Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mediocrity, Metallica, Nike, Paula, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Sport, Strategy
It is pretty obvious I have a major issue with a lot of the ‘best practice’ processes and practices certain members of my industry love to bang on about.
Not just because ‘best practice, is past practice’, but because these individuals position their approach as the legitimisation of the discipline they claim or suggest they are an expert in. Implying that anyone who does not strictly adhere to their process is an imposter and a danger to whatever organisation they’re working with.
It’s the sort of deluded arrogance that people who describe themselves as an ‘evidence based’ strategist embodies … attempting to infer everyone else is simply making things up and don’t give a fuck what happens afterwards.
It’s everywhere. Twitter. Linkedin. Conferences.
You name it and someone is bragging and banging on about it.
But what makes this hilarious is that many of these self-appointed experts have never made any work of any repute whatsoever. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Which means their entire viewpoint is either based on their own post-rationalised evaluation of another persons work or their narrow, naive and/or skewed viewpoint of what constitutes as ‘good’.
Don’t get me wrong, process matters.
In no way am I advocating you just chuck it all out.
However the difference is my processes does not require me to outsource my brain, imagination, curiosity, gut or ambition to fit into a format whose goal is to deliver a standardised, consistent response rather than enable the opportunity for greater possibility.
And that’s the big problem for me …
Because so many of these ‘models’ seem to care more about the process than what the process is meant to help enable. Actually, even that is wrong … because more and more of these models don’t even care about ‘enabling’ anything … they instruct you to simply follow the format and then do whatever the fuck comes out the other end.
No questioning.
No challenging.
No pushing.
Just blind adherence.
Martin and I talked about the folly of this approach in 2019 with our Case For Chaos talk at Cannes for WARC and then – in 2023 – Paula joined us on the same stage for our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative presentation.
But still this approach and attitude goes on … and while I don’t deny it can be effective, it rarely has the impact or influence as work that comes from a process shaped and flavoured by ideas, imagination or ambition.
But then I wonder if that is the goal anyway … because frankly, the obsession with efficiency means more and more companies don’t want to move towards where they could be and just want to optimize where they’re currently at. Adopting an attitude of ‘when we fall behind, we’ll simply catch up’.
Though they will never admit that publicly – oh no – what they is they’re investing in ‘business transformation’.
Hahahahahahahaha.
A while back I met one of these ‘dot-to-dot’ advocates at a conference I was attending.
Early in the discussion, they said their company had pioneered a process that “guaranteed success”. And then proceeded to talk about their system that ‘removed the risk of contaminated thinking’.
They literally said that.
I looked around the room waiting for someone to say something. Anything. But no one did.
Worse, they seemed to be nodding their heads in agreement. Or awe.
So I stuck my hand up.
Eventually I was seen and asked if I had a question, to which I replied:
“I was just wondering if you know what the words ‘guaranteed’ and ‘success’ mean?”
Yes, I know that was a total asshole move.
It alienated me immediately.
And while I regret how I asked my question, I don’t regret asking my question because that sort of declaration is insane. Not just because it’s not true, but because their ‘examples of proof’ are rarely more than a brand doing a bit better than it has before.
Now I appreciate that’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s hardly Metallica is it?
A band that plays a niche genre of music, has pensioners as members and yet is the 2nd best selling American group in music history. MUSIC HISTORY!
And I can tell you, that didn’t happen blindly adopting the latest best practice process.
Where are their examples of that sort of impact?
Oh I know … in the hands of the fuckers who do shit, not spout it.
Look, I am not dismissing process.
Nor am I devaluing rigour.
But I am redefining what they mean in comparison to how more and more people seem to be interpreting it.
As we said at Cannes, strategy is the first creative act.
A chance to leap not step.
An opportunity to leave the category behind rather than reinforce the category.
But you don’t achieve that by simply ‘filling in the blanks’ with your functional and rational data.
No … if you really want to have a shot at changing where you can go and where you can be, you have to heed the advice of Rob Strasser – the iconic Nike exec – who said this:
“A shoe is just a shoe until someone steps in it”.
By that, I mean don’t just follow a framework, put your whole self into it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Music, Queen, Resonance
Of all the terms banded about by the creative industry … craft is one that is spoken about a lot.
For many people, they interpret this in terms of executional quality and without doubt, that is a part of it, but it is so much more.
In fact, craft starts at the thinking phase … before a single thing has been defined or committed to paper.
I’ve written a lot about craft over the years, but I recently read something that for me, is a wonderful expression of its role and power.
Now, I get there’s going to be a lot of moaning when you see what my example is – or, should I say, – who my example of craft is coming from. But hang in there. Please.
Are you ready?
OK, so it comes from Queen’s Brian May.
I know … I know … but there’s a reason for this.
You see he was recently asked about the lyrics to one of his songs called ’39.
This song appeared on their 1975 album, ‘A Night At The Opera’ and it is a song about space travel through different dimensions.
For haters of Queen, just description probably justifies all your loathing … but there is method in the madness.
You see Brian May has a PHD in astrophysics.
And while he gained that qualification in 2007, the reality is he was a leading researcher in the field prior to joining Queen.
In fact the only reason he didn’t gain his PHD back in the 1970’s is because the band took off and so his studies stopped.
But even then, his love of astrophysics was a key part of who he was – especially the relationship it had with the dimension of time – which is maybe one of the key influences behind this song.
To understand the rest of this post, you should hear it … paying particular interest to the lyrics. So click here.
Did you do it?
Did you bollocks.
OK, then just click here to read the lyrics.
Did you do that?
Hmmmmn, OK … I believe you even if no one else will.
The point of this is because Brian May was recently asked about the story of the song and his reply is fascinating.
Fascinating in terms of where and how song writers get their inspiration …
But – to link back to the point of the post – fascinating in terms of how this crafted how he specifically wrote the lyrics …
How amazing is that?
I love how he explains why the tenses are mixed up in his lyrics.
How it is integral to the idea he had for the song.
How it is an example of craft in motion.
Sure, there’ll be some pricks who will claim its ‘post rationalized justification’, but that’s because they are confusing their ego with their ability.
Because here’s the thing with craft …
In many ways it is not immediately obvious to the recipient … they may not engage with it in the detail and care that went into it. They probably encounter it as a singular, all-encompassing experience. But to the creator, everything will mean something. Not in terms of ‘contrived, focus-group instruction and manipulation, but in terms of ensuring their creativity is crafted to represent their idea in its purest, most honest form. All the while embracing – and valuing – that the recipient may interpret and connect to the work in different ways than intended. Taking it to somewhere new, different and personal.
It’s a beautiful and generous act and why one of the most important questions I ask in any initial creative meeting is ‘what’s the story behind your story?’.
I don’t mean that in terms of them reiterating the brief or conveying some ‘insight’ they’ve defined to answer/justify their solution … but the journey they have been on in terms of inspiration, consideration or history that has led them or shaped what they are going to show.
Mainly because at this stage of proceedings, it’s got less to do with ‘answering’ the brief, but understanding how they see it.
A glimpse into where it could go, rather than what it currently is.
It’s why we need to remember craft isn’t something to wrap an idea in, it’s what informs the entire expression of the idea.
Because even if people don’t recognise it, they will probably feel it … even if they can’t explain why.
And that is the power of creativity … something we need to protect, especially from those who try to present it or define it like its engineering and their master mechanics. Which is ironic, given they’ve never created anything with it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Loyalty, Management, Wieden+Kennedy
I’ve written a lot about office culture in the past.
Like here. And here … to name but two.
I’ve talked about how I was deeply skeptical of companies who claimed it until I worked at Wieden.
Mainly because that was the only place where I felt they truly had one.
Shaped by the philosophies of Dan and Dave but evolved by the people in the agency.
Born rather than planned.
A byproduct of the people in the place, not a mandate from the people running the place.
A culture that created the identity of the work but also held people to account for what they did and contributed.
Some people hated it.
Some people were made by it.
I was definitely in the latter camp … but recently I saw a quote that kind of summed up why I thought it was so good.
“Culture is the worst behaviour management will tolerate”
I love it.
I love it because it represents what culture is.
Not Hallmark Card happiness, but a mishmash of weird and wonderful.
Where people are allowed to be themselves but everyone knows what they’re there to do.
Wieden was great at it … giving freedom to people to express who they are, however weird it was. Or should I say, however weird they are.
Because the main thing was as long as it was serving the work – and not damaging others – they were OK with it.
In fact I once asked what it took to be fired from the place given all the ‘unique’ things I had seen. OK, that I had personally done and got away with … to which the answer was, “it happens if you don’t care about the work and don’t push to keep making the best work of your life”.
That – ladies and gentleman – is culture.
Not beanbags or dress down Friday … but self-created, self-policed expression.
But that self-policed bit is important.
Because as much as Wieden felt like an art school a lot of the time, people knew was only possible if people respected the freedom they were given and trusted to embrace. Anyone who took the piss was often dealt with by the people in the place. Not to put them down or dictate how they should behave … but to ensure they knew the responsibility they had in maintaining the openness everyone else got to enjoy.
Which is why you can’t plan culture, you can just create the conditions for it.
And that’s what separates those who get it and those who don’t. Who can’t.
Which is why writing this post today is especially appropriate given it’s Colenso’s founders day.
A day where the agency shuts its doors so the people inside can go and play.
Because Colenso is another agency who ensure creativity always wins.
It has – and does – continually do it, regardless of employees, leadership or client.
And in Colenso’s case, we’ve been doing it for over 5 decades.
Because there’s something in the water of the place.
Let’s be honest, any individual or company can have a good year or two … but only those who have a true creative culture get to perform at that level for so long.
Of course that doesn’t mean other agencies are bad – far from it – but it does mean many are in the business of trading creativity whereas some are actually believers in the power and creation of it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Film, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Provocative, Queen, Reputation, Success, Succession, Television
This is a long post.
Proper long.
And given I overwrite everything, that is probably a scary thought.
But I hope you hang in there, because it’s something important – at least to me. And who knows, it may trigger some thoughts – or hate – and I’ll consider that a win. Maybe, ahem.
So I don’t know about you, but I miss the TV show, Succession.
I miss the characters … the writing … the inconvenient truth how companies – and some families – work.
And while there are many articles and reports dedicated to explaining what ‘worked’, I recently read something that captured how it worked.
I love that write up.
I love it for a whole host of reasons … of which one is acknowledging that to make something that can capture so many people’s attention for so long, is an act of creative magnificence.
And while we may all nod our heads in agreement, the thing is we forget that.
We forget the challenge of keeping millions engaged and interested over a period of time.
Or maybe more specifically, we have forgotten HOW to do it.
Let’s be honest, the attitude of many brands is ‘keep things the same’ or ‘don’t fuck it up’ … while not realizing the biggest risk to achieving what they want to achieve is literally doing the same thing, in the same way, over-and-over again.
Of course, a big reason for their attitude is their quest for attribution.
Where the brand is synonymous and attributed to what they do/say/communicate.
However, rather than achieve this by doing interesting things that audiences value and can engage in – which is literally, the fastest, most effective way to build active, interested, engaged and committed attribution – we see more of the lazy approach. An approach sold by people with methodologies that mistake repetition as reputation.
Hence, we see countless campaigns featuring ‘consistent fictional characters’ doing variations of the same thing no one really cares about or relates to as if they’re trying to do a homage to the ‘Gold Blend’ coffee ads from the UK. WHICH CAME OUT IN THE 1980’S!!! Or the modern equivalent, where every element of every piece of communication is plastered with cues of whatever colour a brand is associated with. All the while ignoring the fact what it actually does is pull people out of their engagement with the communication because they’re questioning/wondering/laughing what sort of person drives a red car, lives in a red house – with red wallpaper – and only eat red vegetables. But even that isn’t the lowest of the low. No … that belongs to the work that shoves a watermark of the brand logo/name into the top left-or-right-hand-side of all their work … as if acknowledging their communication is so boring that the only way to know who it is from is to literally shove it in front of their faces.
I’m not saying ‘brand assets’ aren’t a thing … but they only become that with creativity.
Over time.
Continually reinforced … expressed … added to.
Without that, you end up with things that are more like weights than rockets.
And that’s the problem I have with so a bunch of the marketing practice being peddled …
Because they fail to appreciate the difference between recognition and value.
Or meaning.
Or resonance.
Or connection.
As I said to a client recently, just because I know what the swastika is, doesn’t mean I want to be a Nazi.
But that’s where we’re at right now … repeat, repeat, repeat.
Which is why that comment on Succession is so important.
Because they understand the importance of constantly adding to the narrative, not repeating it.
Keeping viewers not just interested … but on their toes.
Which leads to them engaging with the show, even when they’re not watching it.
Talking, discussing, sharing, commenting, deducing, arguing.
A program where none of the characters had many redeeming features, kept millions around the world coming back to them.
To learn. To listen. To grow. To hate. To debate.
Is that hard to do?
Of course.
Is it impossible to do?
Nope … especially when you hire proper talent and let them do what they’re great at, rather than value talent on how little they cost and then tell them what to make. Even though you don’t have experience in knowing how to make things people want to engage with.
But as a friend said to me recently, there were no conversations about ‘attribution’ with Succession were there!?
Nope. Not one. Not even from the first episode.
And maybe that was because they didn’t start the show with the intent of creating the lowest common denominator of recognition … then repeating it over and over and over again. No … their intention was to make something interesting … and then keep adding to that so their audiences would keep giving a fuck.
Look, I have no problem with marketing practice.
It is important and has a real role and value in building brands and driving effective marketing.
But that role and value is only released when it is done well and honestly … and right now, it feels there’s a lot of soundbites and not a lot of depth.
Selling systems that promise simplicity but ultimately are outsourcing responsibility.
Outsourcing responsibility to people who can profit from it, despite having no experience in actually creating it.
The irony is we all want the same thing.
Hell, we all need the same thing.
But there’s a major difference between playing not to lose and playing to win so maybe there needs to be more conversations about that, rather than blindly follow people who present themselves as business liberators when really, they’re good insurance salespeople.
Of course, the reality is that, despite what some may say, there’s not one ‘all encompassing’ answer to all this.
I get how expensive everything is so the temptation to stick and stay with what you know and what is working for you, is high. But regardless who you are, it will not last forever and it’s far better to own the change than be left behind by it.
Just ask the Disney execs how they’re feeling as they watch their Marvel universe start to implode.
Building anything is a journey that goes through highs and lows along the way.
But it’s the people who think – or say – they can stop that, who end up creating branded mediocrity.
Or should I way, ‘mediocrity attribution’.
Which is why there is one final example of the commercial value of adding to a story rather than repeating it and that’s Queen.
Specifically their recent sale of their back catalogue for ONE BILLION POUNDS.
Whether you like the band or not, you can’t say that is not an impressive number.
And while even I – a massive Queen fan – accept that in 1986, they stopped being musicians and became entertainers [aka: ‘turned crap’] … it’s the music they made until that point that gave them their legacy, fans and economic value.
Because rather than basically repeat their first hit over and over again … they kept taking people to different and interesting places.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Collaboration, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Curiosity
Going through some old photos, I found this from the great Jeff Goodby that he tweeted in 2015 …
Good isn’t it?!
Well I say good, but it’s pretty tragic really … made worse by the fact it still rings true almost a decade later.
What’s even more annoying is that even when told – some refuse to accept it.
For ‘some’, read that as certain clients, procurement departments and the occasional ‘expert’.
So even though they have zero experience in doing anything other than talking about it – or occasionally, commissioning it – they have decided they not only know how to make it better than people who literally do it every day of their life … but how to make it more successful.
And what happens when it all goes to shit?
Then they blame the people they pushed/bullied/blackmailed into satisfying their ego.
Now to be honest, the people who enabled this behaviour do have to share some of the blame – or at least the leaders of the company who agreed to it, do – but it blows my mind how the craft of creativity, communication and advertising is consistently misunderstood, mistreated and misused and yet the blame is consistently aimed at the people who actually know how to do it.
Sure, I accept just because you work in an industry doesn’t mean you’re great at what you do, but this happens too often to be limited to moments where an average ad person is dealing with a great and informed client.
Great and informed clients are amazing.
When you deal with them, their questions always have a purpose. They’re interested in what is going on, they want to understand where people see things going and they actively want to help contribute to making something great.
But when it is someone who isn’t great, their questions are often badly disguised dismissal of others perspective and point of view. Regardless how good or experienced the presenter is.
So I wondered if that tweet was completely right.
Is this something only the ad industry faces or do all industries experience it?
I get with creativity and advertising, ‘great’ is more subjective than – say, building a house – but is it just us?
I mean, if I was asking an architect to design my home, I sure as shit would ask a lot of questions … but underpinning the conversation would be the acknowledgement they know more than me so would not challenge their view on gravity, despite having lived in buildings all my life, ha.
Of course what this all is saying is we are a society of mistrust and arrogance.
Or more specifically, a society where companies believe money gives them ultimate power. To dictate. To deny. To question. To challenge. To dismiss.
And while it is important all professionals are held to account and don’t take things for granted, it’s also important the people doing the questioning – in professional situations – have the experience and knowledge of the subject they’re challenging.