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.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Zealand, Nike
There’s been a lot written and said about brand assets over the years.
A lot of claims and over-promises.
Hell, careers have been made from being a cheerleader of it … even though it has also been responsible for a whole lot of terrible advertising.
Contrived, complicit and confused advertising.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a value – or a role – but as I wrote here, the thing rarely talked about is that brand assets don’t happen by themselves. You can’t buy them off the shelf or make them happen by simply repeating their use ad-nauseum.
No, the only way to turn an attribute into an asset is through creativity.
It’s creativity that gives it meaning.
It’s creativity that gives it a purpose and role.
It’s creativity that imbues it with financial value.
I appreciate that might not fit the narrative of certain people, but that’s the reality of the situation … or it is if you want to do it properly. Unfortunately, it appears more and more people don’t. Preferring to outsource their responsibility – which, let’s not forget, they are paid to do – to generalistic and simplistic solutions that are focused on recognition, not value.
Nothing brought this home more than this ad I saw for a new Nike store in Auckland.
Look at this …
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck is that?
While they have used a number of NIKE’s ‘brand assets’ – namely the font and swoosh – it’s pretty obvious whoever put this together has no understanding or appreciation of what they represent or how to use them.
Mind you, it also seems they also have no understanding or appreciation of sport, art direction or design.
It’s like they’ve just taken a few pieces and shoved them wherever they like – like a terrible jigsaw puzzle that doesn’t show the picture they need to create.
Which highlights another thing rarely talked about brand assets …
Just because you’ve earned them, doesn’t mean you can’t lose them.
Treat them with distain and you’ll find all that hard work will be for nothing.
Moving from a brand asset to an attribute to a warning sign to stay the fuck away.
Brand assets are made and built over time.
They need nurturing, crafting and supporting.
They’re not something that once earned, can be used any way you choose.
It’s why the people who use them need to understand them.
What they represent.
The context they play in.
Their creative meaning and expression.
How to actually fucking use them in the right way.
Without any of that you don’t just fail to unlock their inherent value and power, you’re killing their credibility and the brand they’re tied to.
That doesn’t mean you can evolve them. Or expand them. Or play with them in different ways. Nike – of all brands – is very good at doing that. But that only happens because generally they’re embraced by people who have a deep understanding of what they stand for and represent … rather than random ‘colours and logos’ that they treat as a range of stickers they believe they can put wherever they want and whenever they choose.
It’s why I get so frustrated with how certain people talk about them. Acting they’re like ‘parts’ that can be replaced, exchanged, adapted or used however someone chooses … which ultimately demonstrates many of the people who talk like this don’t actually understand what a brand is, what it takes to build one or the difference between post-rationalising and creating.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Collaboration, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture
My friend James sent me this pic a while back.
To say I feel seen is an understatement.
While I am a big believer in collaboration, the reality is it only works when you’re working with people who share the same level of experience, exposure and standards.
Or put more specifically, share HIGH levels of experience, exposure and standards.
That doesn’t mean they all have to come from the same discipline … or see the same outcome … but it does means they’re working up to the greatest opportunity rather than down to the lowest common denominator.
But that happens less and less.
One of the big problems is because companies think all their ‘partners’ are equal.
I get it, we all like to think we’re dealing with ‘the best of the best’ … but that’s sadly, rarely the case. Procurement … heritage … global alliances all contribute to who gets to be part of the ‘network’ and so the range of quality and experience in these situations is often vast.
That doesn’t mean they won’t offer something, but it does mean their frames-of-reference will be much smaller than everyone else and when this happens, they tend to pull everyone back down to their level rather than push everyone further up.
Or it gets even worse.
The people with the highest levels of experience [proper experience, not ego or delusion] get accused of trying to ‘own’ the situation when all they’re trying to do is create the best possible outcome from the situation.
The reality is experience should be seen and respected as a competitive advantage. Whether we like it or not, people who play at the highest level, tend to play at a higher level. It’s why I love the comment from one of the greatest football managers of all time when he said, ‘learn from winners, not players‘.
Put simply, winners take us to places we didn’t even know, whereas players only can go where they know.
And while the concept of ‘team’ is everyone progresses together, it still needs someone to lead them to the promised land which is why I think the biggest reason collaboration ends up underwhelming is not because there’s a lack of desire to work with others, but because there’s a lack of reality of who needs to be there and what collaboration needs to truly work.