Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Comment, New Zealand
I’ve always found personalized number plates fascinating which is why a while back I wrote about the ones that were near where I live.
Anyway, I recently saw 2 that got me thinking …
The first was this:
There’s something epic having a number plate that turns the ‘horsepower’ conversation into ‘moopower’.
I would love to know what made them choose this.
Are they a dairy farmer?
Are they really into milk?
Are they someone the RSPCA need to be keeping a close eye on?
Not sure, but it stood out to me far more than 95% of creative designed by outsourced research systems that promote ‘brand assets’ but forget to tell people it’s only an asset if creativity makes it mean something.
The other was this …
On one hand, the introduction of the word ‘bad’ immediately has an effect on the car.
Despite being virginal white, suddenly that EV family car has a bit-of-the-badass about it.
Or it would, it the number plate wasn’t ‘BAD EV’ … which suggests the driver is aware of the negative association of the brand given their CEO, Elon, is a right-wing, Fascist prick … and either doesn’t care, or is trying to own the narrative so they can’t let someone else have a go at them.
Unfortunately for them, I don’t think either of those scenarios will work for them given Teresa – in our strat gang at Colenso – has a Tesla and despite every one of us loving her and knowing she feels a bit of the ick for driving an Elonmobile, still didn’t stop us getting her this.
Number plates. They say more about who you are than your DNA.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Colleagues, Craft, Culture, Customer Service, Emotion, Experience, Fake Attitude, Japan, Luxury, Marketing, Mercedes, Money, Packaging, Resonance, Respect
Over the years I’ve written a lot about brands who spend time and money ensuring their customers feel they’ve purchased something of significantly greater value than the functional cost of the item they’ve purchased.
The original ‘brand experience’ as it were.
There’s Tiffany with their iconic ‘little blue box’.
There’s Apple with their packaging and attention to detail.
Hell, there’s even Absolut with their special edition bottles – though I accept that’s more a satisfying novelty than something that builds real additional value for the brand.
But what I find interesting is for all the talk of ‘brand experience’, most brands – except those truly in the luxury space – suck at it. And that’s not counting the masses of brands who don’t even bother with it – often believing their customers should consider themselves fortunate for owning whatever it is they’ve just handed over their cash to buy.
But that aside … the problem with a lot of ‘brand experience’ is it’s starting point is the cost to do it, not the emotion they ignite because of it – so we end up with countless Temu versions of whatever it is they want to do or what they think people want to get.
Now I am not saying that these approaches don’t work or aren’t liked, but we end up in parity status very quickly – which has the result of completely nullifying whatever ‘value’ you hoped you would get from it in the first place.
The reality is experience is less about what you do and how you do it …
Not just for distinctiveness.
Not just for memorability.
But because it conveys what you value and the standards you keep.
This should be obvious as hell – but the problem is, when companies evaluate it against the cost – or time – many view it as an expense rather than an investment in their brand and customer relationship, so before you know it, they strip things back to its most basic form.
It’s why I love how Japanese brands tend to approach brand experience.
As a society, care and attention seem to be built into the DNA.
You just have to see how they package anything to realise they – if anything – over engineer brand experience.
It’s a culture that places high importance on standards, respect and consistency – which is why I like this video of someone picking up their new Lexus car.
On one level, it’s not that different to a lot of car manufacturers around the world who place a bow or blanket over a car when it’s about to be picked up, however when they do it – you know the amount of effort involved in executing is minimal, whereas this – whether part of a fixed process or not – requires commitment and time.
Is this overkill?
Yep.
Is this more culturally influenced than category?
Undoubtedly.
And is the whole thing a bit awkward?
For many, it absolutely would be.
However, the point of the Lexus example is less about what they do and more a case of showing a brand who are committed to expressing who they are and who they’re for – because where brand experience is concerned, too many companies approach this key part of the ‘sales process’ with passive energy whereas Japan is almost aggressive in ensuring its point of view in expressed in an active and engaged manner.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Politics, Professionalism, Respect
I saw the below image recently and it got me thinking about how it is a perfect representation of how most – but not all – ‘multi-agency’ relationships really work.
As I said, it’s not always the case, but it increasingly feels ‘the norm’, often influenced by a procurement process that places more importance on ‘who will do the most for the least’ rather than who is best equipped to lead.
Just for the record, I’m all for collaboration.
Done properly, it is a powerful way to achieve incredible things in collapsed time.
However to stand a chance of achieving this needs a lot of careful thought and pre-planning.
For a start, you need to ensure the people in the room all have similar standards, experience and seniority or you end up only being as good as the least experienced person in attendance.
Or the loudest voice.
Too often there is a view that all you have to do is shove different organisations inside a room and tell them to get on with it.
And while companies do want the best for their clients … they all have their own agendas, definitions, remuneration structures and egos and to expect that to all be put aside because you want them to work together is naive.
It’s why curation, transparency and clarity on the ultimate goal are vital in enabling a strong outcome … but the problem is too often, collaboration is used because of timing pressures rather than seizing opportunity, which is why so much of what comes out of it feels like the worst of ‘committee thinking’.
When it works, everyone wins.
When it doesn’t, everyone – at best – stands still.
Of course, with companies increasingly turning to AI to ‘optimise’ every element of their business, the future of collaboration will be through bots rather than people. And while that may be music-to-the-ears of leaders who view employees as an frustrating expense … the result of this will be even more ‘lowest-common-denominator thinking’ because in the World of AI, everything is a summary of something else – whereas with well-run human collaboration, it doesn’t conform to where we’ve been, it builds to where we can go.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Career, Communication Strategy, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Egovertising, Influencers, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Popularity, Process, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Success
I’ve been lucky enough to work with some of the most talented advertising people in the whole business. Not in terms of popularity. Not in terms of ‘thought leadership’. But in terms of making the work. Consistently.
Not luck.
Not one-offs.
Not dependent on a particular client.
They’ve made work that has changed minds, categories and possibilities through their vision, talent and creativity.
And while they are all individuals, with their own perspectives and viewpoints – there is one thing that is pretty consistent across all of them.
They’re good people who are immensely talented rather than people who aspire to work in advertising. Or more specifically, live what they think is ‘the advertising lifestyle’.
And what the fuck do I mean by that?
Well, there’s many ways I could explain it but instead, let me show you something that a mate of mine sent me recently.
Now, before I go on, I should point out I don’t know this person and I don’t know if they’re just executing a brilliant pisstake of how some in the industry act. And if it is, then bravo – they’ve nailed the Andrew Tate of advertising schtick that some on Linkedin like to spout, perfectly.
However, if it’s not – and I worry, it may not be – then this kind of shit sums up everything wrong with our industry. All about attitude and fame than actually making stuff that is famous.
Now I appreciate this person may be young and felt this is how they were supposed to act – especially as those ’24 hours with …’ features tend to be a total exercise in ego and bravado. And it’s for that reason, I chose to remove all reference to who wrote it because let’s be honest, we’re all entitled to make huge mistakes.
However, as I have recently come across a bunch of people in the industry who I suspect would write something exactly like this – and be proud as fuck for it – I think this is the point where I remind everyone in the industry that the people we should be looking up to are not those with the name … the title … the pay packet … the popularity … but the ones who have actually made the fucking work.
Not by proxy.
Not by association.
But with their fingerprints.
And if that’s too much to ask, then let’s at least celebrate people like Sangsoo Chong, who wrote the best ’24 hours with …’ I’ve ever read. Not because it takes the piss … not because it’s glamorous and glitzy but because it’s the most brutally raw and honest description of how a lot of this business really works.
Sadly, what you are about to read, doesn’t capture any of that.
Hell, it doesn’t even capture anything to do with great ideas.
But then it shouldn’t really surprise me when too much of the industry seems to value ‘hot takes’ more than making cool work.
Filed under: 2025, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Confidence, Craft, Luxury, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance, Reputation
Birkin.
The Holy Grail of handbags.
Created in 1984 when the CEO of Hermes, Jean-Louis Dumas met the actress Jane Birkin.
They’re sold exclusively through Hermes stores and you have to jump through all manner of hoops to be able to buy one.
You also need to have a fuckload of cash because they can cost in the hundreds of thousands.
That’s MULTIPLES of hundreds of thousands.
And that’s in US dollars.
Whether those prices are justified is immaterial … the reality is, they are viewed almost like precious gems.
Which is why this ad for a beauty company – MCoBeauty – made me laugh out loud.
Look at it.
LOOK AT IT!!!
It’s more Burger King than Birkin … made even better that it is appearing on bus shelters.
On one hand, I quite like how they have just destroyed the pomposity of the Birkin brand with one simple image … but on the other, they’ve not just destroyed the aspirational value of the ‘prize’ they’re giving away by making it look like a ‘pound shop knock off’, they’ve also just fucked themselves over by reinforcing that however much brands like MCoBeauty may try and claim they’re all about ‘accessible/everyday luxury’, they’re basically admitting nothing compares to getting your hands on real luxury.
But that last point is immaterial when you make an ad that makes a Birkin Bag look less appealing than a supermarket paper bag.
If it was ironic it might work, but it’s not … it’s pure ‘starburst’ sales promotion awfulness
Who designed this thing?
The colours are hideous.
The copy is disastrous.
The art direction is scandalous.
If you want to leverage giving a Birkin Bag away to drive sales … maybe you should make it feel like something you would actually like to own, rather than avoid. And god forbid Hermes see it because they will come after you like a ton-of-bricks. Even if you own it. And even if it is second hand. Hermes understand the value of reputation … it’s why they can sell bits of stitched leather for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What is so annoying is this could have been really good.
Not just executionally, but for building the reputation and value of the MCoBeauty.
But no, instead – as is the case with far too much these days – they haven’t given a shit and just banged any old bollocks out, because we live in times where marketing is focused more on what you want to say rather than understanding the importance of how you say it.
Or said another way. There’s too much focus on systems rather than appreciating the value and impact of craft.
Which may explain why Hermes – for all the challenges the luxury category are experiencing – are still doing better than MCoBeauty and the entire ad industry put together.