Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Loyalty, Management, Wieden+Kennedy
I’ve written a lot about office culture in the past.
Like here. And here … to name but two.
I’ve talked about how I was deeply skeptical of companies who claimed it until I worked at Wieden.
Mainly because that was the only place where I felt they truly had one.
Shaped by the philosophies of Dan and Dave but evolved by the people in the agency.
Born rather than planned.
A byproduct of the people in the place, not a mandate from the people running the place.
A culture that created the identity of the work but also held people to account for what they did and contributed.
Some people hated it.
Some people were made by it.
I was definitely in the latter camp … but recently I saw a quote that kind of summed up why I thought it was so good.
“Culture is the worst behaviour management will tolerate”
I love it.
I love it because it represents what culture is.
Not Hallmark Card happiness, but a mishmash of weird and wonderful.
Where people are allowed to be themselves but everyone knows what they’re there to do.
Wieden was great at it … giving freedom to people to express who they are, however weird it was. Or should I say, however weird they are.
Because the main thing was as long as it was serving the work – and not damaging others – they were OK with it.
In fact I once asked what it took to be fired from the place given all the ‘unique’ things I had seen. OK, that I had personally done and got away with … to which the answer was, “it happens if you don’t care about the work and don’t push to keep making the best work of your life”.
That – ladies and gentleman – is culture.
Not beanbags or dress down Friday … but self-created, self-policed expression.
But that self-policed bit is important.
Because as much as Wieden felt like an art school a lot of the time, people knew was only possible if people respected the freedom they were given and trusted to embrace. Anyone who took the piss was often dealt with by the people in the place. Not to put them down or dictate how they should behave … but to ensure they knew the responsibility they had in maintaining the openness everyone else got to enjoy.
Which is why you can’t plan culture, you can just create the conditions for it.
And that’s what separates those who get it and those who don’t. Who can’t.
Which is why writing this post today is especially appropriate given it’s Colenso’s founders day.
A day where the agency shuts its doors so the people inside can go and play.
Because Colenso is another agency who ensure creativity always wins.
It has – and does – continually do it, regardless of employees, leadership or client.
And in Colenso’s case, we’ve been doing it for over 5 decades.
Because there’s something in the water of the place.
Let’s be honest, any individual or company can have a good year or two … but only those who have a true creative culture get to perform at that level for so long.
Of course that doesn’t mean other agencies are bad – far from it – but it does mean many are in the business of trading creativity whereas some are actually believers in the power and creation of it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Film, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Provocative, Queen, Reputation, Success, Succession, Television
This is a long post.
Proper long.
And given I overwrite everything, that is probably a scary thought.
But I hope you hang in there, because it’s something important – at least to me. And who knows, it may trigger some thoughts – or hate – and I’ll consider that a win. Maybe, ahem.
So I don’t know about you, but I miss the TV show, Succession.
I miss the characters … the writing … the inconvenient truth how companies – and some families – work.
And while there are many articles and reports dedicated to explaining what ‘worked’, I recently read something that captured how it worked.
I love that write up.
I love it for a whole host of reasons … of which one is acknowledging that to make something that can capture so many people’s attention for so long, is an act of creative magnificence.
And while we may all nod our heads in agreement, the thing is we forget that.
We forget the challenge of keeping millions engaged and interested over a period of time.
Or maybe more specifically, we have forgotten HOW to do it.
Let’s be honest, the attitude of many brands is ‘keep things the same’ or ‘don’t fuck it up’ … while not realizing the biggest risk to achieving what they want to achieve is literally doing the same thing, in the same way, over-and-over again.
Of course, a big reason for their attitude is their quest for attribution.
Where the brand is synonymous and attributed to what they do/say/communicate.
However, rather than achieve this by doing interesting things that audiences value and can engage in – which is literally, the fastest, most effective way to build active, interested, engaged and committed attribution – we see more of the lazy approach. An approach sold by people with methodologies that mistake repetition as reputation.
Hence, we see countless campaigns featuring ‘consistent fictional characters’ doing variations of the same thing no one really cares about or relates to as if they’re trying to do a homage to the ‘Gold Blend’ coffee ads from the UK. WHICH CAME OUT IN THE 1980’S!!! Or the modern equivalent, where every element of every piece of communication is plastered with cues of whatever colour a brand is associated with. All the while ignoring the fact what it actually does is pull people out of their engagement with the communication because they’re questioning/wondering/laughing what sort of person drives a red car, lives in a red house – with red wallpaper – and only eat red vegetables. But even that isn’t the lowest of the low. No … that belongs to the work that shoves a watermark of the brand logo/name into the top left-or-right-hand-side of all their work … as if acknowledging their communication is so boring that the only way to know who it is from is to literally shove it in front of their faces.
I’m not saying ‘brand assets’ aren’t a thing … but they only become that with creativity.
Over time.
Continually reinforced … expressed … added to.
Without that, you end up with things that are more like weights than rockets.
And that’s the problem I have with so a bunch of the marketing practice being peddled …
Because they fail to appreciate the difference between recognition and value.
Or meaning.
Or resonance.
Or connection.
As I said to a client recently, just because I know what the swastika is, doesn’t mean I want to be a Nazi.
But that’s where we’re at right now … repeat, repeat, repeat.
Which is why that comment on Succession is so important.
Because they understand the importance of constantly adding to the narrative, not repeating it.
Keeping viewers not just interested … but on their toes.
Which leads to them engaging with the show, even when they’re not watching it.
Talking, discussing, sharing, commenting, deducing, arguing.
A program where none of the characters had many redeeming features, kept millions around the world coming back to them.
To learn. To listen. To grow. To hate. To debate.
Is that hard to do?
Of course.
Is it impossible to do?
Nope … especially when you hire proper talent and let them do what they’re great at, rather than value talent on how little they cost and then tell them what to make. Even though you don’t have experience in knowing how to make things people want to engage with.
But as a friend said to me recently, there were no conversations about ‘attribution’ with Succession were there!?
Nope. Not one. Not even from the first episode.
And maybe that was because they didn’t start the show with the intent of creating the lowest common denominator of recognition … then repeating it over and over and over again. No … their intention was to make something interesting … and then keep adding to that so their audiences would keep giving a fuck.
Look, I have no problem with marketing practice.
It is important and has a real role and value in building brands and driving effective marketing.
But that role and value is only released when it is done well and honestly … and right now, it feels there’s a lot of soundbites and not a lot of depth.
Selling systems that promise simplicity but ultimately are outsourcing responsibility.
Outsourcing responsibility to people who can profit from it, despite having no experience in actually creating it.
The irony is we all want the same thing.
Hell, we all need the same thing.
But there’s a major difference between playing not to lose and playing to win so maybe there needs to be more conversations about that, rather than blindly follow people who present themselves as business liberators when really, they’re good insurance salespeople.
Of course, the reality is that, despite what some may say, there’s not one ‘all encompassing’ answer to all this.
I get how expensive everything is so the temptation to stick and stay with what you know and what is working for you, is high. But regardless who you are, it will not last forever and it’s far better to own the change than be left behind by it.
Just ask the Disney execs how they’re feeling as they watch their Marvel universe start to implode.
Building anything is a journey that goes through highs and lows along the way.
But it’s the people who think – or say – they can stop that, who end up creating branded mediocrity.
Or should I way, ‘mediocrity attribution’.
Which is why there is one final example of the commercial value of adding to a story rather than repeating it and that’s Queen.
Specifically their recent sale of their back catalogue for ONE BILLION POUNDS.
Whether you like the band or not, you can’t say that is not an impressive number.
And while even I – a massive Queen fan – accept that in 1986, they stopped being musicians and became entertainers [aka: ‘turned crap’] … it’s the music they made until that point that gave them their legacy, fans and economic value.
Because rather than basically repeat their first hit over and over again … they kept taking people to different and interesting places.
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, Attitude & Aptitude, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Empathy, Honesty, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Professionalism, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
A few weeks ago, I saw this post from the CEO/Founder of Liquid Death …
Putting aside that another bunch of kids somewhere in the US had done a similar thing with my ol’ mate Rick Astley … Mike at Liquid Death’s admiration for what they did kinda explains why I like hiring people who have done interesting stuff rather than those who just know interesting stuff. Even more so when the interesting stuff they spout is something someone else actually did or said.
Don’t get me wrong … opinions, considerations and evaluations have an important role to play in the industry, but if you haven’t actually made any actual work worthy of note, then the question is ‘do you really understand what it takes?’
The challenges.
The decisions.
The choices.
The craft.
The reality is anything is easy if you’ve never done it or have to do it … which is why those who try – even if they fail – will likely have more interesting perspectives than those who just express from a pedestal or vacuum.
It’s why I find so many of those newsletters being flogged on Linkedin amusing … because many are written by people who are not associated with any work of note. Or any work for that matter. And so while they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, it is just that – an opinion with a bit of context rather than the ‘undeniable fact’ they like present themselves as having.
To a much lesser degree, the same could be said about certain marketing practice experts who love to suggest they have all the answers and yet have also never actually made – or built – something of significance. Unless you count their own publicity machines.
OK, I know I’m being a condescending bastard. And the reality is I don’t mean it as much as I’ve made it sound.
[At least where the marketing practice experts are concerned anyway. Or some of them, ha]
But here’s the thing …
Do you know what else is massively condescending?
Listening to people who have never actually made anything of note putting down the credibility, expertise and knowledge of those who have … just so they can raise their own profile and ego.
Shockjocking for the clicks.
Shameless in their desire for the attention.
One minute claiming a discipline is dead … and then next minute, flogging their own ‘system’ that’s basically the same discipline they said was caput. But with added over-inflated academic value and self-congratulations for personal pleasure and good measure. Or associating themselves with famous work because they were employed – albeit for 2 seconds – at the company who originally made it. Despite not working on it or even being within 1000 feet of it. But still offering tips on how to make it like they are the CEO of said brand.
OK Rob, calm-the-fuck-down.
B-R-E-E-E-E-E-E-A-T-H-E-E-E-E-E-E.
OK, I feel a bit better now.
Look, I’m not saying there isn’t value in what they think and do – there is. Or at least with many of them. But the way they dismiss the work and value of those who literally create the stuff they claim to be an experts in – despite having never made it at that level, or in some cases, at all – is pretty shit.
And do you know what the great irony of all this is?
The reason there’s so much bad work out there is because of them. Because these ‘hypeists’ have succeeded in getting senior execs to believe their opinion is more valuable than the people who have actually been there, done that and keep doing it.
So instead of listening to those with the real experience, they are choosing to follow those who talk loudly from their self-built pedestal.
Where they talk and shout about why they are right.
Talk and shout about what they say is good work.
Talk and shout about why only their process is the one to follow.
Despite the fact – at best – they’ve never made the work they reference or – at worst – have never made any work at all. Certainly not at anything approaching the level their ego plays at.
So sure, I’m probably being a condescending asshole, but then so are the people who casually dismiss the value of those brave enough to put their ideas out into the world to be judged by people who don’t even know how to create it, let alone actually make it.
You don’t have to like it. But you should acknowledge you’ve also never done it.
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.