Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Billionaire, Business, Colleagues, Comment, Contribution, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Imagination, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Sentimentality, Success, Teamwork
After the joy of yesterday’s post – which is more because of Otis celebrating his 10th birthday than anything I wrote – I thought I’d seize the good vibes by writing possibly the longest post I’ve ever written in the near 2 decades of writing this rubbish.
Of course I don’t assume anyone will read it – because who reads any of my stuff anyhow – but it is about an important lesson I learned recently and I wanted to document it – for me, if no one else.
So, one of the private clients I work with is worth an inconceivable amount of cash.
As in billions of dollars. Tens of them in fact.
Now I totally agree that having that amount of money is obscene, but what makes it easier – at least for me – is that:
They’re entirely self-made. They’re a true entrepreneur … taking on all the risk, rather than expecting others to cover it. They’re a patron and advocate for creativity. Not just in terms of their business, but creativity as a whole.
And if you think this all reads as being very ‘corporate toady’, you’d be right … because I am most definitely a fan.
But what’s interesting is how they make their money. Or should I say, how they create the conditions to be able to.
A few weeks ago, they asked me if I could fly to another country to meet someone for dinner.
Not just any person, but a bona-fide superstar. And no, I am not being hyperbolic.
Now there’s obviously a backstory as to how I found myself in this situation and why I was asked to do this by my client rather than [1] them or [2] someone more obvious and suitable – and the reason for it is more bonkers than you could imagine – but within a couple weeks, there I was, sitting opposite this world famous star, chatting about life while trying to act like it was all completely normal for me.
Of course, the person in question had done their homework so knew this meeting was legit, but at one point, they asked why I thought they should consider it.
After reinforcing I was the last person they should listen to, I simply said this:
“All I can tell you is everything they’ve done – and do – is built on wanting a long term relationship not a short term, quick-win”.
That was it. That was all I had.
Now there were 2 reasons I explained it this way.
One is because it’s true and the other is I wanted to convey that their ‘business model’ is playing the long game because it would be easy to assume anyone worth that amount of cash must be ruthless in how they operate and that could be very off-putting for someone who values their creative freedom and integrity.
What I mean when I say ‘long game’ is they invest in the individual, rather than ‘short-term opportunities’ … which means they not only are they happy to give the artists/partners the creative freedom – and control – that made them want to work with them in the first place, but they also don’t expect or demand a return on their investment in the shortest time possible because they see this as a relationship that will be measured in years, not projects.
Now, of course, there is method to this ‘modern-business-practice’ madness.
First is they believe that by investing in trust, transparency and relationship consistency, everyone will achieve a much greater return over a much longer period of time. Secondly is they obviously have no problem in knowing how to make money out of what they do so they know they’re not going to lose out being patient. And to top it all off, they’ve done a similar thing with many other high-profile celebrities/partners which – as they are all still engaged and involved years later – kind of proves they mean what they say.
Which leads to the point of this post.
Relationships matter.
I’m not talking about the sort where one person serves the whims and demands of another – which is how a lot of business today operates, especially in adland – but the type where the relationship acknowledges and values the skills, talent and benefits that each person brings to the table.
No short-changing or undermining. No downgrading or threatening. A relationship where the focus is on ‘what we can make create together’ rather than ‘what I you make out of you’.
How refreshing eh?
Except it shouldn’t be … it should be obvious, however thanks to procurement departments and corporate short-termism – we don’t see a lot of it these days.
At best, it’s a quick collab. At worst, its commercial exploitation.
In this case, my client wanted to work with this individual because they believe in them.
They like what they do.
They believe in how they think.
They’re excited by what can be made possible if they enable them to express their creativity at a different scale and through different art-forms than the ones they normally operate in.
But what makes this work is their appreciation of the artists mind.
The vulnerability of the creative process.
The need to explore before you commit.
The acknowledgement that when you try to create something no one has done before, it will fail before it wins.
And they’re there for it.
All of it.
They understand that to get to something great, the first step is to create an environment of encouragement and faith. Not just at the beginning of the process … but ongoing. Over and over again.
That doesn’t mean you pander. Nor does it mean you hold your opinions to yourself. But it does means you start off from a position of true alignment. Not just in terms of what your hopes and ambitions are, but how you want to realise them in terms of approach, expectations and responsibilities. Meaning everything you do comes from a position of shared responsibility and authority.
The other element is they also understand the adage of ‘it’s business, not personal’ is bullshit.
Business is personal.
Always.
The people who try to claim it isn’t are trying to justify bullshit behaviour.
It’s why my client spends a lot of their time connecting and committing to the other person. To make sure they’re not just in it together, but feel it.
Does that make ‘personal’ approach make things challenging at times?
Probably.
However by ensuring transparency and clarity from the beginning of the relationship – they not only build a relationship based on openness and honesty, they ensure the barriers that often get in the way of focusing on doing great things, get removed.
It all makes perfect sense, except we live in times where people choose to ignore it.
Preferring to optimise interactions.
To put themselves in positioning of authority.
To approach the relationship in terms of ‘what I can get out of them for the least amount of effort or loss of power’.
We’ve all met people like that.
Over the years I’ve had a bunch of people I’ve not heard from in years – or [thanks to Linkedin] never heard from in my life – get in contact wanting me to do something for them and I can literally feel the distain when I tell them, “I’m so sorry, I won’t be able to do that for you”.
I should clarify I have always tried to help people who ask for it … especially in terms of advice or a listening ear. However, when their ask is for me to connect them to friends, colleagues or clients for a shortcut to personal gain … unless they’re an old friend or someone I’ve had a long and personal experience of working with/alongside, they can fuck off.
It might sound harsh but I learned this the hard way.
One person in particular did this to me for a few times.
Continually contacting me under the guise of connecting with me but really wanting me to do something for them.
Contacts.
Introductions.
Feedback and advice.
And I did it, until I stopped.
Because I finally realised they were never contacting me for any other reason than to get something from me. They never just got in contact just to say hi. They never told me how my friends/colleagues had helped them. They never got back in touch to ‘ask me’ the questions they claimed they wanted to know – mainly because that was their ruse to get me to help them with other introductions.
I felt a bit stupid it took me so long, but I got there. And I cut them out my life because who needs that toxic shit.
And I get that sounds harsh, but I don’t care … especially as they still tried to use me until when the point they realised I wasn’t going to … so they went on a public rant about me that reinforced their ego, delusion and fragility.
Which gets to the final point of this post …
The word relationship is badly used, mis-defined and treated with ignorant flippancy.
It’s not about interactions or benefits, it’s about generosity, openness, understanding and trust.
You build it over time by investing and putting time into it.
Time to listen, share, discuss, engage, and give a shit.
It’s an act of consistency, equality and consideration … through good and bad.
And while I appreciate in these optimised, maximised, never-stray-from-the-process-or-rules, big-yourself-up-at-all-costs times, that may sound inefficient … but I have first hand proof, it’s much more effective.
In fact, it’s more effective than every marketing guru with their proprietary process/hyped-up, self-serving academic ‘degree’ – can ever imagine, let alone deliver.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
This is a month or so old, but I am finding it impossible to get out of my mind.
Like a car crash. Which this is.
Have a look at this.
What you’re seeing is part of a research report a company put out recently in NZ.
Look at it. Look!
This is where a bunch of ‘for profit’ research companies are these days … spouting ambiguous rubbish that [I assume] they believe is insight gold.
What makes it worse is some companies will no doubt have read this … been amazed by it … and then paid them handsomely for more of this … resulting in everyone [and I mean everyone, bar the company flogging it] losing.
Not just losing in the present, but in the future.
Which begs the question, how bad/ignorant/blinkered/out-of-touch are some organisations that they’re ‘informed’ by this? Worse … how bad/ignorant/blinkered/out-of-touch are some organisations that they’re satisfied with this level of superficiality?
For me, this sort of thing is an act of social criminality.
Actually, that’s not harsh enough, it’s an act of commercial criminality.
And the reason people are getting away with it is because too many companies have leadership who value ‘scalable convenient answers’ rather than truth, context and real commercial understanding. Only wanting news that paints them and their plans in the most positive light, regardless of what the reality may be. In other words, they seek ‘information’ that feeds and/or reinforces their God-complex … and far too many companies are happy to oblige because it’s an extremely profitable business approach for them.
But even this isn’t enough for some, with many now aspiring to become their clients strategic consultancy … meaning the work they do is as much about their future as their clients … and that’s why I’m so grateful for the researchers and research companies who believe in the craft, role and truth of the discipline.
The people who want to reveal rather than package-up.
Who see people as more than just walking wallets.
Who understand nuance rather than the optimisisation of efficiency
[to maximise their own profitability].
Who look for the why, not just the what.
Who are more interesting in exploring truth than flogging their ‘proprietary system’ … which more often than not, involves using bots and AI that are – to paraphrase Top Gun – are writing cheques reality can’t cash.
In other words, I’m grateful for people/companies like Ruby Pseudo, ON ROAD and a few others who play up to a standard not down to a convenience.
Research is important as hell, but only if it’s good research and there’s far too much out there being peddled that falls far short of that standard. And that’s why the discipline – and us, as an industry as a whole – need to expect more, demand more and most importantly, respect real stuff more. Because witnessing mediocrity is one thing, but when we let it undermine what we do – and can do – is another thing altogether.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Embarrassing Moments, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Point Of View
I don’t struggle for things that fuck me off, but what is currently top of the charts on my personal ‘shit parade’ is people who talk in definitive and absolute terms.
Actually I need to be more specific. I mean the people who talk in definitive and absolute terms that blatantly attempt to elevate their position by putting others down via some pseudo-intellectual or utterly subjective horseshit.
It’s happening more and more, especially on – surprise, surprise – Linkedin.
And while I’m all about having a point-of-view, it only has value if you have an appreciation of what others think or do. So you have some real context to evaluate your viewpoint. And it would be even better if you also had some actual experience in the area – or on the issue – you’re being condescending about. Not ‘in theory’. Not ‘by association’. Not some ‘short-term, low-level’ employment experience from 20 years ago. Actual experience. So – you know – you can show you have an actual idea what the fuck you’re talking about, including what it takes to actually make these things happen and who is complicit when it doesn’t on an on-going basis.
Because nothing screams egotistical, blinkered, privileged, arrogant asshole – desperate-for-attention-or-notoriety – than saying “This is shit as is anyone who disagrees with me”.
Topped off by then ignoring, deleting or blocking anyone who dares challenge their view, even if they are well placed to have a perspective and are expressing it with respect and politeness.
It’s like they’re the bastard love child of Andrew Tate and a shock-jock talkback radio host. Immediately dismissing anything that doesn’t suit their narrative but throwing praise on anyone or anything that acknowledges it. Even better if it specifically acknowledges them. By name.
The thing is, these people have smarts. They’re not stupid. But their ego refuses to accept or acknowledge any other possible way of thinking or working. So when someone or something achieves a level of success that sustainably outstrips their approach, they either attack or try to claim some sort of ownership of the success. A bit like all those people who suddenly updated their Linkedin profiles to say they were NFT/Metaverse/AI experts.
It’s pretty incredible to be honest.
Which is why I find it kinda-ironic some of the worst offenders seem to be those who reside – or are associated with – academia. Not all of course, just the ones who seem to think that because they’re highly qualified in one area, they are qualified to speak about all areas.
Which is why, whenever I see these men [and it’s typically men] peacocking on social media, it reminds me of Lucille Ball’s brilliant quote. A quote I made into a sticker that I’ve given to members of my planning teams for decades.
A sticker permanently stuck on the front of my laptop …
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Packaging, Perspective, Positioning, Pride, Purpose, Reputation, Respect, Steve Jobs, Technology, Values
I’ve written a lot about the bullshit of brand purpose.
Or should I say the hijacking of purpose by marketing departments and agencies.
Far too often, we see companies where their ‘purpose’ has no day-to-day impact on the operations or decisions they make beyond pushing their marketing messages and promotions. For these orgs, purpose is positioned simply as ‘something we hope might change’ rather than actively doing stuff that actively pushes it.
As they say in the UK, “the truth of the pudding is in the eating”, and a lot of corporate brand purpose tastes like bullshit.
That doesn’t mean the concept of purpose is entirely wrong.
Oh no.
However the reality is true brand purpose is born rather than manufactured – especially by a marketing department – so for every Patagonia, there’s a Unilever … which is why I find the easiest way to see who is talking truth versus shite is simply by exploring how much inconvenience they’ll accept and embrace.
Recently I saw an interesting example of a brand who not just embraced inconvenience, but demanded it.
An example which I imagine caused all manner of friction and tension throughout the company.
And yet, when you think about who the company were and – more importantly – who they wanted to become, you see it as absolute commitment to their beliefs and ambitions.
Take a look at this …
Now I appreciate some would read that and only see the problems … the costs … the disruptions … the impact on productivity … the C-Suite ‘bullying’. But they’re probably the same people who think purpose is about ‘wrapping paper’ rather than beliefs and actions … which is why I kinda-love this.
I love how much they were pushing it and how they pushed it.
It was important to them.
Not for virtue signaling, not for corporate complicity – though I accept there’s a bit of that – but mainly because a company can’t talk about technology, creativity and the future while asking your very own colleagues to embrace the cheap, the convenient and the conformist.
Just to be clear, this is VERY different to companies who mandate processes.
That’s about control and adherence.
A desire to keep things as they are rather than what they could be.
And to me, that’s the difference between those who ‘talk’ purpose and those whose actions are a byproduct of it.
Every day in every way.
Because as the old trope goes, it’s only a principal if it costs you something and the reality is – like strategy – too many talk a good game but will flip the moment they think they could make/save a bit more cash.
Apple may have a lot of problems, but fundamentally, they mean what they say and show it in their actions – both in the spotlight, but also in the shadows … where very few people will ever see – as exemplified by Jobs famous ‘paint behind the fence‘ quote.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, British, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Distinction, Family, Fast Food, Innovation, Luxury, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mum & Dad, My Childhood
When I think of the ads I saw when I was growing up, there are so many for categories I just don’t see – or don’t see much – any more.
Cream Cakes.
Carpet Stores.
Digital Watches.
Stranger Danger Campaigns.
Maybe they’re still happening and I don’t know it because I don’t watch much TV … but given I work in the industry and I don’t hear about them – let alone see them – it does feel they are campaigns of a bygone age.
But of all these category of ads, one that is burned into my mind is Smash.
Smash was a mashed potato brand.
It came in a packet and by adding boiling water and stiring vigourously, you’d get masses of creamy mash.
The original ‘fast food’.
This approach to food prep was space-age technology back in the day … which is why the ads featured alien robots who were so impressed with the technological advancement that Smash represented, they chose not to invade Earth because they felt they couldn’t compete with our innovation, despite the fact the humans they had been secretly watching were – to put it lightly – thick as shit, given their traditional choice for mashing spuds.
I know. I know … sounds bonkers doesn’t it, so have a look at this early ad to see what I mean:
OK, so it was bonkers.
But as you can tell, it was all most definitely tongue in cheek, however – as demonstrated by the fact I am writing about them decades later – the alien robots soon became iconic in British society.
Still are in fact. At least for people of a certain age.
But despite this – and despite being 54 years of age – I’ve never eaten Smash.
Not knowingly, at least.
Not because I don’t like it or don’t like the idea of it … but because my parents never allowed it in the house.
Just to be clear, it wasn’t because they were against such manufactured ‘convenience’ food – we used to eat Angel Delight for fucks sake – but because compared to boiling some spuds and mashing them, it was too expensive.
I say all this because recently I walked past a Prada store and saw this.
Now I am sure they didn’t intend to create the ‘luxury version’ of the Smash alien robots, but they’ve created the luxury version of the Smash alien robots!!!
And while this decision could open a lot of conversations about a lot of different subjects – from the changing definition of luxury, the influence of nostalgia, generational creativity and the overall decline in the quest for originality – the biggest thing it did for me was prove my parents were right in believing SMASH is an expensive indulgence for people who want to short-cut their way to satisfaction rather than earning it.
Or something like that. Probably without the judgement on the character, motivations and aspirations of those who would bung it on their evening meal plate.
Still would give my left arm to eat some.
Which is why Prada would probably be disappointed to learn that their ‘robots’ have made hungrier to eat SMASH mashed potato than to buy and wear their clothes. Or worse … anyone seen wearing a Prada coat can be called a ‘Jacket Potato’.
In terms of branding disasters, that has to be up there with these classic [bull]shitshows.