Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brands, Cliches, Collegues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Success
It’s been a while since I’ve had an all-out rant, but here we go.
So recently, I saw a quote recently I loved.
It was by Arnold Glasgow, the American businessman and satirist who said:
“Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have trying to change others”.
I say this because too many brands – and agencies – think they can.
Worse, they think they can with an ad … an ad that either tells people specifically what to do/what they should do and/or a list of product attributes that they believe will make someone immediately stop whatever it is they have been doing for decades and change tact because they’ve suddenly been ‘enlightened’.
Of course, this is not entirely the fault of agencies and clients.
Too often, it is backed up by some for-profit research group who has said their findings prove – without any possible doubt – this is what people will do and, even more importantly, want to do.
Now this is not an anti-research stance. Or an anti-agency or client diatribe.
The reality is we need some sort of foundation of information to make choices and decisions and research – when done well, like everything in life – is a universally established way to achieve that BUT … and it’s a big but … the definitive and delusional nature of how our industry talks borders on bonkers.
I get we don’t like risk.
I get what we do is bloody expensive.
I get there are big implications on getting things wrong.
But nothing – and I mean nothing – can be guaranteed and yet so much of the business acts like it can be, conveniently choosing to ignore the landfill of failings from organisations who have researched every part of everything they do for in every aspect of their life.
Sure, it can increase the odds of success … like advertising.
Sure, it is better than not doing anything at all … like advertising.
But everyone acting like whatever they are going to do is ‘a dead cert’ is an act of commercial complicity and co-dependency that borders on Comms Stockholm Syndrome.
A long time ago, when I was maybe a bit more of a menace, a media agency told a client – with me in the room – that they could guarantee they’d HIT their sales target if a particular amount was invested.
I asked, “but you don’t know what the idea is yet and surely that has a role in the level of impact and/or investment that needs to be made?” … to which they said their ‘proprietary data’ gave them the commercial insight that helped their clients achieve their goals.
So back at the office – pissed off – I sent them an email saying this was the work.
Obviously, it did not go down well, but then neither did their ‘strategy’ of just throwing money at the wall until they hit the magic number.
Again, I appreciate we all need information to base choices and decisions on, but we’re getting way too generalistic, simplistic and egotistic in our approaches and methodologies – which is why the sooner we remember how hard it is for us to change any part of who we are, the sooner we may start accepting it takes far more than a business goal … a focus group commentary … a marketing methodology or an ad to get people to even consider doing what you want them to do and so maybe – just maybe – it will encourage us all to start playing up to a new standards rather than down to complicit convenience.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath, which is why I finish this rant with a post that I saw recently I also loved – albeit with ‘paraphrased interpretation’.
Thankfully not everyone is like this.
As proven by the fact, they tend to be the ones behind the stuff we all wish we were behind.
Or as my friend said recently, ‘they’re the ones who play to create change, not communicate everything exactly the same’.
Oh, I feel better for that. Thank you for [not] reading, hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Community, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Education, Egovertising, Food For Thought, Imposter Syndrome, Individuality, Influencers, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Professionalism, Reputation, Strategy, Sydney, Yahoo
A few weeks ago, I went to Sydney where I had the very real honour of spending a few days mentoring a bunch of talented people who were all relatively new to the industry.
One of the things that I heard from quite a few of them was the pressure they felt to build their reputation as a ‘thought leader’ on platforms like LinkedIn.
After telling them that a good 90% of what you read on there is nothing more than ego landfill [of which I am perfectly placed to make that statement given I’ve been spouting rubbish on the internet for over 20 years] … the reality is the best reputations are built on what you do, not what you say.
But I get it.
When you’re starting out, you’re desperate for professional acceptance and/or validation so you can find yourself blindly following whatever or whoever is currently popular amongst your peers – even more so if you’re based outside of the big cities where so much of the industry focus is concentrated.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is anything wrong with expressing your thoughts and ideas.
Frankly, it can be a brilliant way to learn, evolve and grow.
Hell, one of the best things about doing this blog for so long is seeing how some of my opinions have changed or been honed through the feedback/commentary/abuse I’ve received from so many people on here.
Of course, it helps that most were/are very smart and talented, but I fully acknowledge their input to my output has had a huge impact on what I do and how I think. But – and it’s a very big but – you only get real value out of expressing your thoughts and ideas if you’re doing it because [1] you want to – rather than feel you have to – and [2] you never adopt a tone of self-righteous, condescending, smugness.
If you do that, you may as well have a blinking neon sign over your head that screams, ‘Delusional, egotistical, blinkered dickhead’.
[I say ‘dickhead’ because, sadly, 95% of these sorts of people are men. White men.]
And yet, despite this, there’s still a hell-of-a-lot of people out there who adopt a tone that suggests they believe everything they do – and I mean EVERYTHING – is ‘unquestionably and undeniably right’ and anyone who dares to have a counter point of view, regardless of their experience, success or knowledge of their industries history, is automatically wrong.
A certain academic is a poster child for this sort of behaviour.
With these people, I always remember something my old man used to say, which was: “if someone needs to let others know how smart they are, they’re not that smart” – or said another way – if you meet someone who wants to be seen as a thought leader, they’re probably not and they probably won’t be.
Which is why the best advice I can give is to say ‘be you and no one else’.
I get the desire to feel like you belong.
I appreciate popularity has seemingly become more important than experience these days.
But if you ever feel pressured into writing on Linkedin because that’s what ‘thought leaders do’, remember this quote from Dennis Thatcher and save your energy for when you do have something to say or explore.
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Education, Government, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Zealand
After the recent emotional rollercoaster of posts – with the wonderful Fergus coming and the brilliant Martin going – let’s get back to some cynical musings, as the name of this blog supposedly ‘promises’. Or something …
So I was going for my daily walk when I passed a school in a posh part of Auckland.
By the gates, I saw this ad …
Now on one hand, I was quite impressed by the smarts of the real estate agents.
Putting an ad for a pricey home by the gates of the school pick-up zone is clever thinking.
As rich parents wait for their lucky kids, they have a captive audience to try and flog them another symbol of success.
But it’s also pretty appalling.
Not by the school – because even though it’s located in one of Auckland’s richest locations, its state run so likely needs the money like every other state school – but by the real estate agents.
Now I appreciate this may be a an ‘added benefit’ of them already donating money to the school. Plus, I acknowledge if they think the parents of the kids there can afford a piece of land – like the one on Waiheke Island – then maybe the school should be asking parents to contribute more to the education of their kids. But the fact Martin and Charles at Kellands Real Estate obviously negotiated this shows they don’t really care about the education of the kids, just the wallets of their parents.
I get this is how business operates these days.
I get it’s a very competitive market.
But just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should.
But this is how we operate … where everyone and everything is seen as a commodity waiting to be exploited by someone for personal gain.
No where demonstrates this as much as Linkedin with its endless unrequested ‘messages’ from strangers offering services that have nothing to do with what you do … but you kind-of expect that now, whereas this school ad caught me off guard.
Of course, the real people we should be aiming our anger at are the governments who continually under-invest in state education.
Conveniently forgetting that a smart nation is a strong nation … though some will claim that’s a very conscious reason why politicians do it.
Education and health are two of the most important things a nation can do for its people … that it’s become a pawn in the battle of politics is everything wrong with politics.
Which reminds me of the time someone said, “Democratic governments should be scared of its people. Ensuring they never forget who they represent and serve. When is the other way round, that’s when a nation has a problem”
While a real estate ad at a school in Auckland is something – in the big scheme of things – very small, in many ways it reveals, we have a problem.
Not an end-of-the World problem.
Not a call for revolution kind of a problem.
But a problem … because the focus is far more making a few people rich today, rather than helping an entire nation be better off tomorrow.
God, that’s waaaaaaaay too political for this blog. And on a Tuesday, no less.
I can assure you that tomorrow, things will be back to their bollocks best. Sorry.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Collaboration, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Empathy, Equality, Fake Attitude, Fear, Harmony, Honesty, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Music, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Trust
Following on from yesterday’s post, this is about the value of transparency.
Years ago, I wrote a post about a [then] new Police interrogation technique, which basically centered around empathetic transparency.
In essence, rather than use traditional tactics such as intimidation or ‘half-truths’ to obtain the information they wanted, they found transparency – without judgment – achieved much more positive results.
So, for example if someone asked if their actions were going to result in jail time, rather than give them the impression they will be OK if they hand over the information they want, they simply respond with the following:
“It is highly likely you will, but I will ensure the authorities are made aware of how you have helped us in this investigation”.
And then they actually ensure the authorities are made aware of how that person has helped in the investigation.
OK, it’s obviously more nuanced and complex than that … but the heart of this approach is the acknowledgement that people react more positively to truth than harmony.
And yet, despite this, harmony prevails in our lives.
+ We’ll keep your resume on file.
+ We’ll work with you in the future.
+ We like being pushed and challenged.
+ We will issue the payment this week.
+ We will introduce you to other companies.
There’s so many of these ‘daily’ statements of harmony going on in every office and company around the World … and while most are doing it because they want to avoid disappointing or hurting the other party, the problem is when it’s not true, it ends up creating bigger issues because people find out and then resentment cultivates and trust gets destroyed.
It’s why one of the greatest lessons I have ever learned came from the wonderful LTA of Wieden+Kennedy.
He said, “transparency is one of the greatest gifts you can ever give a client”.
That doesn’t mean you are a rude or selfish prick.
Nor does it mean you can act like a sledgehammer.
But it does mean you respect the other person enough to tell them the realities of the situation rather than the fantasy of it.
Not because you want to upset them or hurt them, but because you want to empower them …
To know where they stand.
To enable them to choose what to do next.
To own their situation rather than be owned by it.
And while you may all think this is just basic common-sense, in this age of toxic positivity it’s a pretty radical approach to commercial relationships.
But then, a lot of what we call relationships, aren’t these days are they?
More marriages of financial or outsourcing convenience.
Which may explain – as I wrote a few months ago – why one of my clients is so successful.
Because while relationships are at the heart of his business, not only does he understand they need to be mutually beneficial to encourage longevity, they need to be more than just convenience to be worthy of that label.
Put simply, relationships are built, not bought.
And the foundations of the best ones are always truth over harmony.