Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Childhood, My Childhood, Queen
I appreciate this is the 2nd Queen post in recent weeks, but it’s my blog so you’ll just have to deal with it. Besides, it would have been Freddie’s 78th birthday yesterday, so it’s kind of respectful. However, to make things have less of a bitter taste in your mouth, maybe you’ll like the fact this is more about how they’ve just [kinda] broken my heart rather than me waxing lyrical about their musical genius. Or something.
Now while I appreciate anything Queen produced post-1984 was generally pants – even I can admit that – everything leading up to that point was, at least for me, was a musical adventure.
It is no exaggeration to say that Queen have impacted my life in many ways.
From giving me some of my greatest childhood memories following their tours around the world through to inspiring me to want to play the guitar.
So while all of that has cost me a fucking fortune in terms of money and time, I don’t regret it at all. Hell, I’ve even enjoyed seeing the ‘tribute’ version of the band – featuring the admittedly incredible Adam Lambert – in Shanghai, LA and London. So it’s fair to say, I’m still a fan.
That said, Queen stopped being Queen even before Freddie died.
As I point out above, after 1984 – bar their Live Aid appearance – they changed from musicians and rockstars to entertainers – chasing popularity rather than attracting it. And while it could be argued they have been very successful in doing that – given they’ve made more money in the years since Freddie died (1991) than they did with all their earnings between 1973-1984 put together – the reality is that’s more to do with amazing ‘brand management’ than musical integrity.
But to have a band still have an active role and position in culture – 30 years after their singer died – is extraordinary, which is a big reason why SONY have just paid them over ONE BILLION POUNDS for the rights to their music.
And while I am happy for the band – especially as it reinforces the sustainable commercial value of creativity at a time where everyone seems to want to knock it down – I saw something that made me really sad. And it was this.
The bit that got me most was the line: ‘Legally Queen has split up’.
Of course, in terms of the band, that happened a long time ago, seeing the legal entity end has affected me far more than I ever imagined it would.
The finality.
The certainty.
The definitiveness.
While Freddie had gone, there was something comforting that John was still involved in the business of the band, even though he had retired from the band. But now there’s no reason for them to stay connected. And while I am sure John will be happy with that given he loves his reclusiveness, for the fans it is undeniable proof it’s over.
Done.
Finito.
And yes, we still will have the music. And the memories. And maybe … occasionally … the odd concert featuring a ‘version’ of the band. But while I criticise Queen’s output post-1984/85, I still hate it’s officially done. Because with that single piece of paper, I am forced to realise so is a part of my connection to my youth and history.
They say we shouldn’t be sad it’s over, but be glad it happened.
I get that.
I also get I’m a 54 year old man and it has been over for 30 years … so I should stop being so fucking melodramatic.
But I still feel glum … even though it does reminds me of some valuable lessons for marketing.
1. Artist management knows how to build brands better than 99% of marketing practices.
2. Companies may control brands, but they don’t own them. Fans do.
3. The law is more powerful than media budgets, channels and legacy.
So thank you Roger, Brian, John and Freddie.
It’s been epic.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Authenticity, Bands, Brands, Business, Comment, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Imagination, Individuality, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Metallica, Music, Provocative, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Talent
Recently I watched a documentary on a band.
A household name. Not just in America, but around the World.
It was pretty good … but the most interesting part of it was the interview with the manager.
Specifically how he described what he was there to do:
He said: “My job is to do one or two things that change your life. Not ‘good moves’ but change your life”.
And while they turned out to be arguably more focused on their own fortune than the artists they represent, it cannot be denied they achieved exactly what they said for the band in question … helping turn them into the biggest band in the world for a period of time. An accolade they have managed to forge into a long-lasting career that sees them continue to be at the top end of their industry.
Now of course, there’s a lot of things that go into achieving success like that.
Songs.
Talent.
Drive.
Concerts.
Fans.
Distribution.
Copyright ownership.
But a good manager has a huge influence and role to play in all of this … which got me thinking.
What if clients saw their agency partners as people whose role was to do the same as this manager?
To help them fundamentally change the trajectory of where their business is rather than continually communicating – and reinforcing – where they are.
Dramatic change, not incremental.
OK, there’s some clients who actually do that – and a lot more who think they are, but are doing the opposite – but the reality is for all the talk of ambition and change, so much of it what is done is about keeping things exactly where they are.
Part of this is because of the influence of ‘industry guru’s’ who have positioned themselves as business liberators when really they’re more insurance salesmen [made even more hilarious by the fact the vast majority have never created any actual creative work or built a brand of note] … and part of it is because of a narrative that’s been going around that suggests agencies care more about taking clients cash through excessive timelines and pricing.
As I’ve written before, this attitude is more bullshit than fact … shaped by a procurement process that doesn’t value quality of work – just the price of it – and a corporate attitude where the expectation is complicity not challenge.
Of course that doesn’t ignore the fact some agencies have also played their part in creating this situation by devaluing creativity, devaluing training and agreeing to whatever gets them the revenue – regardless of the consequences – which just reinforces what a mess we’re in.
It’s why I loved that managers quote so much …
The goal being to create the conditions to be ‘the exception’ by being exceptional..
Not ‘a little bit better than before.
Not ‘a little bit better than those around them’.
But to fundamentally change the context and rules of the game.
Champions, not just players.
Of course, it’s easier said than done … but I’ve had the pleasure of seeing it in action up-close-and-personal through Metallica’s management, which is why I know it can be done and I know you can increase the odds of it being able to be done.
Because in their case, what they’ve helped achieve is remarkable.
Put aside the fact they have worked with the band for almost 4 decades. Put aside they’re the most successful music management duo in music history. And think about how they’ve enabled 4 old men – who write what can best be described as ‘mass niche’ music – not just continue to live at the forefront of popular culture, but do it in a way where their creativity is deeply respected by all.
Hell, they’ve become the second most successful American group of all time.
OF. ALL. TIME.
But it’s even more than that … because they’ve also helped the band find new ways to push, explore and expand what they do with their creativity and how they can do it.
Incredible.
Of course, none of this would be possible without the band having the hunger and desire to keep pushing, but their relationship – and trust – of their managers is a key part of what enables it to be possible.
Which is why there’s a couple of things Peter Mensch – one half of their management team – said to me that has had as much impact as the quote that inspired this whole post.
1. “Our job is not to market the band, but to protect their truth”.
2. “We’re not paid to kiss their ass, we’re paid to tell them the truth”.
And maybe that’s a couple of the reasons why Metallica have been able to build a business and a brand [even though they would hate those terms] which is wildly more successful –culturally and commercially – than many brands who spend tens of millions trying to be.
Not just because music connects to people in ways brands rarely can, but because many brands don’t actually know who they are and don’t want to listen to anything that asks questions of them, they don’t want to acknowledge or accept.
So it’s little surprise an agency can change a brands life when brands so often choose to delude themselves with where they currently are … where their version of a relationship is based on how much you cost and how easy you are to deal with, than the quality of the advice and results you help them gain.
For all the systems and processes our industry has latched onto in a bid to prove our credibility and method behind our approaches … how many brands can we say have fundamentally ‘changed their life’.
One?
Ten?
One Hundred?
Certainly not as many as you would expect from the US$87 billion dollars spent on market research in 2023 delivered.
Which is why I leave this post with another music reference … another perspective that had a profound affect on me.
This time it’s from the band – albeit they were more artists than musicians – The KLF, who not only captured what I believe defines a great manager, a great agency and a great brand … but what also creates the chance for someone, anyone, to properly change their life.
“Don’t give them what they want, give them what they’ll never forget”
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Confidence, Content, Context, Craft, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design
A few weeks ago, I went on a trip where the people I was going to meet, had sent a car to pick me up.
If this wasn’t flashy enough, it was a Mercedes. With a driver who wore a fucking cap … and it wasn’t even a German Policeman.
As I sat in the plush leather seats, I couldn’t help but notice one thing.
This.
Brown.
Brown on brown.
Brown on brown. On brown.
It was as if the design team were a bunch of perverts who loved sewer porn. Or something.
And I have to say, I found it pretty off-putting. Well, when I say off-putting, I mean distracting … because I couldn’t take my eyes off it. Wondering why anyone would do this.
Because it wasn’t just 50 shades of brown, it was also made up of multiple materials of brown.
Leather.
Wood.
Plastic … often disguised to look like leather. And wood.
What the actual fuck?
I tell you something, when you’re literally cocooned in a car of poo, the last thing you want to do is drink the bottle of water they kindly put our for me.
At the time, I tweeted out a picture of the car and said:
“Mercedes really like brown. Though no doubt in the brochure it was called, ‘decadent dark chocolate’. 💩”
To which someone tweeted back that the official colour was, ‘Macchiato Beige’
MACCHIATO BEIGE!
BEIGE!!!
Jesus Christ … if associating with brown is alarmingly questionable, then surely associating yourself with beige is even worse?
Who the hell decided that???
I’m as confused by that as I am the people who actively chose to spend multiple tens of thousands of dollars on having it as an option.
But then history is littered with companies being able to embrace terrible decisions as long as someone has given them a reason to ignore reality.
Years ago, Bloomberg Businessweek asked me to write something for them.
One of the things I wrote about was UPS and their choice of ‘corporate brown’.
At the time I said, “if I had millions to spend, I don’t know if I’d be using it to associate with the contents of a dirty nappy.”
[Otis was approaching his 2nd birthday, so that was relevant to me rather than an attempt to be controversial]
While I appreciate the role colour has in branding – even though the way many use it. think about it and talk about it is utter bollocks – I still don’t really understand how any organisation could decide ‘brown’ in their shade.
In fact the only reason I imagine that can happen is when they hire a consultant firm and they tell them, “brown is a white space for your category, so by owning brown, you differentiate yourself from competitors”.
Which highlights five major considerations for brands:
1. When you allow ‘white space’ to define your strategic decisions, you’re ultimately seeding control to your competitors, not your truth.
2. The quest for differentiation only counts if it offers something of value, not just is different.
3. Without creativity and meaning, your ‘brand asset’ is a conformity drain.
4. Job title doesn’t equate to being smart.
5. Honesty trumps harmony … at least with companies who don’t have god complexes.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, England, Technology
So after a pretty traumatic week, I’m back.
It has been a bit of a rollercoaster, but all is looking settled and well now.
The patient is doing very well – despite me taking care of them – and so I thought I should get back to ruining other people’s day by writing this blog again. So here we go …
I’m so old I remember when car phones – literally a phone attached in a car – was a new thing.
An innovative thing.
A symbol of success and status. Or a salesman – hahaha.
You could tell which cars had them as they had a little aerial attached to the top of their rear windscreen to help send/receive the phone signal … except, in typical fashion, some companies started selling fake ‘stick-on’ aerials so people could pretend to have the tech, even though they weren’t really fooling anyone given they were in a green – if you could see the colour through all the rust – Austin Metro.
But for those who wanted something real, but cheaper [at least in terms of buying the thing and connecting the thing] … there was a phone system called ‘Rabbit’.
To be honest, Rabbit was utterly shit. Because rather than a phone, it was basically a pager system … where the only way you could make/receive/listen to calls or voicemail was if you were within 20 meters of a designated transmitting station. And there weren’t many of them about. In fact the main places you’d find them was at a Motorway Service Station or a Little Chef cafe. So because of the restriction and limitation of use, it meant you had to keep pulling in to those places to ‘check’ or ‘make’ calls … which was not only inconvenient, but expensive.
Of course I had one.
Even though I had no one to call and no one to call me.
But I remember feeling it was amazing … even more so when Rabbit became the ‘Orange’ network and, as a customer, it meant I could get access to the newest, latest, coolest Nokia GSM phone.
So I did.
Even though I couldn’t afford to call someone or have someone call me.
There’s few things that have given me the thrill and excitement of that phone.
The feeling I was entering a new dawn of independence and innovation.
And I include AI in that statement.
Maybe because mobile phones felt more about freedom whereas AI feels more about productivity. Of course I appreciate what AI can do and allow … but I get more excited by technology that enables me to stretch my boundaries rather than do it for me.
Which is why when I saw this phone in a car recently – not working, obvs – I felt more of a thrill than I will when the next iPhone is launched. Maybe because back then, tech was about liberation and possibility rather than pure profitability and control.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Comment, Emotion, Empathy, Internet, IT, Security
One of the things I love about Colenso is our multitude of owners tend to leave us alone.
Literally, alone.
And when I say multitude, I mean it, because we have more than a Cannes Grand Prix credit.
Now part of this is because we’re in NZ and they have more pressing things to deal with, part of this is because we only have one global ‘shared’ client and our work with them is arguably the best in the network [hello 2024 Cannes Grand Prix without thousands of names on the credit list] and part of this is because we’re very, very good to them – in terms of global creative reputation and business – so they’re smart enough to let us get on with things on our own terms and own devices.
That is, except for IT.
Where IT is concerned, we are bombarded with stuff.
Security stuff specifically.
A week hardly passes by without some sort of ‘training’ to adhere to.
I get it, it’s very important and we don’t take it for granted … which is why the situation that happened to me a few weeks ago just felt so weird.
So I was in NYC when I got a phone call from someone I had never spoken to before.
Or heard of.
They said they were a security partner of one of our ‘owners’ and – as one of my team had lost their password – I had to give them permission to send it again.
Now I knew this was true as the colleague in question had told me it was going to happen, so I said yes … except they then told me that wasn’t enough and they would email me a link where – having entered my credentials – I’d have access to a password that I could then send to my team mate so they could get back into the system.
To which I laughed and said no, that wasn’t going to happen.
And they asked why, to which I laughed some more before pointing out this was the exact ‘phishing’ scenario I had been bombarded with security videos about.
For 3+ years.
Now to be fair, they did acknowledge it did sound dodgy, but they reassured me it was just how their system worked and all was OK.
But as nice as the guy sounded – and he did, so I was careful not to be too rude – I told him that I was sorry, but this just was not going to happen.
So, then they tried to subtly guilt trip me into doing it by saying my colleague couldn’t work without my help.
To which I replied, “I’m their boss, so if anyone can tell them to be OK with not working, it’s me”.
I did ask what alternatives there were to solve this situation and at first they said there wasn’t any, then said I could tell them to contact my boss to get approval.
Maybe they thought that would scare me into agreeing to their request, but I went, “Oh that’s good, go for it and please send her my love”.
It was at this point they gave up and wished me a nice day.
Except while that individual had given up, the ‘company’ they worked for hadn’t and they started sending me messages.
They went through the same script and I went through the same responses.
And while this may all sound like I was being an asshole, it’s not as assholey as a system that needs you to break the very rules they’re there to supposedly protect.
A rule that is very limited in its scope and application.
I appreciate the company in question was trying to help. I appreciate this was a very specific situation – made more difficult by me being in another country. And I accept the company in question is one of the best in their specific field of operation.
However, not only do they need to change their protocol to ensure that – in certain circumstances – they don’t ask their clients employees to do the very opposite of what they are told to follow each and every day … they probably also need to teach their ‘customer service technicians’ how to talk with humans. Especially non-IT security expert humans.
Because not only is ‘practice what you preach’ the most basic of basic brand reputation rules, the best way to get people to do what you want, is to understand how they think and behave.
More evidence that you can be smart, but also be a bit daft – of which nothing proves this more than the interface of Microsoft Teams, but that’s a post for another day, but here’s a hint.