Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Packaging, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
This is a shop near where we live.
Now I appreciate the above is basically an adoption of the TK Max strategy – reframing ‘random stuff’ to the joy of discovery and exploration – but I love it.
I especially like that it offers a far more compelling reason for people to keep visiting than simply saying ‘cheap stuff sold here’.
Now I get on face value, reframing is easy to do – but based on a bunch of effectiveness papers I’ve read – it isn’t.
Right now, the basic approach to a lot of strategy appears to be either ‘state the bloody obvious’ or ‘live in a dream-world’.
Logic or fantasy. [Though it’ll be called ‘laddering’ to make it sound smart]
But what I love about the Opportunity Shop is that it does neither of those.
What they’ve done with that name is take something inherently true and then convey it in a way that opens possibility.
Elevation rather than explanation … helping you connect to it because it doesn’t ask you to reject your perceptions, but invites you to interpret them in a new way.
It’s part of the reason why I loved living in Asia so much … because there was so much that operated in similar ways there.
When we lived in Singapore, there was a market near our apartment on Club Street.
A bric-a-brac place … full of stuff like single shoes or jigsaw puzzles with pieces missing. Totally random stuff.
But one of the reasons it was popular was because of the name it had … the ‘thieves’ market’.
How great is that?
A name that not only defines the weird shit you will find there, but also gives you a reason why you would want to keep going there.
A proper reframe. Not trying to associate with stuff they wish they were associated with but acknowledging the starting point of how they’re actually seen.
Emotional self-awareness rather than blinkered ego.
And that is why most companies get ‘reframing’ wrong …
Because they want to hammer home how they want to be seen.
So they repeat it ad nauseum … regardless of perception, reference, context or reality.
And the irony of this approach is rather than capture people’s attention, imagination and emotion, they kill it.
Pushing people away rather than inviting them in. Kind of like a lot of the effectiveness papers I’ve read.
Where I have to keep re-reading them to try and work out what the hell they’re trying to say.
What their idea is.
Why it’s right.
How it worked.
A constant stream of explanation which – ironically – never really explains.
And while I appreciate effectiveness papers require a lot of information, there’s 2 quotes that I feel everyone should think about when defining an idea, be it for an effectiveness paper or to get a client to buy.
The first is something we heard from a chef when doing research for Tobasco who said: “The more confident the chef, the less ingredients they use”.
The second is even more random.
It’s from ex-US President, Ronald Reagan, who said, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”.
[You can read about them more here and here]
Think about those and you’re basically being given the rules to develop a reframe that can change minds, behaviours, and outcomes rather than build cynical – or just indifferent – barriers through rationality, fantasy or bullshit association.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Chris Jaques, Collegues, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Hong Kong, Imagination
One of my old bosses – the incredible Chris Jaques – told me about the time he took his kids into the office on a Sunday. As he showed them around, they said,
“But Daddy, where are the other kids?”
He was a bit confused and asked them what they meant.
They looked at him equally confused because they were in a building filled with all manner of kid paraphernalia – from toys to magazines to pictures to weird furniture – so who else would be there other than children?
I love that story for so many reasons … one of which being a reminder of the importance of environment, either to encourage creativity or to protect it, but mainly for this.
Happy bloody Monday.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Design, Jill, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Paula, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Women
I know it’s Halloween, but how I’m choosing to ignore it because I wrote this post ages ago and I can’t be arsed to write a new one to celebrate the ghosts and ghouls.
Hey, at least I’m being honest.
So anyway, I love design.
In fact, I would go one further …
I think design can see opportunities most strategists could never pull off.
This is not because my wife is one.
And some of my closest friends.
It’s because design can make the impossible, happen.
It can make a teetotaler buy alcohol.
It can make static images move.
It can make you want to pick up a specific product on an aisle of identical products.
It can open possibilities to people who have been denied for years.
And it can make you pay a premium for something that does exactly the same thing as everything else.
This last one is exemplified by something I saw when I was recently in China. Specifically this:
How lovely is that?
Yes, I really am talking about IT and mathematical equipment.
And while I assume the manufacturers are trying to attract a female skewed buyer – given its lipstick pallete inspiration [Don’t shout at me, I said skewed, not exclusively women because I totally appreciate the role cosmetics play across culture] – it’s such a refreshing change from the old, lazy, sexist and conformist ‘just make it pink’ bullshit that so many marketers used to think was the most efficient and effective way to engage the ‘female customer’.
Like this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
But it’s not just because it’s an update on the lowest-common-cliche we’ve seen – and still see – from brands. No, what I also love is the craft and consideration that has obviously gone into all of it.
It’s wonderful.
It’s refreshing.
It’s something I bet few planners would ever come up with, because one of the biggest problems we have as a discipline is our desire to reveal our self-appointed ‘intellectual superiority’ and frankly, creating a set of IT equipment that has been inspired by lipstick palettes is probably something the vast majority of us would see as ‘beneath us’.
And that’s problematic for a whole host of reasons.
From the fact we prefer to give answers rather than gain understanding right through to our motivation seems to be more about impressing our peers than doing things that actually change outcomes. Not in reality, but theoretically. Hence we read so many ‘hot takes’ about what’s wrong with work from people who have never made anything of note whatsofuckingever.
It all reminds me of something my Dad used to say, which – because I love the Lucille Ball quote about the same issue – I’ve paraphrased to this:
A person who wants others to know how intelligent they are may be smart, but they’re not very clever.
And that is why I adore what my wonderful and brilliant friend, Paula Bloodworth, recently spoke about at a conference when she said, ‘the smartest thing a planner can be, is stupid’.
Happy ‘trick or treat’.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Embarrassing Moments, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Point Of View
I don’t struggle for things that fuck me off, but what is currently top of the charts on my personal ‘shit parade’ is people who talk in definitive and absolute terms.
Actually I need to be more specific. I mean the people who talk in definitive and absolute terms that blatantly attempt to elevate their position by putting others down via some pseudo-intellectual or utterly subjective horseshit.
It’s happening more and more, especially on – surprise, surprise – Linkedin.
And while I’m all about having a point-of-view, it only has value if you have an appreciation of what others think or do. So you have some real context to evaluate your viewpoint. And it would be even better if you also had some actual experience in the area – or on the issue – you’re being condescending about. Not ‘in theory’. Not ‘by association’. Not some ‘short-term, low-level’ employment experience from 20 years ago. Actual experience. So – you know – you can show you have an actual idea what the fuck you’re talking about, including what it takes to actually make these things happen and who is complicit when it doesn’t on an on-going basis.
Because nothing screams egotistical, blinkered, privileged, arrogant asshole – desperate-for-attention-or-notoriety – than saying “This is shit as is anyone who disagrees with me”.
Topped off by then ignoring, deleting or blocking anyone who dares challenge their view, even if they are well placed to have a perspective and are expressing it with respect and politeness.
It’s like they’re the bastard love child of Andrew Tate and a shock-jock talkback radio host. Immediately dismissing anything that doesn’t suit their narrative but throwing praise on anyone or anything that acknowledges it. Even better if it specifically acknowledges them. By name.
The thing is, these people have smarts. They’re not stupid. But their ego refuses to accept or acknowledge any other possible way of thinking or working. So when someone or something achieves a level of success that sustainably outstrips their approach, they either attack or try to claim some sort of ownership of the success. A bit like all those people who suddenly updated their Linkedin profiles to say they were NFT/Metaverse/AI experts.
It’s pretty incredible to be honest.
Which is why I find it kinda-ironic some of the worst offenders seem to be those who reside – or are associated with – academia. Not all of course, just the ones who seem to think that because they’re highly qualified in one area, they are qualified to speak about all areas.
Which is why, whenever I see these men [and it’s typically men] peacocking on social media, it reminds me of Lucille Ball’s brilliant quote. A quote I made into a sticker that I’ve given to members of my planning teams for decades.
A sticker permanently stuck on the front of my laptop …
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brand, Brands, Collaboration, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Entertainment
Over the years I’ve written a bunch about weird colabs.
There was Prada and LG.
And of course, Ferrari and SanDisk.
Then the classic, ‘should ink stink’ of Montblanc and Perfume.
[Though since that post in ’07, Montblanc have evolved into more of a proper ‘lifestyle’ brand]
Anyway, there’s been loads, but it has felt that recently things have slowed down – or should I say, have become a bit more ‘logical’ – which is why I was kinda-ecstatic when I saw this.
Yes … it’s Coke Zero x Oreo.
In drink form [where it takes of Oreo] and in biscuit form [where it tastes of Coke Zero]
Now while I LOVE Coke Zero and used to love Oreo [can’t/don’t eat them anymore] … there is absolutely no reason why these 2 brands should come together.
Zero. Nada. Zilch.
And I can say, having tasted them [well, at least the drink version] I completely stand by that view … however that doesn’t mean I was not utterly thrilled when I saw them do it.
Now this is not simply because it’s all kinds of incredible that 2 of the most sugar-based brands in the history of the World have been able to create a product [at least in drink form] that has ZERO SUGAR in it … but because it’s the sort of madness that is being seen less and less in the world. And yet, it has captured the imagination – whether in terms of curiousity, aspiration or disgust.
Finally, something that provokes a real reaction in us.
Not ‘mildly pleasing’ or ‘generally nice’ but LOVE or HATE.
Fuck me, what a relief.
But it’s also a smart business move because as I wrote when Walkers launched their ‘mince pie’ flavoured crisps … it forces you to notice.
And while some may say, “being noticed means nothing if you’re noticing it because you hate it”, I’d say it still achieves a better return on investment than the approach of making everything so bland you don’t care, even when you see it.
Also known as current marketing practice philosophy.
So while I appreciate a limited edition is always going to provoke a response that is faster/greater than an established brand or product, it’s worth remembering – at this time where so many Effie submissions are being judged all over the world – that nothing drives commercial effectiveness like creative ridiculousness.
Or, to quote The KLF, if you want to win, ‘don’t give them what they want, give them something they’ll never forget’.
It’s not hard … we just make it that way because of ego, procurement, mediocrity or logic.