Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Comment, Japan, Music, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Spotify, Wieden+Kennedy
Years ago, when I was helping launching Spotify in Japan at Wieden, we did a bunch of work on understanding what music fandom really meant.
Given this was in Japan – the land of extreme perfection – we knew it was going to be interesting, but after a short while, we realised we may have missed the point.
You see while we met a whole lot of people who had a deep relationship with music – including someone who had something like 74 different vinyl versions of Dolly Parton’s ‘Jolene’, not to mention a rather un-nerving 40 year old bloke who was obsessed with everything Japanese, female heavy metal band BabyMetal, did … the reality is they weren’t fans of music, they were fans of a song or an artist or a genre.
And when we realised that, that’s when we started to get real clarity on what a real music fan was and went down a road that led to work that helped Spotify enter Japan and take a leadership position … despite being late to a market where vinyl still was the dominant format and where there was a ton of streaming competitors who all offered more music – especially local music – than Spotify.
However, on our journey to this point, we interviewed a bunch of people who were fans of a particular band – or genre – and asked them what they thought were the characteristics that defined someone as a ‘hardcore fan’.
We got such a range of answers …
Some cliched. Some intriguing. All expressed with earnest authenticity.
My favourite group with the heavy metal/heavy rock fans.
Part of that is because I love that style of music and part of that is because it seems to actively want to disassociate itself from anything associated with popular, mainstream or universally accepted culture.
Hence we got lots of comments relating to dress … places to drink … where you stand at gigs … how many gigs you’ve been to … influences … deep cuts … history … a never ending set of criteria that apparently separated authenticity from wannabe.
I say all this because I recently saw something no one mentioned in our conversations. Something that – for me – defines a real metal fan.
It’s this …
Because it doesn’t matter how many tattoo’s, leather jackets, bottles of Jack Daniels or gigs you go to, nothing – NOTHING – is more metal than driving a Suzuki Swift with a ‘Slayer’ number plate. 🤘🏻
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Embarrassing Moments, Emotion, Empathy, Fake Attitude, Government, Insight, Internet, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Nike, Planners, Point Of View
OK, I’m back.
Again.
And this time, I’m not going to be going away for …. hmmmmm, actually let’s not go there.
Let’s move on shall we?
So before I start, there’s 2 things to say.
1. Some may have seen this before, because I accidentally put the wrong publish date on it.
2. This is a week of long and – for me – serious posts. So don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The good news is that on Friday, you’ll be rewarded for it, with some news that benefits you as much as it does me.
Kinda.
Maybe.
OK, so one thing that drives me nuts is when brands talk in totally different voices to different audiences.
But there’s something that gets to me more, and that’s when the brand in question has tried to position themselves as some sort of ‘brand of the people’.
Case in point, Reddit …
I really like Reddit.
I think their ‘front-page of the internet’ is a brilliant place to play.
And then I saw this …
‘Where Engagement Meets Results’.
What the fuck is that about?
Oh I know what some will say …
“They’re trying to reach business people who discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform”.
And maybe they are. But the irony is the easiest way to discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform is having clients on there who only can communicate in the corporate monotone of the meaningless mission statement.
How insincere is a brand who speaks to their customers one way and business another?
How crazy is it that some think business people are a different species to ‘normal’ people?
How badly will Reddit’s audience react to work from companies who only speak business?
Now some may think I’m going over-the-top … they will remind me that we all ‘change’ our tone and personality dependent on who we are talking to.
And that’s true … to an extent.
But this isn’t a tonal change, this is character.
I read that and it’s a brand I don’t recognise …
Feels more like they should be called Beigeit rather than Reddit.
The ability to adapt your voice to different audiences shouldn’t mean changing who you are.
People who play golf have a dramatically different view to sport than those who play football … but Nike still do it in a way where you know and feel it’s them. Just like CTO’s in major corporations has different requirements to those who want a laptop for home … but you never feel Apple changes who they are to communicate with them.
Brands who fundamentally change their personality in a bid to engage different audiences literally don’t know who they are. Worse, their customers may start to question that too.
Reddit are amazing.
Their audience is diverse, engaged and productive.
And while I appreciate some in business may not understand that, if you have to alter who you are, do you want them anyway?
Years ago I was doing work for Triple J … a government funded, youth radio station in Australia.
Unlike other ‘government funded’ media, Triple J was someone with real credibility, driven by championing and breaking new artists, discussing topics commercial radio wouldn’t touch with a barge pole and absolutely no advertising.
So when they came to us asking for help, we knew straight away that whatever we did had to ensure their current audience didn’t feel Triple J was selling out by advertising for more listeners.
While you may think this meant we went niche, we did the opposite.
Built off an idea we called, ‘enemy of the average’ … we went into mainstream media with messages that challenged audiences about the mediocrity they were engaging with.
Radio.
Newspapers.
Cinema.
Magazines.
Nightclubs.
Television.
Wherever mainstream audiences were, we were there too.
And while many hated our work [it was even discussed in Australian Parliament] it not only attracted the largest audience increase in Triple J’s history, it reinvigorated their existing audience because they saw the brand they love stay true to who they are, despite wanting what they didn’t have.
I get we’re in different times.
I appreciate the idea of any risk is unpalatable for so many.
But nothing is as dangerous as changing who you are to attract people who aren’t your audience.
The brand voice is more than how you talk. Or look. It’s how you look at the world … and if you’re consistent with that, then you can express yourself in a million different ways and always be yourself.
But too many brands, despite what they say, don’t want to be distinct.
They see it as having the potential to alienate an audience.
To which I say this …
While you may think being something to anyone means you can engage more people, the fact is, the most power to build the value of your brand is when you are everything to someone.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture, Customer Service, Effectiveness, Food, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Membership, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Trust
So Kevin Chesters recently posted some work from the far distant past.
It was work that I adored at the time and even now, I feel is one of the best pieces of communication ever made.
EVER. MADE.
But it’s not NIKE. Or Apple. Or anything approaching ‘cultural cool’ … it’s for a supermarket.
Oh, but wait … there’s more.
Because it’s not a brand ad – though it does a ton for the brand – it’s a retail ad.
But instead of starbursts and shelf wobblers … it’s a masterclass in craft and smarts. Where the majestic charm and wry humour not only treats the audience with intelligence, but communicates price in a way you see value both in the product and the company selling it.
Regardless of the item.
Regardless of the audience ‘segment’.
Regardless of whether it’s selling food or their loyalty scheme.
It’s incredible and what’s more … it’s from the early 2000’s.
I think.
But despite being almost 20 years old, it’s still one of the best examples of a brand that knows who they are, knows who their audience is and knows the relationship they would like to have with their audience.
More than that, they know the problem they’re solving.
Not just in a general sense … but in terms of the potential barrier for each item.
In a world of wish-standard Nike knockoffs, this is an example of advertising not just communicating, but undeniably contributing to the growth, value and reputation of the company it represents.
When it wants to be – and when it’s allowed to be – this industry can be outstanding.
While we can’t control the standards other parties may demand, we can control what ours are.
Of course, in these ‘procurement-led times’ you could say ‘you get what you pay for’.
And I get that.
But watching the value and standards of what we do fall down a drain doesn’t seem a particularly good business approach.
Which is why I find myself repeating what an old boss of mine used to say to me.
“What happens next is up to us”.
He’s never been more right.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Confidence, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Design, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Focus Groups, Management, Perspective, Professionalism, Standards
McKinsey.
Oh McKinsey.
I’ve written a bunch about them in the past.
Hell, they were the reason one of my tweets went viral.
Scared the shit out of me.
I mean going viral, not the tweet.
And while I appreciate McKinsey have some very smart people working there and there are stories of their bullish confidence that are mildly amusing … let’s not forget they would recommend killing their grandmother if it made them an extra dollar.
Note I said ‘recommend’ … because like a Mafia boss, McKinsey never get their hands dirty, they make others do that. Then they can blame them when it goes wrong … similar to financial institutions who pay out millions to make problems go away rather than face the music in a court of law.
Which is why I found this interview they ran with Jony Ive so interesting.
OK, so Jony Ive is an interesting person so it was never going to run the risk of being bad … but what was fascinating was the headline they ran with it.
Creativity.
Unpredictability.
A great idea cannot be predicted.
Jesus Christ, that must have been like Kryptonite to the ‘everything is a process’ Kings.
I also love how they call it ‘provocations to ponder’.
Why is it a provocation?
Why is it something to ponder?
That’s literally the creative process … except, I suppose, for companies like McKinsey, who would regard that perspective as a celebration of the subjective and the inconsistent, which means it’s seen more as an act of wilful danger than the liberation of possibility.
But because it’s Jony Ive … McKinsey have turned a blind eye. After all, Jony is a global design icon. The driving force behind so many Apple products. Steve Jobs trusted sidekick. Being seen to walk in his circles can only be a good thing, despite the fact he represents the total opposite of what McKinsey do and value.
Oh hang on … someone’s going to say, “creativity is in everything”.
And they’re right of course and – despite what I said a few paragraphs ago – it’s fair to say McKinsey do embrace some elements of creativity.
However the creativity Ive is talking about is not the creativity McKinsey value.
Or practice.
For them, it’s approached functionally and economically, whereas for Ive, it’s about enabling change. An ability to see, think or feel differently. And while they may share similarities, it’s in the same way mathematicians and musician are similar.
Both do things based on numbers … except one uses it to shine a light on problems or solutions, whereas the other is the byproduct of the light.
Both have their value.
Both are about moving forward.
But how they do it are totally different.
Chalk and fucking cheese.
Which is why if I’m going to end this post with anything, it’s this:
Don’t let anyone try to tell you the light doesn’t matter.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Egovertising, Fake Attitude, Grifting, Innovation, Management, Technology
Warning. This post is topical.
In fact, it may be the most topical post I’ve ever written on here for 20 years.
Please read, while sitting down in case shock overwhelms you.
This is the end of this public service announcement.
So over the years, at Wieden and R/GA, I had a few dealings with WeWork.
And while I admit at the very beginning I thought it was a genius idea – specifically the way they were creating a business that dramatically profited from sub-letting space that was designed to appeal to a particular audience who felt they deserved to work in a particular kind of environment – after I met them, I started thinking something didn’t quite add up.
Please don’t think I am trying to suggest I had any idea of the level of craziness that was going on because I didn’t … I just couldn’t understand why they kept talking about themselves as a tech company and experts in work environments and culture when they were just a new generation of business space renting organisation.
But billions were poured into them and they were the darling of so many – especially those investor/companies who love to talk about ‘disrupting categories’, despite the fact most are about as conservative as you can get.
But over time – as numerous books, documentaries and news reports have documented – WeWork was proven to be a case of Emperor’s New Clothes.
And founder ego and delusion.
Specifically one founder … because on the few occasions I met him, Miguel seemed decent and grounded, whereas Adam most certainly didn’t.
Zoom forward to today and the company has filed for bankruptcy protection.
All that money and they still fucked it.
Worse, the delusional, ego-maniac that is Adam Neumann – who took a good idea and killed it with his God complex – got to walk away with a level of wealth that will last a thousand lifetimes.
Multiple billions.
BILLIONS!
But this isn’t a post about unfairness or WeWork’s craziness – I’ve written loads about that – this is about the challenge to encourage new thinking while not being blinded by it.
We live in divisive times.
Everything seemingly turns into a war.
Those who believe and those who don’t … and that extends to new ideas.
The amount of time I’ve seen people immediately dismiss new concepts or thinking simply because they are not as perfect as something established that has had years to work through issues and train people to conform.
But by the same token, I’ve also seem people blindly back a new concept or thinking because they seemingly want to associate themselves with the topical.
We saw this last one on a grand scale with so many people on Linkedin suddenly announcing themselves as AI experts, in a desperate bid to exploit the market interest and the market lack of knowledge.
Which gets to the heart of this post which is the importance of independent, critical thinking.
Where you are supportive of new ideas and thinking but know it is OK to ask questions about actions and decisions. Not to tear things down, but to better understand what is being done.
Starting from a position of ‘they could be right’ rather than ‘they’re obviously wrong’.
Focusing on the business not the hype … which, as Lee Hill once told me … is often as simply as acknowledging ‘profit is sanity, turnover is vanity’.
Critical, independent thinking isn’t celebrated enough.
Oh we may think it is, but what often we’re seeing is blinkered ego thinking.
Not enough understanding.
Not enough knowledge.
Not enough homework.
Not enough questions.
Not enough patience.
WeWork has cost millions of people billions of dollars … and yet you can’t help but think it didn’t have to be that way.
Their original business idea was a good one.
But the promise of trillions seduced people to lose their ability to think.
Critically and independently.
I wrote about this years ago with a lesson from the master conman, Bernie Madoff:
“I succeeded because when you offer people a deal that’s too good to be true, they never want to look too hard into the facts. They say it’s because of trust. I say it’s because of greed.”
We need to encourage positive pessimism.
The ability to champion new ideas without blindly being seduced by them.
To want to help people succeed without falling into being an accomplice for any delusion or slight of hand.
It’s not hard … but the more we promote blinkered ‘framework and eco-system’ thinking, the more we lose the value of independent thinking and then everyone loses in every way possible.
Especially those who have exciting new ideas that just need our encouragement and time.