Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Law, Marketing, Marketing Fail
Whenever I am in the US, the thing that always shocks me – regardless how many times I’m there – are the pharmaceutical and lawyer ads.
Pharmaceutical on TV.
Legal on billboards.
They’re everywhere … forcing themselves on you like double glazing salesman who senses a moment of weakness in your resolve.
And while you tend to ignore the pharmaceutical ads – because they’re boring as fuck, long as hell and then filled with disclaimers that try to write-off ‘death’ as a casual side-effect – I am transfixed by the lawyer billboards.
Loud. Egotistical. Blustering in confidence.
They’re almost a parody except they’re deadly serious.
My Dad hated the US legal system … because according to him, it made a mockery of the law. Designed either to ambulance chase for quick wins or keep big cases going to maximise fees.
Anyway, recently on a trip to LA, I sat behind a bus with this:
On first glance, I just saw the URL and thought ‘Lemon Daddy’ may be a euphemism for some sort of sugar-daddy dating service. [I know, I know]
Then I saw the line ‘why are you still driving that piece of shit’, and it made me properly interested … especially when my taxi driver told me the guy in the pic was the basketballer, Austin Reaves, who plays for the Lakers.
Soon after that, I saw the name of the law firm ‘Drake’ and it all made sense – or should I say more sense – and by checking out the URL, I saw it was an ad for a law firm who specialise in taking on cases relating to faulty cars.
Frankly, the website reinforced what my Dad thought about a lot of American law … it’s a hard sell masterclass, but I still couldn’t work out why the NBA player was there unless:
1. It was just another way to try and get noticed.
2. Austin had a financial interest in the company.
So I did a bit of digging and – to be honest – the answer was more complicated than the most complicated law case. Have a read of this.
Now for someone who has been in this industry and worked in a lot of countries – including LA, where they’re based – but I’ve never heard of Black Llama creative. But that means fuck all. However – and I appreciate the snobbishness of this comment – I have been in this industry long enough to know what good work is and frankly, I have opinions about the claims they make about themselves:
Black Llama, a renowned creative advertising agency recognized for its innovation and expertise in brand development, played a pivotal role in the inception and execution of Lemon Daddy. Black Llama’s exceptional creativity, coupled with their strategic prowess, ensured that the Lemon Daddy campaign resonates with consumers, captivating their attention and generating engagement.
To be fair, they definitely achieved the latter part of their claim … but not by their innovation, expertise in brand development or exceptional creativity, but because they put a swear word in the headline and – for me – some random dude holding a basketball.
Look, I’m all for people having a go – and I appreciate everyone thinks they have something to offer that no one else has – but confidence means little when it’s so obvious you live in a bubble where you are the only one who judges what is great.
[One look at their website may highlight this is the case with them]
Good on them for making this happen.
Good on them for getting an NBA player involved.
Good on them for working with a client that seems to have a good idea.
But if I was Austin, I’d be online looking for SueMyManagementForBadEndorsementDeals.com
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Comment, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Effectiveness, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Respect, Stupid
One of the things I find fascinating is how everything these days is ‘a sprint’.
The urgent need for an immediate solution to enable a brand or business to move forward.
Except it’s not true is it? Not really.
I mean – I get that there are occasions where circumstances demand an extremely quick response.
A terrible event.
A moment of opportunity.
An act forced by an aggressive client.
But in the main, these ‘sprints’ have nothing to do with that.
They’re for a new product launch.
A brand campaign.
An annual event.
If they need a sprint for those, then surely that means they haven’t [or just as likely, their bosses, bosses haven’t] got their shit together because those things don’t ‘just happen’ do they? It’s not like the Paris authorities are going to wake up on the 1st of July and suddenly realise they have to hold the Olympics in a few weeks time so need construction companies to engage in ‘a sprint’ to knock up a few stadiums in time.
Now if my Dad was alive and found himself in this situation he would say – as I often heard him tell clients who had failed to plan appropriately – “your emergency is not my problem” … however in adland, we tend to jump in and try to help.
Yay us!
Except quite often, when we do this, we’re made to feel like we’re the reason they’re in this mess and so rather than see us as someone trying to help, we’re seen as someone holding them back.
It’s so weird.
Even more so when they then question our hours and fees.
Which is why my attitude is that unless there is a real reason for the urgency – and a respect for what you’re asking people to do – you should probably say no. I get it may be unpopular, but you’re not going to win in this situation.
And don’t get me started when companies brief agencies before a major holiday.
OH MY GOD.
I used to see this in China a lot … and we [as in Wieden Shanghai] would always say no.
Sure, if it was a client of ours who was in a pickle for legit reasons, we’d do all we could to help them … but if it was about ego or mismanagement, we’d politely decline.
And yet, from what I see and hear from others – and occasionally experience – this situation seems to be happening more and more often … the defecto rather than the exception.
What’s even more bizarre is that the supposed urgency for a solution gets more and more delayed as additional contexts, mandatories, and approval processes get added to the list of deliverables … resulting in you wondering how urgent this really was as a supposed ‘sprint’ turns into a marathon.
Of course, the reality of these situations is it’s actually about money and time.
Or said another way, the desire to reduce it.
I get it, developing work can be time-consuming and expensive … but here’s the thing, shortening the time doesn’t automatically mean it makes it the work better.
Cheaper, maybe.
But not better.
In my experience, there are 3 main reasons this situation continually and persistently occurs:
1. The client doesn’t value creativity.
2. The client doesn’t understand creativity.
3. The client doesn’t actually know what they want or need.
For far too many, creativity is seen as expressing what you want people to know about your brand/product before adding ‘some wrapping paper’ around the messaging to make it ‘creative’.
I’ve talked about the folly of this ‘wrapping paper’ analogy before … but that perspective continues to grow. Worse, some agencies actively reinforce it in an attempt to show ‘they get the client’ or they ‘get business’, all the while undermining their single most valuable asset.
Which means that maybe they don’t know business as much as they think.
Don’t get me wrong, it is entirely possible to spend too much time on something. But there sure-as-hell can be too little. And when you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t know what they want – so use creativity to try and work it out and then judge it as if its your fault – then any length of time is too much time.
And yet it feels like ‘quality’ has now become defined by the speed it takes to create rather than the effect it creates … often reinforced, as I said a couple of days ago, by ‘for profit’ research companies and gurus who focus on clarity not interest.
No wonder so many clients are asking agencies about what their AI approach is.
Now as I said at Cannes, I think AI – and tech as a whole – offers a whole world of possibilities and opportunities for brands to evolve, grow and connect. Hell, we just did it with our Pedigree Adoptables campaign that literally wouldn’t be possible without it. But that’s not what a lot of clients mean when they ask that, they’re looking for cheaper and quicker output. Optimising the optimized.
The great irony of this is that when you talk about AI affecting their business – especially if the competition embrace it against them – many react like you’ve just tazered them.
They’ll say there’s no comparison.
That their product price-point is based on the value of their expertise, craft and innovation.
And for some, that’s true. But it’s some … not all.
Which is very similar to the post I wrote a while back about how many brands like to think of themselves as premium, but their actions and values are all about how cheap they can be.
A while back I spoke to someone who is one of the most influential luxury expert in the world.
They own, invest and consult with the best of the best … new and old, classic and innovative.
And they said to me they believe the future of luxury will be about recognizing the value of humanity.
The custom, craft and care.
Because in a world that is increasingly about speed, scale and optimization, the brands who will command the greatest value, influence and price will be the ones who offer their customers the most human interaction, engagement and service experience.
It’s a fascinating thought … one that could separate the real from the wannabes.
Or, said another way, the companies who those who talk about valuing their brand and audience and those who actually do. Because one only cares about the sprint, where others appreciate the jog.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Alcohol, Apathy, Asia, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Beer, Campaign Magazine, China, Chinese Culture, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Empathy, Environment, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Shanghai, Singapore, Strategy
I have a history of working on clients I don’t really have a right to work on.
Sport.
High Fashion.
Female Haircare.
OK, so I have a real relationship with sport, but I think the reason I have been able to [even though I say it myself] be so successful with the other categories is that I get so into what I am working on. I get kind-of obsessed with learning and understanding everything about it and throw myself into reading all I can about the culture, history and category before I then interview everyone I can meet who is authentically connected to it.
No outsourcing to superficial focus groups … it’s about graft. Working with the people who create and push the category rather than those who simply buy the product.
It’s served me well – underpinned by clients who care about their audience rather than just see them as walking wallets and me being being self-aware enough to know my perspective is from an outsiders point of view, so I need to explore everything while assuming nothing.
I say all this because one of the other categories I’ve worked on that I shouldn’t, is alcohol.
Why shouldn’t I?
Because the last sip of booze that passed my lips was in 1985.
NINETEEN EIGHTY FIVE … so 39 years ago!
And yet over that time, I’ve worked on everything from Heineken, Guinness, Johnnie Walker and the development of Blackened, for Metallica.
Beer advertising in particular is fascinating because there tends to be 2 states:
Sponsored jokes or pretentious bullshit.
Now I get why it falls into these 2 states because client/agencies tend to either want to reaffirm their beer is ‘fun and social’ or ‘important and crafted’.
But for every Guinness Surfer, Carlton Draft Big Ad, John Smiths No Nonsense, DB Export Brewtroleum or going right back, Heineken Refreshes … there’s a whole heap of contrived, lifestyle rubbish.
Lazy headlines placed over generic Getty image photography.
One I saw recently was this from Tiger.
Now I appreciate the photo does not do it justice, but the headline reads:
Tiger Crystal.
Ultra Low Carb.
Extra Refreshing.
The reason this does my head in is two-fold.
First is you have to understand Tiger is very close to my heart.
Not only was it one of the first brands I worked on when I first moved to Asia, I also won the worldwide account – literally on my own – against 4 network agencies back in the early 2000’s.
Apart from that allowing me to work with some brilliant people on some brilliant assignments, it also resulted in Campaign Magazine featuring me on their front page in all my sweary glory, which is obviously a career high, hahaha.
But the other reason is that copy makes no fucking sense.
What the hell does ‘extra refreshing’ mean?
Oh I know how they’ll justify it …
With less carbs, the beer tastes even better to the drinker. Not literally, but emotionally.
And while there may be an element of truth to that … it doesn’t make it EXTRA refreshing. More drinkable maybe, but not extra refreshing. But here’s the thing, if it’s that good, why don’t they make ALL their beer like this?
Why don’t they bring their ‘extra refreshing’ premise to all their products?
I’ll tell you why, because it’s bollocks.
It’s lazy marketing … another example of vacuous superlatives being churned out to sound exciting without any thought, consideration or any excitement. An act of arrogance, demonstrating how important the brand thinks it is and how little they think – or understand – the audience they literally serve.
Now I appreciate some may say, ‘why does it matter, no one will pay much attention to it’?
And I get that … except that’s the point really.
Our job is to try and make people pay attention.
To give a shit.
They’re not going to think it changes their life, but they shouldn’t blindly ignore it.
It’s this sort of arrogance that demonstrates the lack of self-awareness that has permeated the industry. A blind belief that everything we do is great simply because we did it … despite the fact in the real world, all we’re doing is adding to the social landfill and social pollution of shit advertising.
Where is the pride in who we are, what we do and the intelligence of who we engage?
Where?
We’re so much better than this. And just to be clear, I’m not solely blaming whoever did this awfulness, it’s also the clients, procurement and ‘for profit’ research companies who created the environment where this ends up being deemed ‘worthy’.
I swear the biggest problem the industry has is every department and discipline has its own agendas and metrics for success.
There’s no alignment.
No agreement on what we want and need to make.
Just distain, distrust and self-interest.
Of course not everyone is like this – thank god – but if clients want to see the potential of their brand and agencies want to push the possibilities of their creativity, there has to be a moment where we stop hiding awfulness under the blanket of marketing justifiable rationales, because for all the NPS, system 1, best-practice approaches we may proudly shout about, there are two questions that trump all.
Is it true and does it make us give a shit?
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Imagination, Logic, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Paula
Just to be clear, I am not anti-logic.
Of course not.
But I am anti-blinkered logic.
Where anything outside of established rules or norms are discounted because they’re outside of established rules or norms.
It was the foundation of our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative talk, last year at Cannes.
And ironically, if I thought it was important then … it’s become even more important now with people like Jon Evans waxing lyrical about ‘System 2’ thinking.
Have a look at the functional benefits he is stating:
+ Facts don’t care about your feelings
We all know how unreliable our feelings can be so why would you make a large business decision based on what people feel about it?
+ Measure Everything
I never understood at System1 why we worked so hard to reduce it down to a few key metrics. The results also came in this super easy online report rather than PowerPoint. Now you can have every measure you ever wanted in a shiny PowerPoint presentation with our ‘minimum page promise’ of 93.
+ Infinite personalisation at scale
We have finally achieved the holy grail of marketing reporting namely infinite personalisation at scale. With so much data at your disposal whatever conclusion you need to make we can provide it. We also present it in such a scientific way that no-one will be able to challenge your conclusion. Imagine that!
+ The Price is Right
One of the reasons you employ McKinsey is because they charge a lot of money and therefore must be making a huge impact on your business. We have followed this immutable logic to ensure this is the most expensive research you will ever pay for because, well, we’re worth it.
Now on one level, a lot of what he’s saying isn’t wrong. But by the same token … it’s also not entirely right.
The reduction of everything to a quantifiable – and historical – measure ultimately means you’re advocating, at best, for incremental change or, at worst, following a model of ‘best practice’ without remembering that best practice is past practice.
Of course some will love it. But then, some love beige office furniture.
Which is why this old ad kind of sums up my concerns with myopic approaches based on models designed to not fail rather than liberate possibility.
History is littered with once great brands and ideas that fell foul of ‘the research says no’.
What makes it even worse is often that research is based on the lowest common denominator of audience versus – say – the highest.
Resulting in commoditised mediocrity, hidden under ‘effectiveness and optimisation’ justifications.
Or said another way, outsourcing your cowardice to ‘for profit, external organisations’.
I am not saying what Jon is saying is wrong.
I am not saying using facts and data are wrong.
I’m saying his view – as I say about many people who sell their specific processes/programs as guarantees of success’ – is.
[For example, as the very brilliant Lee once told me, “if you’re measuring everything, then you don’t know what is important”]
As I wrote a while back, there’s many examples of brands who buck his view.
Hell, I work with a bunch of them, including:
SKP-S … the most profitable luxury retailer on the planet.
Gentle Monster … the fastest growing and selling eyewear brand across Asia.
Metallica … the 2nd most successful American band in music history.
… to name but 3.
The point is, for all the cleverness of Jon Evans – and he is very clever and I respect him, what he does and how he does it – the implied suggestion, whether intentional or not, that his way is the only to be successful, is wrong.
As is his new statement around ‘system 2 thinking’.
I get why he says it … just like I get why many people in that industry say it … because it’s as much what they believe and how they make money.
And while that is all well – plus they’re very good at what they do … especially with organisations who are conservative and/or have people with little formal training – they’re services are more like insurance products than business accelerators.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as you’re not claiming otherwise.
Which is why it’s important to remember – to paraphrase what Martin and I also said at our ‘The Case For Chaos’ talk in 2019 for WARC at Cannes – logic might give you what you think people want, but chaos gives them what they’ll never forget.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Creativity, Culture, Insight
A few years ago, the APG asked me to do a presentation about how to get to interesting work and I summed it up by saying, ‘live an interesting life’.
While I appreciate that is a relatively superficial answer, there’s truth in it.
Put simply, what you find interesting is directly related to the experiences you have and the people you meet. The more experiences – and people – you have, the more interesting the possibilities.
But when I look around, it can feel like a cultural echo chamber.
Everyone reading the same things. Following the same people. Commenting on the same issues.
Sometimes I wonder if people even look at life outside of work. Hell, there were people over the festive season who used social media to only talk about ‘ad issues’.
WHAT THE FUCK?
Look, I get strategy means everything can have some sort of professional value … but there’s a big difference between looking at life with ‘professional blinkers’ and just doing shit for the sheer curiosity and interest of it.
It’s why I think there’s huge value in the messy stuff.
The weird … the strange … the ‘makes no sense’ …
That’s where you find the new and the different.
That’s where you gain understanding rather than answers.
That’s where you learn about people not ‘consumers’.
Of course it’s rare these days.
Now everyone is looking for short-cuts.
From online surveys to AI driven chat bots.
Optimise … maximise … squeeze every inch of efficiency out of what you’re doing.
And while some of that has value, it’s no where near as good as running with reality.
It’s why Wieden – despite being all about the work – has always been so good at strategy.
Because they celebrate those who are more than just professionally curious, but culturally.
The people who have a hunger and desire to get ‘in it’.
To get messy and lost in the opinions, behaviours, actions, viewpoints and nuance of the communities and subcultures they’re exploring and working with. Which is why they value being among them as much as reading every possible book about them.
A commitment to authenticity over advertising.
A commitment to adding to culture not just stealing from it.
A commitment to finding the interesting rather than repeating the tropes.
A commitment to fucking around and finding out rather than playing where you’ve always been.
Sure it takes more work. Sure it takes more time. Sure it probably adds more initial cost.
But putting aside the fact this helps get to better work – that plays to where the culture/subculture is heading rather than where it currently is, or worse, was – there’s the simple fact of doing things right. Because, as my Dad once said to me, if you’re not interested in doing that, then what’s the fucking point of doing it at all?