Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Comment, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Fulfillment, Insight, Management, Resonance, Service, Standards, Technology
So I have an Audi.
I know … I know … what a wanker.
Well as we all know, German cars are well known for their quality of engineering, but recently I saw something that showed me it’s not just engineering where they pay attention to detail.
Have a look at this …
Can you see?
It’s the colour of the screws.
Where most cars have 4 yellow screws in each corner of the rear number plate, Audi have used 2 – one black, one yellow – placed in the middle of the number plate and designed to make sure they perfectly match with the area they’re screwing into.
Black to match the colour of the letter of the registration number.
Yellow to match the background of the rear registration number.
It’s an incredibly small thing, but if they care about that, you can be sure they care about every detail in the car.
Which helps reinforce why German manufacturing is so highly revered.
Or said another way, why craft is proved by the small things, not just the big.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Authenticity, Comment, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Home, Honesty, Insight, Mischief, Planners, Point Of View, Pretentious Rubbish, R/GA, Relevance, Research, Resonance
When I was at R/GA, I hired this brilliant planner called Joel.
It was weird how we met because it all started at a Google Firestarter meeting I was talking at.
At the end of my presentation, it was opened up to the audience for questions.
I couldn’t see who was asking anything as the lights from the stage were shining straight into my eyes. Anyway, there was one question that shone out from the rest of the questions of the night – basically challenging the London bubble of planning – and while I didn’t know who asked it, I wanted to find who did to say I liked it.
Alas I never found out who did.
A few days later, I got a message on LinkedIn from the person who asked the question.
His name was Joel.
I invited him for a coffee later that week and suddenly the person who asked the best question of the night was asking the best questions of the day.
But what made them extra good was he wasn’t doing it to show off or stand out, he was doing it because he was interested in the topics and interested to hear my perspective.
We talked about his background, his ambitions and then he did the one thing that almost guaranteed I wanted to hire him.
He called comprehensive school, ‘big school’.
BIG SCHOOL.
I hadn’t heard that since I was a kid in Nottingham and immediately I loved Joel for it. Because for all the time he had spent in London, he had not lost his Bradford realness … and then it became clear why he asked the question about the London bubble, why he was asking questions why culture rarely reflected how marketing department express it and why was the ad industry more interested in convenience than authenticity.
How could I not hire someone like that?
So I did.
And he never disappointed because apart from being culturally, creatively and strategically talented – with an obsessive focus on what life is really like for people, especially outside of London rather than the cliched, London bullshit a lot of marketing likes to portray – his greatest trait was he always wanted to learn.
Always.
Now don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t always the model student … he would push back, he would challenge, he would question … but what he doesn’t know is that was when I was the happiest working with him, because it meant he was believing his words rather than just following others.
And while we always have to be careful we don’t blindly think whatever we believe is the right answer, having confidence and conviction in your gut and your talent is an often underplayed, undervalued, under-encouraged skill in a strategist … which is why I was so happy to see when I left R/GA, Joel had a mug made with my face and my words on it.
Not because he missed my ugly face and lack of vocabulary, but to remind him to trust his smarts, his instincts and his authenticity … but never to be a prick about it.
If I was proud of him before. I am even prouder of him now.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Comment, Confidence, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Design, Fulfillment, Honesty, Perspective, Presenting, Relationships
One of the things I find really interesting is how adland has got into the habit of providing clients with multiple options for every bit of work.
Oh I get it.
Apart from the fact there’s always more than one way to answer any brief, we want – or should I say, we need – clients to be happy.
Except it doesn’t always end up that way does it?
We make alternatives that aren’t as good as the idea we think they should buy.
Clients demand diluted versions of the work we don’t really like in the first place.
We end up getting fired because the campaign they pushed us to make didn’t work as well as they wanted.
Who are the bigger idiots?
The people who don’t buy what the experts put forward or the experts that offer alternatives they don’t really believe in?
Which is why every single person should read the story of Paul Rand – the designer who Steve Jobs turned to, to design the logo for his NeXT computer company.
Not just because it’s a brilliant story.
Not just because he didn’t even bother to turn up to the pitch, he just sent a brilliant 100 page book with his idea in it.
But because when Jobs was asked what it was like to work with Rand, he said …
“I asked him if he would come up with a few options, and he said … no, I will solve your problem for you and you will pay me.
You don’t have to use the solution. If you want options go talk to other people.’”
How good is that?
+ I will solve your problem for you.
+ You will pay me for my recommendation, whether you use it or not.
+ If you want options, go talk to other people.
While some may claim that makes Paul Rand arrogant or petulant, I would say it shows someone who knows the value of their experience … their talent and their craft.
More than that, I think it shows someone who really thinks about what idea is the right one for their client and then puts only that one in front of them.
Not countless options.
One.
A single idea that has gone through hundreds of possibilities to get to that single recommendation.
Something that has been created and crafted to answer the brief, rather than simply executed to satisfy the clients taste.
And while the article itself states the NeXT logo might not be a classic … the style, approach and attitude of the presentation certainly is.
Adland should take note.
Read it here.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, China, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Emotion, Empathy, England, Fake Attitude, Fulfillment, Hope, Imagination, Innocence, Innovation, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Only In Adland, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Premium, Professionalism, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Supermarkets
Above is a point of sale sign from a local supermarket.
Look at it.
LOOK AT IT!!!
What a pile of utter shite.
Noticeable for it’s stupidity rather than it’s inspiration.
The sort of stuff you would expect from a 5 year old writing jokes for a Christmas Cracker, than a company with well paid staff, responsible for the commercial growth of an organisation.
So who is to blame?
Well there are many who should feel a sense of shame – from ad agencies to research companies to clients – however when I think of who started this horribleness to begin, I can’t help but feel it was at the hands of the marketing department.
Of course even they are not totally to blame.
The C-Suite, with their demands and expectations have a lot to answer for … almost as much as the investors, who say they want the companies they invest in to be good companies but they better make increasing profits every quarter.
But what I found fascinating coming back to Western markets from Asian – specifically China – was how little ambition there really was.
Oh companies would talk about it – wax lyrical about it – but when you delved a little deeper, you saw there wasn’t much there.
Instead the focus was far more about defending rather than growing, corporate convenience rather than customer understanding, explaining rather than communicating and short-term conformity rather than long term change.
But of course, ad agencies need to take their blame for this situation as well.
Too many doing whatever clients want rather than what they need.
Profiting from process over creativity.
Celebrating speed over substance.
What makes it worse is some think this leads to good work.
Effective work. Using ‘proof’ that ignores the myriad of small, separate elements that combine to drive success so they can place themselves on a self-appointed pedestal.
But there are some who have a bit more self-awareness.
Who know what they’re doing is not as good as it could be.
Or should be.
But rather than face their responsibility in all of this, they blame others for how this came about … turning to questionable research that is based on a few tweets, a couple of chats around the agency or claims every single person on the planet can have their attitudes and behaviours characterised by a singular colour or some other bollocks.
And from this, they will claim the public don’t care about smart stuff.
That they ‘don’t understand’ good ideas and writing.
They they’re simply not interested in creativity and ideas.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
I’ve got to tell you, I’m absolutely over it.
I’m over the focus on the lowest common denominator.
Let’s face it, life would be pretty horrible and boring if that is how we really operated … and contrary to popular belief, we don’t.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t elements of predictability in what we do, but to ignore the nuance … to suggest everything we aspire to is exactly the same, delivered via an identical approach … is just plain bullshit.
But here’s the kicker, because more clients and agencies seems to be adopting this approach.
White labelling, phoned-in solutions with a cool sounding names that actively destroys any sense of differentiation and distinctiveness of their brand from countless competitors while also directly insulting the intelligence of the customers they rely on to survive.
I get it’s less hassle to just agree with clients.
I get that having income coming in right now is very important.
I get that a single point-of-sale sign is not going to change the world.
But when we are willing to allow our standards to be determined by how quick we can make money, then all we’re doing is ensuring the long-term value of our industry – and the talented people in it or wanting to be in it – dies even more quickly.
And that’s why I am also over people being quick to piss on anyone trying to do something different.
Claiming it’s self indulgent.
Labelling it a failure before it’s even run.
Saying it won’t appeal to the audience … despite not knowing the brand, the brief, the audience or how people actually think or act outside of some hypothetical customer journey / strategic framework of convenience.
And yet, when you look at the brands, the work and the agencies who consistently resonate deeply and authentically with culture and drive long-term loyalty, growth and profit – it’s the usual suspects and a few newbies, like Nils and the fabulous folks at Uncommon.
Yes our job is to help our clients achieve more than they hoped. Yes our job is to attract rather than repel. But our job is also to help build the future for our clients … influencing, shaping and – sometimes – forcing dramatic change even before the masses are quite ready for it, which means doing work that challenges and provokes for all the right reasons … sometimes asking questions of the audience rather than boring them into beige submission.
And while I acknowledge there are risks in all of that, I personally believe it is far riskier to dumb everything down to it’s lowest common denominator, because every single thing we love, respect and covet has come from someone or something doing something different.
Whether that’s an idea, a product, a story or a new way of looking at the World … it has come from people who understood who we are but take us further than we imagined, pushing the journey and the story with every new chapter of what they create.
They could have taken the easy route.
They could have focused on optimising the rewards.
They could have spent their time ‘removing friction from the transactional process’.
But they didn’t. Or at least, they didn’t just focus on that.
They embraced the risk to create something bigger and more unexpectedly resonant.
Or should I say unexpectedly resonant by those judging them, because they knew exactly where they were going.
And this is why the people who are so quick to dismiss anyone trying to do something new need to understand their actions say far more about who they are and what they value than anything else. And in an industry that is fighting for its life, I put my faith in those using creativity to change the game rather than those who just talk about violation of some old rules.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Business, Comment, Confidence, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Empathy, Entertainment, Equality, Experience, Film, Finance, Friendship, Happiness, History, Loyalty, Management, Music, Relevance, Resonance
Yes, this post really is about the movie The Blues Brothers.
The one where paroled convict Jake — and his blood brother Elwood – set out on a mission from God to save the Catholic orphanage in which they were raised, from foreclosure.
Where to achieve their goal, they not only have to reunite their R&B band and organise a concert so they can try to earn the $5,000 needed to pay the orphanage’s tax bill … but also have to navigate around a homicidal mystery woman, a bunch of Neo-Nazis, an entire police department hellbent on stopping them and a Country & Western band.
And yes, I am really saying we should be like them.
However this is not because I am advocating violence against authority [ahem], or even a return to the true definition of rhythm and blues [versus the sanitised version being flogged by record companies left, right and centre] but because of how Dan Aykroyd – the writer and actor of the movie – ensured the creative value of the artists appearing in the film was rewarded rather than exploited.
Music has a long history of exploiting artists.
Where their talent is used to fund the lifestyles of everyone other than themselves.
It’s been going on for decades and affected everyone – including those who got to ‘the top’ like The Beatles and Elvis Presley [there’s also a great book on how badly Bros got ripped off, which is worth checking out] … however no group of musicians has been as badly affected as black artists.
From not being paid to not being played … black artists has consistently been exploited and abused by white music industry leaders, from record companies to MTV.
To give you an idea of it, here’s a clip of David Bowie challenging MTV about their lack of black artists on the channel …
Bowie, as usual, was right.
Recently I watched a documentary where legendary musician, Herbie Hancock, talked about his iconic Rockit video and how they purposefully created something that didn’t really show his face to ensure MTV would play it in heavy rotation.
THIS IS NOT A LONG TIME AGO!!!
And while you may think the music business is now dominated with black artists, the reality is they are still getting screwed by organisations who want to profit from their talent.
Which leads me back to the Blues Brothers.
You see this movie was dominated by African American musicians – and while many studios would try and underpay them by saying the worldwide exposure they’d gain is commercially valuable to them, Dan Aykroyd did something else.
That’s right, he let them keep their publishing rights.
Which means every time a song or the movie was played, the artists behind the music would get paid.
Not the studio.
Not the writer.
Not the networks.
But the artists.
What’s sick is that 40 years later, this act by Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi is still rare.
Since then, we have consistently seen people of colour have their creativity exploited and profited from by others.
Whether that is through acts of cultural appropriation to corporate intimidation to down right theft.
Frankly, nothing highlights this more than the plight of Dapper Dan and his store in Harlem during the 80’s and 90’s. Here was an individual who created fashion that changed and impacted culture on an almost unprecedented scale … and yet he faced a constant barrage of abuse, exploitation and theft from organisations who appreciated his talent but just didn’t want to pay for it or acknowledge it.
Given black culture is the driving force of almost all youth culture around the World, it is disgusting how little of the money it helps generate ends up in the pockets of the black community … which is why I suggest another way companies can demonstrate their diversity and inclusion ambitions is to follow the approach of the Blues Brothers.
Included.
Represented.
Acknowledged.
Respected.
Paid.
Enabled.
Empowered.