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, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Authenticity, Bands, Brands, Business, Comment, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Imagination, Individuality, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Metallica, Music, Provocative, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Talent
Recently I watched a documentary on a band.
A household name. Not just in America, but around the World.
It was pretty good … but the most interesting part of it was the interview with the manager.
Specifically how he described what he was there to do:
He said: “My job is to do one or two things that change your life. Not ‘good moves’ but change your life”.
And while they turned out to be arguably more focused on their own fortune than the artists they represent, it cannot be denied they achieved exactly what they said for the band in question … helping turn them into the biggest band in the world for a period of time. An accolade they have managed to forge into a long-lasting career that sees them continue to be at the top end of their industry.
Now of course, there’s a lot of things that go into achieving success like that.
Songs.
Talent.
Drive.
Concerts.
Fans.
Distribution.
Copyright ownership.
But a good manager has a huge influence and role to play in all of this … which got me thinking.
What if clients saw their agency partners as people whose role was to do the same as this manager?
To help them fundamentally change the trajectory of where their business is rather than continually communicating – and reinforcing – where they are.
Dramatic change, not incremental.
OK, there’s some clients who actually do that – and a lot more who think they are, but are doing the opposite – but the reality is for all the talk of ambition and change, so much of it what is done is about keeping things exactly where they are.
Part of this is because of the influence of ‘industry guru’s’ who have positioned themselves as business liberators when really they’re more insurance salesmen [made even more hilarious by the fact the vast majority have never created any actual creative work or built a brand of note] … and part of it is because of a narrative that’s been going around that suggests agencies care more about taking clients cash through excessive timelines and pricing.
As I’ve written before, this attitude is more bullshit than fact … shaped by a procurement process that doesn’t value quality of work – just the price of it – and a corporate attitude where the expectation is complicity not challenge.
Of course that doesn’t ignore the fact some agencies have also played their part in creating this situation by devaluing creativity, devaluing training and agreeing to whatever gets them the revenue – regardless of the consequences – which just reinforces what a mess we’re in.
It’s why I loved that managers quote so much …
The goal being to create the conditions to be ‘the exception’ by being exceptional..
Not ‘a little bit better than before.
Not ‘a little bit better than those around them’.
But to fundamentally change the context and rules of the game.
Champions, not just players.
Of course, it’s easier said than done … but I’ve had the pleasure of seeing it in action up-close-and-personal through Metallica’s management, which is why I know it can be done and I know you can increase the odds of it being able to be done.
Because in their case, what they’ve helped achieve is remarkable.
Put aside the fact they have worked with the band for almost 4 decades. Put aside they’re the most successful music management duo in music history. And think about how they’ve enabled 4 old men – who write what can best be described as ‘mass niche’ music – not just continue to live at the forefront of popular culture, but do it in a way where their creativity is deeply respected by all.
Hell, they’ve become the second most successful American group of all time.
OF. ALL. TIME.
But it’s even more than that … because they’ve also helped the band find new ways to push, explore and expand what they do with their creativity and how they can do it.
Incredible.
Of course, none of this would be possible without the band having the hunger and desire to keep pushing, but their relationship – and trust – of their managers is a key part of what enables it to be possible.
Which is why there’s a couple of things Peter Mensch – one half of their management team – said to me that has had as much impact as the quote that inspired this whole post.
1. “Our job is not to market the band, but to protect their truth”.
2. “We’re not paid to kiss their ass, we’re paid to tell them the truth”.
And maybe that’s a couple of the reasons why Metallica have been able to build a business and a brand [even though they would hate those terms] which is wildly more successful –culturally and commercially – than many brands who spend tens of millions trying to be.
Not just because music connects to people in ways brands rarely can, but because many brands don’t actually know who they are and don’t want to listen to anything that asks questions of them, they don’t want to acknowledge or accept.
So it’s little surprise an agency can change a brands life when brands so often choose to delude themselves with where they currently are … where their version of a relationship is based on how much you cost and how easy you are to deal with, than the quality of the advice and results you help them gain.
For all the systems and processes our industry has latched onto in a bid to prove our credibility and method behind our approaches … how many brands can we say have fundamentally ‘changed their life’.
One?
Ten?
One Hundred?
Certainly not as many as you would expect from the US$87 billion dollars spent on market research in 2023 delivered.
Which is why I leave this post with another music reference … another perspective that had a profound affect on me.
This time it’s from the band – albeit they were more artists than musicians – The KLF, who not only captured what I believe defines a great manager, a great agency and a great brand … but what also creates the chance for someone, anyone, to properly change their life.
“Don’t give them what they want, give them what they’ll never forget”
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mediocrity, Metallica, Nike, Paula, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Sport, Strategy
It is pretty obvious I have a major issue with a lot of the ‘best practice’ processes and practices certain members of my industry love to bang on about.
Not just because ‘best practice, is past practice’, but because these individuals position their approach as the legitimisation of the discipline they claim or suggest they are an expert in. Implying that anyone who does not strictly adhere to their process is an imposter and a danger to whatever organisation they’re working with.
It’s the sort of deluded arrogance that people who describe themselves as an ‘evidence based’ strategist embodies … attempting to infer everyone else is simply making things up and don’t give a fuck what happens afterwards.
It’s everywhere. Twitter. Linkedin. Conferences.
You name it and someone is bragging and banging on about it.
But what makes this hilarious is that many of these self-appointed experts have never made any work of any repute whatsoever. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Which means their entire viewpoint is either based on their own post-rationalised evaluation of another persons work or their narrow, naive and/or skewed viewpoint of what constitutes as ‘good’.
Don’t get me wrong, process matters.
In no way am I advocating you just chuck it all out.
However the difference is my processes does not require me to outsource my brain, imagination, curiosity, gut or ambition to fit into a format whose goal is to deliver a standardised, consistent response rather than enable the opportunity for greater possibility.
And that’s the big problem for me …
Because so many of these ‘models’ seem to care more about the process than what the process is meant to help enable. Actually, even that is wrong … because more and more of these models don’t even care about ‘enabling’ anything … they instruct you to simply follow the format and then do whatever the fuck comes out the other end.
No questioning.
No challenging.
No pushing.
Just blind adherence.
Martin and I talked about the folly of this approach in 2019 with our Case For Chaos talk at Cannes for WARC and then – in 2023 – Paula joined us on the same stage for our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative presentation.
But still this approach and attitude goes on … and while I don’t deny it can be effective, it rarely has the impact or influence as work that comes from a process shaped and flavoured by ideas, imagination or ambition.
But then I wonder if that is the goal anyway … because frankly, the obsession with efficiency means more and more companies don’t want to move towards where they could be and just want to optimize where they’re currently at. Adopting an attitude of ‘when we fall behind, we’ll simply catch up’.
Though they will never admit that publicly – oh no – what they is they’re investing in ‘business transformation’.
Hahahahahahahaha.
A while back I met one of these ‘dot-to-dot’ advocates at a conference I was attending.
Early in the discussion, they said their company had pioneered a process that “guaranteed success”. And then proceeded to talk about their system that ‘removed the risk of contaminated thinking’.
They literally said that.
I looked around the room waiting for someone to say something. Anything. But no one did.
Worse, they seemed to be nodding their heads in agreement. Or awe.
So I stuck my hand up.
Eventually I was seen and asked if I had a question, to which I replied:
“I was just wondering if you know what the words ‘guaranteed’ and ‘success’ mean?”
Yes, I know that was a total asshole move.
It alienated me immediately.
And while I regret how I asked my question, I don’t regret asking my question because that sort of declaration is insane. Not just because it’s not true, but because their ‘examples of proof’ are rarely more than a brand doing a bit better than it has before.
Now I appreciate that’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s hardly Metallica is it?
A band that plays a niche genre of music, has pensioners as members and yet is the 2nd best selling American group in music history. MUSIC HISTORY!
And I can tell you, that didn’t happen blindly adopting the latest best practice process.
Where are their examples of that sort of impact?
Oh I know … in the hands of the fuckers who do shit, not spout it.
Look, I am not dismissing process.
Nor am I devaluing rigour.
But I am redefining what they mean in comparison to how more and more people seem to be interpreting it.
As we said at Cannes, strategy is the first creative act.
A chance to leap not step.
An opportunity to leave the category behind rather than reinforce the category.
But you don’t achieve that by simply ‘filling in the blanks’ with your functional and rational data.
No … if you really want to have a shot at changing where you can go and where you can be, you have to heed the advice of Rob Strasser – the iconic Nike exec – who said this:
“A shoe is just a shoe until someone steps in it”.
By that, I mean don’t just follow a framework, put your whole self into it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Film, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Point Of View, Provocative, Queen, Reputation, Success, Succession, Television
This is a long post.
Proper long.
And given I overwrite everything, that is probably a scary thought.
But I hope you hang in there, because it’s something important – at least to me. And who knows, it may trigger some thoughts – or hate – and I’ll consider that a win. Maybe, ahem.
So I don’t know about you, but I miss the TV show, Succession.
I miss the characters … the writing … the inconvenient truth how companies – and some families – work.
And while there are many articles and reports dedicated to explaining what ‘worked’, I recently read something that captured how it worked.
I love that write up.
I love it for a whole host of reasons … of which one is acknowledging that to make something that can capture so many people’s attention for so long, is an act of creative magnificence.
And while we may all nod our heads in agreement, the thing is we forget that.
We forget the challenge of keeping millions engaged and interested over a period of time.
Or maybe more specifically, we have forgotten HOW to do it.
Let’s be honest, the attitude of many brands is ‘keep things the same’ or ‘don’t fuck it up’ … while not realizing the biggest risk to achieving what they want to achieve is literally doing the same thing, in the same way, over-and-over again.
Of course, a big reason for their attitude is their quest for attribution.
Where the brand is synonymous and attributed to what they do/say/communicate.
However, rather than achieve this by doing interesting things that audiences value and can engage in – which is literally, the fastest, most effective way to build active, interested, engaged and committed attribution – we see more of the lazy approach. An approach sold by people with methodologies that mistake repetition as reputation.
Hence, we see countless campaigns featuring ‘consistent fictional characters’ doing variations of the same thing no one really cares about or relates to as if they’re trying to do a homage to the ‘Gold Blend’ coffee ads from the UK. WHICH CAME OUT IN THE 1980’S!!! Or the modern equivalent, where every element of every piece of communication is plastered with cues of whatever colour a brand is associated with. All the while ignoring the fact what it actually does is pull people out of their engagement with the communication because they’re questioning/wondering/laughing what sort of person drives a red car, lives in a red house – with red wallpaper – and only eat red vegetables. But even that isn’t the lowest of the low. No … that belongs to the work that shoves a watermark of the brand logo/name into the top left-or-right-hand-side of all their work … as if acknowledging their communication is so boring that the only way to know who it is from is to literally shove it in front of their faces.
I’m not saying ‘brand assets’ aren’t a thing … but they only become that with creativity.
Over time.
Continually reinforced … expressed … added to.
Without that, you end up with things that are more like weights than rockets.
And that’s the problem I have with so a bunch of the marketing practice being peddled …
Because they fail to appreciate the difference between recognition and value.
Or meaning.
Or resonance.
Or connection.
As I said to a client recently, just because I know what the swastika is, doesn’t mean I want to be a Nazi.
But that’s where we’re at right now … repeat, repeat, repeat.
Which is why that comment on Succession is so important.
Because they understand the importance of constantly adding to the narrative, not repeating it.
Keeping viewers not just interested … but on their toes.
Which leads to them engaging with the show, even when they’re not watching it.
Talking, discussing, sharing, commenting, deducing, arguing.
A program where none of the characters had many redeeming features, kept millions around the world coming back to them.
To learn. To listen. To grow. To hate. To debate.
Is that hard to do?
Of course.
Is it impossible to do?
Nope … especially when you hire proper talent and let them do what they’re great at, rather than value talent on how little they cost and then tell them what to make. Even though you don’t have experience in knowing how to make things people want to engage with.
But as a friend said to me recently, there were no conversations about ‘attribution’ with Succession were there!?
Nope. Not one. Not even from the first episode.
And maybe that was because they didn’t start the show with the intent of creating the lowest common denominator of recognition … then repeating it over and over and over again. No … their intention was to make something interesting … and then keep adding to that so their audiences would keep giving a fuck.
Look, I have no problem with marketing practice.
It is important and has a real role and value in building brands and driving effective marketing.
But that role and value is only released when it is done well and honestly … and right now, it feels there’s a lot of soundbites and not a lot of depth.
Selling systems that promise simplicity but ultimately are outsourcing responsibility.
Outsourcing responsibility to people who can profit from it, despite having no experience in actually creating it.
The irony is we all want the same thing.
Hell, we all need the same thing.
But there’s a major difference between playing not to lose and playing to win so maybe there needs to be more conversations about that, rather than blindly follow people who present themselves as business liberators when really, they’re good insurance salespeople.
Of course, the reality is that, despite what some may say, there’s not one ‘all encompassing’ answer to all this.
I get how expensive everything is so the temptation to stick and stay with what you know and what is working for you, is high. But regardless who you are, it will not last forever and it’s far better to own the change than be left behind by it.
Just ask the Disney execs how they’re feeling as they watch their Marvel universe start to implode.
Building anything is a journey that goes through highs and lows along the way.
But it’s the people who think – or say – they can stop that, who end up creating branded mediocrity.
Or should I way, ‘mediocrity attribution’.
Which is why there is one final example of the commercial value of adding to a story rather than repeating it and that’s Queen.
Specifically their recent sale of their back catalogue for ONE BILLION POUNDS.
Whether you like the band or not, you can’t say that is not an impressive number.
And while even I – a massive Queen fan – accept that in 1986, they stopped being musicians and became entertainers [aka: ‘turned crap’] … it’s the music they made until that point that gave them their legacy, fans and economic value.
Because rather than basically repeat their first hit over and over again … they kept taking people to different and interesting places.