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.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Egovertising
So after yesterday’s love-fest towards my wife, we’re going to take a change of tack.
Recently someone came out a while back to publicly slag some work Colenso had done.
I’m fine with that, but it was why they slagged it off that I took offence to.
Because rather than acknowledge their opinion was entirely subjective … rather than acknowledge their lack of understanding of the work we have done with the client over 15+ years … rather than acknowledge the incredible success it has achieved all over the world, they whined and bleated about why we were wrong and they was right like they were the bastard love child of Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Laurence Fox despite [1] they were factually incorrect and [2] they’re opinion on creativity is one dimensional.
Oh they’ll claim otherwise, but that’s because they have positioned themselves as a business pioneer when really they’re an insurance salesman.
There’s nothing wrong with that – they’re very good at what they do and what they do is important – but they’re more about ensuring you don’t fail rather than get ahead.
But what really got me was the arrogant confidence they spoke about their idea while happily dismissing our work.
Now I shouldn’t be surprised because their whole schtick is to provoke for a reaction – they’re a bit like a shock jock these days, like many of his type – but while I should have just ignored it, I bit … offering them some clarity to go with their delusion.
And yet despite this, they didn’t respond.
No acknowledgement.
No reconsideration.
No apology.
Instead they replied to anyone who reinforced his echo-chamber of opinion which is classic entitled, ego-driven, gaslighting behaviour. Which shouldn’t be a surprise, given they’re fast becoming a caricature of themselves … however it did remind me of something my Dad used to tell the lawyers who worked for him.
“When people need to tell everyone how smart they are, they’re not that smart”.
This was his way of telling them one of the most powerful skills you can develop for your career, is self awareness.
The ability to look at an issue from all sides.
To be able to know what you’re not good at.
To be open to the new and different.
To acknowledge when you’re wrong.
Now that’s good advice for anyone, but given how many of Dad’s former staff are now leading lawyers/QC’s [though they’re now KC’s … which I find hard to remember given it wasn’t that in Dad’s day] in areas of human rights and press freedom – from The Guardian to the NYT – it seems he had a better understanding of what intelligence really is than many who base it simply on academic achievement.
Maybe this is the sort of thing that should be taught at business and marketing schools … so we stop seeing people [read: privileged, white men] continually ‘evolve’ into the beasts they say they were made to slay in their desperate attempt to stay in the spotlight.
On one level I get it.
The older you get, the less the spotlight shines on you.
Not because what you have to say is wrong or out-of-date, but because there’s new people coming up, with new ideas and new ways.
But to our populists of marketing practice, this is like kryptonite.
They want the spotlight.
They need the spotlight.
They live for the spotlight.
They’ll say or do whatever it takes to keep it on them.
Doesn’t matter if they contradict what they said before.
Doesn’t matter if they proclaim subjectivity as fact.
Doesn’t matter who they’re talking to or what about.
Doesn’t matter how inflated their ego or pedestal.
THEY. NEED. THE. FOCUS.
For them. And only them.
Hence we’re in this weird situation where the people who are supposedly at the peak of our discipline are happy to play in the trough.
Not all of course, but more than a couple.
Which not only doesn’t bode well for the future of the industry – especially the bright minds who have new ideas that may challenge or evolve traditional concepts – it reminds me of something else my Dad used to say …
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Stubborness, Trust, Truth
I love this clip from South Park about how they think Netflix works.
Sure, it’s taking the piss out of the streaming gods – suggesting their quality control is all over the place because they say yes to every pitch – but in some ways, I can’t help but feel it would be brilliant if more clients embraced this approach.
Now before you think I’m mad, there is a reason for this.
About 14,000 years ago, I wrote a post saying clients should say yes more often and agencies should say no. The main reason for this was I kept hearing companies suggest their agencies didn’t understand their business. That they were more interested in what they wanted to make rather than what their clients needed.
They’re wrong … because in my experience, agencies absolutely want to do the best things for their clients.
That they have different ways to achieve their clients needs and goals is a good thing.
More than that, it’s literally what they are all about.
But right now it seems more and more clients are trying to dictate and mandate work … when, with the upmost respect, many haven’t got the faintest idea what good work is, how to get it, and how to get their audience to be interested and motivated in what they’ve got to say.
Now to be fair, this is not entirely their fault.
It doesn’t help many agencies have sold creativity so far down the river, that the only thing they care about is the head hours they can sell. It doesn’t help many companies only enable their people to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. And it doesn’t help company procurement departments have an outsized influence on the approach and people their agency gets to work with – which directly impacts the work that gets produced – which is why you can see how this often turns into a complete shit show.
But that still doesn’t explain why some clients think they know more about creativity than their agency.
Which is why I think the ‘for profit’ research agencies they surround themselves with have to shoulder some of the blame. Part of that is because supporting what the client thinks and wants is in their personal interests. And part of that is because many of them make the mistake of judging work by clarity of message rather than enjoyment of content.
To emphasise this last point, there’s a brilliant story about Spielberg when he was starting Dreamworks.
You see despite him and his partners being some of the most successful producers and directors of all time, their external investors wanted everything to go through focus groups to ensure everything was geared for success.
Spielberg said no.
He said he made films that were true to his vision, not other people’s.
In fact he was so insistent on this point that the whole deal was nearly off until Spielberg agreed to do it on the condition that any focus group was based around answering just one question and he had the right to decide what to do with the answer, once he’d got it.
They asked him what was the question.
“Were you entertained?”
That’s it.
One question.
One simple question … but arguably the most pertinent question.
Just to be clear, I am not saying research isn’t important.
It is. It’s vital.
In fact I love research. I love what it can uncover and reveal and help you understand.
But it shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate judge and jury.
It shouldn’t be about definitive answers.
The funny thing is I often find company research people understand this very well. They have incredible knowledge while also being very self aware. An openness to explore and consider. Where the most blinkered and stubborn thinking happens is when working with external organisations who harbour ambitions to be strategic partners. Where their goal is to control rather than inform.
Not of course, not everyone is like that. There’s many amazing companies out there … but there’s also a bunch whose commercial interests end up accelerating the disconnection of brands with truth and potential rather than enabling it.
But I digress.
The point of this post – and that South Park clip – is in the quest to not make any mistake or risk upsetting anyone – often their own board of directors – companies end up creating work that says nothing and does little. Meanwhile, with Netflix actively looking for the next big, they’re saying yes rather than no … and while that leads to a lot of stuff that may not perform, their commitment to pushing and exploring means they also have a lot of epic. Which has created a lot of longterm value.
Or said another way, Netflix see the commercial value of trust, creativity and exploration.
And while I know the two can’t really be compared, I’m going there … not just to reinforce the point that self-awareness is commercial intelligence, but because if brands want people to love them, it might be good if they did stuff for them, not about themselves. And it might be good if more agencies got back to valuing creativity rather than just saying they do.
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.