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.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brands, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Nike, Perspective, Provocative, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
Take a look at this photo of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe.
How good is it?
Two icons of tennis …
Hell, for people of a certain age, they’re still icons, despite this pic being taken in 1978.
But this isn’t about them, this is about McEnroe’s shirt.
McEnroe’s NIKE shirt.
Notice anything about it? Anything different at all?
Well let me put you out of your misery, because the answer is there’s absolutely nothing different about it whatsoever.
It’s the same logo as you see today.
It’s the same font as you see today.
It’s the same flawed genius athlete as you see today.
It is a demonstration of a brand who has always known who the fuck it is, what/who it stands for and what it believes.
A brand that made that logo ‘an asset’ through the decisions it makes and the athletes it associates with.
For over 50+ years.
No ‘relaunch’.
No ‘brand purpose’ statement.
No ‘one colour’ brand systems.
No ‘system 2’ decision making.
Hell, they’re even OK with making mistakes because they are focused on fighting, challenging, pushing and provoking athletes and sport rather than chasing popularity and convenience.
In fact, the greatest irony is the reason they’re currently in the shit is because certain people decided their 50+ years of pushing who they are, what/who they stand for and what they believe was now out of date. Irrelevant. Not ‘optimising or maximising’ their commercial value enough. So they turned their back on who they are to embrace what many modern marketing guru’s said they should be … ignoring the fact these people have never done – or achieved – anything close to what NIKE has and does.
Now it is very true there are certain things NIKE have been slow to embrace. Some are mindblowingly ridiculous and stupid. However, I would argue that is more because they shed so many people who loved and live for sport while replacing them with people who love and live for marketing processes and practices.
Because while there is – if done correctly – value in those things, it’s important to remember they never MAKE a brand, they – at best – help empower it. A bit.
That we’ve chosen to forget this to enable us to profit from an increasing number of companies who seek to disguise the fact they don’t know who they fuck they are, what/who they stand for and what they believe, highlights how much marketing has become an industry of platitudes, not provocation.
Which is why I will always remember what a friend of my Dad once told me.
He was a lawyer, but his words were very pertinent for marketing.
Especially a lot of what passes – or is celebrated – in marketing today.
He basically said: “Great companies don’t change who they are but always fight to change where they are”
Sadly, it feels too many have got things the wrong way around these days.
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.