Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, China, Comment, Complicity, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Empathy, Government, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Politics, The Kennedys, The Kennedys Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
Recently I read a comment on a post Zoe Scaman had written about democracy.
Her point was – with social media companies bending to Trump’s will – we were witnessing the crumbling of established and vital democratic systems. Most people were in violent agreement until someone wrote this comment:
“Can you elaborate on ‘democratic systems are crumbling’ please? My in-laws were born and raised in Russia, and they believe Venezuela is doing great and Cuba is heaven”.
It was not just a good point, but an important point one. Not said to insult or embarrass, but to simply remind us that context is everything and rarely is it experienced equally.
I say this because it reminded me of a similar situation I experienced a few years back… except, unlike Zoe, there was no legitimate reason not to have considered this from the beginning given I’d been living in China for a long time.
You see, back when Trump was running for his first Presidency, I was running The Kennedys at Wieden+Kennedy Shanghai.
Because the election was a hot topic, I set them the challenge of creating a campaign to tell voters Trump was a monster.
For a few days The Kennedys went about researching more about who Trump was until one day they asked if they could have a chat to me.
“We don’t get the assignment” they said with genuinely confused and harassed looks on their faces.
I must admit, my first impression to this was consternation, until they added:
“Maybe Trump is a bad person but America gets to vote who they want to run their country and that seems amazing”
Basically, they couldn’t understand the task because as bad as Trump may be, the brief was still about democracy and democracy is good. Especially when you don’t have it.
[As an aside, a young, brilliant Chinese planner once described the Government as ‘Rock n’ Roll’ and when I asked why, they replied, “you told me Rock n’ Roll is doing what you like and not caring what others think and there’s no better description of the Chinese Governments attitude and behaviour”]
Anyway, when they said that to me, I realized just how badly I had fucked up – not them.
That I’d made the cardinal sin of taking my context for granted. That I’d assumed everyone understood and appreciated the context and situation I was asking them to embrace and communicate.
And I was obviously wrong.
I’d made the most basic of fucking mistakes – albeit one practiced by most companies and marketing departments around the World.
And I hated myself for it ….
But as they say, it’s only a mistake if you don’t learn from it and I learned from it. Big time.
A lesson that I remind myself – or remind my colleagues/clients/researchers – literally everytime we talk about people, situations and contexts.
And while Zoe wasn’t as naïve as I was – because for her, it was more about how she phrased her point rather than being ignorant to the wider issue – she has also likely learned from it. A lesson that will make her even better than she already is – which is more than can be said about the people who voted for Trump again, even though I have far more understanding and even respect for why they did it rather than just assuming ignorance and racism.
Anyway, the reason for this post is that I recently saw a tweet that reflected how young Chinese people see Americans – in relation to the most recent election – and I found it fascinating. Because rather than viewing ‘democracy’ as freedom of choice, they now see it as something else … something that not only may be the best take on what modern democracy is, but also explains why all the social media companies have been so desperate to bend to the will of the new administration and why Trump [as much as I hate to admit this] probably understands how modern communication works more than most media and ad agencies.
Have a look at this and remember, what’s normal for you may be abnormal for everyone else.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brands, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Luxury, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity
A few weeks ago, a friend of mine sent me this picture.
Yes, they’re varieties of soap but I realised they’re also an incredible ad for the power of brand and brand advertising.
No, I have not lost my mind. Yet.
You see of all those soap brands, 2 resonated with me the most: Imperial Leather and Shield.
That doesn’t mean I didn’t know the others – I did, or most of them – but Imperial Leather and Shield stood out because both played a part in my childhood.
But it’s the position in my mind they have that’s the bit I found fascinating … even more so given I’d not thought about them – let alone used them – for literally decades.
You see in my mind – thanks to their advertising – Shield is still the young and exciting brand. A soap for modern times and new generations challenging conventions and traditions [whatever the fuck that means]
Meanwhile Imperial Leather is a symbol of status and luxury used by the wealthy and elite.
Who am I???
What’s wrong with me???
I’m talking about soap for fucks sake. SOAP!!! The stuff you wash your face and bits with …
But thanks to childhood gullibility and the power of brand advertising, these connections and emotions still exist, despite being decades older and ‘allegedly’ wiser.
What makes me laugh is that Imperial Leather would have a few pence.
Sure, maybe it was more than some of the other brands, but still pennies rather than pounds – and yet, like Vienetta, After Eight Mints or a Hostess Trolley – it created an impression of being very aspirational, even though everyone knew you could pop down to Asda and fill your trolley up with them with no problem.
And while times have changed, the power of brand remains … which is why it surprises me how few companies really invest in it, probably because so many are either fixated on the short-term, think brand equates to spending a fuck-ton endlessly reinforcing rational product features that only they care about or have fallen for the sales patter of the ‘ego guru’™ who – for a price – will tell you their system which they say guarantees an easy path to untold success when all it does is sell category conformity.
Which suggests that for all the possibilities and technicalities that modern marketing practice like to champion, it appears it has [conveniently] forgotten what drives and creates – and what is needed to drive and create – sustainable, premium priced value.
AKA. Brand thinking. Brand investing. Brand behaving.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Cliches, Clothes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Context, Craft, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Delusion, Distinction, Equality, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, London, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a post about naming strategies.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this before.
A lot of times before.
The processes.
The considerations.
The complications.
… but mainly it’s been about how certain branding consultancies charge an absolute fortune to come up with some utter nonsensical bullshit that they back up with 1000’s of pages of self-serving pseudo-science bullshit and still end up creating something pants. Kind of like the explanation of the Pepsi rebrand from 15 years ago. Or most Linkedin ‘guru’ pontification.
But the other side of this is when people choose to put no effort in whatsoever.
Hiding their recommendation behind terms such as ‘colloquial context’ or ‘cultural vernacular’.
Don’t get me wrong, there are times where a stripped back approach can be powerful.
A way to connect to society by taking their cultural references and contexts head-on.
Hell, cynic used to embrace an approach that we literally called, ‘unplanned‘.
However, while this was about removing any element of pomposity, it still had to elevate how people saw or connected to what we did. Any fool can churn out lowest common denominator stuff … but it takes a certain amount of skill and flair to develop something that not only connects and engages the masses, but does it in a way where the value of the product/brand is increased and improved to all.
We used to call this ‘massperation’ … which still makes me feel sick even today, hahahaha.
I say all this to justify something I saw recently.
Or should I say something Otis saw recently.
You see down the road from us there’s a house being built.
It’s in full-on construction mode and as it is on the way to Otis’ school, he passes it every day.
Anyway, one day he came and told me he’d seen the building site loo and was shocked with its name.
It was this:
That’s right, it’s called the ‘Shitbox’.
To be honest, I’m not sure if Otis should have been more surprised at the name or the fact it proudly states it’s a ‘high viz’ toilet box.
HIGH FUCKING VIZ!
Is the toilet going to be walking along the street late at night? Do builders have such bad eyesight they can’t find a 6 foot high toilet without it being painted bright orange? Are construction workers such bad drivers they need to be warned of where the portaloos are so as not to hit them?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Anyway, I digress.
The point is that while calling the portaloo a ‘shitbox’ may make sense … I can’t help but feel it is also playing into the builder cliche. Sure, cliches happen because they represent a common behavior or attitude that is played out over a sustained period of time … but often this is only a ‘perceived’ behavior or attitude [usually promoted by an individual or organisation who have found a way to monetise the acceptance of this view] that victimizes anyone who does not live upto the cliche.
I appreciate you may think I’ve gone full-on woke … but apart from the fact I don’t think considering others is a bad thing, I see this behaviour over and over again.
Hell, even Jaguar – with their ‘interesting’ rebrand did it by revealing their new concept cars in pink and blue.
PINK AND FUCKING BLUE.
They made such a big deal about how they ‘delete ordinary’, ‘break moulds’ and ‘copy nothing’ and then they actively, loudly and proudly reinforce the most basic of gender stereotypes. On the World fucking stage!
I totally appreciate you can go over-the-top with this stuff – especially given this whole post was inspired by a building site portaloo. I also get people may think I am suggesting we should name products/brands with words that offer no defining characteristic to avoid any potential stereotype. But neither of those are what I’m trying to say.
All I am attempting to point out is that words matter. And while I fully appreciate naming is a difficult task, I find it fascinating companies spend millions on ‘solutions’ that tend to fall into either pompous, basic or made-up.
Or said another way, names that define, limit or pander rather than celebrate those who use them and the reasons they do.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Customer Service, Devious Strategy, Effectiveness, EvilGenius, Experience, Management, Northern, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Provocative, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Wieden+Kennedy
Maybe it’s because I’m British …
Maybe it’s because I’m naïve …
Or maybe it’s because I’m privileged …
But I’ve always been pretty shit when it comes to ‘negotiating’.
That changed quite dramatically when Metallica’s management taught me both ‘the value of value’ and how procurement is a game … but even now, there are situations where I feel weird to push back.
Ironically, the thing that snaps me out of it is not confidence, but disgust.
Recently a company sent me a bill that was 49% more than the previous year.
My situation hadn’t changed.
I was a long-term customer of theirs.
I had not used their services any differently than any time before.
And yet they sent me the invoice without explanation or consideration.
And I was pissed. Properly fucked off.
And while I could have just walked away, I wanted to play them at their own game.
I should point out my goal was not to get a price reduction; it was more so I didn’t feel a mug just blindly accepting their shit.
I wanted to feel I’d pushed back …
That I wasn’t a pushover …
And while I suspected they wouldn’t care – or maybe even notice – what I was doing, it was important for me that I did it.
Short story is I rang them up and ‘had a chat’ before ending up with all the price increase being removed.
Every last penny.
And while you may think that means ‘I’d won’, the thing is my definition of ‘winning’ had changed … which is why once I got the reduction, I informed the company I wouldn’t be working with them anymore and why.
Petty?
Sure.
Pathetic?
Possibly.
Pointless?
Maybe.
Unprecedented by me?
Errrrm, no.
But as my old Wieden boss – the great Jason White – once told some people, I’d asked him to meet,
“Be true. Be transparent. Believe they want to do the right thing with the right intentions. But if you suspect they think they’re hustling you … make sure you’re hustling them right back”.
Which is why, if you want to know the real art of ‘strategy’ – both in terms of effectiveness and creativity – don’t follow the methodologies or tools flogged by the never-ending list of Linkedin Pundits, study cats or petty bastards.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Cliches, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Product Mentalness, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Success, Technology
One of the things I find hilarious about a lot of strategists, agencies and companies is how they talk about their openness towards innovation, but do all they can to maintain the status quo.
Oh, they’ll claim they give things a chance, it’s just their version of doing that is to immediately compare/judge any new approach against ways of working that have literally had decades to evolve and iron out any quirks … and so, generally, it is always going to end up being the unfairest of unfair fights.
However sometimes dismissal is not even about a lack of effectiveness.
Many times, it’s driven more by personal ego … where rejection occurs because a particular individual fears that any new methodology may result in them losing power and control and because of that, they’re openly hostile [and subjective] to anything being presented for consideration.
So what happens is the industry invents terminology that allows them to feel they’re being innovative but actually it’s all about conformity.
It’s why we hear the word ‘transformation’ banded about so much.
Oh when you hear that you think of acceleration … revolution … category redefinition … but what does it tend to really mean?
That’s right … it’s companies who have been left behind by years of ignorance/arrogance/complacently who finally realise they need to get their shit together so spend a fuckton of cash simply to be where everyone else has already been. The irony with this approach is that despite making such a big deal of their ‘transformation’, they still end up behind their competition because while they’ve been trying to play catch up, everyone else has been moving forward. Again.
But just as much as fearing innovation is harmful to your growth and potential, so is blindly accepting whatever new thing is available to you.
Far too often we’ve seen some companies embrace the new, shiny thing for the simple reason they want to be associated with the new, shiny thing.
Worse, they embrace it and then talk about it like it’s the finished article only to quietly move things aside when [1] they realise it may be shiny, but it’s not worthy or [2] there’s a newer, shinier thing that they need to be seen aligning themselves with.
Sadly adland is one of the worst at this. But so are the tech industries. And basically everyone on Linkedin, hahaha.
New is wonderful. It needs embracing, celebrating and championing. But most of all it needs patience and objectivity.
Patience for the idea to evolve, develop and see where it can go or goes.
Objectivity for you to be able to assess without bias, whether you’re dealing with hype or hope … allowing you the clarity to know if you have to protect it or kill it.
The last thing to remember is that sometimes, the thing an idea needs to work is ‘good timing’.
When I was younger, I never believed it when people [read: girlfriends, haha] said it was ‘bad timing’.
I thought it was just their way of getting out of seeing me.
And maybe it was … however as I got older, I’ve realized timing is a thing. Often an intangible, unexplainable, unmovable thing.
It may be driven by coincidence. It may be driven by circumstance. It may be driven by attitudinal shifts. But there are countless examples of ideas that were made or died because of timing, regardless of who was behind it, how much they spent on it or their history in doing it.
One of my favorite examples is the Toyota Prius.
The general view is Toyota launched the car in response to societies increased awareness of the car being a threat to the environment.
It may be true, after all the concept of the electric car had been around well before Toyota launched the Prius, albeit with continual failure.
[As an aside, there’s a documentary entitled ‘Who Killed The Electric Car’ that is well worth a watch]
However, I was told the development of the Prius had nothing to do with environmental concerns and was a byproduct of Toyota experimenting with their engineering capabilities. By pure chance, they developed a viable electric car at a time where society was changing/evolving … both in terms of environmental awareness but also economic situation. In essence, Prius was a happy accident of timing rather than forward planning.
As with most things, history has a million different authors … but given the Prius was so far ahead of other car manufacturers – and very different to Toyota’s traditional approach to car manufacturing – it feels there may be legitimacy as to how and why it succeeded and it had very little to do with being culturally aware.
Whatever the answer, the issue of ‘new’ is a complex one.
Too many people dismiss it.
Too many people fawn over it.
All I know is we should value it and respect it.
That doesn’t mean you can’t challenge or question, but in a world where everyone wants to give their hot take in the blink-of-an-eye, the smart people give ‘new’ the time to surprise and evolve as well as remember that on the occasions something doesn’t work out, they acknowledge it may not be the idea, but the times.
And times are always changing.
Just ask the horse. Or Ed Klein.