Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Consultants, Context, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Individuality, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I was never a fan of Seinfeld.
Then I’ve never been much of a fan of Jerry Seinfeld either.
I always found him a bit of condescending, self-righteous prick.
Oh I get he is smart.
His observational skills are almost unparalleled.
But you can be a genius and still be an asshole. Step on down Elon Musk.
However recently I read something Jerry said that made me dislike him less.
Not simply because he didn’t know who McKinsey were, but because of what he highlighted is the problem with them. Or more specifically, the problem companies who use them, have.
Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate this paints Jerry as a control freak.
And I also acknowledge that many companies hire McKinsey because they think the challenge they face is hard – rather than easy.
But what I do like about what he says is he won’t outsource his responsibility.
Sure, he could trust those around him more … and sure, his words smack of egomaniac … but to be fair to him, the product he sells is himself – his personality, his character, his humour – so it makes perfect sense he is obsessive about what goes out under his name because he cares deeply about his reputation, values and his quality control.
And that’s a major problem these days.
Too many don’t.
Oh they’ll say they do.
They’ll run internal and external communication that reinforce they do.
But then they’ll go and outsource their responsibilities and decisions to ‘for profit’ external organisations. Either because they don’t want the pressure … the issue is beyond their abilities … or they want someone to blame if things go wrong.
And the issue with this is the external organisation who are now responsible for answering this challenge, often do it with little to no consideration of who they’re doing it for.
How their clients look at the world.
The nuances and quirks that define who the company is and how they act.
So they provide a solution that does exactly what has been asked of them and nothing more.
Solutions agnostic of client values, beyond some superficial characteristics.
And this has resulted in a world filled with identikit functional solutions. Solutions that answer the issue, but at the cost of commoditisation. And all because senior people – who are paid handsomely to be responsible for their organisations wellbeing and growth – decided to outsource their responsibility to another organisation, even though they know they will never care as much about them as they should care about themselves.
Of course not everyone is like this.
Some are as committed and obsessive about how they do things as what they do.
But there are far too many who look for quick wins.
Easy answers.
Less pressure or responsibility.
Which is why I have always thought whether you are a shareholder or an employee, knowing how much the most senior people understand, value and protect the standards, nuance and quirks of the company they represent – not simply the balance sheet – acts as a good indicator you’re with a company who respects the value of their own value.
Not simply in terms of profit.
Nor in reputation.
But in the standards and values that drives all they do and create.
Which is my way of saying that while I still think Jerry Seinfeld is a bit of a dick, I now respect him for knowing where his responsibilities lie.
To both himself, his future and his fans.
Now if only there were more companies and brands who lived by the same mantra.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Cannes, China, Colenso, Comment, Confidence, Consultants, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Differentiation, Distinction, ECommerce, Effectiveness, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Metallica, New Zealand, Perspective, Planners, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Wieden+Kennedy
There’s so many agencies, consultancies and self-appointed guru’s out there who talk about how to be successful at business.
They all have their models, eco-systems, philosophies and proof points.
And yet so few have ever done it for themselves.
They’ve chosen to ‘succeed’ under the safety-net of anothers money, reputation or effort.
That doesn’t mean what they do or think doesn’t have value – of course it does – but it also doesn’t mean their viewpoint is the only one worth counting.
And yet, every single bloody day, that’s how it is presented.
Recently someone wrote a piece on how they had used their proprietary research methodology on a Cannes winning TV ad and declared it would not deliver sustainable growth for the brand in question.
Putting aside the fact they were judging work that had won a creativity award rather than an effectiveness one … the thing I found funny was their confidence in proclaiming their view was the ultimate view.
I am not doubting their smarts.
I am not doubting their data.
But I am doubting their breadth of business appreciation.
And yet somehow, the voices of a few have positioned themselves as the be-all and end-all of effectiveness.
Don’t follow us and you fail.
Don’t follow us and your brand will lose.
Don’t follow us and you will be labeled foolish.
Now I am not denying these people do have a lot of experience and lessons we can learn from, but they’re not infallible.
But that’s how the industry approaches them.
Lording them like they are Yoda’s of the future.
But they’re not.
Don’t get me wrong, they are very good at evaluating effectiveness from a particular perspective and set of behaviours. Offering advice that can be hugely important in the decision making process.
But there’s a whole host of brands and business that have adopted totally different models and achieved ‘effectiveness and success’ that leaves others far behind.
Incredible sustainable success.
From Liquid Death to SKP-S to Gentle Monster to Vollebak to Metallica to name but a few.
Oh I know what some will say …
“They’re niche” … “they’re young” … “they’re not that successful”.
And to those people I would say maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about … because in just that list, it includes the biggest selling brand on Amazon, the fastest selling brand in their category on earth and the second most successful American band in history.
But there were two things that really brought the issue of mindset narrowcasting to me …
The first was the launch of a book that was basically about creating future customer desire for your brand/business.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that … but no shit Sherlock.
Has the market got so short-sighted and insular that the idea of doing things that also drive your future value and desirability become a revelation?
It’s literally the most basic entrepreneur mindset, and yet it was presented like it was Newton discovering the laws of gravity.
This person is super smart.
They’ve done a lot of good stuff.
But it just feels the actions of some in the industry are driven by the fetishisation of icon status … even though, ironically, what it does is highlight their experience may be narrower than they realise.
But at least the book had good stuff in there.
Stuff that could help people with some of the basics.
A desire to look forward rather than get lost in the optimisation circle-jerk.
This next one was a whole lot worse.
Recently an ex-employer of mine went to see a current client of mine.
Specifically the founder and CEO.
Apparently they went in to tell him he was missing out on a whole host of business and they could help him get more.
They then proceeded to present a massive document on how they would do it.
He looked at them and told them it was very interesting but they were wrong.
He told them their premise was based on a business approach he doesn’t follow or believe in.
A business approach that didn’t reflect the industry he was in, only the industry they were in.
He then informed them he had the most profitable store on the planet and so while he appreciated their time, he had faith in his approach and it was serving him well.
But it gets better.
As they were leaving – and I’ve been told this is true by someone who was apparently there – the person showing them out informed them their boss had a personal net worth of US$36 billion and based on their companies current share price, that meant he was more valuable than their entire group.
Was it an asshole thing to do?
Yep.
Do I absolutely love it?
Oh yeah.
Will I get in trouble for telling this?
Errrrrm, probably.
My point is the industry has decided ‘effectiveness’ can only be achieved and measured in one way and any deviation from that is immediately discounted or considered ‘flawed’.
Often by people who have never actually built a world leading business themselves.
Again, I am not dismissing the importance of what is being said, it’s HUGELY important – which is why I’m proud we won the Cannes/Warc effectiveness Grand Prix – but, and it’s a huge one, if we think that’s the only model and only use that one ‘model’, then we are literally adopting a single approach to solve every one of our clients every problems.
One.
That’s insane.
Not just because it’s stupid but because if everyone adopts the same approach, then impact will be influenced far more by spend and distribution that strategy.
Please note I am absolutely not saying we should burn the models or philosophies or systems that have proven their value to drive business. No. Absolutely not. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be praying at the feet of them … especially when many are simply focused on creating steady impact rather than spectacular.
Yes, I know ‘spectacular’ has a lifespan – which is why innovation is so important – but so many brands out there either aim for the middle … reinforced by processes, protocols and rules defined as ‘best practice’ by people in a particular industry … or they bake-in ‘limitation’ into their potential because they’ve blindly adopted rules they never challenge or explore from other industries or entrepreneurs.
At the end of the day, if a brand like Liquid Death can become the biggest selling water brand on Amazon because they found a way to make men actually want to drink water through a model and approach that is not only radically different to what so many of the industry experts say is ‘the only way’ … but is the opposite of it … then your brand may be inhibiting itself by following a model designed to make you fit in with it, rather than redefine how it fits in with you.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Digital, ECommerce, Environment, Social Media
Social media.
Or for some, digital marketing.
Oh the terms and the tropes.
The guru’s and the chancers.
The rules and the frameworks.
The DTC brand successes and the DTC product commodification.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of social media marketing. I think – done in the right way – it can powerfully drive brand, business and fandom in ways many other forms of marketing can’t hope to reach.
There’s countless amazing examples out there, but underpinning all of them is the inconvenient truth that they’re based on an idea. It may not always be what the ad industry likes to call a ‘big idea’, but it’s an idea all the same.
Something that holds all it does together. Guides it. Shapes what it does. Gives it a reason to exist and add to culture rather than continually try to steal from it.
But the problem is these brands are still in the minority because the vast majority still practice what my beloved Martin Weigel refers to, “the continuous production of social landfill”.
There are countless reasons this occurring …
The belief it gives them ‘free’ advertising.
Their fear they may be left behind or left out.
The attempt to look and act relevant to the times.
But without doubt, the worst reason is ‘people really are interested in who we are and what we have to say’.
Oh my god, that’s the worst of all.
A deluded state that manifests itself into some of the worst behaviour and marketing you can get … liked and supported by those who either work for the company or want to.
So what we end up with is an ever-increasing production of sheer shit.
Pointless, mindless marketing filth that doesn’t so much scrape the barrel, but is the scrapings of the barrel.
Things like this …
What. Is. That?
Seriously, how deluded and desperate must you be to think this is the sort of content the World is waiting for.
Yes, I appreciate they have almost TWO MILLION followers but come on …
And they’ve even incorporated a way to ‘vote through emoji’ to allow their ‘fans’ to interact with the content.
To paraphrase a comment once made to me by a client … sometimes, the people who like your stuff are the people you don’t want liking your stuff.
Pity the poor social media people who have to manage this stuff.
I say pity, because surely they can’t think this is good?
Surely they are the human equivalent of a battery hen … held in a small room and told to keep finding ‘ideas’ to churn out as content.
Stuff that is the very embodiment of social media landfill.
An always on strategy that turns people off.
But my god, what if they think this stuff is good?
What if they believe people wait with baited breath for the latest piece of content they literally are churning out?
What if the client thinks it is driving ‘powerful user interaction metrics’?
I know Colgate Palmolive make many products.
Some of which have become brands that are very, very popular.
But maybe someone needs to tell them that just because people buy them, doesn’t mean people care about them … certainly outside of the environment they inhabit or in the detail Colgate finds fascinating.
Or to paraphrase another old client of mine:
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Comment, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, New Zealand, Youth
The cost of living is insane everywhere.
Petrol.
Heating.
Food.
The prices are going up faster than we can blink.
And while there is definitely the suspicion some industries are using this as an excuse to elevate their profits – I’m looking at you fossil fuel and supermarket industries – the reality is for many people, life is becoming more about survival than living.
Here in NZ, the conversation often relates back to the price of food.
Part of the reason for that is because the dairy industry is so influential and economically important.
But right now, you can’t turn on a talkback radio show without hearing people complain about the price of cheese … milk … or vegetables.
Sure, it’s not as bad as it is in the UK at the moment – where supermarkets are putting ‘anti-theft’ devices on cheese, but it’s not far off.
Just recently I heard a 10 minute segment about the price of cauliflowers.
Apparently they’re $12 each in some places and one person interviewed said:
“There’s no cauliflower in the world worth $12”
It’s fair to say it’s a sentence I’ve never heard in my life.
But while the cauliflower conversation may raise a smile … what it indicates is nothing but.
More and more people will struggle.
Will be taken advantage of.
Will wonder if they can cope.
While I hold real concern for a number of groups, one I’m particularly concerned for is youth.
As I wrote yesterday – and all the photos in this post are from our book, Dream Small – many kids in NZ already feel oppressed by the lack of opportunity and the pressure of complicity they face … but now, their situation could be even more tested.
Less possibilities.
More expectations.
Even less consideration.
Even more demands and judgement.
Given NZ already has one of the worst youth suicide rates – per capita – in the world, what could this do to the mental health and wellbeing of the young?
What is this going to do to the dreams they have?
I get it’s hard.
I get there will be many more communities that will require help.
But for all the companies that go on about how proud they are to be from New Zealand, maybe this is the moment they prove it by what they do rather than what they say.
Last year I judged the Effies and read a bunch of entries from supermarkets.
They talked about how their ‘strategy’ had helped them overcome the huge barrier of covid.
All of them … every last one … claimed covid had been a barrier to growth rather than their fast track.
It was an insult to my intelligence.
I would love it if this year, I read submissions from NZ brands who talked about how they used this time to enable a generation. That they recognised the countries future was dependent on the young feeling they could bring their wild hopes, ideas and energy to the fore. That instead of being told to dream small, they were supported to dream big. So the country can evolve and develop so if situations like this happen again, then the nation will be in a better position because it will be stronger thanks to the brains and ideas the young have brought.
I don’t even really care how they do it.
More pay.
Government funded flights for their OE.
A youth venture fund that kids can call upon to help with their ideas.
Tax breaks for youth focused, foreign brands to come into the country.
Fighting against Tall Poppy – or any of the other issues that hold youth back through fear.
And while I know there are a few brands doing it – some of my clients for a start – I doubt I’ll be reading many papers that celebrate that shift, because too many of these ‘proud Kiwi brands’ are more focused on perpetuating and controlling the stereotype than liberating the people who are forced to live by it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Colleagues, Comment, Confidence, Context, Creativity, Culture, Experience, Management, Perspective, Planners, Professionalism
I once interviewed a young planner who spent the whole time confidently telling me how ambitious they were.
The whole conversation was literally about how far they were going to go.
And that’s admiral … except they never once talked about their rise in relation to the work they would do, but simply the objective they had.
I told them that while I love their ambition, I felt their priorities were different to what I valued.
They seemed to be focused on speed of progress whereas I cared about standards.
Of course they argued that’s what they wanted to, but by then we were done.
I’m not doubting they were good, but the quality of work was secondary to the speed of promotion and in my experience, that is never a good scenario.
I say this because I recently saw this:
I’ve got to admit, this triggered me.
Don’t get me wrong, everyone is a ‘magpie’ to a certain degree.
Taking things they’ve learned and heard and incorporating it into their thinking.
But this is not that. This is laziness.
Oh I know some will call it ‘smart’.
Or an example of hustle culture or some other bollocks.
And maybe the person in question just said it to be provocative.
But whatever the reason, it’s parasitic behaviour. Literally feeding off the talent of others.
It’s why I always favour people who have done interesting stuff rather than just know interesting stuff. It means they have skin in the game. It means they were willing to explore and experiment. It means they were willing to fail in the quest to do something good. It means they’ve learned stuff.
It’s a major reason why I believe in going down rabbit holes rather than playing to be precise.
It’s why I believe in graft not hustle.
It’s why I believe in standards, not just speed.
Don’t get me wrong, I apperacite we all want to progress.
I totally accept there are massive benefits gained from promotion and I don’t want to stop anyone from achieving that. I also think it’s outdated thinking to only give substantial payrises when attached to promotion. I understand why companies do it, but it means people often get promoted before they’re ready, and then aren’t even helped in learning how to be good at it.
But while speed of progress may appear attractive from the outside, it can be limiting on the inside.
Because promotion can get you many things, but it doesn’t automatically get you respect.
Oh you may think it does.
Or you may not give a shit either way.
But if you want a career or the ability to use your talent in other ways you find interesting … then at some point, you’ve got to have done stuff that goes beyond simple career progression. Stuff that is known and noticed for what it did and how it did it. Stuff that is for people and brands of repute, not just people or brands who pay your invoice.
Because without that … well, you may find your career starts like an Olympic sprinter but ends like the slowest of tortoises.
And as I said, maybe some are fine with that.
Or maybe some – as I’ve met a few times – are genuine freaks of brilliance who were seemingly born to go to the very, very top.
But the thing to remember is the latter is both rare and defined by what others think your capabilities are, rather than what you think about yourself.
Which may explain why the planner I interviewed all those years ago has not achieved their goal of being the King of the Universe.
On the positive they are a head of planning.
But it’s for a small agency in Seattle.
A sales promotion agency.
Where there appears to be only one other planner in the place.
And while there’s absolutely nothing wrong with any of that – I did it for a short time, and learnt a ton of stuff I still use now – it’s quite different from what they told me their ambition was. Maybe their circumstances changed. Or their ambitions changed. And maybe they’re happy as can be. But I can’t help but feel they could have fulfilled their aspirations if they’d just valued standards a bit more than they valued speed.