Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Creativity, Effectiveness, Lego, Marketing Fail, Media
Today is a special day for me.
A special day because of a birthday and an anniversary.
Not mine, but people who are important to me …
I had written a long post to them that went on a tangent to talk about investing in your own relevance.
That however young you are today, you’ll become an old fuck one day.
But I couldn’t wrap it up so I have left it for another day … instead, I am writing a post about the importance of your relationships.
Have a look at this …
At first glance, what do you see?
A Lego ad campaign?
Yeah … me too.
But then, when you look again, there’s that weird-as-fuck headline.
“Super Sweet And Fake Tasting”
What the absolute fuck? Has Lego gone rogue and decided to make social commentary on their own product?
Well obviously they haven’t … it’s simply an alcohol ad that has been stuck on the end of those 3 posters that – because of the colours of the poster frames – looks like it’s all part of the same campaign.
Now on one hand it’s funny. But I wouldn’t be laughing if I was the Lego client.
Putting aside their choice of headline colour – with the B&W image – makes it look like a Sainsbury’s ad [albeit Sainsbury’s aren’t in NZ], I’d be VERY disappointed the media team and/or the billboard company did not see the problematic nature of this linkage.
I mean, it’s pretty obvious.
Lego … kids, wholesome, creative. Alcohol … errrrm, less so.
Look, I get we all make mistakes, but what this says to me is that no one asked – or cared to ask – the right questions.
The client.
The media agency.
The billboard company.
Fuck, the only one who gets off here is the creative company, because they’d be as pissed off as the client.
Of course I’m not really surprised this has happened because in the quest for the lowest price possible, there seems to be more focus on having a programatic, optimised and systemised system and process than actually giving a fuck about your brands contexts, craft and associations.
It blows my mind how few clients care about ‘placement’.
They’ll argue till they’re blue in the face over the size of their logo, but rarely go into depth about the placement and contexts of where they appear.
And yet many clients think media agencies are professional and creative are the children.
Now of course there’s some amazing media agencies out there … agencies who think in terms of communication rather than media.
But the market has become so fixated on price, they’re forgetting – or not valuing – one vital element about brand building.
It’s not just about who you are, it’s about the company that you keep.
_____________________________________________________________________
PS: If anyone from Lego reads this, this post is because I love you. And you know this because I told you that when you invited me to talk at your global conference thing. Plus you’ve been very good and kind to me – and Otis – over the years. But the fact is, despite this being an isolated incident, you deserve better than this. You should demand better than this. So hold people to standards, not just price points and please don’t ask for any of the freebies you’ve sent me to be returned. Please!!!
PS2: It’s Easter holiday tomorrow and Monday so there will be no blog posts till next Tuesday. In the meantime, I’ll be looking longingly at the Hot Cross Buns and Easter Eggs I won’t be eating and wishing April Fools was on a Tuesday, rather than a Monday. Have fun.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Context, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Differentiation, Effectiveness, Entertainment, Happiness, Innovation, Luxury, Mischief, Packaging, Planning, Professionalism, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
This is the last post for a week because I’m off again.
I know … I know … it’s getting ridiculous, but consider my jet-lag, your mental health.
Talking of mental health … I’ve not had a drop of alcohol for 38 years.
THIRTY EIGHT.
But despite that, I do find myself buying it on occasion … mainly when those occasions are an extremely rare dinner invite and/or a desire to show gratitude towards someone in particular.
And when that happens, I remind myself how easily influenced I can be.
Because as we saw in 2007, my biggest motivator is the packaging rather than the quality of the product.
Well, I say that, but it has to be a brand I’ve at least heard of – a brand I associate with some sort of quality – but fundamentally, it’s all about the packaging.
Recently I wanted to get something for our old neighbour in LA.
It was his birthday … he’s an amazing human … and he invited me to his dinner. [I was in town, so it wasn’t some totally empty gesture]
So I rushed to a bottle shop and was immediately hit with a wealth of choices and options and so what did I end up choosing?
This.
Yep, a bottle of Veuve in a pseudo orange SMEG fridge.
Frankly it looked ridiculous … hell, it is ridiculous … but it’s also my kind of ridiculous, despite even my low-class tastes thought that for 2 brands that are supposedly ‘premium’, the way they combined looked cheap and tragic.
But unsuprisingly, my inner Dolly ‘it-costs-a-lot-of-money-to-look-this-cheap’ Parton, took over and I handed over my cash and walked out full of smugness and slight humiliation.
Now I don’t know the background to this collab.
I don’t know the process they took to get here,
And while on one level it makes some-sort-of-sense, it also is completely and utterly bonkers … and that’s why I love it.
Because in a world of sensible, it’s nice to see ridiculous win.
Yes, I appreciate Apple’s ‘ceremony of purchase’ packaging strategy is next level … but in terms of what I call, ‘social luxury’, the use of ridiculous packaging – as seen in the fragrance industry – is arguably, the most sensible thing they can do.
For all the processes, models and eco-systems being pushed by so many people right now, it’s interesting how few actively encourage searching for the weird edges. Ironically, they build approaches where the aim is to filter these out before they even have a chance to see what they can do. Which is why as much as the we laugh at the superficiality of fragrance companies and some alcohol brands, they can teach us more about standing out than all these models that seem obsessed with making sure we all ‘fit in’.
So who are the stupid ones now eh?
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Egovertising, Fake Attitude, Grifting, Innovation, Management, Technology
Warning. This post is topical.
In fact, it may be the most topical post I’ve ever written on here for 20 years.
Please read, while sitting down in case shock overwhelms you.
This is the end of this public service announcement.
So over the years, at Wieden and R/GA, I had a few dealings with WeWork.
And while I admit at the very beginning I thought it was a genius idea – specifically the way they were creating a business that dramatically profited from sub-letting space that was designed to appeal to a particular audience who felt they deserved to work in a particular kind of environment – after I met them, I started thinking something didn’t quite add up.
Please don’t think I am trying to suggest I had any idea of the level of craziness that was going on because I didn’t … I just couldn’t understand why they kept talking about themselves as a tech company and experts in work environments and culture when they were just a new generation of business space renting organisation.
But billions were poured into them and they were the darling of so many – especially those investor/companies who love to talk about ‘disrupting categories’, despite the fact most are about as conservative as you can get.
But over time – as numerous books, documentaries and news reports have documented – WeWork was proven to be a case of Emperor’s New Clothes.
And founder ego and delusion.
Specifically one founder … because on the few occasions I met him, Miguel seemed decent and grounded, whereas Adam most certainly didn’t.
Zoom forward to today and the company has filed for bankruptcy protection.
All that money and they still fucked it.
Worse, the delusional, ego-maniac that is Adam Neumann – who took a good idea and killed it with his God complex – got to walk away with a level of wealth that will last a thousand lifetimes.
Multiple billions.
BILLIONS!
But this isn’t a post about unfairness or WeWork’s craziness – I’ve written loads about that – this is about the challenge to encourage new thinking while not being blinded by it.
We live in divisive times.
Everything seemingly turns into a war.
Those who believe and those who don’t … and that extends to new ideas.
The amount of time I’ve seen people immediately dismiss new concepts or thinking simply because they are not as perfect as something established that has had years to work through issues and train people to conform.
But by the same token, I’ve also seem people blindly back a new concept or thinking because they seemingly want to associate themselves with the topical.
We saw this last one on a grand scale with so many people on Linkedin suddenly announcing themselves as AI experts, in a desperate bid to exploit the market interest and the market lack of knowledge.
Which gets to the heart of this post which is the importance of independent, critical thinking.
Where you are supportive of new ideas and thinking but know it is OK to ask questions about actions and decisions. Not to tear things down, but to better understand what is being done.
Starting from a position of ‘they could be right’ rather than ‘they’re obviously wrong’.
Focusing on the business not the hype … which, as Lee Hill once told me … is often as simply as acknowledging ‘profit is sanity, turnover is vanity’.
Critical, independent thinking isn’t celebrated enough.
Oh we may think it is, but what often we’re seeing is blinkered ego thinking.
Not enough understanding.
Not enough knowledge.
Not enough homework.
Not enough questions.
Not enough patience.
WeWork has cost millions of people billions of dollars … and yet you can’t help but think it didn’t have to be that way.
Their original business idea was a good one.
But the promise of trillions seduced people to lose their ability to think.
Critically and independently.
I wrote about this years ago with a lesson from the master conman, Bernie Madoff:
“I succeeded because when you offer people a deal that’s too good to be true, they never want to look too hard into the facts. They say it’s because of trust. I say it’s because of greed.”
We need to encourage positive pessimism.
The ability to champion new ideas without blindly being seduced by them.
To want to help people succeed without falling into being an accomplice for any delusion or slight of hand.
It’s not hard … but the more we promote blinkered ‘framework and eco-system’ thinking, the more we lose the value of independent thinking and then everyone loses in every way possible.
Especially those who have exciting new ideas that just need our encouragement and time.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Embarrassing Moments, Emotion, Empathy, Fake Attitude, Government, Insight, Internet, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Nike, Planners, Point Of View
OK, I’m back.
Again.
And this time, I’m not going to be going away for …. hmmmmm, actually let’s not go there.
Let’s move on shall we?
So before I start, there’s 2 things to say.
1. Some may have seen this before, because I accidentally put the wrong publish date on it.
2. This is a week of long and – for me – serious posts. So don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The good news is that on Friday, you’ll be rewarded for it, with some news that benefits you as much as it does me.
Kinda.
Maybe.
OK, so one thing that drives me nuts is when brands talk in totally different voices to different audiences.
But there’s something that gets to me more, and that’s when the brand in question has tried to position themselves as some sort of ‘brand of the people’.
Case in point, Reddit …
I really like Reddit.
I think their ‘front-page of the internet’ is a brilliant place to play.
And then I saw this …
‘Where Engagement Meets Results’.
What the fuck is that about?
Oh I know what some will say …
“They’re trying to reach business people who discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform”.
And maybe they are. But the irony is the easiest way to discount Reddit as a commercially valuable platform is having clients on there who only can communicate in the corporate monotone of the meaningless mission statement.
How insincere is a brand who speaks to their customers one way and business another?
How crazy is it that some think business people are a different species to ‘normal’ people?
How badly will Reddit’s audience react to work from companies who only speak business?
Now some may think I’m going over-the-top … they will remind me that we all ‘change’ our tone and personality dependent on who we are talking to.
And that’s true … to an extent.
But this isn’t a tonal change, this is character.
I read that and it’s a brand I don’t recognise …
Feels more like they should be called Beigeit rather than Reddit.
The ability to adapt your voice to different audiences shouldn’t mean changing who you are.
People who play golf have a dramatically different view to sport than those who play football … but Nike still do it in a way where you know and feel it’s them. Just like CTO’s in major corporations has different requirements to those who want a laptop for home … but you never feel Apple changes who they are to communicate with them.
Brands who fundamentally change their personality in a bid to engage different audiences literally don’t know who they are. Worse, their customers may start to question that too.
Reddit are amazing.
Their audience is diverse, engaged and productive.
And while I appreciate some in business may not understand that, if you have to alter who you are, do you want them anyway?
Years ago I was doing work for Triple J … a government funded, youth radio station in Australia.
Unlike other ‘government funded’ media, Triple J was someone with real credibility, driven by championing and breaking new artists, discussing topics commercial radio wouldn’t touch with a barge pole and absolutely no advertising.
So when they came to us asking for help, we knew straight away that whatever we did had to ensure their current audience didn’t feel Triple J was selling out by advertising for more listeners.
While you may think this meant we went niche, we did the opposite.
Built off an idea we called, ‘enemy of the average’ … we went into mainstream media with messages that challenged audiences about the mediocrity they were engaging with.
Radio.
Newspapers.
Cinema.
Magazines.
Nightclubs.
Television.
Wherever mainstream audiences were, we were there too.
And while many hated our work [it was even discussed in Australian Parliament] it not only attracted the largest audience increase in Triple J’s history, it reinvigorated their existing audience because they saw the brand they love stay true to who they are, despite wanting what they didn’t have.
I get we’re in different times.
I appreciate the idea of any risk is unpalatable for so many.
But nothing is as dangerous as changing who you are to attract people who aren’t your audience.
The brand voice is more than how you talk. Or look. It’s how you look at the world … and if you’re consistent with that, then you can express yourself in a million different ways and always be yourself.
But too many brands, despite what they say, don’t want to be distinct.
They see it as having the potential to alienate an audience.
To which I say this …
While you may think being something to anyone means you can engage more people, the fact is, the most power to build the value of your brand is when you are everything to someone.
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.