Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Confidence, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Education, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, EvilGenius, Fake Attitude, Fulfillment, Honesty, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy, Wieden+Kennedy
Tone of voice has always made me smile.
A list of cliched terms that somehow supposedly captures the distinctive characteristics of a brand, despite using 90% of the same language.
Fun … but aspirational.
Premium … but approachable.
Smart.
Human.
Innovative.
Blah … blah … blah …
What ends up happening is two things.
1 It ends up all coming down to a ‘look’.
2 It ends up with some people ‘getting the brand’ but never being able to articulate what it is beyond those same cliched words every brand uses.
That’s why I loved when Dan Wieden said …
Brand voice was given a huge amount of focus and time at Wieden.
It wasn’t some scribbled words shoved on a brief at the last second that everyone ignored … it was really delving into the soul of the brand.
How it looked at the world.
The Values and beliefs.
It’s point of view.
Oh, I get it, that sounds as pretentious as fuck doesn’t it … but that’s why you can tell a NIKE spot within 1/10th of a second … regardless of the sport, the audience, the language it’s in, the country it represents or even the style of ad.
That’s right.
They get brand attribution and can be as random as fuck.
And before you say, “oh, but that’s just NIKE” … Wieden [who are/were the undisputed champions of this] did the same thing for Honda, P&G, Chrysler, Converse and any number of totally desperate brands.
The reality is, when you really invest in getting the brand voice right – both from an agency and client perspective – it becomes something far more than a look or a tone, it’s a specific and individual feeling.
And that’s why I find this obsessive conversation about ‘brand attribution’ so amusing.
Oh I get it, it’s important.
But the simplest way to get it is to simply do something interesting.
An expression of how you see the World without constraint.
A point of view others may view as provocative but actually is born from your truth.
That’s it.
It’s not hard and you’ll get attribution automatically.
And not just any attribution … but the sort that has short and long-term commercial value rather than begrudged and meaningless familiarity.
However so many brands – and the brilliant Mark Ritson has to take a lot of the blame for this – think attribution is built on the repetition of brand assets.
And while there’s some truth to that … the difference is when ‘brand assets’ ARE the idea rather than born from it, then you’re not building a brand or creating change, you’re literally investing in complicity and invisibility.
Especially if those brand assets are so bland and generalistic that to not make any impact in the real world whatsoever.
Here’s an uncomfortable truth …
You can’t have commercially advantageous attribution and be traditional at the same time.
Oh I know there’s a lot of agencies and consultancies who say you can, but they’re literally spouting bullshit.
I’ll tell you something else …
If you’re relying on opening logos, watermarks or number of brand name mentions per execution to ensure your work is being attributed to your brand … then you’re not just likely to be showing your neediness and desperation, you’re probably admitting that you’re not saying or doing something that is worthy of making people care.
In fact the only thing worse is if you hire a ‘celebrity’ to front your campaign, then have to label who they are because no one knows them.
Sorry.
Now I appreciate this sort of approach may get you a ‘Mini MBA’ from the Mark Ritson school of marketing … and it may help with internal consistency and familiarity … but I can assure you that it won’t get you a sustainably disproportionate commercially advantageous position in your category, let alone culture.
And maybe that’s fine, and that’s OK. But if it is, then own it … rather than put out press releases announcing your leadership position in the market when really what you’ve done is dictate the blandification of everything you say or do because your marketing strategy is based more on ‘blending in, than standing out’.
And nothing shows this more than tone of voice.
An obsessive focus of playing to what you think people want rather than who you are.
It’s why I always find it interesting to hear how planners approach what a brand stands for.
So many talk a good game of rigor but play a terrible game of honesty.
Spending weeks undertaking research and holding ‘stakeholder’ interviews to learn who the brand is – or wants to be – rather than going into the vaults and understanding not only why they were actually founded … but the quirks of decision they made along the way.
Don’t get me wrong, research and interviews have a place, but for me, learning about a brand at the start of life is one of the most valuable things you can do because it reveals the most pure version of themselves. Or naïve.
No contrived brand purpose … not ‘white space’ research charts … just a true expression of who they are and what they value.
Or wanted to be.
And when you start piecing those things together, you discover a whole new world.
Better yet, you get to a very different – and authentic place.
Oh, the things I’ve learned about companies over the years.
Not for contrived, bullshit heritage stories … but to understand the beliefs and values that actually shaped and dictated the formation and rise of the company, even if down the line it failed and/or modern day staff don’t know any of it.
There’s a reason The Colonel purposefully chose bigger tables to be in his restaurants when he started KFC. There’s a reason Honda made their own screws for their machines. There’s a reason Prudential helped widows and orphans.
It’s not hard, it just needs effort, commitment, transparency and honesty.
That’s it.
And while I could say this quick-fix, fast-turnaround, communication-over-change world we live in means good enough is good enough … the reality is for a lot of companies and agencies, they don’t think they’re sacrificing quality. They don’t think they’re sacrificing anything. They think they’re creating revolution and that’s the most fucking petrifying bit about the whole thing.
Inside the vaults lie the stories and clues that help you get to better and more interesting places. Not for the sake of it, but because of it. And when you get there, it will naturally lead you to bigger, bolder and more provocative acts and actions. And when you do that, then brands get all the attribution they could ever wish for, because by simply being your self, you will be different.
_______________________________________________________________________________
For the record, I truly respect Mark Ritson.
He’s smart, knowledgable and incredibly experienced.
He has also added a level of rigour in marketing that has been missing for a long time.
I also appreciate some of the issues I talk about are a byproduct of many other things – from talent standards, corporate expectations and plain misunderstanding.
However, when you say a course is the equivalent to gaining a Mini MBA, it not creates a false sense of ability – to to mention gets more and more brands thinking, behaving and expressing themselves in exactly the same way – it suggests the focus is on personal gain over industry improvement and you run the risk of becoming the beast you wanted to slay.
That said, he’s still much smarter than I’ll ever be.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Comment, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Fashion, Honesty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Relevance, Resonance
So the cosmetic empire, Revlon, has gone bankrupt.
It’s a brand I remember from my youth with their big ads featuring big stars selling big statements.
But like Woolworths of old [how’s that for a linkage] they thought that was enough.
They thought they were enough.
But tastes change.
Evolve.
Hell, in just the past few years we’ve seen all manner of movements in the cosmetics space … from the nude look to the pastel and playful, both leveraged by brands like Maybelline and Glossier.
And then there’s Fenty …
Who came in and offered a foundation that had varieties specifically for African American skin as well as white – which shouldn’t be a surprise until you realise that until then, all major cosmetic companies excluded African American skin and expected them to use a foundation designed for white customers.
Seriously, what the fuck.
Of course, the success of Fenty saw many of the big players try to follow suit … but when actively you’ve ignored millions for 60+ years, you’re not going to convince them you suddenly care.
Which comes back to Revlon.
Who forgot the way you build a brand is not by communicating yourself over and over again, but doing things that earn loyalty.
Or at least prove you are working for it.
So many companies forget that. Either spending millions on what they want to say or ‘innovating’ with things that are what they want people to care about, rather than the things people care about.
It’s amazing how many brands fall for this.
But then, ego has that effect on people.
Causing them to place boundaries and blinkers around the comments that scream what people want you to do better at. What they want you to change.
But instead, companies choose to maximise short-term opportunities, rather than build things for the future. I get it … it costs a lot and there’s the argument it risks a lot.
Except it doesn’t cost or risk anything near what happens if you don’t do it.
And playing catch up never works because when you finally follow suit, you find out the others have already moved on.
Even the companies that promise ‘disruption’ never really go all in.
Often just focusing on one element the establishment do wrong rather than reimagining how they could completely evolve an entire category.
Function over benefits.
Product over brand.
That said, there are some out there who do it right.
Not just in the ‘cool’ categories, but in things like finance, health and paint.
Yes, paint!!!
Doing things where it shows they are truly watching and listening to culture.
Not just in what they want, but what is affecting who they are.
Once upon a time this was the norm. Now it’s all about promoting the condiments rather than focusing on the steak.
And while that can work in the short-term … giving you a few PR headlines you can leverage in the press … the brands who count succeed because they perpetually evolve culture – or evolve with the leading edge of it – rather than just keep them where they already are.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Standards
I’m seeing a lot of work these days that feels like it’s been designed to band-aid a problem rather than actually solve the problem.
Or said another way … does what the client wants not what is needed.
And while I appreciate why that may be seen as an easy win, it’s the opposite.
Because doing stuff clients want, means little if it bores the hell out the audience.
Where they ignore it, overlook it, don’t believe it, makes them feel the only thing the brand cares about is the audience’s cash.
And I know some will say I’m being unrealistic … naive … ignoring the realities of business … but my response to that would be that my whole career has been working with brands who believe in continually earning their audience rather than just expecting it.
And by earning it, I mean investing in it.
Not doing good enough, but respecting who they’re doing it for.
Sweating the details. Knowing how their audience live and think, not just how they use or choose their product. Pushing standards rather than mirroring category best practice. Doing things for the audience rather than just about them. Understanding the context they’re playing in, not blindly thinking they’re the most important thing. And proving they’re worth caring about, not just thinking they’re enough.
And while that might sound like a lot of effort, money and time … it’s the difference between being a brand that creates, defines and drives culture rather than is chasing it.
Like everyone else.
Which is why people who see this about creative indulgence are missing the point.
Because it’s not about creativity, it’s how creativity can drive the level of your ambition.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Awards, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Zealand
Free newspapers.
Yes, they’re free.
Yes, they’re made of paper.
But news?
Most of the time I take them from the letterbox straight to the bin. And then I saw this …
A local, free newspaper that called itself ‘a rag’.
And do you know what I did?
I went and got it and then read it cover to cover.
15 years ago I talked about ‘unplanning’ … which is basically, the power of truth.
[Though in 2006, I also wrote a post about the commercial value of a single banana at Starbucks, so maybe the idea of ‘product loneliness’ had something to do with me picking up a copy of the paper. And you thought my posts were bad now, hahahahaha]
It was my reaction to an industry drowning under the weight of it’s own bullshit terms, techniques and approaches. Well you know what, it’s got worse.
So while calling a local newspaper a ‘rag’ is hardly a strategy … it makes more sense than so many of the strategy submissions I judged around the World over the last few years.
Oh my god the claims.
An item of food that reignited a culture.
A sales promotion that brought families together.
An alcohol company that inspires artistic diversity.
No … those examples are not a joke, they were real submissions … so with that in mind, a local, free newspaper that made a bloke pick up a copy, read it cover-to-cover then blog about it because they labelled themselves ‘a rag’, should be considered a Grand Prix winner.
Or in submission speak:
How a small plucky local, free newspaper become the most influential entertainment channel for international tourists.
Transformation. Disruption. Purpose. Blah, blah, fucking blah.
OK, I think I need to go and have a lie down … and lucky for you, it is going to last 4 days as I’m off to Melbourne so there’s no post till Wednesday.
You’re welcome.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Imagination, Insight, Marketing, Planning, Wieden+Kennedy
A long time ago, I met a prospective client who absolutely loved Wieden.
They were besotted with them.
I was at W+K at the time and asked them what it was that they liked about us – expecting them to talk about NIKE or some other global work.
Instead they said this:
“Any agency that can make me care about a brand of milk is genius”.
The ad they were talking about was this:
Now while that was nice to hear, there were 2 things that led to them that point of view.
1. They worked in a different market and category to milk, so the fact they saw this, reinforced the stretch of great creativity.
2. They looked for the brand of milk in their local supermarket … which reflected the stickability of great creativity.
Of course, what they were really saying was the secret to great creativity … and that is it changes how you look at the world.
I say this because I recently saw a great example of it.
It may not have the charm of If Cats Had Thumbs.
And it certainly doesn’t have the budget.
But it’s up there with making you stop, think and reassess.
Isn’t that great?
A simple statement that has changed what I think of door handles and the importance of door handles.
Or said another way, it’s made me care – possibly for the first time in my life – about something I use every day of my life, without fail.
When you consider the ad is simply a photo of a bloody door handle, you not only realise how brilliant the idea of equating it to a ‘good’ handshake is, you realise how shit so much advertising must be when they’ve got tens of millions to spend and they still can’t make something you remember.