Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Confidence, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Music, Perspective, Positioning, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance, Standards, Status
I recently saw the above photo and immediately fell in love with it.
Not because it’s slightly bonkers – but it helps – but because I love the commitment of them.
Now I have no idea if they were booked to appear with that look.
I have no idea if they’re a real band, though I know ‘rock bands that play kids parties’ exist because the wonderful show Z Rock was based on one. [In fact the actors in the show, were the actual band]
And I don’t know if the music they play reflects how they look.
But I love it.
I love every bit of it.
Because rather than pander, they’ve committed.
Committed to who they are.
Committed to what they believe.
Committed to what they want to do.
There’s not enough of that. Oh we hear so many brands – and bands – talk about their ‘purpose’, but that’s just a PR headline because their actions often demonstrate the only thing they are committed to is whatever is needed to make money.
There is more authenticity in this trio of rock crazies than 99% of the companies who profess to be driven by their purpose.
But here’s the thing, commitment is about inconvenience.
Doing – or not doing – the things that reflect your belief.
Of course there are implications to that …
But while others may be more successful or richer, there is one thing you’ll have they won’t …
The ability to sleep at night.
And given we are also seeing more and more people choosing those who are committed to their belief, regardless of inconvenience, there’s a chance you could be more successful and richer too.
You can’t fake commitment.
You can’t be temporarily interested in it.
You can’t use it as a marketing platform.
Because commitment shows up in what you say, what you do and how you do it ALL THE TIME IN EVERY WAY.
Commitment achieves things interested can’t.
Commitment gives you standards, interested can’t even see.
Commitment pushes possibilities, interested will never understand.
Commitment wants you to succeed in ways interested will never get close to.
That’s the difference between the imposter purpose pedlars and the real deal.
It’s not something different every 12 months.
It’s not simply expressed through their marketing.
It’s not only doing things if you can make money from it.
It’s not changing direction when things don’t go exactly as planned.
Of course, that doesn’t mean people will only choose the committed. The fact is humans are all hypocritical beasts who like their moments of easy and cheap. However, in this superficial, short-cut, high-cost, hype world … commitment has a way of standing out in ways they will never even understand.
Which is why I love the people in this photo more than I do other kids entertainers.
Not because those other entertainers don’t have talent or a right to make a living … but because this trio of rock band musicians know who they are rather than are selling themselves as whoever others want them to be.
In a world where you don’t know who you can rely on, I say choose those who are committed, not interested.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Cannes, China, Colenso, Comment, Confidence, Consultants, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Differentiation, Distinction, ECommerce, Effectiveness, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Metallica, New Zealand, Perspective, Planners, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Wieden+Kennedy
There’s so many agencies, consultancies and self-appointed guru’s out there who talk about how to be successful at business.
They all have their models, eco-systems, philosophies and proof points.
And yet so few have ever done it for themselves.
They’ve chosen to ‘succeed’ under the safety-net of anothers money, reputation or effort.
That doesn’t mean what they do or think doesn’t have value – of course it does – but it also doesn’t mean their viewpoint is the only one worth counting.
And yet, every single bloody day, that’s how it is presented.
Recently someone wrote a piece on how they had used their proprietary research methodology on a Cannes winning TV ad and declared it would not deliver sustainable growth for the brand in question.
Putting aside the fact they were judging work that had won a creativity award rather than an effectiveness one … the thing I found funny was their confidence in proclaiming their view was the ultimate view.
I am not doubting their smarts.
I am not doubting their data.
But I am doubting their breadth of business appreciation.
And yet somehow, the voices of a few have positioned themselves as the be-all and end-all of effectiveness.
Don’t follow us and you fail.
Don’t follow us and your brand will lose.
Don’t follow us and you will be labeled foolish.
Now I am not denying these people do have a lot of experience and lessons we can learn from, but they’re not infallible.
But that’s how the industry approaches them.
Lording them like they are Yoda’s of the future.
But they’re not.
Don’t get me wrong, they are very good at evaluating effectiveness from a particular perspective and set of behaviours. Offering advice that can be hugely important in the decision making process.
But there’s a whole host of brands and business that have adopted totally different models and achieved ‘effectiveness and success’ that leaves others far behind.
Incredible sustainable success.
From Liquid Death to SKP-S to Gentle Monster to Vollebak to Metallica to name but a few.
Oh I know what some will say …
“They’re niche” … “they’re young” … “they’re not that successful”.
And to those people I would say maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about … because in just that list, it includes the biggest selling brand on Amazon, the fastest selling brand in their category on earth and the second most successful American band in history.
But there were two things that really brought the issue of mindset narrowcasting to me …
The first was the launch of a book that was basically about creating future customer desire for your brand/business.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that … but no shit Sherlock.
Has the market got so short-sighted and insular that the idea of doing things that also drive your future value and desirability become a revelation?
It’s literally the most basic entrepreneur mindset, and yet it was presented like it was Newton discovering the laws of gravity.
This person is super smart.
They’ve done a lot of good stuff.
But it just feels the actions of some in the industry are driven by the fetishisation of icon status … even though, ironically, what it does is highlight their experience may be narrower than they realise.
But at least the book had good stuff in there.
Stuff that could help people with some of the basics.
A desire to look forward rather than get lost in the optimisation circle-jerk.
This next one was a whole lot worse.
Recently an ex-employer of mine went to see a current client of mine.
Specifically the founder and CEO.
Apparently they went in to tell him he was missing out on a whole host of business and they could help him get more.
They then proceeded to present a massive document on how they would do it.
He looked at them and told them it was very interesting but they were wrong.
He told them their premise was based on a business approach he doesn’t follow or believe in.
A business approach that didn’t reflect the industry he was in, only the industry they were in.
He then informed them he had the most profitable store on the planet and so while he appreciated their time, he had faith in his approach and it was serving him well.
But it gets better.
As they were leaving – and I’ve been told this is true by someone who was apparently there – the person showing them out informed them their boss had a personal net worth of US$36 billion and based on their companies current share price, that meant he was more valuable than their entire group.
Was it an asshole thing to do?
Yep.
Do I absolutely love it?
Oh yeah.
Will I get in trouble for telling this?
Errrrrm, probably.
My point is the industry has decided ‘effectiveness’ can only be achieved and measured in one way and any deviation from that is immediately discounted or considered ‘flawed’.
Often by people who have never actually built a world leading business themselves.
Again, I am not dismissing the importance of what is being said, it’s HUGELY important – which is why I’m proud we won the Cannes/Warc effectiveness Grand Prix – but, and it’s a huge one, if we think that’s the only model and only use that one ‘model’, then we are literally adopting a single approach to solve every one of our clients every problems.
One.
That’s insane.
Not just because it’s stupid but because if everyone adopts the same approach, then impact will be influenced far more by spend and distribution that strategy.
Please note I am absolutely not saying we should burn the models or philosophies or systems that have proven their value to drive business. No. Absolutely not. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be praying at the feet of them … especially when many are simply focused on creating steady impact rather than spectacular.
Yes, I know ‘spectacular’ has a lifespan – which is why innovation is so important – but so many brands out there either aim for the middle … reinforced by processes, protocols and rules defined as ‘best practice’ by people in a particular industry … or they bake-in ‘limitation’ into their potential because they’ve blindly adopted rules they never challenge or explore from other industries or entrepreneurs.
At the end of the day, if a brand like Liquid Death can become the biggest selling water brand on Amazon because they found a way to make men actually want to drink water through a model and approach that is not only radically different to what so many of the industry experts say is ‘the only way’ … but is the opposite of it … then your brand may be inhibiting itself by following a model designed to make you fit in with it, rather than redefine how it fits in with you.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Digital, ECommerce, Environment, Social Media
Social media.
Or for some, digital marketing.
Oh the terms and the tropes.
The guru’s and the chancers.
The rules and the frameworks.
The DTC brand successes and the DTC product commodification.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of social media marketing. I think – done in the right way – it can powerfully drive brand, business and fandom in ways many other forms of marketing can’t hope to reach.
There’s countless amazing examples out there, but underpinning all of them is the inconvenient truth that they’re based on an idea. It may not always be what the ad industry likes to call a ‘big idea’, but it’s an idea all the same.
Something that holds all it does together. Guides it. Shapes what it does. Gives it a reason to exist and add to culture rather than continually try to steal from it.
But the problem is these brands are still in the minority because the vast majority still practice what my beloved Martin Weigel refers to, “the continuous production of social landfill”.
There are countless reasons this occurring …
The belief it gives them ‘free’ advertising.
Their fear they may be left behind or left out.
The attempt to look and act relevant to the times.
But without doubt, the worst reason is ‘people really are interested in who we are and what we have to say’.
Oh my god, that’s the worst of all.
A deluded state that manifests itself into some of the worst behaviour and marketing you can get … liked and supported by those who either work for the company or want to.
So what we end up with is an ever-increasing production of sheer shit.
Pointless, mindless marketing filth that doesn’t so much scrape the barrel, but is the scrapings of the barrel.
Things like this …
What. Is. That?
Seriously, how deluded and desperate must you be to think this is the sort of content the World is waiting for.
Yes, I appreciate they have almost TWO MILLION followers but come on …
And they’ve even incorporated a way to ‘vote through emoji’ to allow their ‘fans’ to interact with the content.
To paraphrase a comment once made to me by a client … sometimes, the people who like your stuff are the people you don’t want liking your stuff.
Pity the poor social media people who have to manage this stuff.
I say pity, because surely they can’t think this is good?
Surely they are the human equivalent of a battery hen … held in a small room and told to keep finding ‘ideas’ to churn out as content.
Stuff that is the very embodiment of social media landfill.
An always on strategy that turns people off.
But my god, what if they think this stuff is good?
What if they believe people wait with baited breath for the latest piece of content they literally are churning out?
What if the client thinks it is driving ‘powerful user interaction metrics’?
I know Colgate Palmolive make many products.
Some of which have become brands that are very, very popular.
But maybe someone needs to tell them that just because people buy them, doesn’t mean people care about them … certainly outside of the environment they inhabit or in the detail Colgate finds fascinating.
Or to paraphrase another old client of mine:
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Comment, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, New Zealand, Youth
The cost of living is insane everywhere.
Petrol.
Heating.
Food.
The prices are going up faster than we can blink.
And while there is definitely the suspicion some industries are using this as an excuse to elevate their profits – I’m looking at you fossil fuel and supermarket industries – the reality is for many people, life is becoming more about survival than living.
Here in NZ, the conversation often relates back to the price of food.
Part of the reason for that is because the dairy industry is so influential and economically important.
But right now, you can’t turn on a talkback radio show without hearing people complain about the price of cheese … milk … or vegetables.
Sure, it’s not as bad as it is in the UK at the moment – where supermarkets are putting ‘anti-theft’ devices on cheese, but it’s not far off.
Just recently I heard a 10 minute segment about the price of cauliflowers.
Apparently they’re $12 each in some places and one person interviewed said:
“There’s no cauliflower in the world worth $12”
It’s fair to say it’s a sentence I’ve never heard in my life.
But while the cauliflower conversation may raise a smile … what it indicates is nothing but.
More and more people will struggle.
Will be taken advantage of.
Will wonder if they can cope.
While I hold real concern for a number of groups, one I’m particularly concerned for is youth.
As I wrote yesterday – and all the photos in this post are from our book, Dream Small – many kids in NZ already feel oppressed by the lack of opportunity and the pressure of complicity they face … but now, their situation could be even more tested.
Less possibilities.
More expectations.
Even less consideration.
Even more demands and judgement.
Given NZ already has one of the worst youth suicide rates – per capita – in the world, what could this do to the mental health and wellbeing of the young?
What is this going to do to the dreams they have?
I get it’s hard.
I get there will be many more communities that will require help.
But for all the companies that go on about how proud they are to be from New Zealand, maybe this is the moment they prove it by what they do rather than what they say.
Last year I judged the Effies and read a bunch of entries from supermarkets.
They talked about how their ‘strategy’ had helped them overcome the huge barrier of covid.
All of them … every last one … claimed covid had been a barrier to growth rather than their fast track.
It was an insult to my intelligence.
I would love it if this year, I read submissions from NZ brands who talked about how they used this time to enable a generation. That they recognised the countries future was dependent on the young feeling they could bring their wild hopes, ideas and energy to the fore. That instead of being told to dream small, they were supported to dream big. So the country can evolve and develop so if situations like this happen again, then the nation will be in a better position because it will be stronger thanks to the brains and ideas the young have brought.
I don’t even really care how they do it.
More pay.
Government funded flights for their OE.
A youth venture fund that kids can call upon to help with their ideas.
Tax breaks for youth focused, foreign brands to come into the country.
Fighting against Tall Poppy – or any of the other issues that hold youth back through fear.
And while I know there are a few brands doing it – some of my clients for a start – I doubt I’ll be reading many papers that celebrate that shift, because too many of these ‘proud Kiwi brands’ are more focused on perpetuating and controlling the stereotype than liberating the people who are forced to live by it.
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.