’ rather than a guide. Acting like they represent how ALL people behave – while ignoring factors like personal situation and circumstance as well as competitive activity.
Of course this attitude of ‘unquestionable, unbendable, superior intelligence and logic’ is prevalent in many planners … probably driven more by clients wanting certainty and consistency than personal ego … however by refusing to acknowledge we’re dealing more in frameworks than blueprints, we’re not just undermining our discipline and inadvertently placing barriers on new approaches and experiments, but ultimately selling generalised convenience rather than personal intimacy which means it’s set up to be average from the outset.
Madness.
As I said to a client recently about insights …
They’re not perfect.
They’re not infallible.
They’re not all encompassing.
But when done right, they increase the odds of good things happening because they reveal the ridiculous truth behind people’s beliefs and behaviours … and I swear if we all adopted this attitude towards what we do, we may just end up making things that are more interesting and more effective as well.
We won’t. But I just like to think we might.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Colenso, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Innovation, Insight, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Metallica, New Zealand, Point Of View, Positioning, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Uncommon, Wieden+Kennedy
I was talking to a couple of mates recently.
Both of them are a couple of incredibly talented, highly regarded, multi-award winning creatives and they were asking me what it was like working in NZ.
As we were chatting we came to a revelation about what was causing the decline in advertising standards.
This is a topic that has been debated a lot over the years with a myriad of possible causes. But with the experience I have seen in NZ – plus the experience I have working directly with a number of famous bands and billionaires – we realised there was actually an underlying cause that trumped all other considerations.
It’s not digital.
It’s not consultants.
It’s not holding companies.
It’s not eco-systems or playbooks.
It’s not the wild inflation of strategists.
It’s not cost.
It’s not effectiveness.
It’s not in-house alternatives.
It’s not direct-to-consumers.
It’s not data.
It’s not rational messaging.
It’s the layers within companies.
The multitude of people everything has to go through and be approved by.
Might be on the client side.
Might be on the agency side.
Might be on both sides … but each layer is like a mini-focus group where ‘success’ is when the representative of that particular layer feels something can then be passed on to the next person in their group without it making them look foolish for their decision or choice.
And as the work passes each layer, the work gets diluted or chipped away until the ultimate decision maker gets to see something that is a pale shadow of what was originally intended.
An object that is a trophy to self preservation rather than potency and truth.
And as companies and agencies have grown in their complexity, the work has faced more layers and opinions. Doesn’t matter if you’re independent or part of the most networked agency/company in the history of networked agency/companies … the decline of creative standards is down to the number of organisational layers that now exists within companies.
And why has this happened?
Well, part of it is because of complexity, but the main part is because companies have got into this mad position where the only way they can grant a significant payrise is if the person is promoted.
So we’re in this mad situation where we have increased layers, headcount and complexity simply because we have viewed money as something commensurate with promotion rather than quality.
Now I appreciate you could argue promotion is a sign of quality – but I don’t think that’s right.
Being good at something doesn’t automatically mean you will be good at something more senior. Hell, there’s a lot of people who don’t even want to do something else. They just want to do what they love and they’re happy at.
I remember at Wieden where – for one mad minute – they thought I’d make a good MD.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
They didn’t come to their senses even when I told them I wasn’t even the MD of cynic … and that was a company I actually founded.
I didn’t want to be an MD.
I wasn’t interested in being an MD.
I just wanted to do what I loved and was good at.
And while they finally came to their senses [good call, Luhr, as usual] the reality is a lot of companies have a bunch of layers simply because they needed to promote someone to justify a payrise.
And before you know it, every task has to go through multitudes of layers … where most are designed to dull an idea rather than sharpen it.
While I don’t know this for a fact, I would guess the companies or agencies who are doing the most interesting work … the stuff that attracts culture rather than chases them down then beats them into submission … are the ones where they deal with the ultimate decision maker.
We get to do a lot of that in NZ.
I definitely get to do that with Metallica, Gentle Monster and the GTA team.
And the difference is huge.
Because while some of these clients are genuinely exceptional – especially when I’m talking to the founders of the organisations because that gives them a level of power and authority most other clients could never hope to get – I imagine a lot of the others are no different to the clients everyone who reads this blog deals with in London or New York or Tokyo everyday.
It’s just the big difference is instead of work having to appease the comments and judgement of 20 different people, it only has to agree with 4 … so the idea that gets made resembles the idea on the table to a much greater extent.
So next time you have a client that talks about wanting great work, don’t talk to them in terms of what processes, systems or people you can add to the mix, talk about what both parties need to take away.
Because if you want the work to be potent, kill the layers of filtration.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Rick Rubin, RulesOfRubin
Great work. It’s a term used by so many but – let’s be honest – there’s not huge amounts of it about.
Of course there’s some … work that literally takes your breath away … but in the main, it’s all a bit beige and blah.
But what’s interesting is who people are blaming for this situation.
Often it’s the ad agencies who cop all the abuse.
Claims of being … out of touch, selfish and arrogant, more focused on what they want than their client needs.
But frankly, all this feels a bit too convenient because the people and organisations shouting the abuse the loudest happen to be the people and organisations who are directly competing for the same budgets.
Hmmmmn, I wonder if that undermines their credibility a little?
Throw in they’re often more focused on optimising than progressing and make work that either says whatever the client wants to say – regardless of how tone deaf that may be in culture – or just talk at people with buzzwords and data points that have no value, resonance or humanity towards the audience they are trying to engage … then you start to realise this is more a shitty strategy, than a future of marketing play.
Don’t get me wrong, I think agencies have to take a significant amount of the blame for the situation they find themselves in …
Too many have sold creativity down the river.
Charge for the process they undertake rather than work.
Seek to beliked by clients rather than respected.
Focus on creating generalised answers not unique problems.
Underpay, undervalue and under-appeal to the best of the best – existing or new.
… but even then, it’s only some of the blame, not all.
And the reason for this is great work is a team sport.
Everyone plays a part.
Not everyone – to use a football analogy – will be the striker, but they’re all necessary to score the goal.
But too often, we’re in situations where it’s not played that way.
Where too many wanting the authority but none of the responsibility.
Taking the credit but rejecting the blame.
Handing out dour instruction but expecting amazing results. Even though they don’t even know what amazing is, because either they’re context is small or they simply think everything they do is great so it doesn’t matter what they say.
Hence they’re the ones who criticise the agency for not delivering.
They’re the one’s questioning their commitment and passion.
They’re the ones running to data and management consultants to subject society to communication that in cultural landfill, not cultural stimulus.
And that’s why Rick’s quote is so good.
Because it acknowledges the inclusive responsibility to making something great.
From literally how you deliver the brief – let alone the actual brief – to how you support, encourage and give feedback to the people you want to do the best work of their life to help you have the best time of your life.
Because the reality is, if you’re not excited about doing something great, why the fuck do you think anyone else will be?
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Crap Campaigns In History, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creativity, Culture, Equality, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Women
Years ago I worked on the shampoo brand Sunsilk.
I know. Me.
A bald bloke.
Hahahahahahahaha.
Back then, it was in a two brand fight for dominance with Pantene.
They went back and forth trying to get one over the over.
Apparently the brands had legally agreed how each one could show the ‘shine’ of the hair they washed in TV ads. A slight deviation that allowed each one to build their own distinctive look.
Back when I was on it, albeit for 2 mins, Sunsilk was a big, mature brand.
A powerhouse.
So you can imagine my surprise when I saw this:
What in gods name is that?
What is it?
It’s like the worst Barbie ad I’ve ever seen.
An ad that claims to ‘rethink’ pink but doesn’t really rethink anything.
Oh they may think they are, but the people behind this need to know you can’t just say pink now represents possibilities, future, strength and shiny [gotta get those haircare ad cues in there, even if it makes even less sense to the premise of the ad] … you actually have to make it mean that.
It’s a commitment.
A focus.
Acts beyond advertising.
So sadly, when you make an ad so bubblegum it looks like the bastard love child of the movie, Legally Blonde and a packet of original Hubba Bubba, you’re not really going to convince anyone.
On the positive, they cop out by saying ‘pink is whatever we make it’ and so I would like to tell the people at Unilever and Sunilk they did exactly that, because they have made pink brown.
Shitty brown.
Am I being mean?
Yep.
But then this is a multi-billion dollar company who has profited by putting women across Asia in cultural jail by promoting white skin as the right skin … used COVID to maximise profits for their antiseptic products and continually used stereotypes to promote it’s products … so I don’t have much sympathy for them.
Especially when they’re now trying to connect to young women by saying ‘pink’ is powerful while using all the same tropes, styles and themes that means what they’re actually communicating is ‘pink is the same old girly cliche they’ve been profiting from, for decades’.
There’s some absolutely incredibly talented people at Unilever.
Including some very good friends of mine.
There’s also some brilliant systems and processes within the organisation.
Sadly, there’s also a blinkered reliance on some questionable research methodologies, which results in a lack of self awareness so they end up with work like this.
They have done some brilliant work in the past.
Some truly brilliant.
But – in my opinion – not so much right now. Made worse with the sort of underlying messages that undermine people rather than elevate them.
If it wasn’t for their huge distribution and pricing power, it would be interesting to see what would happen to the brand.
But the thing is I want them to do well.
I want them to make work that changes and positively impacts culture.
They’re a huge spender on advertising.
They have the ability to change how culture feels and how the industry is perceived.
A Unilever that does great advertising is a Unilever that will have positive knock-on effects in a whole host of other areas and industries.
I’d even be willing to help them – for free, for a time – if their starting point was about building change through truth rather than their messed-up, manipulative version of purpose.
However given they made this ad after saying they wanted to stop the stereotypes in their advertising, it appears their view of reality is more blinkered than a racehorse.