Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Crap Products In History, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, EvilGenius, Experience, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mischief, Nike, Perspective
Before I start, I’ve been a huge fan of collabs over the years. Seeing what happens when two different artists or brands or artists and brands come together has been fascinating.
And for every terrible LG x Prada phone, there’s a Nike x Ben & Jerry’s sneaker.
But … but … it feels we’ve moved from collab to labelling.
Where it isn’t about what two parties can create with each other, but just renting space for another brand to slap their logo on.
Take these Travis Scott x Playstation x Nike sneakers …
Jesus Christ.
Where the Ben & Jerry’s felt crafted and cared for this is just … well, put it this way, it feels more like a bad promotional item than something that represents a true collab.
And the thing is, this approach is happening more and more – across all manner of categories – which is why I kinda love what Nobuaki Kurokawa has done with their first product launch from their CUGGL label.
Let’s be honest, they’re taking the piss.
Like, blatantly and unashamedly.
Not only does it look like it say’s Gucci, by making the design resemble graffiti, it feels like they’re also sticking two fingers up at the terrible and contrived Gucci/Balenciaga collab.
The Gucci x Belenciaga is especially horrific because individually, they’ve not really laid a foot wrong in building the value and position in culture of their brands. And then they do this.
Lazy.
Fake.
Obvious.
Out-of-date.
Dad at the disco rubbish.
Basically, the fashion industry version of this.
Which is why I like what CUGGL have done so much.
Punking the brands pretending to be punking fashion.
Of course, Diesel did something like that before – though their mischievous eye was aimed at the counterfeit industry [even though it kinda said ‘fakes may be real’, which is the last thing they needed to do] however in terms of greatest accolade for mischief, that prize should have gone to the band Blink 182.
I say ‘should have’ because they ended up pulling out of potentially the greatest burn ever.
In the early 2000’s, Axl Rose was making a new Guns’ n’ Roses album.
It was unique because the only original member of the band was Axl himself.
He had fired all the band and was basically at his most indulgent ego best.
The only thing he’d announced was the album was going to be called ‘The Chinese Democracy’.
For years and years nothing came out.
The album postponed time and time again.
At one point, his record label, Geffen, pulled funding … and yet the recording still went on.
Enter Blink 182.
They announce they were recording a new album and guess what they were going to call it …
That’s right, The Chinese Democracy.
Better yet, because Axl was taking so long to release his version – they could be sure they’d be first, so history would always make it look that Guns n’ Roses copied Blink 182.
Alas they went cowardly on the idea, which is a shame … because that would have set a benchmark CUGGL and Diesel could only dream of reaching.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Campaign Magazine, Chris Jaques, Colenso, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Planning, R/GA, Wieden+Kennedy
I have always found it rather amusing that occasionally the industry press has shown an interest in what I’m doing – or done.
Even now, my first reaction is, “don’t you mean the other Rob Campbell, who started RKCR Y&R?”
And while occasionally the answer is, “yes, we do mean him” … I have approached any interaction with my tongue, generally in my cheek.
Hence I’ve said if I was a Star Wars character, I’d be Darth Vader.
I’ve felt fine writing sarcastic responses to discipline assassination.
And I showed no shame saying the word ‘wank’ in response to a new business win.
To be fair, Campaign Magazine – where a lot of this madness took part – played their part in the relationship by running pieces questioning if my wife was real and if I was having an affair with a reindeer.
I say all this because a friend sent me something he had just found in an old edition of Campaign in Asia …
Apart from the fact that I was at Y&R Asia 16 years ago, so I’m wondering why on earth anyone would keep a copy of Campaign that long … it did make me smile.
Yes, I used to use the word ‘toptastic’ a lot.
A. LOT.
And yes, I can absolutely see myself saying that, even though I LOVED Mediaworks and would do it again in a heartbeat.
But more than that – and I appreciate how egotistical this makes me sound – it was nice to see a bit of humour in an industry that is quickly going up its own arse.
Yes, what we do is important.
Yes, we need companies to recognise we care about their longterm wellbeing.
But for an industry that is supposed to understand how to connect commerce to culture … this overly serious, overly complex, overly monotone approach to all we do isn’t helping.
I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t take what we do seriously, but maybe if we stopped taking ourselves so seriously – so we can resonate with culture rather than patronise them – we may end up with better work and better results.
And by god, could we do with that.
Though I appreciate this may simply be my attempt to reframe my industry ridiculousness as professional, so should Otis ever see it, he won’t think his Dad was a total lunatic.
Maybe.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
National holiday on Monday, so see you Tuesday. That is if anyone reads this blog anymore – I have no idea. [Which is probably a very good thing, ha]
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: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Consultants, Context, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Individuality, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
I was never a fan of Seinfeld.
Then I’ve never been much of a fan of Jerry Seinfeld either.
I always found him a bit of condescending, self-righteous prick.
Oh I get he is smart.
His observational skills are almost unparalleled.
But you can be a genius and still be an asshole. Step on down Elon Musk.
However recently I read something Jerry said that made me dislike him less.
Not simply because he didn’t know who McKinsey were, but because of what he highlighted is the problem with them. Or more specifically, the problem companies who use them, have.
Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate this paints Jerry as a control freak.
And I also acknowledge that many companies hire McKinsey because they think the challenge they face is hard – rather than easy.
But what I do like about what he says is he won’t outsource his responsibility.
Sure, he could trust those around him more … and sure, his words smack of egomaniac … but to be fair to him, the product he sells is himself – his personality, his character, his humour – so it makes perfect sense he is obsessive about what goes out under his name because he cares deeply about his reputation, values and his quality control.
And that’s a major problem these days.
Too many don’t.
Oh they’ll say they do.
They’ll run internal and external communication that reinforce they do.
But then they’ll go and outsource their responsibilities and decisions to ‘for profit’ external organisations. Either because they don’t want the pressure … the issue is beyond their abilities … or they want someone to blame if things go wrong.
And the issue with this is the external organisation who are now responsible for answering this challenge, often do it with little to no consideration of who they’re doing it for.
How their clients look at the world.
The nuances and quirks that define who the company is and how they act.
So they provide a solution that does exactly what has been asked of them and nothing more.
Solutions agnostic of client values, beyond some superficial characteristics.
And this has resulted in a world filled with identikit functional solutions. Solutions that answer the issue, but at the cost of commoditisation. And all because senior people – who are paid handsomely to be responsible for their organisations wellbeing and growth – decided to outsource their responsibility to another organisation, even though they know they will never care as much about them as they should care about themselves.
Of course not everyone is like this.
Some are as committed and obsessive about how they do things as what they do.
But there are far too many who look for quick wins.
Easy answers.
Less pressure or responsibility.
Which is why I have always thought whether you are a shareholder or an employee, knowing how much the most senior people understand, value and protect the standards, nuance and quirks of the company they represent – not simply the balance sheet – acts as a good indicator you’re with a company who respects the value of their own value.
Not simply in terms of profit.
Nor in reputation.
But in the standards and values that drives all they do and create.
Which is my way of saying that while I still think Jerry Seinfeld is a bit of a dick, I now respect him for knowing where his responsibilities lie.
To both himself, his future and his fans.
Now if only there were more companies and brands who lived by the same mantra.