Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Context, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Design, Distinction, Diversity, ECommerce, Entertainment, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Racism, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Social Media, Unexpected Relevance
I’ve written a lot about the ‘hijack’ strategy.
Where a brand pushes itself into a cultural event or topic to either attempt to change the narrative or leverage the narrative.
Some brands do it brilliantly … Nike or Chrysler for example.
However some are a bloody car crash.
At its heart, the difference is simply whether your hijack ‘adds to culture’ or just ‘takes from it’ … however given this approach is now so common among brands, I have to ask whether it can even be considered ‘hijacking’ anymore when most of society expect someone to do it.
That said, it is still a powerful strategy when done right … the problem is, most brands aren’t doing that.
Case in point … social media GAP during the US election.
What the hell?
I know why they did it.
I know what they hoped would happen from it.
But all I can think about is when your own brand of clothes don’t know who they are for, you’re pretty fucked.
And that kind-of sums up GAP’s problem.
Who are they for?
It’s no surprise they are facing incredible pressure in the market these days, to the point there’s talk of them pulling out the UK altogether.
They’re not distinctive enough for people to want to pay a premium for. They’re not cheap enough for people to use them as a foundation for whatever fashion they want to express that day.
In fact, the only thing they have going for them is a collab with Kanye.
It could be amazing.
Reimagining the future of what e-commerce is and how it works.
Combining it with art, not just functionality.
Though whether it will end up making GAP’s clothing range look even older and blander is anyone’s guess.
If they want to learn how to really hijack a moment, they should look at the Four Seasons Landscaping company in Philadelphia.
This is the place where President Trump’s team recently held a press conference, mistakingly booking it thinking it was the Four Seasons hotel.
With all this global attention, they’re leveraging it by selling merch that mimics Trump’s messages.
This is real cultural hijacking.
This is done by adding to the experience rather than just taking it.
Making a landscape company a brand of culture. Albeit for a short period of time.
But let me say this, it’s still more fashionable than the stuff GAP are making right now.
You can buy it here.
Filed under: Advertising, America, Apathy, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Customer Service, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Fulfillment, Great Ads In History, Innovation, Insight, Internet, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Nike, Packaging, Perspective, Positioning, Prejudice, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance
I’ve been very fortunate in my career to work with challenger brands.
Some were overtly challenger … some were more in terms of their internal attitude and approach … but in all cases, they were up for a fight and were happy to take it straight to the competitor they wanted to play against.
Now forcing people to pick a side is not a new strategy … it’s been around for ages.
From religions to rock bands to sport to almost everything in-between.
And while some of the challenger brands I’ve worked with over the years became the beast they were created to slay, what united them all wasn’t just their ambition, but their dedication to doing something that fundamentally challenged the convention.
I’m not talking about an ad that said they were different.
Or a single product ingredient that claimed they were different but were still exactly the same.
I’m talking about a fundamental, distinctive alternative to what has been there before.
From features, to behaviours, to values to standards to design.
All in commitment.
Shit or bust.
Now we have a lot of brands today that claim to do that and be that.
Brands that go direct to the customer.
Brands that offer their services on the internet.
In the majority of cases, they’re not real challengers.
They might like to think they are.
The people who led the change probably are.
But having an internet bank that claims to be different but offers exactly the same products and services – albeit with a ‘cool name and choice of ATM card design’ – is not challenging much.
Nor is the 15th razor/toothbrush/haircare company who go direct to their customers.
They’re definitely an alternative, but they’re not a challenger.
In fact, given in many cases, they offer no distinctive element to their product or service to build something bigger than simply supplying razor blades/toothbrushes/haircare products to people at the lowest rate possible, all they’re doing is commoditising themselves to oblivion.
No, challenger brands don’t enter the market with an attitude of ‘minimal viable product’ – which basically translates to “we’re interested to see if it works, but if it doesn’t – no biggie”, they enter it with fully focused, fully engaged commitment.
You can read a lot about these in Adam Morgan’s brilliant book Eating The Big Fish … though, because of when it came out, it only refers to a challenger brands from a certain period of time rather than the ones of the modern era … whether that’s Tony’s Chocolonely, Fenty, Fortnite or even Greta.
But the reason I’m talking about this is because of that picture at the top of the post.
The iconic ‘we try harder’ announcement by Avis.
Maybe the first example where marketing embraced being a challenger.
We forget how impactful this campaign was when it came out in the 60’s.
Back then, the industry was all about superlatives … the biggest, the most successful, the most loved etc etc.
For a brand to come out and say, “we’re not the first choice”, was a big thing.
But this was not a mere marketing trick, Avis did indeed have big ambitions and knew that the only way they stood any chance of making it was if they indeed, ‘try harder’.
From making sure every car was washed before it went out.
Checking that the glove boxes and – because this was the 60’s – ashtrays were emptied.
Customer service people trained to help, not just take your money.
Not having to wait for ages to get given your rental.
All sounds the standard now, but back then? No way.
And on top of that, they then ran ads telling people to complain if they found the experience didn’t match the promise … because they never wanted to be seen as having the passive attitude of a number 1 brand – where their goal is to protect their revenue rather than reward their customers.
Which leads to the point of this post.
This.
Yep, it’s a continuation of the We Try Harder campaign.
Though, calling it a ‘campaign’ cheapens it, because it was their purpose. I don’t mean that in the wank way it is being used today. At no point were Avis saying. ‘We Try Harder To Make The World Better’. No, this was all about them trying harder for them. Which is not only more believable, it had a genuine benefit to the people who used them.
Which leads back to the ad.
Specially, the ad that features the President of Avis’ phone number.
So you can complain.
Directly to them.
Imagine that today?
You can’t can you, because not only do companies – including Avis – give customers who wish to complain the absolute runaround with endless email forms, faceless processes and protocols – all while claiming this is a more ‘helpful and efficient’ process for their customers – but because you don’t feel many companies are really trying harder at all.
Now it’s all about efficiency.
Removal of friction.
Basically making you do it all yourself but charging you as if you weren’t.
Now I have to admit, I don’t know if this ended up being the real President of Avis’ phone number … even though I really hope it was … but I know this ethos drove that brand to continued growth for decades.
Sadly, at some point, it went from purpose to a tagline and then Avis as a cultural force was done.
Which is the big lesson for us all.
Because while few would ever start a company to be like everyone else, the reality is many end up doing just that.
And while we hear people all talking about being the next Apple or Nike, they have to understand you don’t get there with a playbook, you get there with a singular focus on what you believe, what you value and what you are going to destroy to create.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Apathy, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Fake Attitude, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Presenting, Professionalism, Relevance, Resonance, Standards
One of the things I’ve found fascinating over the years is how many companies think all they need to do to keep employees happy is cash and perks.
Don’t get me wrong, cash and perks are very nice – and for some people, that’s all they need – however for a certain type of employee, there is another attribute that has equal, if not even greater, appeal.
Pride.
Pride in what they do.
Pride in how they do it.
Pride in who they do it for.
Pride in who they work with.
Pride in the actions of the past.
Pride in the ambitions for the future.
Pride in the standards the company lives by.
Pride in the companies standing in their field.
Now I get the C-Suite may like to think their employees are proud working for them – probably reinforced by countless questionable ‘monkey surveys’ sent by HR – however more often than not, they are confusing ‘having a job’ with ‘being proud of the job they have’.
Nothing highlights this more than when a company feels morale is down, because that’s the moment the spot-bonuses and/or impromptu office parties begin.
Does it work?
Sure. For a period of time.
However employees are no fools, they know the real reason for these ‘additional benefits’ is to keep them quiet rather than force the C-Suite to open up a set of issues they absolutely don’t want to have to deal with.
Why?
Because in the main, the issues are about them.
Specially the work they aspire for the company to make.
Look I get it … no one likes to face their potential failings, so if they can avoid it with spending a bit of cash, why wouldn’t they?
Well I’ll tell you why, because money can’t buy pride.
I say this because I recently saw a video of Steve Jobs talking about standards.
He’s made similar speeches over the years – with his ‘paint behind the fence’ being one of my favourites.
However I love this one because there’s a bit of bite in it.
A clear perspective on what standards he holds Apple too, rather than what the competition hold themselves too.
Sure, to some it could come across as arrogant, but I imagine to the people at Apple at that time, it induced the same feelings I have when I work for a company whose standards and ambitions were at least the same as mine or – hopefully – even higher.
Pride.
Confident.
Togetherness.
A sense of ‘us against them’.
That feeling you’re part of a place playing a totally different game to the competition. A special place. A place that does things right, even if people don’t quite get it yet. A place that attracts the best to do their best … but not in a way where you then feel ‘you’ve made it’ for being there. Instead, it’s a feeling of responsibility to keep the standards of name moving forwards. An intoxicating mix of expectation, judgement and encouragement all at the same time.
You can’t fake that.
You can’t buy it either.
So when the C-suite hand out promotions, payrises and parties in a bid to boost morale because the claims of doing great work are not convincing anyone … my advice is to save their cash.
Not just because the employees know exactly what they’re doing.
Nor because whatever they end up receiving, it still won’t buy their pride.
But because they could save a ton of cash by simply committing to doing things to the highest standards rather than the lowest … because at the end of the day, these people don’t need certainty, they just want possible and if they have that, morale will fix itself all by itself.
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, Agency Culture, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Diversity, Education, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Fake Attitude, Focus Groups, Fulfillment, Honesty, Innocence, Innovation, Insight, LaLaLand, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
Toxicity.
It’s a great word to describe a terrible thing.
It perfectly captures the strategy so many companies, people, governments have adopted to get ahead regardless of the cost.
But what a cost it is.
As the stories of Corporate Gaslighting highlight, it is destructive, debilitating and harmful and its rightfully being called out more and more.
However one of the byproducts of this rightful shift has been the increasing number of companies and agencies who will only accept ‘the positive’.
I’m not talking about them wanting to offer optimism in a challenging world, I mean they are actively dismissing or ignoring anything that they deem as bringing negativity into the conversation.
Questions about decisions.
Realities about their audiences.
Considerations about the categories.
No … no … no … no … no!!!
It’s the ultimate sign of privilege. Not to mention arrogance. An ability to simply close eyes and ears to the realities millions face every single day, just so they can continue living in their own Disneyland of the mind.
Actually Disneyland isn’t right, because their stories involve struggles and challenges … so we’re talking about organisations who make Disney look negative.
Jesus Christ!!!
And yet in the same breath, they will wax lyrical about wanting to have ‘deeper connections with their customers’ as well as ‘living their brand purpose’.
Of course it’s complete bollocks.
Deeper understanding equates to ‘how can we sell more stuff to them’.
And brand purpose is …. well, you know my view.
Can brand purpose have value?
Absolutely.
But brand purpose isn’t something you can ‘invent’ on a whim.
Nor is it a marketing tool to drive sales.
And it absolutely isn’t about saving the world.
It can be.
For some.
But it probably isn’t for most.
Which is why pharmaceutical companies saying stuff life, ‘We exist to rid the world of pain’ … makes me laugh so much I get a headache.
The reality is pain makes these companies oodles of money. The last thing they will ever want to do is rid the world of it.
And you know what … I’m cool with that.
Pain happens and they help it stop.
Cool.
But to say they want to get rid of it all?
Forever?
Are they forgetting how pain can actually be useful to people.
How it can help us understand our limits?
Can guide us to better decisions?
Without pain, can you imagine the trouble we would be in?
Which all explains why I – and shitloads of the planet – don’t believe a word they say when they, and countless other companies in countless other categories, go on about ‘their purpose’, especially when it’s obviously the total opposite of what funds their business?
And yet this delusional positivity of purpose is everywhere.
And what’s worse is we’re seeing more and more companies and agencies actively celebrate it, encourage it and demand it.
I cannot tell you how many planners I’ve spoken to about not being allowed to bring truth to their meetings and conversations.
I talked a lot about this – and the reasons behind it – in my rant at WARC, but it still blows my mind that companies and agencies expect planners to adopt this approach when it’s literally the opposite of what our jobs are about.
Planners are not blind cheerleaders.
We liberate through filter-free truth.
That means we’re supposed to question, challenge, have a hint of cynicism, push buttons.
Not to be dicks, but to help you be better.
It you want a planner to just accept whatever alternative reality you live in, go hire a bunch of Alexa’s.
You can say as much as you like that …
“We don’t really have competition”.
Or
“We don’t like negative insights”
Or
“We don’t want to talk about negative comments about us”
… but that doesn’t mean we should just accept it.
I don’t get why some people have this belief questioning is wrong.
At its most basic level, questioning is about wanting to understand more and surely that’s a good thing.
And even if we challenge what we’re hearing … it’s not to cause upset, it’s to get to truth.
Real truth, not corporate.
The truth that helps create great work. Not just in terms of creativity and cultural resonance … but commercial value.
If you don’t want to hear that, then frankly, you don’t want to grow. Or evolve. Or do something that can genuinely mean something.
Anyway, the reason for this post is because I was recently talking to a couple of creative mates of mine and they introduced me to the most perfect expression for this new attitude of only wanting and accepting ‘the positive’.
It’s this …
Oh my god, how good is that!!!
I cannot tell you how much I love it.
Not just the expression of Toxic Positivity, but the definition.
“The belief no matter how dire or difficult a situation is, people should maintain a positive mindset. It’s a “good vibes only” approach to life.”
Both are utterly, undeniably, absolutely bloody perfect.
Because both are utterly, undeniably, absolutely bloody true.
When I heard it, it immediately helped explain why I found so many things in LA, so annoying.
Don’t get me wrong, there were amazing people there. And the country is amazing in many ways.
I absolutely feel a deep sense of gratitude for the experience my family and I got to have there.
However quite a lot of people I met had this ability to blatantly ignore reality in favour of repetitively repeating some superficial and delusional positivity while trying to look like they weren’t annoyed when I asked what the hell they were talking about.
Even the mere suggestion that everything was not quite as perfect as they are trying to claim was met with an icy smile.
I think I’ve written about it before, but America taught me the difference between truth and honesty.
For me, truth is often uncomfortable.
It doesn’t mean it’s done to be harmful, but it does force situations to be seen, explored, discussed and dealt with.
But honesty – at least the version of it I experienced in the US – was different.
Honesty there, was truth with so many layers of sugar-coating on it, you didn’t taste any bitterness or sharpness.
What it meant was everything was designed to be easy to swallow … to give the impression of openness without being open.
Silicon Valley are particularly good at this approach.
White people – dealing with issues regarding race – are exceptionally good at this approach.
An ability to ignore reality by communicating an alternative version of it.
One that bursts with positivity and happiness. And if they could add a Unicorn to it, they would.
But it seems Toxic Positivity is becoming more and more prevalent.
And while the picture above shows Zuckerberg, it’s not specifically about him.
It’s about any organisation who deals with the raw realities of life with a thin, pained smile while they slowly and calmly explain to you everything is great and everything their company does is great and to even suggest otherwise – even if it comes from a desire to help make things better – is an act of intolerable aggression.
As much as toxic negativity is a dangerous act, so is toxic positivity.
It denies the truth for the people who need it the most.
And while I get why some companies would rather not deal with that, actively shutting it down to spout some inane and delusional ‘happy clappy’ message is equally as destructive, debilitating and harmful as it’s more negative cousin.
The reality is truth and transparency makes things better.
Nothing shows greater respect than giving someone objective truth for the single reason you want them to succeed more powerfully.
I appreciate it might not always be easy, but it’s always worth it.