Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Zealand, Nike
There’s been a lot written and said about brand assets over the years.
A lot of claims and over-promises.
Hell, careers have been made from being a cheerleader of it … even though it has also been responsible for a whole lot of terrible advertising.
Contrived, complicit and confused advertising.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a value – or a role – but as I wrote here, the thing rarely talked about is that brand assets don’t happen by themselves. You can’t buy them off the shelf or make them happen by simply repeating their use ad-nauseum.
No, the only way to turn an attribute into an asset is through creativity.
It’s creativity that gives it meaning.
It’s creativity that gives it a purpose and role.
It’s creativity that imbues it with financial value.
I appreciate that might not fit the narrative of certain people, but that’s the reality of the situation … or it is if you want to do it properly. Unfortunately, it appears more and more people don’t. Preferring to outsource their responsibility – which, let’s not forget, they are paid to do – to generalistic and simplistic solutions that are focused on recognition, not value.
Nothing brought this home more than this ad I saw for a new Nike store in Auckland.
Look at this …
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck is that?
While they have used a number of NIKE’s ‘brand assets’ – namely the font and swoosh – it’s pretty obvious whoever put this together has no understanding or appreciation of what they represent or how to use them.
Mind you, it also seems they also have no understanding or appreciation of sport, art direction or design.
It’s like they’ve just taken a few pieces and shoved them wherever they like – like a terrible jigsaw puzzle that doesn’t show the picture they need to create.
Which highlights another thing rarely talked about brand assets …
Just because you’ve earned them, doesn’t mean you can’t lose them.
Treat them with distain and you’ll find all that hard work will be for nothing.
Moving from a brand asset to an attribute to a warning sign to stay the fuck away.
Brand assets are made and built over time.
They need nurturing, crafting and supporting.
They’re not something that once earned, can be used any way you choose.
It’s why the people who use them need to understand them.
What they represent.
The context they play in.
Their creative meaning and expression.
How to actually fucking use them in the right way.
Without any of that you don’t just fail to unlock their inherent value and power, you’re killing their credibility and the brand they’re tied to.
That doesn’t mean you can evolve them. Or expand them. Or play with them in different ways. Nike – of all brands – is very good at doing that. But that only happens because generally they’re embraced by people who have a deep understanding of what they stand for and represent … rather than random ‘colours and logos’ that they treat as a range of stickers they believe they can put wherever they want and whenever they choose.
It’s why I get so frustrated with how certain people talk about them. Acting they’re like ‘parts’ that can be replaced, exchanged, adapted or used however someone chooses … which ultimately demonstrates many of the people who talk like this don’t actually understand what a brand is, what it takes to build one or the difference between post-rationalising and creating.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Stubborness, Trust, Truth
I love this clip from South Park about how they think Netflix works.
Sure, it’s taking the piss out of the streaming gods – suggesting their quality control is all over the place because they say yes to every pitch – but in some ways, I can’t help but feel it would be brilliant if more clients embraced this approach.
Now before you think I’m mad, there is a reason for this.
About 14,000 years ago, I wrote a post saying clients should say yes more often and agencies should say no. The main reason for this was I kept hearing companies suggest their agencies didn’t understand their business. That they were more interested in what they wanted to make rather than what their clients needed.
They’re wrong … because in my experience, agencies absolutely want to do the best things for their clients.
That they have different ways to achieve their clients needs and goals is a good thing.
More than that, it’s literally what they are all about.
But right now it seems more and more clients are trying to dictate and mandate work … when, with the upmost respect, many haven’t got the faintest idea what good work is, how to get it, and how to get their audience to be interested and motivated in what they’ve got to say.
Now to be fair, this is not entirely their fault.
It doesn’t help many agencies have sold creativity so far down the river, that the only thing they care about is the head hours they can sell. It doesn’t help many companies only enable their people to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. And it doesn’t help company procurement departments have an outsized influence on the approach and people their agency gets to work with – which directly impacts the work that gets produced – which is why you can see how this often turns into a complete shit show.
But that still doesn’t explain why some clients think they know more about creativity than their agency.
Which is why I think the ‘for profit’ research agencies they surround themselves with have to shoulder some of the blame. Part of that is because supporting what the client thinks and wants is in their personal interests. And part of that is because many of them make the mistake of judging work by clarity of message rather than enjoyment of content.
To emphasise this last point, there’s a brilliant story about Spielberg when he was starting Dreamworks.
You see despite him and his partners being some of the most successful producers and directors of all time, their external investors wanted everything to go through focus groups to ensure everything was geared for success.
Spielberg said no.
He said he made films that were true to his vision, not other people’s.
In fact he was so insistent on this point that the whole deal was nearly off until Spielberg agreed to do it on the condition that any focus group was based around answering just one question and he had the right to decide what to do with the answer, once he’d got it.
They asked him what was the question.
“Were you entertained?”
That’s it.
One question.
One simple question … but arguably the most pertinent question.
Just to be clear, I am not saying research isn’t important.
It is. It’s vital.
In fact I love research. I love what it can uncover and reveal and help you understand.
But it shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate judge and jury.
It shouldn’t be about definitive answers.
The funny thing is I often find company research people understand this very well. They have incredible knowledge while also being very self aware. An openness to explore and consider. Where the most blinkered and stubborn thinking happens is when working with external organisations who harbour ambitions to be strategic partners. Where their goal is to control rather than inform.
Not of course, not everyone is like that. There’s many amazing companies out there … but there’s also a bunch whose commercial interests end up accelerating the disconnection of brands with truth and potential rather than enabling it.
But I digress.
The point of this post – and that South Park clip – is in the quest to not make any mistake or risk upsetting anyone – often their own board of directors – companies end up creating work that says nothing and does little. Meanwhile, with Netflix actively looking for the next big, they’re saying yes rather than no … and while that leads to a lot of stuff that may not perform, their commitment to pushing and exploring means they also have a lot of epic. Which has created a lot of longterm value.
Or said another way, Netflix see the commercial value of trust, creativity and exploration.
And while I know the two can’t really be compared, I’m going there … not just to reinforce the point that self-awareness is commercial intelligence, but because if brands want people to love them, it might be good if they did stuff for them, not about themselves. And it might be good if more agencies got back to valuing creativity rather than just saying they do.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Airports, Art, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Authenticity, Childhood, Comment, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Fake Attitude, Humanity, Imagination, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Point Of View, Provocative, Qantas, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect
Many years ago – 2009 to be precise – I wrote a take down of Qantas, the Australian Airline.
It wasn’t about their experience or service which – back then – were pretty good, certainly much better than they are today. No, it was about the lyrics to their ‘iconic’ song, ‘Still Call Australia Home‘.
Now I appreciate I’m a Brit.
I appreciate that, at the time, I had an agency called Cynic, so was full of piss and vinegar.
I even appreciate – as my Aussie wife reinforced to me in no uncertain terms – that the song and Qantas’ advertising was pretty special for Aussies so maybe I should shut the fuck up.
And that is good advice. Except 15 years later, I’ve decided to come back with a comeback.
You see recently I saw an ad for another Australian icon …
The difference being this one is worthy of that label annnnnnd – even more significantly – they’ve made a piece of advertising that ignites all the emotion, pride and Australian spirit that Qantas would possibly sacrifice their ‘never had a crash’ reputation, to achieve.
[Please note, this is simply to emphasise the point. I get it’s not a great turn of phrase. And I obviously don’t mean it. So if you prefer, simply replace it with: “… that Qantas would allow themselves to be embroiled in even more financial scandal, to achieve”. Better? Oh god … there’s no pleasing some people is there!]
Anyway, if you’re wondering what I’m talking about, it’s this from the Sydney Opera House for their 50th anniversary.
[Though while it’s being shared a lot at the moment, it actually came out about 8 months ago]
I love it.
I love it so much it made a cynical Brit emotional.
Sure, I have an Aussie wife … a ½ Aussie son … Australian residency and was even a member of the audience in a couple of the historic scenes they show in the film … but I’ve never, ever felt that way about a Qantas ad.
Not once.
Hell, I don’t even like Tim Minchin – the guy who leads every thing in the ad – and yet I still felt connected to the spot.
Part of it could be because The Opera House was to me, a symbol of Australia, decades before I moved there.
I still remember how overawed and overwhelmed I was when I first saw it for real. This incredible place whose image had been burned into my mind from years of seeing it on TV shows, in magazine articles or just everyday imagery.
But it’s more than that, it’s what the place signifies.
The story that underpins the whole film.
A true story.
One where the quest to do something different triumphs over the demands to control and conform. An ode to the majesty of imagination and art rather than the adherence of tradition and regulation.
It all feels – ignoring the fact the Opera House was designed by the Dane, Jørn Utzon – much closer to the ‘Aussie spirit’ than anything Qantas has ever done.
A salute to those who wish to push and challenge rather than seek the comfort of being back ‘where they’re comfortable’.
Now I appreciate that maybe that spirit is more confined to the past than the present.
One look at how the vote for ‘The Voice’ turned out reveals comfort, convenience and control are the words of the day.
But that aside, it’s a very special film.
Helped by the fact the Opera House is a very special place.
Not just for Australia, but for anyone who hopes for something a bit more.
A bit more personal.
A bit more emotional.
A bit more wonderful.
And if you need any more reason why you should love the Opera House far, far more than Qantas … let me tell you, even the Opera House’s cheapest seats offer more leg room than pretty much anything you’ll get on that airline.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Law, Marketing, Marketing Fail
Whenever I am in the US, the thing that always shocks me – regardless how many times I’m there – are the pharmaceutical and lawyer ads.
Pharmaceutical on TV.
Legal on billboards.
They’re everywhere … forcing themselves on you like double glazing salesman who senses a moment of weakness in your resolve.
And while you tend to ignore the pharmaceutical ads – because they’re boring as fuck, long as hell and then filled with disclaimers that try to write-off ‘death’ as a casual side-effect – I am transfixed by the lawyer billboards.
Loud. Egotistical. Blustering in confidence.
They’re almost a parody except they’re deadly serious.
My Dad hated the US legal system … because according to him, it made a mockery of the law. Designed either to ambulance chase for quick wins or keep big cases going to maximise fees.
Anyway, recently on a trip to LA, I sat behind a bus with this:
On first glance, I just saw the URL and thought ‘Lemon Daddy’ may be a euphemism for some sort of sugar-daddy dating service. [I know, I know]
Then I saw the line ‘why are you still driving that piece of shit’, and it made me properly interested … especially when my taxi driver told me the guy in the pic was the basketballer, Austin Reaves, who plays for the Lakers.
Soon after that, I saw the name of the law firm ‘Drake’ and it all made sense – or should I say more sense – and by checking out the URL, I saw it was an ad for a law firm who specialise in taking on cases relating to faulty cars.
Frankly, the website reinforced what my Dad thought about a lot of American law … it’s a hard sell masterclass, but I still couldn’t work out why the NBA player was there unless:
1. It was just another way to try and get noticed.
2. Austin had a financial interest in the company.
So I did a bit of digging and – to be honest – the answer was more complicated than the most complicated law case. Have a read of this.
Now for someone who has been in this industry and worked in a lot of countries – including LA, where they’re based – but I’ve never heard of Black Llama creative. But that means fuck all. However – and I appreciate the snobbishness of this comment – I have been in this industry long enough to know what good work is and frankly, I have opinions about the claims they make about themselves:
Black Llama, a renowned creative advertising agency recognized for its innovation and expertise in brand development, played a pivotal role in the inception and execution of Lemon Daddy. Black Llama’s exceptional creativity, coupled with their strategic prowess, ensured that the Lemon Daddy campaign resonates with consumers, captivating their attention and generating engagement.
To be fair, they definitely achieved the latter part of their claim … but not by their innovation, expertise in brand development or exceptional creativity, but because they put a swear word in the headline and – for me – some random dude holding a basketball.
Look, I’m all for people having a go – and I appreciate everyone thinks they have something to offer that no one else has – but confidence means little when it’s so obvious you live in a bubble where you are the only one who judges what is great.
[One look at their website may highlight this is the case with them]
Good on them for making this happen.
Good on them for getting an NBA player involved.
Good on them for working with a client that seems to have a good idea.
But if I was Austin, I’d be online looking for SueMyManagementForBadEndorsementDeals.com
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Business, Comment, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Honesty, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I saw these 2 brilliant cats starring each other down when I was in Utrecht a few months ago.
Look at them.
Focused. Determined. Pissed off.
Trying desperately to intimidate each other while obviously being scared of each other.
Maybe not in terms of size … or beauty … but in terms of one being able to pull off something better, quicker or smarter than the other.
Trapped in an endless cycle of statue paralysis or trying to micro ‘one up’ the other.
The cat cold-war so to speak.
And what is funny is this is often how many brands behave.
Looking sideways rather than ahead.
So lost in what one other brand is doing – or could be doing – they ignore what’s going on around them.
What others are achieving without them.
Sometimes this is not simply driven by a competition, but greed.
A desire to make sure nothing is left on the table.
Hoovering up every scrap.
Believing they are in control and in power so nothing can challenge or take them.
So lost in their self-belief that they fail to see they’re being left behind.
Blinkered by ego.
We saw it with Nokia when Apple launched the iPhone.
We saw it with Listerine when Wrigley’s positioned chewing gum as dental care.
We saw it with Kodak when they chose to protect their photo processing profits rather than launch their digital camera.
We have seen it over and over again.
And while sometimes, having a focused enemy can push you to greater heights than you would be able to achieve on your own … driving you to make things better, rather than to look for things never done before [because often, those things are stupid or self-indulgent] like most things in life, the key is knowing when this approach starts to be counter productive.
When the focus is pulling you back than pushing you forward.
Blinkering your view rather than opening your perspective.
Losing your edge rather than fuelling your ambition.
But sadly, too many brands act like those two cats in Utrecht.
Unable to look away but without the looks to make others still want to come to them.
Which is why as much as there’s a lot to be said for exploiting and optimising the failings and learnings of your numero uno foe, there’s also a lot to be said for remembering to keep looking up and out from your blinkered bubble.
Or said another way …
When you ensure you’re focused on where culture is heading, you don’t get lost following where your competition is staying.