Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Crap Products In History, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, EvilGenius, Experience, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mischief, Nike, Perspective
Before I start, I’ve been a huge fan of collabs over the years. Seeing what happens when two different artists or brands or artists and brands come together has been fascinating.
And for every terrible LG x Prada phone, there’s a Nike x Ben & Jerry’s sneaker.
But … but … it feels we’ve moved from collab to labelling.
Where it isn’t about what two parties can create with each other, but just renting space for another brand to slap their logo on.
Take these Travis Scott x Playstation x Nike sneakers …
Jesus Christ.
Where the Ben & Jerry’s felt crafted and cared for this is just … well, put it this way, it feels more like a bad promotional item than something that represents a true collab.
And the thing is, this approach is happening more and more – across all manner of categories – which is why I kinda love what Nobuaki Kurokawa has done with their first product launch from their CUGGL label.
Let’s be honest, they’re taking the piss.
Like, blatantly and unashamedly.
Not only does it look like it say’s Gucci, by making the design resemble graffiti, it feels like they’re also sticking two fingers up at the terrible and contrived Gucci/Balenciaga collab.
The Gucci x Belenciaga is especially horrific because individually, they’ve not really laid a foot wrong in building the value and position in culture of their brands. And then they do this.
Lazy.
Fake.
Obvious.
Out-of-date.
Dad at the disco rubbish.
Basically, the fashion industry version of this.
Which is why I like what CUGGL have done so much.
Punking the brands pretending to be punking fashion.
Of course, Diesel did something like that before – though their mischievous eye was aimed at the counterfeit industry [even though it kinda said ‘fakes may be real’, which is the last thing they needed to do] however in terms of greatest accolade for mischief, that prize should have gone to the band Blink 182.
I say ‘should have’ because they ended up pulling out of potentially the greatest burn ever.
In the early 2000’s, Axl Rose was making a new Guns’ n’ Roses album.
It was unique because the only original member of the band was Axl himself.
He had fired all the band and was basically at his most indulgent ego best.
The only thing he’d announced was the album was going to be called ‘The Chinese Democracy’.
For years and years nothing came out.
The album postponed time and time again.
At one point, his record label, Geffen, pulled funding … and yet the recording still went on.
Enter Blink 182.
They announce they were recording a new album and guess what they were going to call it …
That’s right, The Chinese Democracy.
Better yet, because Axl was taking so long to release his version – they could be sure they’d be first, so history would always make it look that Guns n’ Roses copied Blink 182.
Alas they went cowardly on the idea, which is a shame … because that would have set a benchmark CUGGL and Diesel could only dream of reaching.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Campaign Magazine, Chris Jaques, Colenso, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Planning, R/GA, Wieden+Kennedy
I have always found it rather amusing that occasionally the industry press has shown an interest in what I’m doing – or done.
Even now, my first reaction is, “don’t you mean the other Rob Campbell, who started RKCR Y&R?”
And while occasionally the answer is, “yes, we do mean him” … I have approached any interaction with my tongue, generally in my cheek.
Hence I’ve said if I was a Star Wars character, I’d be Darth Vader.
I’ve felt fine writing sarcastic responses to discipline assassination.
And I showed no shame saying the word ‘wank’ in response to a new business win.
To be fair, Campaign Magazine – where a lot of this madness took part – played their part in the relationship by running pieces questioning if my wife was real and if I was having an affair with a reindeer.
I say all this because a friend sent me something he had just found in an old edition of Campaign in Asia …
Apart from the fact that I was at Y&R Asia 16 years ago, so I’m wondering why on earth anyone would keep a copy of Campaign that long … it did make me smile.
Yes, I used to use the word ‘toptastic’ a lot.
A. LOT.
And yes, I can absolutely see myself saying that, even though I LOVED Mediaworks and would do it again in a heartbeat.
But more than that – and I appreciate how egotistical this makes me sound – it was nice to see a bit of humour in an industry that is quickly going up its own arse.
Yes, what we do is important.
Yes, we need companies to recognise we care about their longterm wellbeing.
But for an industry that is supposed to understand how to connect commerce to culture … this overly serious, overly complex, overly monotone approach to all we do isn’t helping.
I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t take what we do seriously, but maybe if we stopped taking ourselves so seriously – so we can resonate with culture rather than patronise them – we may end up with better work and better results.
And by god, could we do with that.
Though I appreciate this may simply be my attempt to reframe my industry ridiculousness as professional, so should Otis ever see it, he won’t think his Dad was a total lunatic.
Maybe.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
National holiday on Monday, so see you Tuesday. That is if anyone reads this blog anymore – I have no idea. [Which is probably a very good thing, ha]
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Diversity, Effectiveness, Emotion, Entertainment, Environment, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Metallica, Music, Resonance, Respect | Tags: 15
I was recently in a client meeting where we had a discussion about ‘scale’.
The person in question was suggesting – as many do – that the only way to achieve it was to make sure you offer something for everyone.
Now there’s two ways you can do that …
Literally offer something for everyone or be so bland that you don’t alienate anyone.
And when we had this discussion, it reminded me of the Ferdinand Porsche quote that – paraphrased – reads something like:
“Be everything to someone not something to everyone”.
But it was early in the morning for me.
I was talking to clients in America.
So instead, I gave the worst analogy I may have ever used …
I pointed out The Eagles are the best selling American band in history.
That their ‘easy listening’ songs were designed to literally appeal to the widest audience possible. That their repetitive approach has been used to reinforce their position.
Or lack of one.
However the second best selling American band of all time is Metallica.
OK, I’m biased, but no one can say their music is designed for mass appeal.
Even their more ‘audience friendly’ albums still targeted a particular type of music fan. A fan that is anti-mainstream and anti-easy listening.
And yet Metallica’s fierce focus on who they are and what they believe – matched with their desire to continually explore and experiment with formats and approaches for their music – has resulted in them attracting ever bigger audiences rather than chasing them.
But its even more than that …
In the fickle, fast-changing world of music, Metallica haven’t just been able to maintain their credibility and authenticity, they have managed to still be seen as a contemporary band.
A band that is more popular now than they’ve ever been, while not changing who they are, what they believe or who they’re for.
I finished this rant off with the words:
“Be Metallica, not The Eagles”.
Fortunately, given I was doing this call at stupid o’clock, people let it pass.
However, while the analogy may be bollocks, the reality isn’t.
We live in an industry that is increasingly falling into rules of how things should be done.
And there are some – without doubt.
But we are in danger of ignoring the power of culture and creativity in favour of box-ticking and formulas and yet it’s the brands and bands like Nike, Metallica, SKP-S, Kanye, Liquid Death who not only hold – and set – the cultural attention and narrative, but continue to fast-track growth and profit compared to a category who blindly follow a system designed to play more to the ‘safety’ of the middle rather than the power and influence of the edge.
I’m not saying it’s easy.
I’m not saying it’s not without risk.
I’m not saying it happens in a smooth, straight line.
But when you do it well … when you know who you are, who you’re for and what you believe, it’s definitely worth it, against pretty much every metric you can measure it against.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Positioning, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Standards
Brands love to say they know their customers.
They love to go on about the research they do to ‘get’ the needs of the people who use them.
And some genuinely do. Looking to understand how people live not just how they use, choose or buy their brand or a competitive product.
But sadly this group seem far more in the minority these days … with the preference being to outsource research needs to a ‘for profit’ external partner, who are asked to provide answers to drive immediate sales rather than to build long-term understanding.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a massive fan of research, but I’m reading far too much that seems to be about telling the client what they want to hear rather than what they need to understand.
To be fair, that is also true of agencies as well, and so much of that is because a lot of companies have already decided what they want to do and say and they expect everyone else to fall in line with it. And I get it, in a quest to streamline process and maximise productivity, that makes perfect sense.
Except it doesn’t.
Because as George used to say ALL THE TIME, it’s like going to the doctor and prescribing your own medicine. And as much as people/brands may think they know what’s wrong, that doesn’t mean they know how to fix it …
Agencies and research companies should be paid for their independent thinking and approach to solving problems NOT paid to execute what someone else wants the solution to be. The great tragedy of brand communication these days is that somehow, independent thinking has been labelled as dangerous when the real danger is when there isn’t any.
When solutions are decided by financial hierarchy rather than expertise – and by expertise, I mean that in terms of what an organisation is actually an expert on, rather than what they think they are – you tend to end up with a pile of shit that then ignites a game of blame storming.
Here’s a perfect example of it …
Now I appreciate printer, photocopier, fax [?!!!] sales must be very difficult.
I get companies may only give them a second thought when they go wrong or run out of ink.
But … but … who the fuck approved this shit?
I mean, it’s bad enough they say they know what we need – which makes them sound like some sleazy office colleague – but then they come out with this gem of bollocks.
“Like twins who understand each other completely”.
What??? WHAT???
Apart from the fact it’s utterly, utterly pants. if they really had a telepathic understanding of ‘what we need’, surely they wouldn’t have to pay to have this shit printed in a magazine and they’d just turn up at their customers office with the requirements of their machine – even before their customer knew they needed it.
But that’s not the case because they don’t know their customers, they don’t know what they need and they sure as shit don’t know how to communicate to them.
I get people think communication and creativity is easy.
I get people think they know their customers better than anyone else.
I get they want everything to be as efficient as is physically possible.
But if anything should tell them what they think and what is true are very different, it’s rubbish ads like this. And while I appreciate this is especially bad, there’s a whole lot more expensive versions of this wherever you look.
Great creativity and research is born from independent thinking.
A desire to create value by giving you what you need not what you want.
Which is why companies who place greater value on what they can make their agency partners do – including how they do the job, how many people can do involved in job and how long they’re allowed to do if for – the more complicit they are when things are less effective than they could be.
I’m not saying agencies and research companies are perfect.
And they sure-as-hell aren’t all the same standard and quality.
But they’re much better when they can give you truth and possibilities than blind complicity.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, China, Communication Strategy, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Food, Honesty, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Packaging, Perspective, Planners, Point Of View, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, WeigelCampbell, Wieden+Kennedy
I’ve written a ton about brand purpose over the years.
Not as viciously as my beloved Martin Weigel. But close.
It’s not that I am against brand purpose, It’s when it’s used as a marketing tool and ‘updated’ to whatever trend is currently popular that my hate boils over.
It’s why I have always advocated for belief rather than purpose.
Belief is demonstrated by what and how you do things, not what and how you say things.
Or give things away.
Belief drives change. Purpose hopes for it.
Which is probably why so many brands prefer purpose.
The ability to look like you care without always having to demonstrate it.
Take this from Unilever food brand, Knorr …
“Our purpose is to reinvent food for humanity by being healthier for both people and the land. Knorr brings the power of flavour to good food to overcome barriers that stop us from eating for good”
Sounds good doesn’t it.
Sounds purposeful.
But for those who are not sure what Knorr make, let me enlighten you …
Yeah, when I think of flavour and good food – not to mention being good for humanity and the land – the first thing I think of is cheddar broccoli rice sides.
But maybe I’m wrong, how do you cook these things that help us ‘eat for good’?
Here’s the instructions …
Microwave directions: In 2-quart microwave-safe bowl, combine 2-1/4 cups water, 1 tbsp. margarine(optional) and contents of package. Microwave uncovered at high about 12 minutes* or until rice is tender, stirring once halfway through. Stir and serve.
Yep, thought so. Utter rubbish.
The reason I am writing this is because I recently saw a post from an ice-cream brand.
Have a look at this …
While those words sounds trite, purpose-for-marketing … food and culture are incredibly entwined and so there is a real chance it may be a badly worded version of what they really believe and do.
Let’s look at their website.
For those too lazy, here is a screenshot of their flavours …
Hmmmmn … doesn’t seem too much about people, places or cultures does it?
There’s a lot about ingredients.
Some even seem interesting. But absolutely no mention of people, places or cultures.
But is that surprising when it’s so obviously an absolute load of purpose-washing?
And what a missed opportunity.
They could truly make that into something that could change something.
Educate, unite, challenge, inform … tell the stories of the people, places and cultures that were the inspiration of those flavours through the flavours.
Ben and Jerry’s meets Tony Chocolonely.
And what makes it worse is their intentions sound honourable. They’re already a B-Corp certified business, choose ingredients that are direct-trade and believe in diversity.
All great and important things except nothing to do with what they claim they do on their packaging.
Many years ago, at Wieden, we were invited to pitch for an ice-cream brand.
We said yes because hey, it’s ice cream.
Anyway, when we got the brief, it read like a purpose fluffer.
My god, it was literally dripping in claims and terminology that not only had nothing to do with their category, but had nothing to do with any of their actions, behaviours or products.
We spoke to them about looking at ice cream another way.
If they had to have a ‘purpose’, make that purpose about what ice cream is supposed to be.
Fun and tasty.
Not deeper meaning. Just that.
And then prove it in the product, not just the experience.
You may think that is overly simplistic, but by then the entire category had gone purpose insane and no one was actually owning what they were and what people actually wanted.
Put it this way, it had gone a looooooong way from the days where BBH had brilliantly changed the way people looked at ice cream and did it in a way that was sexy, powerful and based on a real truth. [A campaign so good that is was spoofed brilliantly by Fosters Lager]
Anyway, for us, the way we could get back to what ice cream was but in a way that proved the fun was down to flavours … so unlike Jeni’s ice creams, we actually went out and talked to all manner of people about their weird tastes. Things they love others think are a bit mental. Things that make them deliriously happy for whatever reason or whatever duration. Because we saw an opportunity for the client to be more like a taste and colour experiment lab than a manufacturer of everyday ice-creams and flavours with an unbelievable purpose attached.
So we worked it all up and I remember it for 2 main reasons.
+ We used a picture of a cat in the presentation with an inverted cross on its forehead … which is still my favourite mad presentation image ever used. And I’ve used a lot.
+ When the client wanted us to justify our idea, we simply showed this …
It may not be the deepest reason you’ve ever read.
It may not even be the most exciting.
But it was definitely more believable than all the shit they were saying.
And with the flavour combinations we had and how it all came together with the creative work – which had some weird ice cream flavour meme generator at the heart of it … generating all manner of taste sensation madness out into the internet … it was something that not only would help them differentiate from the competition, but have a place and role in culture.
They hated it.
Instead they went with some bollocks about ice cream being ‘a gesture of love for those who are not rich’.
No, I’m not joking.
Which may also explain why they … Haagan Daaz and Jeni’s talk a lot about their purpose in society but are – with the possible exception of Jeni’s – increasingly irrelevant ice creams brands whereas that old, dumb favourite, Ben And Jerry’s, still has some sort of position in culture, because despite selling out to the death star Unilever, they try to do shit rather than just say it.
Emphasis increasingly on try.
But even with that, the reality is – as is the real test of any brand that claims to have purpose – they show what they believe through every aspect of what they do, even when it’s inconvenient, rather than market what they claim their purpose is, only when it suits them.
Enjoy your day. Be careful you don’t eat any bullshit.