Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Career, Communication Strategy, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Egovertising, Influencers, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Popularity, Process, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Success
I’ve been lucky enough to work with some of the most talented advertising people in the whole business. Not in terms of popularity. Not in terms of ‘thought leadership’. But in terms of making the work. Consistently.
Not luck.
Not one-offs.
Not dependent on a particular client.
They’ve made work that has changed minds, categories and possibilities through their vision, talent and creativity.
And while they are all individuals, with their own perspectives and viewpoints – there is one thing that is pretty consistent across all of them.
They’re good people who are immensely talented rather than people who aspire to work in advertising. Or more specifically, live what they think is ‘the advertising lifestyle’.
And what the fuck do I mean by that?
Well, there’s many ways I could explain it but instead, let me show you something that a mate of mine sent me recently.
Now, before I go on, I should point out I don’t know this person and I don’t know if they’re just executing a brilliant pisstake of how some in the industry act. And if it is, then bravo – they’ve nailed the Andrew Tate of advertising schtick that some on Linkedin like to spout, perfectly.
However, if it’s not – and I worry, it may not be – then this kind of shit sums up everything wrong with our industry. All about attitude and fame than actually making stuff that is famous.
Now I appreciate this person may be young and felt this is how they were supposed to act – especially as those ’24 hours with …’ features tend to be a total exercise in ego and bravado. And it’s for that reason, I chose to remove all reference to who wrote it because let’s be honest, we’re all entitled to make huge mistakes.
However, as I have recently come across a bunch of people in the industry who I suspect would write something exactly like this – and be proud as fuck for it – I think this is the point where I remind everyone in the industry that the people we should be looking up to are not those with the name … the title … the pay packet … the popularity … but the ones who have actually made the fucking work.
Not by proxy.
Not by association.
But with their fingerprints.
And if that’s too much to ask, then let’s at least celebrate people like Sangsoo Chong, who wrote the best ’24 hours with …’ I’ve ever read. Not because it takes the piss … not because it’s glamorous and glitzy but because it’s the most brutally raw and honest description of how a lot of this business really works.
Sadly, what you are about to read, doesn’t capture any of that.
Hell, it doesn’t even capture anything to do with great ideas.
But then it shouldn’t really surprise me when too much of the industry seems to value ‘hot takes’ more than making cool work.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cliches, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity
I recently saw this wonderful clip of Hans Zimmer talking about the soundtrack to the movie Interstellar.
I don’t just like it because of the story he tells, but how he talks about the music representing the ‘heart of the story’.
For all the ad industry bangs on – or has banged on – about storytelling, it seem to have forgotten what that actually means.
Far too often we talk about it in terms of a format rather than craft.
Tickboxes rather than nuance.
Disctation rather than imagination.
It shouldn’t be a surprise because this is the way the whole industry is going …
Immediacy.
Blatant.
Simplistic.
Overt.
Complicity.
Egotistical.
Now of course I appreciate a movie allows more space and time to tell a story than an ad, but storytelling seems to have become a lost art in our industry – regarded as superficial, rather than powerful.
Of course part of this is because we – as an industry – have sold creativity so far down the river, we like to pretend we’re ‘serious business people’ and so spout ecosystems, processes and practices while forgetting the commercially valuable and powerful skills we actually offer which is solving problems in creative ways that can capture the imagination of society in ways that pull people to us rather than rely on bombarding them with rational messages over and over and over again.
While our industry has never had the monopoly on storytelling, it seems crazy we have been so happy to walk away from it, even if so much of it has been driven by clients and procurement departments who have decided the only thing people need to know for them to make a fortune is the repetition of a logo and a single ‘brand asset colour’ … even though ironically there’s arguably less differentiation and aspiration in categories than at any point in the past 30 years.
Don’t get me wrong, there a lot of value in marketing practice, but what is being adopted these days is less practice and more pretending.
Going through the motions of over-simplistic dot-to-dot thinking that not only leaves everyone ending up in similar places, but encourages the relinquishing of responsibility from the very people who are paid to be responsible for where and how a brand grows.
So while I’d be skeptical of anyone who claims storytelling is the most important ingredient in brand building, I’d be even more worried about those who don’t value it, understand it or appreciate what you need to be good at it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Cliches, Clothes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Context, Craft, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Delusion, Distinction, Equality, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, London, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a post about naming strategies.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this before.
A lot of times before.
The processes.
The considerations.
The complications.
… but mainly it’s been about how certain branding consultancies charge an absolute fortune to come up with some utter nonsensical bullshit that they back up with 1000’s of pages of self-serving pseudo-science bullshit and still end up creating something pants. Kind of like the explanation of the Pepsi rebrand from 15 years ago. Or most Linkedin ‘guru’ pontification.
But the other side of this is when people choose to put no effort in whatsoever.
Hiding their recommendation behind terms such as ‘colloquial context’ or ‘cultural vernacular’.
Don’t get me wrong, there are times where a stripped back approach can be powerful.
A way to connect to society by taking their cultural references and contexts head-on.
Hell, cynic used to embrace an approach that we literally called, ‘unplanned‘.
However, while this was about removing any element of pomposity, it still had to elevate how people saw or connected to what we did. Any fool can churn out lowest common denominator stuff … but it takes a certain amount of skill and flair to develop something that not only connects and engages the masses, but does it in a way where the value of the product/brand is increased and improved to all.
We used to call this ‘massperation’ … which still makes me feel sick even today, hahahaha.
I say all this to justify something I saw recently.
Or should I say something Otis saw recently.
You see down the road from us there’s a house being built.
It’s in full-on construction mode and as it is on the way to Otis’ school, he passes it every day.
Anyway, one day he came and told me he’d seen the building site loo and was shocked with its name.
It was this:
That’s right, it’s called the ‘Shitbox’.
To be honest, I’m not sure if Otis should have been more surprised at the name or the fact it proudly states it’s a ‘high viz’ toilet box.
HIGH FUCKING VIZ!
Is the toilet going to be walking along the street late at night? Do builders have such bad eyesight they can’t find a 6 foot high toilet without it being painted bright orange? Are construction workers such bad drivers they need to be warned of where the portaloos are so as not to hit them?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Anyway, I digress.
The point is that while calling the portaloo a ‘shitbox’ may make sense … I can’t help but feel it is also playing into the builder cliche. Sure, cliches happen because they represent a common behavior or attitude that is played out over a sustained period of time … but often this is only a ‘perceived’ behavior or attitude [usually promoted by an individual or organisation who have found a way to monetise the acceptance of this view] that victimizes anyone who does not live upto the cliche.
I appreciate you may think I’ve gone full-on woke … but apart from the fact I don’t think considering others is a bad thing, I see this behaviour over and over again.
Hell, even Jaguar – with their ‘interesting’ rebrand did it by revealing their new concept cars in pink and blue.
PINK AND FUCKING BLUE.
They made such a big deal about how they ‘delete ordinary’, ‘break moulds’ and ‘copy nothing’ and then they actively, loudly and proudly reinforce the most basic of gender stereotypes. On the World fucking stage!
I totally appreciate you can go over-the-top with this stuff – especially given this whole post was inspired by a building site portaloo. I also get people may think I am suggesting we should name products/brands with words that offer no defining characteristic to avoid any potential stereotype. But neither of those are what I’m trying to say.
All I am attempting to point out is that words matter. And while I fully appreciate naming is a difficult task, I find it fascinating companies spend millions on ‘solutions’ that tend to fall into either pompous, basic or made-up.
Or said another way, names that define, limit or pander rather than celebrate those who use them and the reasons they do.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Documentary, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Provocative, Purpose, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Stupid, Success, Teamwork
A while back, I did some work for the rock band Journey.
The ‘Don’t Stop Believin’ mob.
Anyway, without going into too much detail – though a lot of what I’m going to say is common knowledge so I’m not contravening my NDA, and trust me, I asked – it was a rather tension-filled experience.
Not Red Hot Chili Peppers – or should I say Anthony Kiedis – levels of tension, but definitely not chill, put it that way – hahaha.
This time though, it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with 2 of the band members being at loggerheads.
As I said, the fracture in their relationship has been well documented – and I had been warned before hand – but by the time I was involved with them, it was bordering on toxic.
At this point I feel I should point out they were nothing but kind and considerate to me, but like a guest at a dinner party hosted by a couple who had obviously had a major row prior to your arrival – you could feel the tension in every interaction.
But this is less about that and more about the management teams amazing ability to facilitate and negotiate a truce.
Obviously I can’t go into the specifics, but I watched something magical literally unfold in front of my eyes,
Think of it like a cross between the lessons in the hostage negotiation book, ‘Never Split The Difference’, and Kim Papworth.
For those who don’t know who Kim is, he’s the brilliant ex-ECD of Wieden+Kennedy London – and longtime partner to the brilliant-but-bonkers Tony Davidson – who had this incredible ability to keep ideas he believed in on the table … even when clients were initially protesting against them. But here’s the thing about him that was so good.
It was never through bombastic actions.
Never through threats or intimidation.
Never through pandering or false promises.
But always through listening, then gently providing context, clarity, understanding and perspective.
Nudging them forward, rather than pushing them back.
This is similar to what I saw with Journey, with the result of this approach being this:
I have to say the ability to achieve this outcome was inconceivable to me..
Let’s be honest, you can tell from the tweet that it was not something that was easy. Hell, you can tell from the tweet it was not something even the band members expected to achieve.
But it happened because of the work of the management team – who happen to also be Metallica’s long-term management, so are well versed in knowing how to deal with ‘human differences’ as well as musical ones.
Anyway, having seen this happen up close and personal, I can tell you it is more than a skill, but an art. Well, that and starting the whole process with the steadfast belief there was a solution to be found, even if it no one knewwhere, how or when it would happen.
[I wrote another post about this sort of mindset, also involving hostage negotiator, here]
But it is these two criteria that allowed them to help take opposing forces on a journey they likely never imagined they could go on, let alone initially want to. But to achieve that and then get them to be thankful for it while never feeling pushed, cornered, provoked or bullied … is, to put it bluntly, fucking incredible.
I say all this is because I feel too often the way our industry deals with conflict is with more conflict. Or, alternatively, just putting our collective heads in the sand.
Sure, there are occasions – and individuals – where you have to be aggressive.
As Gloria Allred – the powerful US lawyer, of which there is an interesting documentary about her – once said: “Sometimes, power responds to power”.
But that has to be the exception rather than the rule.
In the vast majority of cases, the goal should never be one person gets battered into submission by the other. The key objective has to be ensuring you have properly listened and understood the issues causing the friction … because with this, you can then help both sides appreciate, value and identify what a mutually advantageous outcome could offer for both parties so they feel positive about taking a step closer towards each other.
I say this like you are an intermediary, but I also mean it when you are the one in the conflict.
Now of course this approach won’t always work, but too often our default setting is ‘submit or savage’ and frankly, no one really wins when we adopt either stance.
I appreciate for some people reading this, they’ll be thinking I have a hell of a nerve writing all this when I can have an argument in an empty house – however, over the years I have [slowly] learned that if you want to increase the odds of making great work actually happen, it’s not just about being good at your job … or having taste … or identifying and valuing a good idea you fine tune with craft … you need to know how to deal and address conflict.
Doesn’t matter what job you have.
Doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing it.
Doesn’t even matter what level of role you’re in.
The fact is, great opportunities are born more from unity, than friction.
So if you want to ensure you keep the tension in the work, rather than the relationship … learn the art of conflict resolution, because that will do more to help you actually create great work, brands and careers than any marketing process or ‘alleged’ mini MBA.
There’s no blog posts till Monday as there’s another holiday in NZ [I know, I know] … so have a great weekend and try not to get into any trouble.
Or if you do, use the context from this post to practice getting out of it, haha.