Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Collegues, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Nike, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relationships, Reputation
So this is the last post till next Thursday.
I know … I know … I’ve only just come back from China but now I’m off to the US, so you get 3 more days free from me. Given this month has had an alarming lack of posts given I’ve found myself in Fiji, Australia, China and America, you should consider October my early Christmas present to you all.
So to make up for that, here’s a relatively long post.
Which by my standards, means extra long.
So recently I caught up with an ex-colleague from cynic.
Given they were a bloody nightmare when we worked together, I’m still in shock how they are now a very senior figure in a very high profile company.
Damn them, hahaha.
Anyway, we were chatting and they said how bad they thought agencies were in pitches.
Specifically, their desperation to be liked.
They said they thought the business plan for many agencies is to out-pander the competition.
It got so bad that apparently in a recent meeting, they asked the agency:
“If we’re so good and doing so well, why would we need you?”
Aggressive?
Provocative?
Yep … but they have a point.
I remember once being told to not challenge the clients previous work as someone in the room might have made it … even though we were literally in a pitch to reinvent the clients work.
And while it was an exception in my career [which I ignored and – guess what – we won!!!] the reality is I am hearing this happening more and more, which is why my friends commentedjust seemed to underline its validity.
Which leads me to some questions …
What do agencies think our job is?
What do agencies want to do and change?
And for the companies that buy into this, what do they want their agencies to do for them?
I appreciate I have been incredibly fortunate throughout my career by working with/for/under people, agencies and clients [not to mention my parents] who deeply value debate and provocation to get to better places. I also acknowledge there is an art to HOW you challenge … rather than go in with fists and elbows.
But the idea of pandering rather than provoking seems insane to me.
Sure, you have to have a point of view rather than just have a desire to be controversial … but while you can’t be blind to the good stuff people are doing, neither should you be to the bad.
I swear part of the problem is this attitude we are part of the ‘service’ industry.
That our job is to serve.
To stay silent.
To satisfy needs.
And while we are there to serve our clients … it’s in the quest of helping them be better, not be subservient to. But increasingly it feels that is what a lot of people are expecting – and why a lot of agencies are pandering – which is why I will always treasure something my brilliant ex-NIKE/FFI client and friend – Simon Pestridge – once said to me:
“Middle management want to be told they’re right. Senior management want to know how to be better”.
He’s right.
He’s never been more right.
It’s why the people who worked for him are also great clients … because he set great standards, of which one of them was understanding that transparency, truth and challenge are ultimate signs of respect not confrontation.
Debate isn’t bad.
In my mind, it means you both want to get to somewhere better.
Where you’re holding each other to standards and ambitions you hold dear.
Of course, to do this properly you need to share ambition, standards and trust … not just philosophically, but in terms of the actual work and change you want to create together.
I mean … if you can’t be provocative during a pitch – when a client is literally looking for new ideas – when the hell can you be?
Which all reinforces something my parents used to say to me …
Everyone wants to be liked, but you go further when you’re respected.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Business, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Entertainment, Environment, Marketing, Mediocrity, Music, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
Hello daaaaarlings, I’m back.
What an amazing week.
I met so many incredible people and not one of them looked too disgusted at my outfits … except the designer from Celine, but then I was wearing a t-shirt featuring an image of my cat.
She literally asked, “which designer is that” … and when I told her it wasn’t a designer, it was my 16 year old cat, she smiled a smile that failed to convey her utter fear – to which she made her excuses and got the hell away from me, hahahaha.
That aside, the conference was a celebration of creativity and the stories that inspire it … which may explain why I loved the tweet – from Nick Beggs, at the top of this page – so much.
For those who don’t know who Nick is, he’s the virtuoso bass player who was once in the band Kajagoogoo.
This is what Kajagoogoo looked like.
For reference, Nick is the blonde spiky haired guy in the middle.
And for those who don’t know what the ‘Too Shy’ he’s refereeing to is … it’s this.
Oh – and finally – if you’re wondering why I called him a bass playing virtuoso, it’s because of this … playing with another 80’s icon, Howard Jones./font>
But the reason I love this tweet is not because I’m a fan of Nick or Kajagoogoo or even Howard – it’s because of that photo he posted.
Look at it.
A nondescript flat.
Nothing fancy. Nothing grand.
A place like millions all across England.
Filled with everyday people from all walks of life.
Likely struggling to balance the never-ending demands of life.
And yet, in 1982, some young guys got together and wrote one of the iconic songs of the 80’s.
Changing their life and creating a legacy.
And that’s what I think is so fucking fantastic about it …
A reminder that while so many in our industry like to talk about the processes and eco-systems, the reality of creativity is its born from environments – both physical and personal.
We are in danger of forgetting that.
We will be – and are – worse off for following that.
Hiring an ever-ending production line of similar people.
Putting the same set of case-studies on the same pedestals.
Following the same group of ‘best practice’ models that get us to the same places.
Forcing creativity to fit inside structures designed for convenience rather than connection.
People in power valuing duplication, rather than originality.
It’s why creating the conditions for creativity to thrive is not some sort of superficial vanity.
It’s total, fucking sanity.
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, Advertising, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Colleagues, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Diversity, Education, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Friendship, Honesty, Individuality, Insight, Loyalty, Marketing, Martin Weigel, Paula, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Presenting, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Social Commentary, Social Divide, Standards, Wieden+Kennedy
Hello. I’m back.
And because you’ve had no posts for basically 2 weeks, this is going to be a long one.
Yes, I know my posts are already waaaaaaay to long. Sorry, but deal with it.
I had a great time in LA and before that Australia.
Well, I say Australia – but it was in Perth which is closer to Singapore than Sydney.
Met lots of people.
Had good conversation.
It was fun … so thank you State of Social, for inviting me to come over.
I have always loved to go to talks. The stress of putting it together isn’t fun … but for me it’s also about visiting new places, hearing new perspectives and just generally chatting to new people.
And on the rare occasion I get to do a talk with people I know and love, then I get the added benefit – as screenwriter/director Nora Ephron once said was one of the happiest feelings on earth – of enjoying dinner with friends in a city or country none of you live in.
It’s one of my favourite feelings too.
And that’s why Cannes was so special to me.
The event – if I’m being honest – wasn’t that great. Certainly compared to previous times I’d been … and I’ve never really liked it in the first place. But this time it felt the whole industry was in full-on heads-in-the-sand mode.
Nothing highlighted this more to me than the relief/confidence the industry media reported a comment made by Torr – from Apple – in his speech when he said Apple will always need and use agencies. That may be true, but it doesn’t take a data scientist to realise Apple are doing more and more creative work in-house and even their specialist agency – MAL – is seemingly doing less for them.
But I digress …
Because my favourite thing of doing a talk at Cannes was this …
I love these two.
And I love this photo … me, Paula and Martin.
I didn’t exactly have to bully them to do the talk, but I knew I only wanted to do it if they said yes. And the reason for that was we would get to hang out properly for the first time ever.
By that I mean, physically be in the same place … because throughout our time together, we’ve either only met on Zoom or been in situations where just 2 of us would ever be in the same place/country.
So it was special. It was also different.
Because being in the same place – away from the responsibilities of time/life – meant we could properly connect. A deeper way to interact … argue … debate. I totally get why some people prefer working from home. I appreciate the financial impact of travel and time – but you get something more out of being with others ‘in the flesh’, so to speak.
Just like you can learn about other countries from the internet … it’s not the same as actually going there or working there.
But many are discounting this. Claiming they can do their job perfectly well from the comfort of their home. And they probably can … but the question is whether they’re growing and evolving doing it that way. OK, so many will think they are … and many may not care … but there’s a massive difference being immersed in an environment rather than sitting on the outside of it.
I still remember trying to hire someone for W+K Tokyo. They were keen but it was their first overseas move so were rightfully apprehensive. They eventually turned it down and when I asked why, they said they had spoken to someone they knew and they’d advised against it. So I asked if that person had ever lived overseas and they said no – but they’d ‘visited a ton of countries’.
And I am sure they had, but just like looking up a place on the internet doesn’t give you a full understanding about the culture or nuances of a country, either does ‘visiting’ one for a week or two on holiday.
Of course there’s huge amounts you can learn from wherever you are. And there will be stuff that is amazing, important and unique to your situation and nation. But to think there is nothing to learn from outside experiences, perspectives and interactions, is crazy.
And that’s why being with Paula and Martin was so wonderful.
Because we’re bonded by what isn’t common.
We come from different countries.
We all live in different countries from where we were born.
We have all lived in multiple different countries – in my case, double figures.
We [now] all work at different companies and on different clients.
We all have different experiences that has led to different viewpoints.
And while by today’s nationalistic philosophies, it shouldn’t work – in fact we shouldn’t even want to interact – it does. Because perspective and growth comes from the environments, interactions and challenges we embrace … even the stuff that isn’t comfortable.
Sure, it’s all about how you do it – and we do it with respect for the global experiences, exposure and standards we all bring to the table and the knowledge no one is doing it to hurt the other, but to expand perspectives and considerations – but it still can be challenging and we may still may not agree.
Then there’s the fact that we are three, white, privileged adults … so despite having lived in multiple countries and worked with brands on a whole range of challenges and audiences … there’s still huge amounts we want to learn from others outside our frames of reference or understanding.
And while I totally appreciate some don’t want to – or can’t do that – to discount its value says more about the people putting up the barriers and blinkers than it does about the value of the alternative.
And that’s why things like Cannes is important.
The engagements and lessons and interactions.
I wish it wasn’t so expensive so more people could immerse themselves in it rather than just play on the outskirts of it … but wanting to be grow is a noble thing.
And while we were talking at Cannes and had an opinion we wanted to share … we went there wanting to grow too.
And that’s why it was so good to be there. With them.
To listen. To learn. To debate. To argue.
But most of all, to want to be challenged, so we can grow.
I’m lucky to have them in my life. I’m even luckier I got to spend time with them in person.