Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Collaboration, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture
My friend James sent me this pic a while back.
To say I feel seen is an understatement.
While I am a big believer in collaboration, the reality is it only works when you’re working with people who share the same level of experience, exposure and standards.
Or put more specifically, share HIGH levels of experience, exposure and standards.
That doesn’t mean they all have to come from the same discipline … or see the same outcome … but it does means they’re working up to the greatest opportunity rather than down to the lowest common denominator.
But that happens less and less.
One of the big problems is because companies think all their ‘partners’ are equal.
I get it, we all like to think we’re dealing with ‘the best of the best’ … but that’s sadly, rarely the case. Procurement … heritage … global alliances all contribute to who gets to be part of the ‘network’ and so the range of quality and experience in these situations is often vast.
That doesn’t mean they won’t offer something, but it does mean their frames-of-reference will be much smaller than everyone else and when this happens, they tend to pull everyone back down to their level rather than push everyone further up.
Or it gets even worse.
The people with the highest levels of experience [proper experience, not ego or delusion] get accused of trying to ‘own’ the situation when all they’re trying to do is create the best possible outcome from the situation.
The reality is experience should be seen and respected as a competitive advantage. Whether we like it or not, people who play at the highest level, tend to play at a higher level. It’s why I love the comment from one of the greatest football managers of all time when he said, ‘learn from winners, not players‘.
Put simply, winners take us to places we didn’t even know, whereas players only can go where they know.
And while the concept of ‘team’ is everyone progresses together, it still needs someone to lead them to the promised land which is why I think the biggest reason collaboration ends up underwhelming is not because there’s a lack of desire to work with others, but because there’s a lack of reality of who needs to be there and what collaboration needs to truly work.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Egovertising
So after yesterday’s love-fest towards my wife, we’re going to take a change of tack.
Recently someone came out a while back to publicly slag some work Colenso had done.
I’m fine with that, but it was why they slagged it off that I took offence to.
Because rather than acknowledge their opinion was entirely subjective … rather than acknowledge their lack of understanding of the work we have done with the client over 15+ years … rather than acknowledge the incredible success it has achieved all over the world, they whined and bleated about why we were wrong and they was right like they were the bastard love child of Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Laurence Fox despite [1] they were factually incorrect and [2] they’re opinion on creativity is one dimensional.
Oh they’ll claim otherwise, but that’s because they have positioned themselves as a business pioneer when really they’re an insurance salesman.
There’s nothing wrong with that – they’re very good at what they do and what they do is important – but they’re more about ensuring you don’t fail rather than get ahead.
But what really got me was the arrogant confidence they spoke about their idea while happily dismissing our work.
Now I shouldn’t be surprised because their whole schtick is to provoke for a reaction – they’re a bit like a shock jock these days, like many of his type – but while I should have just ignored it, I bit … offering them some clarity to go with their delusion.
And yet despite this, they didn’t respond.
No acknowledgement.
No reconsideration.
No apology.
Instead they replied to anyone who reinforced his echo-chamber of opinion which is classic entitled, ego-driven, gaslighting behaviour. Which shouldn’t be a surprise, given they’re fast becoming a caricature of themselves … however it did remind me of something my Dad used to tell the lawyers who worked for him.
“When people need to tell everyone how smart they are, they’re not that smart”.
This was his way of telling them one of the most powerful skills you can develop for your career, is self awareness.
The ability to look at an issue from all sides.
To be able to know what you’re not good at.
To be open to the new and different.
To acknowledge when you’re wrong.
Now that’s good advice for anyone, but given how many of Dad’s former staff are now leading lawyers/QC’s [though they’re now KC’s … which I find hard to remember given it wasn’t that in Dad’s day] in areas of human rights and press freedom – from The Guardian to the NYT – it seems he had a better understanding of what intelligence really is than many who base it simply on academic achievement.
Maybe this is the sort of thing that should be taught at business and marketing schools … so we stop seeing people [read: privileged, white men] continually ‘evolve’ into the beasts they say they were made to slay in their desperate attempt to stay in the spotlight.
On one level I get it.
The older you get, the less the spotlight shines on you.
Not because what you have to say is wrong or out-of-date, but because there’s new people coming up, with new ideas and new ways.
But to our populists of marketing practice, this is like kryptonite.
They want the spotlight.
They need the spotlight.
They live for the spotlight.
They’ll say or do whatever it takes to keep it on them.
Doesn’t matter if they contradict what they said before.
Doesn’t matter if they proclaim subjectivity as fact.
Doesn’t matter who they’re talking to or what about.
Doesn’t matter how inflated their ego or pedestal.
THEY. NEED. THE. FOCUS.
For them. And only them.
Hence we’re in this weird situation where the people who are supposedly at the peak of our discipline are happy to play in the trough.
Not all of course, but more than a couple.
Which not only doesn’t bode well for the future of the industry – especially the bright minds who have new ideas that may challenge or evolve traditional concepts – it reminds me of something else my Dad used to say …
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: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Communication Strategy, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture
One thing I love is working with creatives who – during a review – looks at the nuance of the idea, not just the excitement of it.
I don’t mean getting lost in the details … I mean understanding what the actual idea is behind the thought and seeing how it all works together.
Of course, knowing when to do this is important.
Too early and it kills the creative journey of exploration.
Too late and it just fucks and undermines everyone involved.
But done properly doesn’t just mean you gain clarity on what the actual idea is … but it highlights the nuances make the idea work so it can be pushed and elevated in ways that allow it to be consistent without ever being boring.
To be honest, it shocks me how little this stuff is talked about …
For all the talk of ‘brand’, it’s amazing how many people equate that to simply repeating a tagline a colour or a set of ‘brand assets’ without realizing the work they’re producing is slowly but surely moving further and further away from the premise of what the creative idea was built on or what the brand stands for.
What really brought this home was a post by the brilliant Trevor Beattie.
For those who don’t know who Trevor is, please go learn your creative history.
For those who do, you’ll appreciate why this is so good.
How good is that?
I particularly love how concise and articulate Trevor is in identifying the heart of the Specsavers idea.
“The comedic potential of not seeing clearly enough”
Clear. Definitive. Focused.
Opening creative possibilities without falling into creative ambiguities.
And then there’s the fact it’s delivered with such brevity.
No rambling. No ambiguity. A demonstration of someone who can see past the flash and see the core. Affording them the ability to give proper feedback … feedback that changes how people see the work and how they can improve it.
Simple. Valuable. Powerful.
Which – based on a lot of the work I see out there in the world – seems to be a dying art … lost to a sea of concepts without consideration or pithy headlines over random images. Or – as Trevor’s feedback also highlights – people interpreting ideas without ever really understanding them or giving them proper consideration so they end up dumbing it down and taking it to somewhere else. And while Trevor politely suggests that in the case of Specsavers, its a strategic pivot [laughing at stupid people] it’s probably more likely laziness, convenience and a lack of craft.
When we’re good our industry is a total fucking force … an infectious, impossible-to-ignore, emotion pleasure machine … but when we’re bad, we’re cheap wallpaper.
But while we have to take a lot of the blame, it’s not entirely our fault.
A lot of clients need to take responsibility for their contribution to this situation.
A situation that undermines their potential with all their mandates and demands.
Demanding simplistic and tactical than distinctive and definitive and caring more about what is said rather than what their audience will embrace and connect to.
If we think craft is dying in our industry, so is the understanding of what it means.
Too many dismiss it as time consuming or expensive.
An outdated concept from a time where advertising was a broadcast only medium.
But those people are wrong.
Because craft isn’t limited to execution, but in the nuance.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Empathy, Honesty, Marketing, Media, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Provocative, Relevance, Resonance, Wieden+Kennedy
This blog has been going for a loooooooong time.
Which means, it’s had its fair share of April Fool posts.
Some have been very good [even though I say it myself] with different industry people picking it up and commenting on it thinking it’s real.
And some being utterly, utterly shite.
But this year I decided not to do one.
Not because I couldn’t be bothered.
Nor because I couldn’t think of what to do.
Not because it was an Easter holiday on April 1.
But because after a while, it just becomes a bit boring.
I say this because a lot of brands don’t seem to get that. Instead, they keep doing the same thing over and over again without realising the audience have moved on.
That might be because of ego. That might be because of a lack of self-awareness. That might be because they don’t even know who the fuck their audience is … but whatever the reason, they keep doing what they do regardless.
And one of those things they keep repeating is ‘hijacking culture’.
By that I mean either during or after a topical event … they hire a van, slap a billboard on the back, put some headline on it that refers to whatever event they are ‘leveraging’ and then drive back and forth so a photographer can snap it in situ and then send it to the press or put it on the socials.
Hey, sometimes it’s really good.
But often, it just feels pretty sad.
Especially when lots of companies are all trying to do exactly the same thing for the same event at the same time.
Look I get it … it’s a way to get boost attention.
It’s also a way to show your client – or their bosses – you’re ‘on the ball’.
Can’t criticise that … except in many cases, it also seems to have a subliminal admission that they need to borrow from others to make people care about them.
Which is less good.
Yes, I know I’m being a bit of a pedantic asshole here, but here’s the thing … when people expect brands to do this stuff, then you have to accept that you’re no longer ‘hijacking’ anything, you’re simply conforming.
Of course there are ways to do it well.
Wieden were the masters and – arguably – the originators of it.
Which was basically to do stuff that ‘added to the cultural conversation, not just stole from it.
They did it with NIKE for literally decades.
Olympics.
Superbowls.
World Cups.
Winning.
Failing.
Achievements.
Retirements.
Fines.
Spectaculars.
But achieving it wasn’t simply down to great talent, great clients or being quick at doing stuff like this, it was down to 3 things.
Creatives co-run/run the account, not simply make the ads.
They understand the culture around the category, not just the category.
They think in terms of owning the brand voice, not just launching campaigns.
What the combination means is everyone feels there role and purpose is more than just making advertising, but finding how … where … when and who the brand can/should a voice and point of view. It’s more than just being pro-active, it’s a confidence in your preparation.
You know what the brand will say.
You know how the brand will say it.
You know what the culture of the audience want and need.
You’re moving things forward because you’re always moving things forward. Seeing your role as far more than simply fulfilling ‘campaign requirements’ and ‘unexpected opportunities’ but directly and continually driving, shaping and influencing the behaviour and energy of the vision and role of the brand in culture.
Many people will say they do that, few do.
Instead they just churn out stunts or puns that often end up being more for the ego of the people involved than the benefit of the audience it is supposedly for.
Which is the heart of what, in my opinion, separates brands/agencies who get it and those who pretend they do.
Because the wannabes and imposters talk about how they will make the masses love their brand, whereas the real deal know it’s about the brand showing and expressing who they love and who they are for.