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, Audacious, Culture, England, Football, Freddie, Music, My Childhood, Pride, Queen, Sport
Today, England play their first ever football final on foreign soil.
Do we deserve to be here?
Well, the fact we’re here means the answer has to be yes, however if truth be told, we owe a lot to luck.
And persistence.
And skill.
But mainly luck.
Because apart from one 45 minute spell, we have been pretty rubbish but that means nothing given we’re now just 90 minutes from history. Maybe not history for everyone else, but it definitely is for England, in terms of team and nation.
And while I think Spain will win it, it is quite the achievement. Especially for the manager, who has faced an endless barrage of abuse and yet leads us to the 2nd European Final in a row.
That said I hope we win.
Not just for the players and the country – though I fear what some of the fans may do whether we win or lose – but also for the new Government. Because nothing will piss off the Tories more than Labour coming in on a massive majority and then having the national men’s team win a major European football title, hahahaha.
But for the England team … I can’t imagine how they must be feeling today.
The conflict of emotions.
Fear and excitement.
Nerves and belief.
Pressure and energy.
But that said, I do have an idea of what they will feel like as they play and if they win.
Not because of anything I’ve done, but because of things I’ve witnessed.
From watching Queen achieve music immortality as they performed to the World at Live Aid back in 1985 through to watching Robert Plant – of Led Zeppelin – reaction as he watched Heart perform ‘Stairway To Heaven’ as part of his bands induction into the Kennedy Centre Honours List. It made such an impression on me that I wrote about it here and you can watch the film I’m referring to below.
Both still give me shivers even now, years later … so I cannot imagine what it must have felt like – or still feels like – for the artists. Just like I can’t imagine what the players tonight are experiencing or will experience, should they win. Or should they lose.
And that’s why I hope they – and the England fans around the World – remember that while 2nd place is never as good as first, it’s still an incredible achievement to find yourself in a position where you can make history.
Literally make history.
To achieve something that will be written about, referred to, commented on for decades, if not centuries. Fucking hell, that must be an utterly extroidinary and intense experience to try and deal with. To manage. And carry.
So good luck. I hope you pull it off England.
May the next 90 minutes be full of joy, rather than fear or regret.
Let’s go …
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Chaos, Complicity, Culture, Equality
So recently someone sent me this:
In front of you are 2 cars.
Two ‘family’ cars.
One from around 1987 – a Ford Escort, albeit the XR3i, ‘boy racer’ version. One from 2024 – a Tesla Model Y.
I appreciate a lot has changed in the intervening 37 years … but of all the features, technology and emission differences, surely their physical size is one of the most extreme changes.
It’s happening everywhere, for example, here’s average US ‘ute’ size …
Or if you want to be completely messed with, here’s an average ‘ute’ next to – admittedly – a smaller car.
Now I know there will be a lot of reasons for it.
From technical and safety innovations through to comfort, status and just plain consumer tastes – let alone humanities capacity to become fat bastards as we crave more and more pampered convenience – however seeing them side-by-side is pretty bloody confronting.
But the impact of this is more than just scale …
The roads we drive on are not made to deal with the vast increases in weight.
In fact, they were not designed for cars, full-stop.
And while over time, the automobile succeeded in hijacking the tarmac … a major contributing factor to its ability to do that was cars were far smaller and lighter back then – not to mention a lot less of them – so basic infrastructure didn’t really need to change.
Zoom forward today – and with everything from climate change to population increases – the cars we have are not fit for the roads we drive on and the cost to maintain this or change this is almost beyond anyones pocket.
Now you may think this is going to become an anti-car/pro-environmental post.
You’re wrong.
I’d be a fucking hypocrite given I drive an SUV – though Otis is making sure that won’t be the case much longer.
No, what this post is about is thinking things through.
Considering implications to actions.
Not blindly running at what offers immediate benefits … but a consideration of what it may change or create.
Oh, we may all think we do that, but we don’t really do that. More often than not, short-term wins or instant gratification conquers all.
We’re seeing it with AI.
I’m not against AI. I believe it can do great things. But the people who are pushing it aren’t the people I trust to do it.
Tech bro billionaires who are not used to saying no … or dealing with consequences of their actions … are not the people we should be relying on to evolve this technology.
Not simply because of the damage it could cause, but the implications of what it could change.
In Apple’s iOS 18, the calculator can do mathematical equations in realtime and give you answers IN YOUR OWN HANDWRITING.
Oh it’s cool, no doubt about that … but why will kids want to learn maths anymore?
Hell, why will schools even teach it?
And while it would be nice to buy into the argument of ‘it will enhance the learning journey’ … humans have an incredible capacity to ‘outsource’ their responsibility and engagement to alternatives that they think can do it easier, quicker or more conveniently.
From GPS through to VAR in football … we are forever looking for the shortcut.
A way to remove ‘challenge’ from our life … or – more cynically – have someone/something we can blame when things go wrong.
Look, I get this is MASSIVELY hypocritical coming from me … a fucking gadget loving, wifi-craving, tech groupie … but I am shocked at how many decisions are made with a short-sighted focus.
Over the years I’ve seen some incredibly daft things be approved simply because it satisfied ego or offered a quick win to buy the time to get out unscathed.
And just to be clear, this has not come from the ‘irresponsible class’ … which is the label often given to those in the creative industry … but those who are supposed to be the sensible ones.
CEO’s.
Bankers.
Accountants.
Jesus … even Governments.
In fact, in my experience – while creative people are always looking forwards – they always want to make things that last. That will stand the test of time. Far more than many of the ‘protection and insurance’ discipline/industries that have somehow gained the label of being ‘the responsible ones’ in the boardroom.
Thinking through implications does not mean you are adding obstacles or stopping possibilities, it means you are building something sustainable.
An idea that can benefit all, not just the few.
And while I accept in this day and age, that sort of thing sounds like a bunch of hippy bollocks … the attitude of ‘prosper now and leave any shit to the next generation’ is not working. Even more so when we try and position independent thinking as the enemy of progress.
Somewhere along the line we need to think beyond the next quarter.
We need to go beyond ‘what the short-term data’ is telling us.
We need to value more than ‘how much money it can make us’.
We need to consider more than ‘what this enables’.
And ask ourselves two additional questions …
The first is:
“What could be the implications of this decision on the next generation”
And the second – which is from my friend Paul Stechshulte:
“What if we’re wrong?”