Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Cars, Communication Strategy, Context, Creativity, Culture, England, Experience, Insight, Leadership, Legend, Luxury, Management, Marketing, Mercedes, Perspective, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Retail, Strategy, Success
I’m back.
Worse, I’m back and ready to make ‘amends’ for not writing any posts for 5 days … I’m going to be writing some extra-long ones. Even by my overlong standards. However the good news is – unlike my usual standards – they are pretty good. I think. At least some of them.
So years ago I worked with on a global project for Mercedes.
One of the people they said I should meet was a dealer principal of a local Mercedes dealership in Derbyshire, England.
To be honest, I was thrilled as many companies try to keep you away from ‘the coal face’ to ensure their carefully constructed ‘delusion of perfection’ can be maintained … but they were pretty insistent I met this person.
What made it even more intriguing is when I asked them why, they replied, “Oh you’ll see”.
So, a week or so later, I found myself on a train heading to Derby to meet this gentleman.
Now let’s be honest, car salesman have a certain reputation …
A lot of the stereotypes are most likely bullshit – or shaped by a few bad eggs rather than the whole industry – but I admit I went in slightly cautious as to who I’d meet.
But the person I sat down with was one of the sharpest marketers I’ve ever met.
I also loved that – despite owning multiple different Mercedes dealerships, something like 20 – he called himself a ‘car salesman’.
He was passionate about the brand and equally as passionate about selling them and didn’t want to hide that fact.
He also said his Mum had told him she was embarrassed he introduced himself that way to people … which had motivated him to be even more focused on making his business successful.
One of the best examples of his attitude was his story about how he chose where to build a new dealership.
He was going to open a dealership in a new city and wanted it to be where all the competitor car dealerships were located. His attitude was it was better to be where everyone goes than to try and convince people to go somewhere out-the-way, just for him.
Apparently, there were a few available locations he could have built, but he had his heart set on one place … next to the local BMW dealership.
They were something like number 110 and he was going to be 111. [I can’t remember the exact numbers, but you get the point]
Anyway, by his own admission, he overspent on buying the land – but for him, there were three major reasons he wanted to be there.
The first was that he knew BMW was his main competitor and so if he was located next to them, most people in the market for that level of car would end up visiting both dealerships.
The second was that he knew many people saw the BMW and Mercedes brand as interchangeable. By that I mean their ‘quality and status’ were pretty similar so often the choice of vehicle came down to service standards and/or price.
Which led to his 3rd reason …
Because he wanted customers to feel Mercedes was the more ‘prestigious’ car to own before they had even entered the dealership – to increase the odds/desire to own – and so by choosing that specific location, he could run ads that signed off with:
Visit your local Mercedes dealership. One up from BMW.
Yep, he spent all that extra money just so he could do that with his ads.
And you know what?
It worked, because it became the most successful Mercedes dealership in the UK.
Of course, these days no one would ever do that sort of thing – at least in terms of marketing – because you’d have some ‘guru’ state ‘when you use a competitors name in your advertising, you’re promoting your competitor’.
It’s the same myopic thinking that has led to certain clients having a negative reaction to anything they perceive as negative … even if it is [1] just in the brief and/or [2] being used to elevate the value of your brand.
Now you may think this post is going to take a dark turn, but it’s not …
Because I tell this story because I saw something wonderful on Twitter/X about Everton Football club.
A story that reminded me of that Mercedes car salesman and his commitment to always finding ways to paint a particular image in people’s minds.
And while I appreciate in this case, it is so subtle that many may miss it … once you know, you’ll not only node your approval for their genius but – if you’re an Everton Fan – you’ll feel pride that you got one over the ol’ enemy.
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, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Film, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Provocative, Queen, Reputation, Success, Succession, Television
This is a long post.
Proper long.
And given I overwrite everything, that is probably a scary thought.
But I hope you hang in there, because it’s something important – at least to me. And who knows, it may trigger some thoughts – or hate – and I’ll consider that a win. Maybe, ahem.
So I don’t know about you, but I miss the TV show, Succession.
I miss the characters … the writing … the inconvenient truth how companies – and some families – work.
And while there are many articles and reports dedicated to explaining what ‘worked’, I recently read something that captured how it worked.
I love that write up.
I love it for a whole host of reasons … of which one is acknowledging that to make something that can capture so many people’s attention for so long, is an act of creative magnificence.
And while we may all nod our heads in agreement, the thing is we forget that.
We forget the challenge of keeping millions engaged and interested over a period of time.
Or maybe more specifically, we have forgotten HOW to do it.
Let’s be honest, the attitude of many brands is ‘keep things the same’ or ‘don’t fuck it up’ … while not realizing the biggest risk to achieving what they want to achieve is literally doing the same thing, in the same way, over-and-over again.
Of course, a big reason for their attitude is their quest for attribution.
Where the brand is synonymous and attributed to what they do/say/communicate.
However, rather than achieve this by doing interesting things that audiences value and can engage in – which is literally, the fastest, most effective way to build active, interested, engaged and committed attribution – we see more of the lazy approach. An approach sold by people with methodologies that mistake repetition as reputation.
Hence, we see countless campaigns featuring ‘consistent fictional characters’ doing variations of the same thing no one really cares about or relates to as if they’re trying to do a homage to the ‘Gold Blend’ coffee ads from the UK. WHICH CAME OUT IN THE 1980’S!!! Or the modern equivalent, where every element of every piece of communication is plastered with cues of whatever colour a brand is associated with. All the while ignoring the fact what it actually does is pull people out of their engagement with the communication because they’re questioning/wondering/laughing what sort of person drives a red car, lives in a red house – with red wallpaper – and only eat red vegetables. But even that isn’t the lowest of the low. No … that belongs to the work that shoves a watermark of the brand logo/name into the top left-or-right-hand-side of all their work … as if acknowledging their communication is so boring that the only way to know who it is from is to literally shove it in front of their faces.
I’m not saying ‘brand assets’ aren’t a thing … but they only become that with creativity.
Over time.
Continually reinforced … expressed … added to.
Without that, you end up with things that are more like weights than rockets.
And that’s the problem I have with so a bunch of the marketing practice being peddled …
Because they fail to appreciate the difference between recognition and value.
Or meaning.
Or resonance.
Or connection.
As I said to a client recently, just because I know what the swastika is, doesn’t mean I want to be a Nazi.
But that’s where we’re at right now … repeat, repeat, repeat.
Which is why that comment on Succession is so important.
Because they understand the importance of constantly adding to the narrative, not repeating it.
Keeping viewers not just interested … but on their toes.
Which leads to them engaging with the show, even when they’re not watching it.
Talking, discussing, sharing, commenting, deducing, arguing.
A program where none of the characters had many redeeming features, kept millions around the world coming back to them.
To learn. To listen. To grow. To hate. To debate.
Is that hard to do?
Of course.
Is it impossible to do?
Nope … especially when you hire proper talent and let them do what they’re great at, rather than value talent on how little they cost and then tell them what to make. Even though you don’t have experience in knowing how to make things people want to engage with.
But as a friend said to me recently, there were no conversations about ‘attribution’ with Succession were there!?
Nope. Not one. Not even from the first episode.
And maybe that was because they didn’t start the show with the intent of creating the lowest common denominator of recognition … then repeating it over and over and over again. No … their intention was to make something interesting … and then keep adding to that so their audiences would keep giving a fuck.
Look, I have no problem with marketing practice.
It is important and has a real role and value in building brands and driving effective marketing.
But that role and value is only released when it is done well and honestly … and right now, it feels there’s a lot of soundbites and not a lot of depth.
Selling systems that promise simplicity but ultimately are outsourcing responsibility.
Outsourcing responsibility to people who can profit from it, despite having no experience in actually creating it.
The irony is we all want the same thing.
Hell, we all need the same thing.
But there’s a major difference between playing not to lose and playing to win so maybe there needs to be more conversations about that, rather than blindly follow people who present themselves as business liberators when really, they’re good insurance salespeople.
Of course, the reality is that, despite what some may say, there’s not one ‘all encompassing’ answer to all this.
I get how expensive everything is so the temptation to stick and stay with what you know and what is working for you, is high. But regardless who you are, it will not last forever and it’s far better to own the change than be left behind by it.
Just ask the Disney execs how they’re feeling as they watch their Marvel universe start to implode.
Building anything is a journey that goes through highs and lows along the way.
But it’s the people who think – or say – they can stop that, who end up creating branded mediocrity.
Or should I way, ‘mediocrity attribution’.
Which is why there is one final example of the commercial value of adding to a story rather than repeating it and that’s Queen.
Specifically their recent sale of their back catalogue for ONE BILLION POUNDS.
Whether you like the band or not, you can’t say that is not an impressive number.
And while even I – a massive Queen fan – accept that in 1986, they stopped being musicians and became entertainers [aka: ‘turned crap’] … it’s the music they made until that point that gave them their legacy, fans and economic value.
Because rather than basically repeat their first hit over and over again … they kept taking people to different and interesting places.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brands, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Nike, Perspective, Provocative, Relevance, Resonance, Strategy
Take a look at this photo of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe.
How good is it?
Two icons of tennis …
Hell, for people of a certain age, they’re still icons, despite this pic being taken in 1978.
But this isn’t about them, this is about McEnroe’s shirt.
McEnroe’s NIKE shirt.
Notice anything about it? Anything different at all?
Well let me put you out of your misery, because the answer is there’s absolutely nothing different about it whatsoever.
It’s the same logo as you see today.
It’s the same font as you see today.
It’s the same flawed genius athlete as you see today.
It is a demonstration of a brand who has always known who the fuck it is, what/who it stands for and what it believes.
A brand that made that logo ‘an asset’ through the decisions it makes and the athletes it associates with.
For over 50+ years.
No ‘relaunch’.
No ‘brand purpose’ statement.
No ‘one colour’ brand systems.
No ‘system 2’ decision making.
Hell, they’re even OK with making mistakes because they are focused on fighting, challenging, pushing and provoking athletes and sport rather than chasing popularity and convenience.
In fact, the greatest irony is the reason they’re currently in the shit is because certain people decided their 50+ years of pushing who they are, what/who they stand for and what they believe was now out of date. Irrelevant. Not ‘optimising or maximising’ their commercial value enough. So they turned their back on who they are to embrace what many modern marketing guru’s said they should be … ignoring the fact these people have never done – or achieved – anything close to what NIKE has and does.
Now it is very true there are certain things NIKE have been slow to embrace. Some are mindblowingly ridiculous and stupid. However, I would argue that is more because they shed so many people who loved and live for sport while replacing them with people who love and live for marketing processes and practices.
Because while there is – if done correctly – value in those things, it’s important to remember they never MAKE a brand, they – at best – help empower it. A bit.
That we’ve chosen to forget this to enable us to profit from an increasing number of companies who seek to disguise the fact they don’t know who they fuck they are, what/who they stand for and what they believe, highlights how much marketing has become an industry of platitudes, not provocation.
Which is why I will always remember what a friend of my Dad once told me.
He was a lawyer, but his words were very pertinent for marketing.
Especially a lot of what passes – or is celebrated – in marketing today.
He basically said: “Great companies don’t change who they are but always fight to change where they are”
Sadly, it feels too many have got things the wrong way around these days.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Zealand, Nike
There’s been a lot written and said about brand assets over the years.
A lot of claims and over-promises.
Hell, careers have been made from being a cheerleader of it … even though it has also been responsible for a whole lot of terrible advertising.
Contrived, complicit and confused advertising.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a value – or a role – but as I wrote here, the thing rarely talked about is that brand assets don’t happen by themselves. You can’t buy them off the shelf or make them happen by simply repeating their use ad-nauseum.
No, the only way to turn an attribute into an asset is through creativity.
It’s creativity that gives it meaning.
It’s creativity that gives it a purpose and role.
It’s creativity that imbues it with financial value.
I appreciate that might not fit the narrative of certain people, but that’s the reality of the situation … or it is if you want to do it properly. Unfortunately, it appears more and more people don’t. Preferring to outsource their responsibility – which, let’s not forget, they are paid to do – to generalistic and simplistic solutions that are focused on recognition, not value.
Nothing brought this home more than this ad I saw for a new Nike store in Auckland.
Look at this …
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck is that?
While they have used a number of NIKE’s ‘brand assets’ – namely the font and swoosh – it’s pretty obvious whoever put this together has no understanding or appreciation of what they represent or how to use them.
Mind you, it also seems they also have no understanding or appreciation of sport, art direction or design.
It’s like they’ve just taken a few pieces and shoved them wherever they like – like a terrible jigsaw puzzle that doesn’t show the picture they need to create.
Which highlights another thing rarely talked about brand assets …
Just because you’ve earned them, doesn’t mean you can’t lose them.
Treat them with distain and you’ll find all that hard work will be for nothing.
Moving from a brand asset to an attribute to a warning sign to stay the fuck away.
Brand assets are made and built over time.
They need nurturing, crafting and supporting.
They’re not something that once earned, can be used any way you choose.
It’s why the people who use them need to understand them.
What they represent.
The context they play in.
Their creative meaning and expression.
How to actually fucking use them in the right way.
Without any of that you don’t just fail to unlock their inherent value and power, you’re killing their credibility and the brand they’re tied to.
That doesn’t mean you can evolve them. Or expand them. Or play with them in different ways. Nike – of all brands – is very good at doing that. But that only happens because generally they’re embraced by people who have a deep understanding of what they stand for and represent … rather than random ‘colours and logos’ that they treat as a range of stickers they believe they can put wherever they want and whenever they choose.
It’s why I get so frustrated with how certain people talk about them. Acting they’re like ‘parts’ that can be replaced, exchanged, adapted or used however someone chooses … which ultimately demonstrates many of the people who talk like this don’t actually understand what a brand is, what it takes to build one or the difference between post-rationalising and creating.