Filed under: Advertising, Airports, Attitude & Aptitude, Chocolate, Corporate Evil, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Environment, Honesty, Marketing Fail, Reputation, Respect
A lot of companies think ad agencies lack business credibility.
We’re self-indulgent, selfish, and should serve … not challenge.
To be fair, there are some agencies that prove that but – and it’s a big but – you can point the finger of failings the other way around.
Nestle have recently proved that size doesn’t equate to smarts.
Having seen the impact of Tony’s Chocolonely – both in terms of sales, share and corporate responsibility – they have come to the party by creating their own product.
A sustainably sourced, eco-conconious chocolate.
Now normally I would say this is a brilliant thing, because the more brands who embrace ethical production, the better things will become for everyone.
Except given Nestle’s history, you know the reason they’ve chosen to do this is far more about exploitation and profit than doing the right thing.
And nothing shows that they don’t really get it than their distribution model.
Because while I appreciate chocolate sales at airports are big – because they’re either a last minute present or a quick personal treat – the last place … literally the last place a sustainably sourced, eco-conconious chocolate should be sold … is a fucking airport.
Seriously, what the hell were they thinking?
Of course the reality is the only thing they were thinking about is cash.
I swear to god, if they thought they could make an extra $2 a year, they’d sell it at Fossil Fuel Power Stations. And probably still not see the irony in their actions.
Which is why for all the shit companies throw at agencies about their business naiviety, we can throw it right back about their blinkeredness towards human understanding.
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.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Business, Comment, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Honesty, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I saw these 2 brilliant cats starring each other down when I was in Utrecht a few months ago.
Look at them.
Focused. Determined. Pissed off.
Trying desperately to intimidate each other while obviously being scared of each other.
Maybe not in terms of size … or beauty … but in terms of one being able to pull off something better, quicker or smarter than the other.
Trapped in an endless cycle of statue paralysis or trying to micro ‘one up’ the other.
The cat cold-war so to speak.
And what is funny is this is often how many brands behave.
Looking sideways rather than ahead.
So lost in what one other brand is doing – or could be doing – they ignore what’s going on around them.
What others are achieving without them.
Sometimes this is not simply driven by a competition, but greed.
A desire to make sure nothing is left on the table.
Hoovering up every scrap.
Believing they are in control and in power so nothing can challenge or take them.
So lost in their self-belief that they fail to see they’re being left behind.
Blinkered by ego.
We saw it with Nokia when Apple launched the iPhone.
We saw it with Listerine when Wrigley’s positioned chewing gum as dental care.
We saw it with Kodak when they chose to protect their photo processing profits rather than launch their digital camera.
We have seen it over and over again.
And while sometimes, having a focused enemy can push you to greater heights than you would be able to achieve on your own … driving you to make things better, rather than to look for things never done before [because often, those things are stupid or self-indulgent] like most things in life, the key is knowing when this approach starts to be counter productive.
When the focus is pulling you back than pushing you forward.
Blinkering your view rather than opening your perspective.
Losing your edge rather than fuelling your ambition.
But sadly, too many brands act like those two cats in Utrecht.
Unable to look away but without the looks to make others still want to come to them.
Which is why as much as there’s a lot to be said for exploiting and optimising the failings and learnings of your numero uno foe, there’s also a lot to be said for remembering to keep looking up and out from your blinkered bubble.
Or said another way …
When you ensure you’re focused on where culture is heading, you don’t get lost following where your competition is staying.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Content, Context, Crap Campaigns In History, Creativity, Empathy, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Resonance
Growing old is a fascinating experience because of the multitude of ways it impacts you.
And while a lot of the narrative around it is negative, it’s not entirely the case.
You give less of a fuck about things that used to bother you because you realise they don’t really matter. And you feel more confident to speak up about issues that do bother you, because you are less nervous about expressing how you feel.
Sure, that can lead to all sorts of problematic behaviour and attitudes, but as long as you’re not a myopic, prejudiced dick … it’s generally good.
But without doubt there’s things that do mess with you.
Parts of you hurt you didn’t even know was a part that could hurt.
You are made very aware that your relevance to society is less important.
And when you look in the mirror, you don’t recognise the old bastard staring back at you.
There’s a lot of money in trying to delay the signs of ages.
Or should I say, the physical signs.
And while I could make this a post about the unfair, unjust and unrealistic expectations [and judgement] that society places on looks – and aging – especially towards women, that’s not the point of this post.
You see I recently passed a cosmetic beauty shop/spa/clinic whose promise to ‘help you counter the realities of growing old’ seemed to miss the point of what potential customers actually are looking for.
Or at least it did to me, because their ad said this …
Now maybe I’m wrong, but surely one of the main points in seeking anti-aging treatment is so you DON’T age your way.
That, if anything, you age someone else’s way.
Preferably someone much younger than you.
And hotter.
OK, with hindsight, I get that’s what they maybe meant.
That they were trying to say their treatment allows you to control how you age, as opposed to leaving it to nature. And if that’s the case, then it’s probably closer to being the right proposition [albeit flawed, generic and contrived as hell] with some of the worst writing.
But then I hate that whole ‘YOUR RULES, YOUR WAY’ ad narrative that appears so often.
Communication that’s devoid of any sort of definitive or differentiated idea, other than utterly preposterous suggestion their product/service empowers you to conquer and counter all the rules, realities and science of the World that relates to your particular situation or need.
The imbecilic idea that people will believe this company/brand has the knowledge/technology/magic to achieve what no other organisation or individual can achieve.
ON THE PLANET.
Jesus Christ, it’s so lazy and unimaginative.
Sure, I get this approach works … but the whole business strategy appears to be ‘get a bit of the same pie everyone is eating’ rather than develop a point of view that will get you more of the pie.
But as bad as that is, I realise there’s something even worse than that
It’s all of the above generic shit … but with a headline that doesn’t even convey it with clarity.
Which is the real ugly side of beauty.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Zealand, Nike
There’s been a lot written and said about brand assets over the years.
A lot of claims and over-promises.
Hell, careers have been made from being a cheerleader of it … even though it has also been responsible for a whole lot of terrible advertising.
Contrived, complicit and confused advertising.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a value – or a role – but as I wrote here, the thing rarely talked about is that brand assets don’t happen by themselves. You can’t buy them off the shelf or make them happen by simply repeating their use ad-nauseum.
No, the only way to turn an attribute into an asset is through creativity.
It’s creativity that gives it meaning.
It’s creativity that gives it a purpose and role.
It’s creativity that imbues it with financial value.
I appreciate that might not fit the narrative of certain people, but that’s the reality of the situation … or it is if you want to do it properly. Unfortunately, it appears more and more people don’t. Preferring to outsource their responsibility – which, let’s not forget, they are paid to do – to generalistic and simplistic solutions that are focused on recognition, not value.
Nothing brought this home more than this ad I saw for a new Nike store in Auckland.
Look at this …
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck is that?
While they have used a number of NIKE’s ‘brand assets’ – namely the font and swoosh – it’s pretty obvious whoever put this together has no understanding or appreciation of what they represent or how to use them.
Mind you, it also seems they also have no understanding or appreciation of sport, art direction or design.
It’s like they’ve just taken a few pieces and shoved them wherever they like – like a terrible jigsaw puzzle that doesn’t show the picture they need to create.
Which highlights another thing rarely talked about brand assets …
Just because you’ve earned them, doesn’t mean you can’t lose them.
Treat them with distain and you’ll find all that hard work will be for nothing.
Moving from a brand asset to an attribute to a warning sign to stay the fuck away.
Brand assets are made and built over time.
They need nurturing, crafting and supporting.
They’re not something that once earned, can be used any way you choose.
It’s why the people who use them need to understand them.
What they represent.
The context they play in.
Their creative meaning and expression.
How to actually fucking use them in the right way.
Without any of that you don’t just fail to unlock their inherent value and power, you’re killing their credibility and the brand they’re tied to.
That doesn’t mean you can evolve them. Or expand them. Or play with them in different ways. Nike – of all brands – is very good at doing that. But that only happens because generally they’re embraced by people who have a deep understanding of what they stand for and represent … rather than random ‘colours and logos’ that they treat as a range of stickers they believe they can put wherever they want and whenever they choose.
It’s why I get so frustrated with how certain people talk about them. Acting they’re like ‘parts’ that can be replaced, exchanged, adapted or used however someone chooses … which ultimately demonstrates many of the people who talk like this don’t actually understand what a brand is, what it takes to build one or the difference between post-rationalising and creating.