Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Business, Collaboration, Confidence, Content, Context, Contribution, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Music, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Stubborness
As many of you know, over the past 8 years, I’ve found myself working with a number of artists/musicians/bands on a whole bunch of projects.
The Black Keys.
Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Journey.
Metallica.
Muse.
Massive Attack.
Some have been one-offs assignments … some have been more long-term collaborations … some have been direct with the artists … some have been via their managers/record labels/third parties … but overall, bar the RHCP/Kiedis ‘experiment’, they’ve all been creatively challenging, fascinating, and fulfilling.
Now to be honest, there are many things I love about working with artists, however a couple of the things I love most are the questions they ask and the attitude they have towards what they want to do.
Their questions are never with an underlying agenda. Of course, I don’t doubt they’re capable of doing that … but I’ve never personally experienced it. Yet. Hahaha.
Personally, all I’ve ever heard are questions expressed with a genuine sense of curiosity behind them … a real desire and willingness to explore something that’s in their head and on their mind.
But more than that, there’s an openness to hearing what you think in response.
A willingness to discuss, debate and talk it out.
I think I’ve written about the first time I did a project for one artist who, frankly, hated what I’d done. Actually, hate is probably not a big enough word for how much they loathed it.
Not because it was wrong, but it was wrong for them in terms of their specific values, beliefs and approach to what they did.
Anyway, at the end of the meeting – thinking they were going to tell me this wasn’t working and we were going to ‘part ways’ – I asked, “so what should we do next?”
You can imagine my surprise when they responded with: “Well, now you’ve heard why we don’t like it, we assume you’ll take that into account with whatever you suggest we should do in your updated reccomendation .”
I was stunned. Not just by how they answered, but the impact their response had on me.
Because while they had made it very clear they didn’t like what I’d done, they made sure I understood their comment was purely in relation to the specific task I’d done rather than a judgement on my overall ability or approach. In fact they went further than that … through their choice of words, they actively showed their belief and support in who I am, what I do and what I could do for them that they may otherwise not be able to see or pull off.
Now let’s face it, it could have been so different.
We’re talking rockstars here, so its not hard to imagine that they could …
Dictate what I had to do.
Demand how I had to do it.
Dismiss my involvement and opinion.
… after all, we see clients try and pull that shit every single day. But instead, they let me walk away from a pretty bad meeting feeling confident, encouraged, inspired and ambitious.
For someone who has been doing this job for a very long time, I can tell you that meeting was up there with the very best experiences I’ve ever had with the very best clients I’ve ever worked with.
A sense of shared transparency, responsibility, ambition, expectation, standards and support.
And it’s a sense that has continued to this day, even though there’s been some more awful meetings in-between, haha.
But that’s not the point of this post …
You see I’ve recently started working with another artist.
An incredibly successful solo musician. A singers, singer – so to speak.
Anyway, I was involved in a meeting with them recently where they were discussing an opportunity, they’d been presented … and watching their thought-process as they decided whether they wanted to do it was amazing.
Halfway through the conversation, they said: “I don’t care if the audience are bored, I want to make sure I’m doing something that doesn’t bore me”.
Now I get that on face value, that can sound incredibly arrogant … but that isn’t the tone they said it in, nor was it what they meant.
What they were saying was they needed to find a way to make what they were being asked to do, interesting for themselves, because otherwise they could not work out why anyone would find what they did interesting.
In many ways, they could just turn up and people would be thrilled, but that’s not their approach, attitude or standard.
Of course, part of this explains why they are where they are … but it was a beautiful thing to witness.
Where so many brands seem to have an attitude of ‘minimum viable satisfaction’ [MVS], here was someone who felt praise was only worthy if they knew they’d done something they felt had been truly valuable to them too.
Not for ego.
Not for arrogance.
But for growth, fulfilment and expression.
Imagine if companies adopted that same attitude in what they did.
Some absolutely do. Most, sadly don’t.
Seeing effort as an obstacle rather than a door to incredible rewards.
Not just financial, but personal.
And while money makes the world go round, the key thing I’ve learned from the artists I’ve worked with is if you play repeat, you satisfy everyone but yourself.
Then you don’t even satisfy them either.
And that’s why for all the processes, systems, models and marketing practices being peddled and pushed, the foundation for a fulfilled future is being open to challenging yourself, rather than always playing to where you’re comfortable.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Packaging, Perspective, Positioning, Pride, Purpose, Reputation, Respect, Steve Jobs, Technology, Values
I’ve written a lot about the bullshit of brand purpose.
Or should I say the hijacking of purpose by marketing departments and agencies.
Far too often, we see companies where their ‘purpose’ has no day-to-day impact on the operations or decisions they make beyond pushing their marketing messages and promotions. For these orgs, purpose is positioned simply as ‘something we hope might change’ rather than actively doing stuff that actively pushes it.
As they say in the UK, “the truth of the pudding is in the eating”, and a lot of corporate brand purpose tastes like bullshit.
That doesn’t mean the concept of purpose is entirely wrong.
Oh no.
However the reality is true brand purpose is born rather than manufactured – especially by a marketing department – so for every Patagonia, there’s a Unilever … which is why I find the easiest way to see who is talking truth versus shite is simply by exploring how much inconvenience they’ll accept and embrace.
Recently I saw an interesting example of a brand who not just embraced inconvenience, but demanded it.
An example which I imagine caused all manner of friction and tension throughout the company.
And yet, when you think about who the company were and – more importantly – who they wanted to become, you see it as absolute commitment to their beliefs and ambitions.
Take a look at this …
Now I appreciate some would read that and only see the problems … the costs … the disruptions … the impact on productivity … the C-Suite ‘bullying’. But they’re probably the same people who think purpose is about ‘wrapping paper’ rather than beliefs and actions … which is why I kinda-love this.
I love how much they were pushing it and how they pushed it.
It was important to them.
Not for virtue signaling, not for corporate complicity – though I accept there’s a bit of that – but mainly because a company can’t talk about technology, creativity and the future while asking your very own colleagues to embrace the cheap, the convenient and the conformist.
Just to be clear, this is VERY different to companies who mandate processes.
That’s about control and adherence.
A desire to keep things as they are rather than what they could be.
And to me, that’s the difference between those who ‘talk’ purpose and those whose actions are a byproduct of it.
Every day in every way.
Because as the old trope goes, it’s only a principal if it costs you something and the reality is – like strategy – too many talk a good game but will flip the moment they think they could make/save a bit more cash.
Apple may have a lot of problems, but fundamentally, they mean what they say and show it in their actions – both in the spotlight, but also in the shadows … where very few people will ever see – as exemplified by Jobs famous ‘paint behind the fence‘ quote.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Collaboration, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Distinction, Effectiveness, Experience, Honesty, Individuality, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Mediocrity, Metallica, Money, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Strategy, Success
I recently interviewed a successful artist.
What made them especially interesting to me was less their fame and more the fact they’d left a very popular group to go out on their own.
Not because they were ‘guaranteed’ success, but because they didn’t like how their management and record company dictated what they had to do.
As they told me the thinking that went into their decision, they said something I loved:
“Working for yourself is like being an artist in a studio. You’re free to create … you’re open to possibilities. Where most people have a dream, those with the lust to go out on their own stand the most chance of making their dream happen. Even if I failed, I would have felt good I had failed on my own terms”.
How good is that?!
Of course, I appreciate that when you’re successful it’s dead easy to say you would be OK to have failed … but I believed them.
Part of that is because they walked away from a very successful group. Part of that is they did in the knowledge their contract stated they would no longer be eligible for royalties. Part of that is before they launched their own career, they took time off to reclaim who they were. But most of all, I adore how they equated working for yourself as an artist who is in their own studio.
Despite having – and still – working for myself, I’d never thought of it that way and in the big scheme of things, the work I do for myself is the most indulgent, wonderful shit I have ever done. Not just in terms of freelance work, but in my whole career … and a lot of that has been pretty wonderfully indulgent.
But even with that, I looked at working for yourself much more in the way Michael Keaton looks at working for yourself …
Put simply, you love that you have more freedom, but you’re also aware you are the business … so every decision is weighted with more consideration or deliberation.
It’s why the two things that have helped me embrace what excites me rather than do what makes sense is Harrison Ford’s know the value of your value and the conversation I had with Metallica’s managers before I started working with them.
Now I say all this, but the fact is I also work for Colenso – however the reasons I did that were less about financial security and more about appreciating what makes me happy:
1. I need to work with people and build teams. I’m good at it, it makes me happy and I love seeing people grow and the reality is, when you work on your own, you rarely get the chance to do that.
2. Colenso is a place I’ve always loved and so to have the chance to work at a place that truly believes in creativity when so many just want to monetize any-old-shit was both hugely appealing and exciting.
3. They were totally open to me working a different way, which – for all the talk – few companies would ever consider, let alone allow.
4. When you work on your own, your development is more influenced by the projects and clients you work with, whereas when you are part of a team, your development is pushed and prodded every day. And I like that.
5. It offered us a chance to leave COVID-stricken Britain, even though within months … it hit NZ, ironically via the parents of a planner in my team. The second country brought to its knees by someone I’d managed. Oops.
So while I completely appreciate the privileged position I was in – and am in – the point is there was a lot of consideration about working on my own and working at Colenso … not just in terms of what I can gain but working out what I don’t want to lose.
Of course, there are going to be sacrifices along the way … but if you don’t think it through, you may find you’re running away from something rather than running towards something.
For me, that differentiation is a really important one to identify.
Don’t get me wrong, I get that sometimes you just have to escape the situation you’re in, regardless of where you’re going to end up.
I’ve experienced that situation twice in my life and it was horrible. Horrific even. And so getting away was real, urgent and necessary.
But I’m not talking about people in those situations, I’m talking about the folk who simply didn’t want to work for someone else. Didn’t want to deal with the expectations, the politics, the time pressures and the bullshit.
I get it.
I appreciate the appeal.
I basically covered it in a conversation with WARC back in 2020.
But there’s a major difference between not wanting to do things and creating the conditions to ensure you never have to do them and I’m surprised how often people haven’t done that.
Especially planners.
For example:
Do you know enough people at a high enough level who could be clients?
Do you have the experience that can command the rate you want/need to make?
Do you have the reputation that can protect you from commodification?
Do you have the expertise that ensures you don’t just shitty jobs no one else wants to do?
Do you have the network to ensure your abilities grow rather than stay where they are?
Do you have the commitment to keep learning and developing when it’s all dependent on you?
And while they may sound big questions, they’re not. Not really.
In many ways, they’re the difference between full independence and short-term escape.
I should point out I don’t mean this to sound like criticism.
I also don’t want this to be an obstacle to someone going out on their own.
My intent actually is the opposite. I want more people to prosper on their own terms … and by prosper, I don’t just mean financially, but also professionally and emotionally.
This is not because I am some wannabe Saint, it’s because it’s the only way creativity and strategy can regain the influence, credibility and power over the whims, wants and egos of agencies and companies.
Of course not all agencies and companies are like this … but sadly it seems more are than not.
And the more they try to commoditize the value of the independent professional – and boy, do they want to do that – the more we all end up paying the price.
Because suddenly people have to take whatever they can get.
Have to do whatever someone wants them to do.
Has to accept what someone wants to pay them.
I don’t blame them. Fuck, if I was in their situation, I’d do whatever it took – or whatever I could get – to put food on the table.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, or at least the odds can be improved if we – as an industry – talk more about how to think like an independent rather than talk about the benefits of it.
You see, while I love the sentiment of the artist I interviewed and their definition of ‘working for yourself’, I also deeply value the attitude of Michael Keaton. And maybe you need to embrace both to ensure you can be as free as you choose and be able to stay that way for as long as you want.
Because while the benefits of independence are very easy to see … it takes a fuckload of hard work to achieve it.
But it’s worth it. Or at least worth giving it the right shot to achieve it.
Just ask Zoe Scaman, Graham Douglas, Ruby Pseudo, Jason Bagley, Joy At Large.
And a million others who have done it. Not always the easiest way, but have done it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Cars, Communication Strategy, Context, Creativity, Culture, England, Experience, Insight, Leadership, Legend, Luxury, Management, Marketing, Mercedes, Perspective, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Retail, Strategy, Success
I’m back.
Worse, I’m back and ready to make ‘amends’ for not writing any posts for 5 days … I’m going to be writing some extra-long ones. Even by my overlong standards. However the good news is – unlike my usual standards – they are pretty good. I think. At least some of them.
So years ago I worked with on a global project for Mercedes.
One of the people they said I should meet was a dealer principal of a local Mercedes dealership in Derbyshire, England.
To be honest, I was thrilled as many companies try to keep you away from ‘the coal face’ to ensure their carefully constructed ‘delusion of perfection’ can be maintained … but they were pretty insistent I met this person.
What made it even more intriguing is when I asked them why, they replied, “Oh you’ll see”.
So, a week or so later, I found myself on a train heading to Derby to meet this gentleman.
Now let’s be honest, car salesman have a certain reputation …
A lot of the stereotypes are most likely bullshit – or shaped by a few bad eggs rather than the whole industry – but I admit I went in slightly cautious as to who I’d meet.
But the person I sat down with was one of the sharpest marketers I’ve ever met.
I also loved that – despite owning multiple different Mercedes dealerships, something like 20 – he called himself a ‘car salesman’.
He was passionate about the brand and equally as passionate about selling them and didn’t want to hide that fact.
He also said his Mum had told him she was embarrassed he introduced himself that way to people … which had motivated him to be even more focused on making his business successful.
One of the best examples of his attitude was his story about how he chose where to build a new dealership.
He was going to open a dealership in a new city and wanted it to be where all the competitor car dealerships were located. His attitude was it was better to be where everyone goes than to try and convince people to go somewhere out-the-way, just for him.
Apparently, there were a few available locations he could have built, but he had his heart set on one place … next to the local BMW dealership.
They were something like number 110 and he was going to be 111. [I can’t remember the exact numbers, but you get the point]
Anyway, by his own admission, he overspent on buying the land – but for him, there were three major reasons he wanted to be there.
The first was that he knew BMW was his main competitor and so if he was located next to them, most people in the market for that level of car would end up visiting both dealerships.
The second was that he knew many people saw the BMW and Mercedes brand as interchangeable. By that I mean their ‘quality and status’ were pretty similar so often the choice of vehicle came down to service standards and/or price.
Which led to his 3rd reason …
Because he wanted customers to feel Mercedes was the more ‘prestigious’ car to own before they had even entered the dealership – to increase the odds/desire to own – and so by choosing that specific location, he could run ads that signed off with:
Visit your local Mercedes dealership. One up from BMW.
Yep, he spent all that extra money just so he could do that with his ads.
And you know what?
It worked, because it became the most successful Mercedes dealership in the UK.
Of course, these days no one would ever do that sort of thing – at least in terms of marketing – because you’d have some ‘guru’ state ‘when you use a competitors name in your advertising, you’re promoting your competitor’.
It’s the same myopic thinking that has led to certain clients having a negative reaction to anything they perceive as negative … even if it is [1] just in the brief and/or [2] being used to elevate the value of your brand.
Now you may think this post is going to take a dark turn, but it’s not …
Because I tell this story because I saw something wonderful on Twitter/X about Everton Football club.
A story that reminded me of that Mercedes car salesman and his commitment to always finding ways to paint a particular image in people’s minds.
And while I appreciate in this case, it is so subtle that many may miss it … once you know, you’ll not only node your approval for their genius but – if you’re an Everton Fan – you’ll feel pride that you got one over the ol’ enemy.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Context, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Embarrassing Moments, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Point Of View
I don’t struggle for things that fuck me off, but what is currently top of the charts on my personal ‘shit parade’ is people who talk in definitive and absolute terms.
Actually I need to be more specific. I mean the people who talk in definitive and absolute terms that blatantly attempt to elevate their position by putting others down via some pseudo-intellectual or utterly subjective horseshit.
It’s happening more and more, especially on – surprise, surprise – Linkedin.
And while I’m all about having a point-of-view, it only has value if you have an appreciation of what others think or do. So you have some real context to evaluate your viewpoint. And it would be even better if you also had some actual experience in the area – or on the issue – you’re being condescending about. Not ‘in theory’. Not ‘by association’. Not some ‘short-term, low-level’ employment experience from 20 years ago. Actual experience. So – you know – you can show you have an actual idea what the fuck you’re talking about, including what it takes to actually make these things happen and who is complicit when it doesn’t on an on-going basis.
Because nothing screams egotistical, blinkered, privileged, arrogant asshole – desperate-for-attention-or-notoriety – than saying “This is shit as is anyone who disagrees with me”.
Topped off by then ignoring, deleting or blocking anyone who dares challenge their view, even if they are well placed to have a perspective and are expressing it with respect and politeness.
It’s like they’re the bastard love child of Andrew Tate and a shock-jock talkback radio host. Immediately dismissing anything that doesn’t suit their narrative but throwing praise on anyone or anything that acknowledges it. Even better if it specifically acknowledges them. By name.
The thing is, these people have smarts. They’re not stupid. But their ego refuses to accept or acknowledge any other possible way of thinking or working. So when someone or something achieves a level of success that sustainably outstrips their approach, they either attack or try to claim some sort of ownership of the success. A bit like all those people who suddenly updated their Linkedin profiles to say they were NFT/Metaverse/AI experts.
It’s pretty incredible to be honest.
Which is why I find it kinda-ironic some of the worst offenders seem to be those who reside – or are associated with – academia. Not all of course, just the ones who seem to think that because they’re highly qualified in one area, they are qualified to speak about all areas.
Which is why, whenever I see these men [and it’s typically men] peacocking on social media, it reminds me of Lucille Ball’s brilliant quote. A quote I made into a sticker that I’ve given to members of my planning teams for decades.
A sticker permanently stuck on the front of my laptop …