Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Crap Products In History, Embarrassing Moments, Marketing, Marketing Fail
Way back in 2007, I wrote a post called, Should Ink Stink?
It was how Mont Blanc had gone into fragrance and I found the whole thing a bit bizarre.
Then in 2008 I wrote about how Ferrari had licensed their name to a bloody memory card … in some very loose nod to how fast the 4gb SD card could save and upload files.
You’d think things couldn’t get worse, but over the years we’ve seen more than a few candidates for the title of ‘what the fuck were they thinking’ but in 2021, we finally got a winner.
To be fair, the brand in question is old, so you could imagine the license owner thought they may as well say yes to anything if it will make them a few extra bob.
But – and it’s a big but – late last year they released a special edition ‘reunion’ of the brand, and the clamor to get access to it from people and press all around the world was immense … which makes the decision to lend their name to this product ‘extension’ even stranger.
What am I talking about?
This.
Yes, that is a Friends manicure set and carry case.
Why???
WHY???
Yes, the cast of Friends were young and beautiful … but I don’t know if anyone in the history of the show ever commented on their nails.
And why a carry case?
How many people use their manicure set so often, they need a case to transport it?
Hell, how many people need a new set of nail scissors and nail file anyway?
Hell, they even had to say ‘The Television Series’ on the package, because they knew no one would naturally associate the TELEVISION COMEDY WITH A MOBILE MANICURE SET.
Does it even have the Friends logo on the actual manicure case?
What if it doesn’t? What is the fucking point of it then?
Actually, what is the point of it whether it’s on or off.
Frankly, if someone pulled out a manicure suitcase I’d already be concerned.
If that suitcase then had the Friends logo on it, I’d be bloody petrified.
How much did this license cost?
How many products did they end up actually selling?
Who was behind this utter insanity?
The only good thing about it is that when I saw this product, I laughed more than I laughed at any episode of the last 2 seasons of the show.
The theme song sings the words, “I’ll be there for you”.
Well, if it means they’re there with a Friends manicure set in its own case, I’d rather you didn’t thank you very much.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Facebook, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Social Commentary, Social Media
A while back, Mark Zuckerberg announced to the world he was creating a holding company – that would house Facebook and Instagram etc – called Meta.
He launched it with this piece of underwhelming fanfare …
There are so many questions about this …
Why did Zuck make his avatar leaner than the real him? Why did he think showing a virtual room with some boring mates playing cards would excite the world? Why the fuck is his wife & dog making an appearance & why would his dad give a shit about receiving a clip of the pooch? Why was the “awesome virtual room” like a Sega Megadrive game background? Why are Facebook/Meta employees so cowardly they can’t tell their boss his acting is worse than people who appeared on that short lived BBC soap, Eldorado? Why did they think it would be trippy to show a flying fish to a generation who make TikTok videos far weirder, fancier and more interesting? Why did I watch the whole thing. Twice? Why did they make their logo a shot Zorro mask? Why does android Zuck still pretend he’s human?
It was, in no uncertain terms, fucking terrible.
But to show that Facebook have no shame taste, they then went on a social media tirade in a bid to drum up support and interest from brands.
Not people. Brands.
Asking them what they’ll be doing in the metaverse.
And while the social media account of a brand talking to another brand may be cool for the people working at the brand, 99.9% of the time it’s an act that shows a complete lack of self awareness.
Look at this …
It’s the equivalent of 2 old white dudes – wearing Yeezy’s & Supreme tees – thinking they’re the hippest, hottest dudes on an empty petrol station forecourt in Basingstoke on a wet Tuesday night.
Seriously, I detest this sort of thing.
I certainly detest every bit about this echo chamber, jock-banter, industry ‘in joke’, interaction.
I know some people will claim it is ‘hijacking culture’, but there’s 2 key issues with this.
1. How can it be ‘hijacking’, when this approach is so common, people literally expect it.
2. There’s a major difference between hijacking and boring them.
Putting aside the danger of letting a man like Zuckerberg have even more knowledge about our lives so he can profit from it … putting aside his track record of saying his company does good things then is found to be doing bad … putting aside Facebook ‘borrowed’ their Meta logo from another company … what Zuckerberg is showing is he doesn’t care about the people who use his products, just the advertisers who keep throwing money at him so they can find more and more ways to sell stuff to them, before launching ad campaigns saying they care about the environment and everyone should act.
Or some other blame throwing tactic.
Zuckerberg isn’t going anywhere.
And what makes it worse is that technology … specifically the metaverse and mixed reality … has the potential to do incredible good for humanity. However when governments allow this space to be ‘owned’ by egotistical billionaires, then the only ‘incredible good’ we can look forward to, is more blatant exploitation with no legal implication whatsoever.
Thanks Zuck.
Thanks for robbing us of the future we could have, but you want to dictate.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture, Customer Service, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
Just like HR is often about protecting management from their people rather than the other way around, the same can be said for customer service.
Of course, no one says that, but there’s far too many examples of companies stating the importance of their customers, and then using their customer service department to completely undermine them.
As I’ve written before, real customer service is demonstrated when things are bad, not good.
Let’s be honest, when a company can spot a sale, the full charm-offensive is on display.But when things go bad … oh, that’s when the truth is often revealed.
The irony is that this is the exact moment you can create a level of loyalty that can last a lifetime.
I’ve talked about the time VW came good after my brand new Golf GTI had the gearbox collapse and the turbo blow up … and I’ve found another example of a brand making something bad, a little bit better simply because they looked at things from their customers perspective and acted accordingly.
Isn’t that amazing?
Considerate. Compassionate. Personal. Helpful. Generous.
At the worst of times, a company has found a way to not just solve a problem – but help relieve some of the pain, that wasn’t even of their own making.
If a pet food company can do that – with their relatively low priced product – then any company should be able to. But many don’t. Not because their staff don’t want to, but their bosses won’t let them.
Years ago I worked with a consultant called Geoff Burch.
He was a beautiful maniac.
What made him great was he challenged management to live up to their responsibilities – both to their companies reputation and their employees ability to be successful.
We were working on an Italian car brand together and at the client briefing, the CEO said the call centre staff were offering too many benefits to appease dissatisfied customers.
Geoff asked why they were dissatisfied and the response was their were reliability problems.
Quick as a flash, he replied:
“Maybe you need to realise your responsibility to your employees is more than just a desk, a roof and a paycheck, but making a product that is fit for purpose. I can’t help a company who wants to blame others for the faults they have created and protect”
It was incredible.
And while there was a very awkward atmosphere in the room after that outburst, the CEO – after what seemed like a lifetime – acknowledged he was right.
To be fair, it helped that Geoff had an incredible reputation, but he wasn’t saying anything truly revolutionary, he was simply saying ‘reputation is based on what you do, not what you say’.
And while that should be plainly obvious, it’s amazing how few companies still don’t get that. The companies who think making a few dollars more today is more valuable than a lost customer tomorrow.
Seriously, the way some companies operate, it’s like a bloody ponzi scheme.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting you should ‘spend your way’ into customers hearts.
This is simply about valuing your customers perspective rather than purely seeing the World through your own.
Which is, unsurprisingly, the true definition of customer service.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Evil, Culture, Marketing, Marketing Fail
Monday.
God it’s hard isn’t it.
If this is the point of the week where you have the most energy, how the hell will you be feeling on Wednesday?
Well I’m going to help you with that.
I’m going to give you a surge of energy that will see you through.
And that energy is going to be created through anger.
Remember last week how I wrote about McKinsey and their moral compass free attitude towards making cash?
That they thought nothing of putting in proposals that allowed their client to continue killing people as long as they made money?
Well, I guess there was a small chance that someone could say it was all a mistake. A misunderstanding. A misquote.
OK, so no one really thinks that, but I may have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
OK, I wasn’t … because there was no way they ‘made a mistake’.
McKinsey doesn’t make those.
Every single thing they do is deliberate.
Everything.
Thought out. Considered. Evaluated. Proposed.
Their driving force is optimising profit. For themselves as much as their client – especially as they never execute what they recommend to clients. Implication free advice … morally, ethically and, in some cases, legally.
And why am I being so harsh?
Because of this:
Nothing highlights McKinsey’s knowledge of what they did – and what they didn’t do – than shredding files in relation to their client.
A long time ago there was a book called The Corporation. In it, the author argued that corporations are basically psychopaths on a relentless quest for money and power.
It’s literally why McKinsey are in business.
Who else would want to work with a company that charges huge amounts for work they don’t execute that encourages illicit or even illegal behaviour? And yet so many of the companies that work with them go on about their ‘purpose’, their ‘focus on the community’.
While there are exceptions, Joel Bakan – the author of The Corporation – was generally absolutely correct in his judgement.
When Arthur Anderson was caught shredding the files of the illegal work they did for Enron, their reputation was so tainted that they went bankrupt. That McKinsey continues to walk around like the Masters of the Universe should make you furious.
Absolutely furious.
And with that, you now have the energy to get through your week.
You’re welcome.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Digital, Egovertising, EvilGenius, Fake Attitude, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Politics, Relevance, Social Commentary, Social Divide, Technology
OK, I should point out I actually think the Metaverse has incredible potential.
It could revolutionise education, medicine and ignite the creation of industries that don’t even exist yet. Which is why I am still utterly baffled why Zuckerberg thought the best way to sell the technology was by putting out that utterly shit video … where you saw him and his ‘mates’ not only do things that are all possible right now, but were worse in terms of quality, creativity and interactivity.
And then I saw this picture and everything became clear …
Maybe Zuck doesn’t give a damn about the Metaverse.
Maybe he doesn’t want to help humanity evolve and develop.
Maybe the only reason he’s doing it is for the same reason a lot of conmen do things …
Because when you can distract your target, you can rob them when they’re not looking.
Now before Mr Z’s lawyers try and sue me for every penny I’ve got for saying that, I would like to point out two things.
1. I said ‘maybe’ …
That means I am absolutely not suggesting Mr Zuckerberg is a conman or only doing Metaverse for conman purposes. I am only suggesting that could be possible, however unlikely that is. Similar to me saying I could be a catwalk model.
2. Be honest. That photo is very, very creepy.
Whoever allowed that photo to get out at Facebook … I mean Meta … was either an idiot or a hero. Because when I look at that photo, I can’t help but think of this ad … except with a totally different ending.
Rather than everyone being saved in the nick of time – thanks to the hero coming in at the last moment and destroying the screen that is hypnotising and blinding the audience so they follow the words of evil – no one comes to save them, so evil walks past all of his hypnotised and blinded victims, smiling to himself that’s he got them exactly where he wants them.