The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Congratulations … we all survived and no one died. I think.

That said, the subject matters of the posts have been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster with things such as anger, frustration and loss. So with that in mind, I thought I’d end the week on a more positive tone.

Kinda.

One thing I have always actively rallied against is stringent strategic processes.

That doesn’t mean I don’t care about rigor or standards – obviously I do – however I don’t think that is demonstrated by blindly following a set process that has pre-determined what is or isn’t of value.

There’s 3 main reasons for this.

1. It automatically narrows and filters what can be used.
2. It ignores differing contexts, situations and categories.
3. You are actively stopping the chance for happy accidents and/or better answers.

It’s one of the main reasons I love working with artists, because at the end of the day – they are the creative – so for them, they determine success by what they FEEL is better rather than what the process tells them it is.

Nothing brought this home more to me than a scene in the documentary about the making of Do They Know It’s Christmas back in 1984.

Bob Geldof and Midge Ure had got together to write a song that they hoped would raise money for the starving in Africa. The single – launched in December ’84 – featured many of the up and coming posters of the era, ‘bullied’ into turning up by the irrepressible Geldof.

Over the space of a chaotic 24 hours, singers … duo … bands … all traipsed into SARM studios to record a song that had just been written and no one knew. Amazingly, there were few egos, with everyone focused on what they had to do, but it’s here that we see a brilliant example of letting the process play second fiddle to perfection’.

George Michael was at the mic and told how to sing his line.

He did it, but while sounding good, he felt it did not reflect the power he wanted to put into it.

So he suggested changing the intonation and sang it.

And he was right, it did sound better …

In fact, it became an iconic moment in the song.

But it might not have been if he was working with people obsessed with following the process than valuing what the process is supposed to deliver.

Fortunately, George was being produced by 2 other singers – and the incredible Trevor Horn, who owned SARM – who recognized that what they had suggested was no where near as good as what he had delivered. And so while it had an impact on how the following lines of the song were structured, they embraced it because ultimately, they knew it was better.

Have a look at this:

Now you may think this is obvious and I shouldn’t be making a big deal out of it.

And you’re right, it is … except we live in an age where too many companies focus more on the systems, processes and marketing practices than what they produce.

If you think I’m talking rubbish, ask yourself this.

Is there more conversation, debate and value placed on the process being put forward or the work delvered?

I would hasten a guess it’s the former.

It blows my mind.

As I said, process is important – but often its developed without any consideration to what it needs to create or change … blindly believing that if the process is ‘right’, then whatever comes out the other end must be too.

Which – as history and marketing has continued to prove – is bollocks.

Almost as bollocks as people sticking with whatever is made – even though they know it’s not as good as it could be – because ultimately they can point to ‘a process’ and outsource any responsibility of output to that.

How fucking cowardly.

But musicians don’t do that.

Musicians play for the song. Always.

Which is why they’re open to possibilities because the goal isn’t control, it’s expression.

Here are two other examples of it …

How often does that happen in our line of work?

How often does someone with ZERO experience in a particular discipline tell someone with a track record how to do their job. How to make something better?

It’s why I laugh when people like Mark Ritson comment on what is/isn’t good creativity.

Don’t get me wrong, he knows a huge amount about marketing practice … he offers real value in developing important marketing 101 rules and behaviours, but he knows fuck all about creativity or innovation.

And I wouldn’t care a less if he didn’t bang on like he was God.

As I said, he is very smart and can make a huge difference to certain sorts of companies. But – despite what he likes to think – not all companies. And the reason why I will always value someone like Rubin more than Ritson is that Rubin plays for the work, not for his own ego.

Open to someone being better. Or smarter. Or just making a better idea.

Not because they don’t care about the process, but because they care more about what it’s supposed to deliver.

Musicians often get dismissed as ramshackle and chaotic.

But if you look at some of the approaches adopted by artists such as Bjork, Metallica, Miley, Travis Scott, ABBA, Radiohead, Dolly Parton, The Black Keys, Rihanna, Marillion, Kendrick Lamare, Prince, Queen, Def Leppard, Pharrell and a whole host more – covering everything from crowdsourcing, business models, brand extensions, distribution management, brand assets, copyright investment, differentiation and distinction, gaming, brand experience and overall innovation in communication to name but a few – you will see they have pioneered more business and communication approaches and practice than almost any of the brands and gurus out there. Or at least done it before most of them.

Part of that is because they’re driven by their need to express themselves with total authenticity. Part of that is because they’re very aware of the context they’re entering – rather than blindly thinking what worked before will automatically work again. And part of that is because the process stops when things outside the process offer something better.