Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Communication Strategy, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Fear, Fragrance, Human Goodness, Humanity, Management, Men, Perfume, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Prejudice, Professionalism, Provocative, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
So this is the last post for a week as I’m travelling for work.
I know … I know …
And while you may claim it’s another freebie holiday, it really is work. Albeit this time, it’s work that is mental in terms of crazy and exiting … which I hope I can talk about someday as it’s definitely one of those moments I’d like everyone to know about because its huuuuuuuuge bragging rights, hahaha.
Anyway, given I’ve probably already screwed my NDA, let’s get on with this post shall we?
A while back I wrote a post about the fragrance naming of Tom Ford. Specifically, the ‘Vanilla Sex’ variant.
Someone commented they found it interesting that I – and likely all men – would immediately interpret this as ‘boring/average sex’ when vanilla is the most universally accessible scent so it could easily mean the scent represented ‘sweet smelling sex’.
I responded by saying that while it is true vanilla is the most universally accessible scent, it is also widely accepted that using that word in association with ‘sex’ had very different connotations … and that interpretation had nothing to do with gender, but maybe age.
They deleted their comment.
I am unsure why they did, but I can guess and that is disappointing.
Of course, I appreciate men make A LOT of interpretations, associations, and confident claims about things they know little about. They are the undisputed champions of arrogant stupidity.
I also appreciate get utterly fucked that is … especially when they wade into subject matters that exclusively revolve around women, or more associated with women or people who identify as a woman.
You see it a lot – in fact, it happened to one of the brilliant members of my team last week – Meg – when she wrote something on Linkedin about a Bumble campaign … and was immediately hit with men not just telling her she was wrong, but then telling her what she should be thinking.
Which is why when that shit happens, they need to be called out.
But when that isn’t the case – or you realise it isn’t – then deleting your involvement doesn’t help.
Of course I get why people do it … but it doesn’t help build connections, understanding and bridges.
And frankly, we need more of that.
The divide in our industry is insane.
People are actively looking for the wrong in what others say or interpreting any alternative perspective as a personal attack.
OK, sometimes that is justified, especially on platforms like Linkedin … but not always.
The reality is people make mistakes.
We all do.
Hell, in the league table of misadventure, I would definitely be in the top 10.
But the key – at least for me – is about context and intent and my belief is the vast majority of people don’t want to be assholes. More than that, they want to actively learn and grow.
Now I appreciate it may not always seem that way … I get some people are trolls who, for reasons I will never really understand, get off on being violent with their words on all platforms of social media [though it confuses me even more when they do it on Linkedin, given we can see who they are], but I’m pretty sure most people aren’t like that. I think most people are decent but that can only be seen when there is an openness and calmness to debate and discussion. From both sides of the debate.
Sadly, men also find this incredibly difficult to achieve.
Especially men who seem able to permanently reside on the social media platforms.
And while some of them are egotistical, judgemental pricks – literally and metaphorically – the majority aren’t and that is why I feel the best way we can help the industry unite and evolve is if we lose the ego and apologise when we’re wrong and not gloat like dicks when we’re right.
To actively encourage and embrace the new, even if we don’t understand it.
To be open to challenges but in the spirit of curiosity and growth rather than destruction.
And to be open to be wrong and own it rather than try to disown it.
Of course, this is a two-way street, but given men are probably the reason for the vast majority of this behaviour – or ‘normalizing’ it – it’s only fair we take the lead in trying to change it.
Or said another way … take the lead in creating the conditions that let everyone else feel safe to discuss, debate and disagree.
And while that may sound very fucking Disney – especially from me – the reality is if we don’t do that, then for all the cleverness we claim our discipline offers– we’re showing we’re not that smart.
Worse, we’re acting as a barrier to brilliant people entering the industry, wanting to enter the industry or being able to thrive in it.
And yes, I appreciate how ridiculous the heaviness of this post is given it was inspired by a comment about a perfume called Vanilla Sex … but sometimes the craziest things create crazy outcomes.
Which is why maybe Tom Ford could launch a perfume for the strategy discipline entitled ‘vanilla debate … a scent designed to put our focus on creating work that leaves a lasting aroma rather than a discipline that’s starting to smell a bit like a sewer.
And with that, I’ll see you on June 4th, because – bizarrely – New Zealand has a day off on the 3rd for King Charles birthday. Which is great, but also stupid given what Colonialism did to the rightful people of this land. But before I digress into another rant, I’ll leave you with one teeny bit of information about the 4th June. And that is it will be 8 days before my birthday … so if you send your cheques now, they should reach NZ just in time for my special day.
You’re welcome.
See you soon.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Creativity, Culture, Experience, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Purpose, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
Let me start by saying this post may sound harsh as fuck – especially if you’re relatively young, but hang in there.
If you can be bothered.
So a few weeks ago, I saw a chart by Edward Cotton that was designed to help planners identify their ‘super power’ to enable them to better identify their strengths and be more focused in their professional development.
It’s a generous thing to do from a generous person and yet I decided to question it.
Like a prick.
And why did I decide to do this?
Because I don’t know if people can self-define their ‘super power’.
I don’t know if people have the objectivity to be able to identify that.
More than that … I find the term ‘super power’ both misleading and potentially dangerous because what he was really helping people identify was ‘where they felt the most comfortable’.
Now I appreciate there is value in identifying – and validating – that, however it doesn’t necessarily mean that makes you good at what you do.
Which is why I challenged his chart … because as much as I appreciate it was done for absoluely good reasons, the entire industry seems to be moving further and further away from what strategy is supposed to be about.
Moving away from enabling change and creation to being a discipline that celebrates ‘self-serving, personal intelligence’.
It blows my mind how many people are writing how to do stuff without having actually ever done stuff.
Or at least, stuff of note.
To use a shit analogy, anyone can kick a ball, but few have won a European Cup.
And while everyone is entitled to an opinion, you don’t get to express it with the confidence of God when you have neither the experience or the objectivity to make an informed judgement.
But that’s where we’re at these days.
Everyone is an expert.
Everyone has ideas, opinions and viewpoints expressed as fact, law or established protocol.
Hell, even the acknowledged experts often lack the experience of making something great. Oh they’ve made stuff … but few have achieved something with gamechanging significance, and yet somehow they are positioned as commercial rockets when in reality they’re insurance salesman.
There’s nothing wrong with that except when you don’t admit that. But even then, they’re still waaaaaay better than the self-defined god.
On one level I get it.
The industry is rewarding popularity and ‘thought leadership’ [ahem!] over those who actually make stuff and so there’s a massive incentive to say/repeat interesting stuff rather than do interesting stuff … and nothing highlights how fucked our industry has become than that.
Just to be clear, I know not everyone is like this and contrary to what it may sound like, I am cool with anyone expressing their opinions and ideas.
I’m excited about it actually.
My issue is when it’s expressed with an attitude of self-righteousness.
Where any other opinion is a lesser, incorrect opinion.
Strategy is in danger of losing clarity on what it’s here to do and how we should be evaluating it.
We’re more obsessed with writing theories than doing stuff … resulting in us being in danger of becoming a discipline of paper pushers. Producers of endless digital landfill consisting of decks and newsletters that – in many cases – are not fit for purpose or usage. A back-slapping group of co-dependency … with a focus on achieving industry status rather than making work of note and change.
Now it has to be said that while it’s easy to blame the discipline, the reality is the lack of training that is being invested by agencies and companies that is a big driver of this situation.
Rather than invest in the knowledge, skills and quality of their people, they are – at best – outsourcing to 3rd parties or – at worst – leaving their people to find and fund their own development.
Seeking standardised approaches rather than valuing independent thinking.
What rubs salt into this already ugly wound is that many agencies either give away the strategy they do for their clients – preferring to make money on time and production rather than expertise and value – or acting like shit consultancies/corporate lawyers, creating endless ‘process loops’ so they can profit from keeping the problem alive rather than helping them move forward to a better place.
What the hell?!
Add to that the people agencies are outsourcing training to are often ‘teaching’ methodologies that are both generic and self-serving. And don’t get me started on the planners selling their ‘training’ when many never achieved a standard that justifies their right to teach … demonstrated by them constantly using examples they never made, post-rationalised or simply copied from those who actually did the work.
I get that sounds harsh, I get any training has some value … but this is serious stuff.
Standards matter.
Experiences matters.
Truth over harmony matters.
The reality is anything is easy for people who haven’t done it or don’t have to do it which is why I’m so enamoured with talent like Maya Thompson, Joel Goodhall, Priscilla Britton, Ayo Fagbemi, Tarik Fontenelle and Carina Huang – to name but a few – because where so many choose outlets that reinforce what they want to feel about themselves, they’re about putting themselves in situations where they’re pushed to push the work they want to create.
As I mentioned, the biggest problem here is the attitude companies and agencies have towards training and development. No one – especially junior planners – should ever have to pay for this and the fact many have to, or feel they have to, is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as those planners and experts who exploit them for personal gain.
[Which is why I must reiterate what Edward did was for entirely good reasons because he gives a shit, even if I disagree with what he did on this occasion]
However I cannot stress enough that if you want to grow, follow the advice I was given recently by a very successful football manager that I found myself interviewing.
He said: Learn from winners, not players.
I wrote about it here.
Just to be clear, this is not about age. It’s about people who have done stuff.
Who have tried, failed, explored, experimented and ultimately achieved.
At the highest level. Preferably more than once.
Now I’m not saying it’s easy.
And I know for a fact it’s not comfortable.
But it is most definitely worth it.
Because rather than feeling good about who you are and how you think, you’ll discover what you can do and who you can become.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Alcohol, Apathy, Asia, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Beer, Campaign Magazine, China, Chinese Culture, Content, Context, Craft, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Empathy, Environment, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Shanghai, Singapore, Strategy
I have a history of working on clients I don’t really have a right to work on.
Sport.
High Fashion.
Female Haircare.
OK, so I have a real relationship with sport, but I think the reason I have been able to [even though I say it myself] be so successful with the other categories is that I get so into what I am working on. I get kind-of obsessed with learning and understanding everything about it and throw myself into reading all I can about the culture, history and category before I then interview everyone I can meet who is authentically connected to it.
No outsourcing to superficial focus groups … it’s about graft. Working with the people who create and push the category rather than those who simply buy the product.
It’s served me well – underpinned by clients who care about their audience rather than just see them as walking wallets and me being being self-aware enough to know my perspective is from an outsiders point of view, so I need to explore everything while assuming nothing.
I say all this because one of the other categories I’ve worked on that I shouldn’t, is alcohol.
Why shouldn’t I?
Because the last sip of booze that passed my lips was in 1985.
NINETEEN EIGHTY FIVE … so 39 years ago!
And yet over that time, I’ve worked on everything from Heineken, Guinness, Johnnie Walker and the development of Blackened, for Metallica.
Beer advertising in particular is fascinating because there tends to be 2 states:
Sponsored jokes or pretentious bullshit.
Now I get why it falls into these 2 states because client/agencies tend to either want to reaffirm their beer is ‘fun and social’ or ‘important and crafted’.
But for every Guinness Surfer, Carlton Draft Big Ad, John Smiths No Nonsense, DB Export Brewtroleum or going right back, Heineken Refreshes … there’s a whole heap of contrived, lifestyle rubbish.
Lazy headlines placed over generic Getty image photography.
One I saw recently was this from Tiger.
Now I appreciate the photo does not do it justice, but the headline reads:
Tiger Crystal.
Ultra Low Carb.
Extra Refreshing.
The reason this does my head in is two-fold.
First is you have to understand Tiger is very close to my heart.
Not only was it one of the first brands I worked on when I first moved to Asia, I also won the worldwide account – literally on my own – against 4 network agencies back in the early 2000’s.
Apart from that allowing me to work with some brilliant people on some brilliant assignments, it also resulted in Campaign Magazine featuring me on their front page in all my sweary glory, which is obviously a career high, hahaha.
But the other reason is that copy makes no fucking sense.
What the hell does ‘extra refreshing’ mean?
Oh I know how they’ll justify it …
With less carbs, the beer tastes even better to the drinker. Not literally, but emotionally.
And while there may be an element of truth to that … it doesn’t make it EXTRA refreshing. More drinkable maybe, but not extra refreshing. But here’s the thing, if it’s that good, why don’t they make ALL their beer like this?
Why don’t they bring their ‘extra refreshing’ premise to all their products?
I’ll tell you why, because it’s bollocks.
It’s lazy marketing … another example of vacuous superlatives being churned out to sound exciting without any thought, consideration or any excitement. An act of arrogance, demonstrating how important the brand thinks it is and how little they think – or understand – the audience they literally serve.
Now I appreciate some may say, ‘why does it matter, no one will pay much attention to it’?
And I get that … except that’s the point really.
Our job is to try and make people pay attention.
To give a shit.
They’re not going to think it changes their life, but they shouldn’t blindly ignore it.
It’s this sort of arrogance that demonstrates the lack of self-awareness that has permeated the industry. A blind belief that everything we do is great simply because we did it … despite the fact in the real world, all we’re doing is adding to the social landfill and social pollution of shit advertising.
Where is the pride in who we are, what we do and the intelligence of who we engage?
Where?
We’re so much better than this. And just to be clear, I’m not solely blaming whoever did this awfulness, it’s also the clients, procurement and ‘for profit’ research companies who created the environment where this ends up being deemed ‘worthy’.
I swear the biggest problem the industry has is every department and discipline has its own agendas and metrics for success.
There’s no alignment.
No agreement on what we want and need to make.
Just distain, distrust and self-interest.
Of course not everyone is like this – thank god – but if clients want to see the potential of their brand and agencies want to push the possibilities of their creativity, there has to be a moment where we stop hiding awfulness under the blanket of marketing justifiable rationales, because for all the NPS, system 1, best-practice approaches we may proudly shout about, there are two questions that trump all.
Is it true and does it make us give a shit?
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance, Resonance, Review | Tags: 15
OK, so after the ‘hilarity’ of yesterday’s April Fool post, let’s get back to the tragedy of this blogs traditional banality.
So as many of you know, I love rock music.
Loud rock music.
I mean, I like other genres too, but rock/metal/blues has always been my first love – no doubt influenced by the fact it features the guitar upfront and centre and I play [or more correctly, played] the guitar.
So it should come as no surprise that when I was younger, I was a weekly buyer of heavy metal bible – Kerrang!. [Don’t forget the exclamation mark, ha]
There were many reasons why I loved it …
Sure, it was the only mag at that time dedicated to my favourite music, but I also loved the tone of the writing. It was both in-depth and humorous … gave equal measure to new bands and classic and asked questions to rock stars that were both incredible deep and incredibly stupid.
It was magic.
Every Wednesday morning I would go to Helen Reid’s News to pick up my copy … and have her shout at me saying, “this is a newsagent, not a library so you better buy what you’ve touched”.
And after I bought it, I’d go to a cafe and read it over a bacon or sausage sandwich while pretending I was at a client meeting. Which I am confident no one believed but no one questioned … mainly because I was so low level, being out of the office was probably less hassle for them than being in it and having to deal with my endless questions about how they approached their job, hahaha.
But of all the things I liked about Kerrang! – and there was a lot, including all the great reviews they gave of my band when we were reviewed by them [see above for 2 of them] is that they didn’t just see their role as telling the stories of the genre, but to protect the integrity of the genre.
I’ve long thought that is where a lot of industry has gone wrong. Not wanting to offend anyone and seemingly giving out endless ‘participation awards’ to all who do something, regardless of quality. And while there is definitely a need for us to be supportive to others, it’s getting ridiculous we see people more focused on getting the acclaim of the industry without making any work of note within the industry.
And no, a personal newsletter that offers ‘tips on how to make great work’ doesn’t count … especially when you didn’t have anything to do with that work and you keep trading off the clients that worked in the agency you were at, rather than you worked on at the agency’.
And that’s why this review I read from Kerrang! in 1995 really hit me.
OK, so Nickelback are an easy target.
And I appreciate everyone has different tastes and views.
And – as I said – I know we need to support each other.
But that still doesn’t take away the joy I felt reading a sharp, objective review by someone who had the knowledge, experience and desire to protect the discipline from exploitive, populist imposters – acknowledging that is as much about the record company as the band.
It all feels like a bygone era.
A time where there was debate and challenge not endless echo-chambers of like minded people slapping each other on the back. I suppose that’s why I loved the crap I copped on this blog … because among all the [hopefully well intentioned] abuse, I did feel people wanted me to just expand my perspective and view.
And while that didn’t always happen, it did in a lot of areas and subjects and having this blog to remind me how far my opinion evolved is a great reminder of the importance of perspective, experience and depth and breadth of knowledge, delivered by people who want to help me grow not want to bury me alive.
But we’re not in that era anymore.
We talk a lot about ‘cancel culture’ but it feels we’re more at ‘cancel challenge culture’ … where any opinion that questions perspective, regardless how well intentioned it may be, is met with pile-on abuse.
Which is why there must be a lot of people in adland who feel very fortunate they don’t live in the days of Kerrang! ‘feedback’ … so they can carry on spouting their self-defined genius on Linkedin as if they’re the bastard love child of Steve Jobs, Dan Wieden, Elizabeth Warren and Rihanna.
I appreciate this sounds angry and pissed off.
I guess I am.
Not for me – because I know how fortunate I’ve been in this industry, even if I have worked bloody hard for it [despite what you think, hahaha] – but for the truly phenomenally talented people I know, have seen and have met who don’t and won’t get anywhere near the acclaim or respect they deserve, simply because they spend their time making great work rather than living on social media telling everyone how great they are.
If only certain members of the industry press had been more about protecting the integrity of the craft of the industry rather than just reporting, fluffing and profiting from it – then maybe we wouldn’t fall so easily to hype over substance.
______________________________________________________________________
This is the last post of the week as tomorrow is Anzac Day and then Friday is a ‘why don’t we take it off and make it a long weekend day’ … so till Monday, see-ya!
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Creativity, Culture, Insight
A few years ago, the APG asked me to do a presentation about how to get to interesting work and I summed it up by saying, ‘live an interesting life’.
While I appreciate that is a relatively superficial answer, there’s truth in it.
Put simply, what you find interesting is directly related to the experiences you have and the people you meet. The more experiences – and people – you have, the more interesting the possibilities.
But when I look around, it can feel like a cultural echo chamber.
Everyone reading the same things. Following the same people. Commenting on the same issues.
Sometimes I wonder if people even look at life outside of work. Hell, there were people over the festive season who used social media to only talk about ‘ad issues’.
WHAT THE FUCK?
Look, I get strategy means everything can have some sort of professional value … but there’s a big difference between looking at life with ‘professional blinkers’ and just doing shit for the sheer curiosity and interest of it.
It’s why I think there’s huge value in the messy stuff.
The weird … the strange … the ‘makes no sense’ …
That’s where you find the new and the different.
That’s where you gain understanding rather than answers.
That’s where you learn about people not ‘consumers’.
Of course it’s rare these days.
Now everyone is looking for short-cuts.
From online surveys to AI driven chat bots.
Optimise … maximise … squeeze every inch of efficiency out of what you’re doing.
And while some of that has value, it’s no where near as good as running with reality.
It’s why Wieden – despite being all about the work – has always been so good at strategy.
Because they celebrate those who are more than just professionally curious, but culturally.
The people who have a hunger and desire to get ‘in it’.
To get messy and lost in the opinions, behaviours, actions, viewpoints and nuance of the communities and subcultures they’re exploring and working with. Which is why they value being among them as much as reading every possible book about them.
A commitment to authenticity over advertising.
A commitment to adding to culture not just stealing from it.
A commitment to finding the interesting rather than repeating the tropes.
A commitment to fucking around and finding out rather than playing where you’ve always been.
Sure it takes more work. Sure it takes more time. Sure it probably adds more initial cost.
But putting aside the fact this helps get to better work – that plays to where the culture/subculture is heading rather than where it currently is, or worse, was – there’s the simple fact of doing things right. Because, as my Dad once said to me, if you’re not interested in doing that, then what’s the fucking point of doing it at all?