Most of the time I take them from the letterbox straight to the bin. And then I saw this …
A local, free newspaper that called itself ‘a rag’.
And do you know what I did?
I went and got it and then read it cover to cover.
15 years ago I talked about ‘unplanning’ … which is basically, the power of truth.
[Though in 2006, I also wrote a post about the commercial value of a single banana at Starbucks, so maybe the idea of ‘product loneliness’ had something to do with me picking up a copy of the paper. And you thought my posts were bad now, hahahahaha]
It was my reaction to an industry drowning under the weight of it’s own bullshit terms, techniques and approaches. Well you know what, it’s got worse.
So while calling a local newspaper a ‘rag’ is hardly a strategy … it makes more sense than so many of the strategy submissions I judged around the World over the last few years.
Oh my god the claims.
An item of food that reignited a culture.
A sales promotion that brought families together.
An alcohol company that inspires artistic diversity.
No … those examples are not a joke, they were real submissions … so with that in mind, a local, free newspaper that made a bloke pick up a copy, read it cover-to-cover then blog about it because they labelled themselves ‘a rag’, should be considered a Grand Prix winner.
Or in submission speak:
How a small plucky local, free newspaper become the most influential entertainment channel for international tourists.
OK, I think I need to go and have a lie down … and lucky for you, it is going to last 4 days as I’m off to Melbourne so there’s no post till Wednesday.
After the amazing drama of yesterday, I need to calm things down.
Not for you, but for me … because my heart can’t take nerves like that.
And yet it’s going to have to do just that in a little over a week.
Bloody hell.
So to slow things down, let me take you back in time …
Back in 1985, the band Dire Straits launched a song called Money For Nothing.
It became famous for a whole host of reasons.
It was the first song of theirs that actually sounded slightly modern.
It had ‘modern’ day references in the lyrics.
It had Sting – from The Police – singing on it.
It had this video …
Did you watch it?
You didn’t did you?
You lazy bastards …
Well, to get back to the point of this post, here’s a screen grab from it …
Now while that image may not strike you as cutting edge, back in 1985, it was revolutionary.
Digital characters living in a digital world, where their universe was a blend of normality and possibility.
Hang on, does that sound like something else?
Something that a huge amount of the tech and marketing industry have been wetting their pants over?
Something that sounds suspiciously close to this …
Did you watch this?
You didn’t did you?
You über-lazy assholes …
Well, to get back to the point of this post, here’s a screen grab from it …
Yep.
Yep it does.
A music video from 1985 by the most snooze-rock band ever formed, not only communicated the metaverse, it did it in a style pretty close to what Facebook and every other brand have shown as ‘the standard’.
How terrifyingly embarrassing is that?
All these hip, technologists, futurists and strategists trying to look like they’re on the edge of culture creation and all the bollocks they’re banging on about was expressed by bloody Dire Straits 37 years earlier.
THIRTY SEVEN YEARS.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
I mean … when that Zuck video first broke, I wrote a post about how it was missing the point by showing things we can already do, but now – thanks to errrrrm, Dire Straits, I realise it was even worse than I imagined.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe technology and – the metaverse, even though what is being celebrated as it, isn’t what it is – will have the possibility to make a huge, positive difference to humanity. Eventually.
But making – and lauding – a film and idea that looks awfully similar to a bloody 1985 music video isn’t doing them any favours. If anything, it shows how much of this industry is filled with individuals who crave attention or adoration or just desperately seek relevance.
Not helped when you learn that, unsurprisingly, the main reason Zuck is so into the Metaverse is not for changing the world but upping his bank account.
Given how much Facebook tried to label Apple as ‘anti-business’ for the amount they charged creators and partners – which is a lot less than 47.5% – it makes the whole Meta situation even more laughable.
Don’t get me wrong, I know the new is often misunderstood.
And new technology should not be judged by the standards of established technology.
But when the ‘icons and industry leaders’ stand on soapboxes and stages to promote the future in a similar way that Dire Straits brought to the World almost 4 decades ago … it’s only fair to question if these people care about the future or simply their own career image.
One of the things I’ve found fascinating over the past few years is watching consultancies AND platforms mock the value of advertising and then increasingly try and enter that space.
And while you could argue it’s because they saw an opportunity to do it ‘properly’, the way they have embraced it – and executed it – has shown they seem to want to be more like the beast they wanted to slay than the beast they are.
What do I mean?
Go to Cannes and the whole place has been taken over by corporations.
All the best locations, beaches, hotels are the domain of tech, consultancies and platforms.
Now you could say that’s because they’re the ones with all the money – and that’s true – but what is amusing is WHAT they do.
Because rather than reflect ‘a better way to do what those ad agencies used to do’ … they seem to be doing the same thing ad agencies used to do.
In fact the only thing that is different is how desperately bad their attempts to show ‘they’re creativity’ actually are.
Nothing brought this home more than a poster I recently saw promoting an advertising festival.
An advertising festival representing the ‘modern’ world of the industry.
This was it …
What. The. Hell?
Seriously … what is it?
I’m not just talking about the design and colour palette that could make a 1987 acid house party feel embarrassed … I’m talking about all of it.
The email automation masterclass.
The ‘scale your YouTube’ talk.
The $15 million ad storytelling formula class.
And let’s not forget the ‘thumb-stopping’ direct response scripts.
Look, I get small business may get something out of some of this.
And I appreciate there are many elements to run a successful business.
But this all comes across as used car salesman shit.
Worse, used car salesman shit where their office is a portacabin on a muddy industrial estate in Slough.
In all seriousness, what I find astounding is this must be what the people behind this conference must think is creativity. And don’t get me started on what it says about the people presenting there.
I include Scott Galloway who said ‘brands are dead’ and then not only invests in elevating his own brand, but starts selling courses on how to approach better brand strategy.
[For the record, I respect Scott Galloway hugely but when he said that – like when Mark Ritson said his advertising course was a ‘mini MBA’, when it is nothing at all like a MBA – I couldn’t help but feel their focus was becoming more about building their own cult than building better marketers. In fact, given their approaches have now been so optimised, systemised and codified … you could argue it’s actually undermining brand building because everyone is following the same approach and the result is passive corporate conformity. But I digress …]
I guess what I’m saying is that for all the smarts of modern marketing, the people behind this conference – and potentially the people at it – are revealing they know jack-shit about creativity or culture.
And you know what? That would be fine if they didn’t pretend they otherwise.
But for all their big Cannes events … agency buy-outs … and talk about advertising, the reality is they view creativity as a ‘wrapper’ for their engineering type processes.
A belief there is a singular approach to engage and grow – regardless of audience or category. That the features around a brand are more important than the brand. Or as I told WARC, that the condiments are more valuable than the steak.
Do not get me wrong, advertising has a lot of problems.
It’s got a lot it can learn from platforms and consultancies.
But at our best, we know how to use the power of creativity and culture in ways so many of thehaven’t got a clue about.
Now some may say that statement shows how out of date I am.
How contemporary business doesn’t care about all that.
And maybe that’s right … but while I could point out the vast majority of brands who are infectious to culture were not born anywhere near a ‘consultants proprietary marketing playbook’ … all I have to do is point at the AdWorld poster and say, “Look at that shit”.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there will be a bunch of valuable stuff at the conference.
I am sure it will attract tens of thousands of people.
It may make the organisers a shit-ton of cash.
But for all the smarts appearing at Adworld, they sure as shit don’t have any appreciation of style. And I would like to point out that I say this as someone who was wearing an ironic Celine Dion T-shirt when I typed this.
And with that, I wish you a good weekend … which only gets better for you when I let you know there is a national holiday here on Monday so there will be no post till Tuesday [I know, I just had 2 days off for national holiday – deal with it] … so with that, I leave you with a sneak-peak of the Adworld virtual after party dance floor.
Love it or loathe it, but Wordle has captured the world’s attention. Whether it will continue to do that now the NYTimes has bought it, is anyones guess, but right now, it’s peak popularity.
Hell, even I love it and I HATE word games.
Crosswords? Hate.
Scrabble? Hate.
And yet whether it’s the last thing I do before I go to sleep or the first thing I do when I wake up, I’m playing the days challenge. And I’m brilliant at it. Hahaha.
Anyway, I was on Twitter when I recently saw this from Air New Zealand.
Look, I get it’s a competitive world.
I get brands are looking for anything that can help them stand out.
And I get ‘hijacking culture’ is a cheat way of doing this.
But there’s 2 reasons why this approach is tragic rather than magic.
First is it’s Air New Zealand.
Of all the airline brands out there, they are a pioneer. An innovator. A leader.
They’ve created, influenced and changed the airline industry in ways few have come close.
From being the first to make ‘in-flight safety videos’, entertainment to creating economy seats that turn into beds.
Ripping off Wordle doesn’t represent any of this.
If anything, it does the opposite.
But then, when I see the work they are putting out these days, maybe it all makes sense.
When a nation that prides itself as explorers and adventures has their National Airline promote their role in a post-covid world as being ‘we fly for you’ … you have to question if they realise what they’ve done or if they made a conscious effort to ditch the approach that made them great and forward thinking in favour of the sort of bland, contrived, unrealistic and meaningless twaddle of big corporation 90’s advertising.
God I hope not. They are better than that and NZ needs them to be better than that.
Which leads to the other reason.
Hijacking culture.
What’s interesting is that so many brands do it.
As I said, I get why … but 99% of them have failed to understand how it really works and so we now live in a world where the approach is so common, it doesn’t surprise anyone.
If anything, it un-hijacks culture.
So how does it really work?
Well having worked with the brand and agency that arguably created the approach – or at least mastered it – the secret is to do something that adds to culture, not just steals from it.
Which means having an actual right to be there.
Then do something that opens things up, not just repeat what’s already happened.
Adding a point of view to the situation not just adding more noise and clutter to it.
Of course, even with all that, it still doesn’t mean it will work … but its definitely going to be better than the desperate amateur hour that so many brands favour.
Who think it makes them look cool but forgetting if you’re trying to be that, you’re definitely not ever going to be that.
The commercial exploitation of the environment crisis by brands makes me ill.
For all their claims of doing things to ‘save the planet’, the reality is:
1. It’s not. 2. It’s focused more on how they can make money from it.
Putting aside the fact many of these conglomerates have actually added to the environmental crisis rather than taken it away, many are now trying to burden the general public with the blame and the responsibility to sort it all out.
Now of course the general public have to shoulder a huge amount of responsibility, but seeing companies try to look innocent when they have resisted – and continue to resist – major change is revolting.
From a personal point of view, one of the companies who I feel have been one of the worst for exploiting situations for profit is Unilever.
While there are some amazing people who work there … while the company talks a great game about being a ‘purpose’ driven company … you don’t have to look too far to see the organisation have profited from promoting racism, sexism and exploitation.
A few weeks ago, I got sent this:
As you can see, the bottom shelf holds a bunch of Persil Automatic washing powder.
Now Persil has long had a role in British society that has transcended the category. Their iconic ‘dirt is good’ campaign helped celebrate the benefits of kids getting dirty in life.
Of course it was self-serving, because the dirtier they get, the more washing powder you need, but it was deftly handled and had a point of view that resonated deeply.
However over the years, they’ve tried to evolve that message to have a more ‘purpose driven stance’ and things like the environment have become a focus. Which explains why they have written USE LESS in massive letters at the top of the box.
However – and hilariously – it seems no one realised, or cared, that at first glance it says USELESS … which is probably a far better description for how Persil are really dealing and committing to the climate crisis.
So to whoever did this – or didn’t realise this – I salute you.
Not just for your mischief/stupidity, but for proving there is still truth in advertising, even when they’re trying to say a lie.