Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, China, Chinese Culture, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Distinction, Government, History, Influencers, Luxury, Marketing, Perspective, Politics, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Revenge, Truth
Once upon a time, when I lived in Singapore, I popped into the restaurant next to where we lived on Club Street, to get some takeaway.
As I was waiting for my noodles, I saw a man at the bar having a drink.
He had a nice face but the only reason I noticed him was because he had a mark on his head that made him look like Mikhail Gorbachev.
The next day I found out, it was.
While Club Street was blessed with lots of nice restaurants and bars, seeing the ex-head of the Soviet Union having a drink next door to where you live, was not the sort of thing you expect to see.
But then Mikhail was good at the unexpected.
Like the time, in 2007, he turned up in a Louis Vuitton ad.
Back in the days when being an ‘influencer’ meant you had done something to impact the world rather than existed to simply flog product.
But Mikhail was an inspired choice for a whole host of reasons …
One was the visual metaphor he represented for Russia’s journey from communism towards capitalism.
The symbolism of a new era in Russia. And the rest of the world.
And while this ad came out in 2007 – 16 years after he had seen the dissolution of the USSR – what he represented was still clear. Made even more obvious by placing him in the back of a car – in a photo taken by Annie Leibovitz – driving past the Berlin Wall … another symbol of capitalism triumphing over communism.
For many who read this blog, the impact of this change may fly right past you.
I get it, especially if you’ve lived in Western countries, so to give you some context, let me take you to Communist China.
The modern metropolis that you see in photos of China today is certainly not what I found when I first moved there. Especially when you stepped out of central Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou. Though, to be fair, that’s still the case in many parts of the country – including Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou – despite the Middle Kingdom’s incredible modernisation and rise.
Anyway, when I first moved there, Louis Vuitton had a reputation – and nickname – of being ‘the mistress brand’.
There was a simple reason for it …
People who owned it were seen as ‘girlfriends’ of high-level business people or government ministers.
Basically the belief was that because their lovers were one of the few people who were allowed – or could afford to – leave China with ease, they’d buy LV products on their travels and then give them to their lovers as presents on their return.
Was it true?
Not entirely, but there was definitely a ‘second wives’ economy that existed and likely still does.
There was a street near where we lived where every shop was allegedly funded by a generous ‘benefactor’. And you could believe it, because we never saw a customer enter a single store and yet the owners – always young and attractive – were driving the latest Bentley’s. Ferrari’s or Maserati’s.
It was a different world.
And while China has been the centre of the luxury universe for decades, I still remember the Government banning all luxury outdoor advertising in Beijing every now and then to both show their power to the luxury brands who make billions from them as well as reminding the people who live there ‘they were still a communist land’.
Sometimes.
What is interesting is that when Russia and China opened up, Louis Vuitton were one of the quickest brands to see what this could mean for them and their category.
They recognised very early the importance – and confidence – luxury brands could play in culture and so they upped the branding on their products dramatically.
And that’s why these ads, from Ogilvy, are so interesting to me. Because at a time where the cult of luxury was on the rise, these ads attempted to separate LV from the competition by trying to position them with greater significance and purpose.
Presenting LV almost as something you ‘earned the right’ to have rather than something anyone could just buy.
Treating the LV iconography as a badge of honour, not simply wealth.
Reinforcing status as much about how you live, rather than simply what you have.
Maybe this was a reaction to the way Putin was starting to shape Russia to his will.
If you look closely at the bag next to Mikhail, you will see a magazine with the headline ‘Litvinenko’s murder: They wanted to give up the suspect for $7000.’
That headline was on the magazine, New Times, a liberal Russian publication that regularly criticised the Kremlin.
That headline was a reference to Alexander V Litvinenko – the former KGB spy who died in November 2006 after being poisoned in the UK. The former KGB spy who had accused Putin of orchestrating his murder.
While Ogilvy and LV dismissed the significance of that magazine headline, I think it’s pretty safe to say that’s bullshit.
There is no way that is a coincidence.
I get why they said it, but the symbolism of Mikhail … with that magazine poking out his bag … driving past the Berlin Wall … was a pretty blatant message of how far Putin’s Kremlin had taken Russia back to the ‘bad old days’ since Gorbachev had left.
It may have been a condition for Mikhail to feature in the ad.
Only he, Ogilvy and LV execs would know.
But I do admire their stance.
Let’s be honest, there’s absolutely no way that would ever happen now.
Which is as much of a statement on how safe advertising and brands have become as it is of the dangers of Putin and his actions.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Business, Chaos, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Honesty, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Music, Nike, Packaging, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Relevance, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Trust, Truth
I was recently interviewed by a music company about the work I do for artists.
They – quite rightly – wanted to know what I did and how it was different to what I normally did.
And I explained the difference was made clear pretty much in my very first meeting.
Because I was told this …
Now I can’t be sure they used those exact words, but that was the general premise.
And that was what was amazing.
Because when working with brands, they want you to use creativity to engage audiences, but with bands – at least the ones I’ve been exposed to – it’s the opposite.
I don’t mean they want to alienate people – though they understand the importance of sacrifice better than almost any brand marketer I’ve ever met – it’s just they are the creativity … they are the product … and so the last thing they want is some fucker placing a layer of ‘marketing’ on top of their artistic expression which can be twisted, diluted or fucked with so what they want to say and what it means to them, has no consideration whatsoever.
Now I admit I’m very fortunate the artists I’m working for are of a scale where they have the power to not just consider this issue but do something about it.
Many don’t.
However by the same token, when you’re of that scale, the potential for things to get messed up in some way is much greater.
Which is why they ensured I knew my role was not to market them, but to protect their truth.
Do and explore things that amplify who they are not just flog more product.
And because what they create is an expression who they are … they can express their truth without falling into endless streams of cliched brand consultant speak.
+ So no buzz words.
+ No ambiguous terms.
+ Just stories, experiences and considerations that have defined all they do.
And that’s why they don’t really care if you like their music. Sure, it helps, but they don’t want fawning fandom, they want people who understand what they value, believe and give a fuck about so everything associated with what they do expresses it.
Or said another way, they want people who can ‘speak their tongue’.
Now I am the first to admit there have been some mistakes.
Some things you go, “why did you do that?”
But in the main, I’ve not seen much of it and even when I have called stuff out, they have [generally] appreciated it, because – as I was also told on my first day – I’m being paid to give them truth not comfort.
I’ve always said people should not aspire to be a planner, but get away with the things a planner can get away with. And I’ve got away with a lot as a planner. Done all manner of weird and wonderful.
While I’d like to think that’s what helped me get this gig … the reality is I got it because of an introduction from someone I know.
And while in theory any strategist could do what I’m doing, how I do strategy and how I have been asked to view what it’s role is, has highlighted that’s not the case.
Not because of capability, but what the industry currently wants and expects.
And this is manifested in increasingly not being given the time, support or standards to do things right.
Where speed is more important than substance.
Process more valuable than output.
I wrote about this and more, here.
But it’s more than that, it’s also what clients think strategy is for …
Packaging rather than changing.
Wanting quick wins rather than long term value.
Targeting needs, not a point of view in the world.
Chasing convenience not authenticity.
If anything, doing this work has made me even more grateful to the bosses, agencies and clients I’ve worked with over my career.
Because when I look back, the truly great ones were basically like a band.
Born of belief. Defined by a point of view. Wanting to attract not chase anything popular.
And that’s a big part of why they have been able to remain at the forefront of their individual discipline, category and/or sub-culture.
Because they never saw strategy as a tool for marketing, but to amplify their truth.
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Diversity, Effectiveness, Emotion, Entertainment, Environment, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Metallica, Music, Resonance, Respect | Tags: 15
I was recently in a client meeting where we had a discussion about ‘scale’.
The person in question was suggesting – as many do – that the only way to achieve it was to make sure you offer something for everyone.
Now there’s two ways you can do that …
Literally offer something for everyone or be so bland that you don’t alienate anyone.
And when we had this discussion, it reminded me of the Ferdinand Porsche quote that – paraphrased – reads something like:
“Be everything to someone not something to everyone”.
But it was early in the morning for me.
I was talking to clients in America.
So instead, I gave the worst analogy I may have ever used …
I pointed out The Eagles are the best selling American band in history.
That their ‘easy listening’ songs were designed to literally appeal to the widest audience possible. That their repetitive approach has been used to reinforce their position.
Or lack of one.
However the second best selling American band of all time is Metallica.
OK, I’m biased, but no one can say their music is designed for mass appeal.
Even their more ‘audience friendly’ albums still targeted a particular type of music fan. A fan that is anti-mainstream and anti-easy listening.
And yet Metallica’s fierce focus on who they are and what they believe – matched with their desire to continually explore and experiment with formats and approaches for their music – has resulted in them attracting ever bigger audiences rather than chasing them.
But its even more than that …
In the fickle, fast-changing world of music, Metallica haven’t just been able to maintain their credibility and authenticity, they have managed to still be seen as a contemporary band.
A band that is more popular now than they’ve ever been, while not changing who they are, what they believe or who they’re for.
I finished this rant off with the words:
“Be Metallica, not The Eagles”.
Fortunately, given I was doing this call at stupid o’clock, people let it pass.
However, while the analogy may be bollocks, the reality isn’t.
We live in an industry that is increasingly falling into rules of how things should be done.
And there are some – without doubt.
But we are in danger of ignoring the power of culture and creativity in favour of box-ticking and formulas and yet it’s the brands and bands like Nike, Metallica, SKP-S, Kanye, Liquid Death who not only hold – and set – the cultural attention and narrative, but continue to fast-track growth and profit compared to a category who blindly follow a system designed to play more to the ‘safety’ of the middle rather than the power and influence of the edge.
I’m not saying it’s easy.
I’m not saying it’s not without risk.
I’m not saying it happens in a smooth, straight line.
But when you do it well … when you know who you are, who you’re for and what you believe, it’s definitely worth it, against pretty much every metric you can measure it against.
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: America, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Culture, Cunning, Daily Mail, Egovertising, England, Fear, Government, Honesty, Imposter Syndrome, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Politics, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Social Divide, Trust, Truth
Recently I was reading an article on Brexit when I came across a comment that stopped me in my tracks.
The reason for it is that in a few words – literally a few – it not only highlighted the issue with many of the shortsighted fools who voted for leaving the European Union – and likely voted for the election of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – but also could be used to explain the decline of so many companies, institutions and individuals.
This is it …
What a perfectly constructed sentence.
A devastating set of words that places you perfectly in a corner you can’t get out of.
It’s almost a Hollywood movie line it’s so crafted in its underlying viciousness.
But of course, the people it challenges won’t accept it.
They will continue to refuse to acknowledge their complicity in the situation millions now face.
Because as I’ve written before, people has difficulty understanding something when their credibility and reputation depends on them not understanding something.
It’s why they will continue to cast blame on everyone else.
Why they will continue to claim the opposition are more dangerous than the government they voted in … the government that has brought an entire nation to its knees.
But let’s be honest, the reason for their attitude is even uglier than not wanting to own up to what they contributed to. Because for all their claims of wanting a ‘better Britain’ … the real reason behind their choice was to create a barrier between them and people they think are beneath them.
A way to feel socially, morally, professionally superior to those around them, while conveniently choosing to ignore they were either given great advantage from birth over the vast majority of people or seek to mitigate their situation by blaming everyone else for what they have not achieved, despite starting from greater advantage.
I get it. It’s kind-of human nature. It’s also the unspoken truth of democracy – where the reality is we tend to vote for what works for you rather than what’s right for the nation.
Of course the unspoken truth is still better than the alternative … however given the way politics and business are increasingly allowing spin, vitriol and lies, it seems we’re seeing ‘post truth’ as an accepted and embraced business strategy.
And that’s why the independent voice has never been so important.
Not just in the public domain, but within organisations, governments and individual groups.
Not to attack, destroy or dethrone – as is the current trend – but to protect.
To ensure the people making decisions – or the people asking to decide on the options – are aware of the range of possibilities and outcomes that could occur rather than just blindly following a blinkered promise of what will happen.
Not delivered with hyperbole or exaggeration, but with quiet, informed context and facts … delivered by an individual or organisation without political affiliation and respected for their independence.
It doesn’t mean it will stop things like Brexit happening, but it will ensure people who knowingly bend the truths to suit their own agenda or were deliberately ignorant to the choices they made are held to account. Because without that, we carry on down this sorry path where governments, organisations or individuals can choose to ignore previous choices they made, ignore the passing of time that changes the context of everything and ignore the realities others may have caught up and left us behind.
I am under no illusion that the truth hurts, but delusion damages us forever.