Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Consultants, Context, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Individuality, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I was never a fan of Seinfeld.
Then I’ve never been much of a fan of Jerry Seinfeld either.
I always found him a bit of condescending, self-righteous prick.
Oh I get he is smart.
His observational skills are almost unparalleled.
But you can be a genius and still be an asshole. Step on down Elon Musk.
However recently I read something Jerry said that made me dislike him less.
Not simply because he didn’t know who McKinsey were, but because of what he highlighted is the problem with them. Or more specifically, the problem companies who use them, have.
Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate this paints Jerry as a control freak.
And I also acknowledge that many companies hire McKinsey because they think the challenge they face is hard – rather than easy.
But what I do like about what he says is he won’t outsource his responsibility.
Sure, he could trust those around him more … and sure, his words smack of egomaniac … but to be fair to him, the product he sells is himself – his personality, his character, his humour – so it makes perfect sense he is obsessive about what goes out under his name because he cares deeply about his reputation, values and his quality control.
And that’s a major problem these days.
Too many don’t.
Oh they’ll say they do.
They’ll run internal and external communication that reinforce they do.
But then they’ll go and outsource their responsibilities and decisions to ‘for profit’ external organisations. Either because they don’t want the pressure … the issue is beyond their abilities … or they want someone to blame if things go wrong.
And the issue with this is the external organisation who are now responsible for answering this challenge, often do it with little to no consideration of who they’re doing it for.
How their clients look at the world.
The nuances and quirks that define who the company is and how they act.
So they provide a solution that does exactly what has been asked of them and nothing more.
Solutions agnostic of client values, beyond some superficial characteristics.
And this has resulted in a world filled with identikit functional solutions. Solutions that answer the issue, but at the cost of commoditisation. And all because senior people – who are paid handsomely to be responsible for their organisations wellbeing and growth – decided to outsource their responsibility to another organisation, even though they know they will never care as much about them as they should care about themselves.
Of course not everyone is like this.
Some are as committed and obsessive about how they do things as what they do.
But there are far too many who look for quick wins.
Easy answers.
Less pressure or responsibility.
Which is why I have always thought whether you are a shareholder or an employee, knowing how much the most senior people understand, value and protect the standards, nuance and quirks of the company they represent – not simply the balance sheet – acts as a good indicator you’re with a company who respects the value of their own value.
Not simply in terms of profit.
Nor in reputation.
But in the standards and values that drives all they do and create.
Which is my way of saying that while I still think Jerry Seinfeld is a bit of a dick, I now respect him for knowing where his responsibilities lie.
To both himself, his future and his fans.
Now if only there were more companies and brands who lived by the same mantra.
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: 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.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Effectiveness, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mischief, Relevance, Resonance
In April, I have been asked to speak at a conference in Croatia.
Croatia! What a country … I cannot bloody wait.
I know … I know … I can hear you all from here, screaming ‘another holiday freebie’. And while I accept this is a terrible misjudgement on their part, does the fact I have to take 3 planes over 24 hours to get there from NZ make you feel any differently?
No … didn’t think so. Doesn’t for me to be honest.
Now this conference is apparently a big deal with some very big names appearing so when they asked what I would be talking about, I thought it best to honour the occasion while representing my abilities, which is why I told them this:
There are many ways I could describe this talk. I could say it’s an investigation into why so many brands fail to connect to audiences despite having more data, research and marketing investment than at any point in history. Or I could take a more controversial path with ‘What if the tools and processes of modern marketing are wrong?’ And while both of those questions will feature within this talk, the real narrative is if you want to be culturally, commercially and creatively powerful … please stop being so bloody boring.
And to double down on that premise, here is slide 2 from the upcoming preso …
While I fully appreciate this seems like I’m not taking things seriously, I am.
Very seriously.
Because the industry seems to only have 2 settings: serious or stupid.
Or said another way, purpose filled or sponsored comedy.
And while they can both work in the right context – and with real talent creating it – it’s all got so expected that it wins by relentless repetition, rather that intrigue and interest.
At least with agencies like Mischief – who I adore – they are painfully aware of who they are, what they do and how they do it.
They’re less ad agency of brand communications, and more meme agency of the internet. And they do it so, so well.
But even they run the risk of their approach ending up being expected. A bit like brands who ‘hijack culture’ … which has now got so common, you have to ask if it is hijacking anything.
Thank god in Mischief’s case they have the brilliant and irrepressible Greg Hahn at their helm – someone who not only is phenomenally creative, but also can read and play with the pulse of culture – so just when things get expected, he takes people somewhere new and interesting.
Or said another way, he kills boring before boring takes hold.
But the reality is what Mischief do is not new.
There are many brands – even industries – who have been doing this sort of thing for decades.
Fashion. Gaming. Hell, even certain TV shows have been doing it.
[Albeit, to different degrees]
And they do it in ways that builds their brands role and position in culture more than just gaining a moment of space for it to be seen and discussed in culture. [That sounds like a diss, it’s not meant to … it’s just my bad writing because Mischief already have achieved more than companies who have been around a century]
The real issue is that in our desperate need to be validated by business, we’ve forgotten what business we’re in.
Because to use creativity just for short-term sales goals robs creativity of it’s true commercial value and power for brands, products, tools and services.
To be intriguing … enticing … interesting and inviting.
Because as the title of this post, stolen from my beloved Martin Weigel so perfectly states …
“You can be relevant as hell and still be boring as fuck.”