Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Context, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Design, Distinction, Diversity, ECommerce, Entertainment, Fake Attitude, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Racism, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance, Social Media, Unexpected Relevance
I’ve written a lot about the ‘hijack’ strategy.
Where a brand pushes itself into a cultural event or topic to either attempt to change the narrative or leverage the narrative.
Some brands do it brilliantly … Nike or Chrysler for example.
However some are a bloody car crash.
At its heart, the difference is simply whether your hijack ‘adds to culture’ or just ‘takes from it’ … however given this approach is now so common among brands, I have to ask whether it can even be considered ‘hijacking’ anymore when most of society expect someone to do it.
That said, it is still a powerful strategy when done right … the problem is, most brands aren’t doing that.
Case in point … social media GAP during the US election.
What the hell?
I know why they did it.
I know what they hoped would happen from it.
But all I can think about is when your own brand of clothes don’t know who they are for, you’re pretty fucked.
And that kind-of sums up GAP’s problem.
Who are they for?
It’s no surprise they are facing incredible pressure in the market these days, to the point there’s talk of them pulling out the UK altogether.
They’re not distinctive enough for people to want to pay a premium for. They’re not cheap enough for people to use them as a foundation for whatever fashion they want to express that day.
In fact, the only thing they have going for them is a collab with Kanye.
It could be amazing.
Reimagining the future of what e-commerce is and how it works.
Combining it with art, not just functionality.
Though whether it will end up making GAP’s clothing range look even older and blander is anyone’s guess.
If they want to learn how to really hijack a moment, they should look at the Four Seasons Landscaping company in Philadelphia.
This is the place where President Trump’s team recently held a press conference, mistakingly booking it thinking it was the Four Seasons hotel.
With all this global attention, they’re leveraging it by selling merch that mimics Trump’s messages.
This is real cultural hijacking.
This is done by adding to the experience rather than just taking it.
Making a landscape company a brand of culture. Albeit for a short period of time.
But let me say this, it’s still more fashionable than the stuff GAP are making right now.
You can buy it here.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Apathy, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Fake Attitude, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Presenting, Professionalism, Relevance, Resonance, Standards
One of the things I’ve found fascinating over the years is how many companies think all they need to do to keep employees happy is cash and perks.
Don’t get me wrong, cash and perks are very nice – and for some people, that’s all they need – however for a certain type of employee, there is another attribute that has equal, if not even greater, appeal.
Pride.
Pride in what they do.
Pride in how they do it.
Pride in who they do it for.
Pride in who they work with.
Pride in the actions of the past.
Pride in the ambitions for the future.
Pride in the standards the company lives by.
Pride in the companies standing in their field.
Now I get the C-Suite may like to think their employees are proud working for them – probably reinforced by countless questionable ‘monkey surveys’ sent by HR – however more often than not, they are confusing ‘having a job’ with ‘being proud of the job they have’.
Nothing highlights this more than when a company feels morale is down, because that’s the moment the spot-bonuses and/or impromptu office parties begin.
Does it work?
Sure. For a period of time.
However employees are no fools, they know the real reason for these ‘additional benefits’ is to keep them quiet rather than force the C-Suite to open up a set of issues they absolutely don’t want to have to deal with.
Why?
Because in the main, the issues are about them.
Specially the work they aspire for the company to make.
Look I get it … no one likes to face their potential failings, so if they can avoid it with spending a bit of cash, why wouldn’t they?
Well I’ll tell you why, because money can’t buy pride.
I say this because I recently saw a video of Steve Jobs talking about standards.
He’s made similar speeches over the years – with his ‘paint behind the fence’ being one of my favourites.
However I love this one because there’s a bit of bite in it.
A clear perspective on what standards he holds Apple too, rather than what the competition hold themselves too.
Sure, to some it could come across as arrogant, but I imagine to the people at Apple at that time, it induced the same feelings I have when I work for a company whose standards and ambitions were at least the same as mine or – hopefully – even higher.
Pride.
Confident.
Togetherness.
A sense of ‘us against them’.
That feeling you’re part of a place playing a totally different game to the competition. A special place. A place that does things right, even if people don’t quite get it yet. A place that attracts the best to do their best … but not in a way where you then feel ‘you’ve made it’ for being there. Instead, it’s a feeling of responsibility to keep the standards of name moving forwards. An intoxicating mix of expectation, judgement and encouragement all at the same time.
You can’t fake that.
You can’t buy it either.
So when the C-suite hand out promotions, payrises and parties in a bid to boost morale because the claims of doing great work are not convincing anyone … my advice is to save their cash.
Not just because the employees know exactly what they’re doing.
Nor because whatever they end up receiving, it still won’t buy their pride.
But because they could save a ton of cash by simply committing to doing things to the highest standards rather than the lowest … because at the end of the day, these people don’t need certainty, they just want possible and if they have that, morale will fix itself all by itself.
Filed under: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Brand, Brand Suicide, Chocolate, Comment, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Differentiation, Honesty, Luxury, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Premium
We have had some amazing ads for confectionary over the years.
Rolo.
Then, of course, the pinnacle … Cadbury Gorilla.
However one of the things I still haven’t quite understood is how we have also had some of the absolute worst.
I mean, for years, it was Ferrero Roche’s Ambassadors Table that was top of the shitness charts. An ad so bad, that it became great for its utter kitschiness.
And while no one ever really believed they were the chocolate favoured by diplomats, royalty and Ambassadors … it was a strategy that worked for many – from After Eights to Viennetta.
However there’s another ad that I’ve just seen that puts Ferrero firmly in second place.
They’re not saying they’re sophisticated.
They’re not claiming to be for special occasions.
They’re saying they are ‘so much fun’.
SO. MUCH. FUN.
Now don’t get me wrong, they’re a nice tasting bite, but fun?
They’ve never played video games with me.
They’ve never watched movies with me.
They’ve never even suggested you can use them as chess pieces.
What the hell is fun about it?
To answer this, let’s have a look at the ad they’re running shall we.
Did you watch it?
Did you survive watching it?
If it’s any consolation, that is still better than the one they ran last Christmas.
So, based on that monstrosity, they think they’re ‘so much fun’ because when you open up a pack, everyone comes out because they want to shove one of the caramel, chocolatey-hazelnut, nougat things right down their throat.
Which highlights 4 issues I have with this premise.
1. The client and the agency have no idea what fun actually is.
2. Even if it was ‘so much fun’, wouldn’t all confectionary be able to say that?
3. Where I come from, sharing something you like is cause for a fight, not fun.
So to dear old Toffifee … may I humbly suggest you sort yourself out.
Your ads are pants.
Your ingredients aren’t that unique.
The spelling of your name is absolutely horrific.
And most of all, your product is fair, but not fun.
Sort that out, and you can make Ferrero ads the most stupid again.
You’re welcome.
Filed under: Advertising, America, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Corona Virus, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Culture, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Pepsi, Walmart
Covid.
A virus that has – at time of writing – affected 7 million people worldwide and killed 220,000 in the US and 43,000 in the UK.
Given brands pathological fear of being associated with anything negative, this blows my mind.
Now, I must admit I don’t know if this is real.
It looks it, but who knows.
However, assuming it is, there are so many questions that need to be asked.
First is ‘what the hell are they thinking’?
Seriously, what’s going on?
Did Walmart offer the tie-in with Pepsi?
Did Pepsi ask Walmart to sponsor the signs?
Is the COVID-19 testing centre anything to do with either of them?
Could anyone please explain the rationale for doing this?
Now … I’ve been in this industry long enough to know that if it is indeed true, some of the justifications will likely read as follows:
1. We’re providing hope and happiness to people at a worrying time in their life.
2. We’re removing the stigma of COVID by embracing it with positivity.
3. We’re about American families and nothing is more American than Walmart and Pepsi.
[Please note, I haven’t even considered that Pepsi or Walmart deny the existence of COVID]
And while I accept this tie-in may say more about the people who enjoy those brands than the brands themselves, it still seems shockingly bad taste to try and make it sound like a family event when over 200,000 people have died from it.
But then, as we have seen from the past, Pepsi’s have a lack of judgement in terms of what is good for their brand.
No doubt we can expect a Pepsi/Walmart tie in at cemeteries in the near future … justified by targeting ‘a captive audience’.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Comment, Consultants, Content, Context, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Membership, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Virgin Atlantic
When Phil Spector died, I went down a rabbit hole of his life.
On that journey, I spent some time looking into the life of Lana Clarkson, the woman he murdered.
Which led me to this …
Find the perfect Lana Clarkson death photos!!!???
Seriously, what the fuck?!
I know they don’t mean to be so disrespectful.
I know it’s a standard Getty Image response to any image search – except I was looking for Lana Clarkson, not Lana Clarkson death photos – but this is what happens when you automate a process to maximise your profit potential.
And while I get Lana’s photos were topical given the death of Spector so many media outlets may be looking for them … it doesn’t make them look good. And god knows how it would make Lana’s family feel, if they saw it.
For all the talk about brand experience, it’s amazing how much bullshit is said.
Do I think experience is important? Absolutely.
Do I think experience is done well? Not that often.
For me, there is one overarching problem.
Brands would rather be OK at a lot of things than stellar at a couple.
Before people have a meltdown, let me just say this.
I am not questioning the value of experience.
Believe it or not, it is not a new concept … it has been practiced by great brands and strategists for decades.
However experience loses its impact when the goal is to be OK at everything rather than amazing at some things.
Oh I know what people are going to say …
“But every interaction should be an experience of the values of the brand”.
Yeah … maybe.
It’s great in theory but doesn’t seem to be realistic in practice.
I mean, how many brands really have achieved that?
Let me rephrase that.
How many brands that have a clear, desirable position in culture have really achieved that?
I would say it is a handful at most.
Now compare that to the brands who have focused on doing some things in a way that is exceptional and memorable?
I’ve written about the Virgin Atlantic Lounge before.
Imagine if Branson had said, “Create an experience that is commensurate with the values of the brand for the business class customer” versus, “Create a lounge people will want to miss their plane to stay in”.
Do you think they would have got to the same place?
Do you think the former would have helped drive the brands economic and repetitional success as well as the latter?
Don’t get me wrong, Virgin Atlantic have a lot to do to improve their experience.
Their booking and loyalty schemes are a fucking mess for a start. But while I appreciate I am biased, I would gladly sacrifice that for the lounge experience that makes me look forward to every trip.
An experience that is distinctively memorable, not just corporately comfortable.
The reality is there are more highly profitable, highly desirable brands who offer an inconsistent brand experience than those who offer a consistent one.
More than that, brands that offer a consistent brand experience across all touch points do not automatically become a brand people want to have in their lives.
Part of this is because their version of consistent tends to be using their name or colours or slogan everywhere.
Part of this is their version of ‘brand experience’ is the absolute opposite of what the word experience is supposed to mean.
[Seriously, can you imagine the sort of parties they would have?]
And part of this is because they want to talk to everyone which means their experience appeals to no one.
Because while it might not be fashionable, great brands are built on an idea.
Something they believe, stand for, fight for.
This is very different to ‘purpose’.
Purpose – at best – is why you do something.
Belief is how you do it.
The sacrifices you make. The choices you make. The people you focus on.
Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t mean great brands shouldn’t want to ‘fill the gaps’ that reside in their experience eco-system, but it does mean it should only be done if each element can be done brilliantly and distinctively.
Anyone who has read the book ‘Why I Hate Flying’ will know the vast majority of brand values are basically the same – which means the vast majority of brand experience strategy ends up being predominantly the same.
However the brands who command the most consistently vibrant cultural interest and intrigue are the one’s who have a point of view on what they do and what they believe. They have a real understanding of who they’re talking to rather than a generalised view of them. They have values that step out of the convenient blandification that so many companies love to hide behind – where the goal is to look like you care without actually doing something that shows you care. And they absolutely know it’s better to do some things that will mean everything to someone rather than lots of things that mean little to everyone.
The obsession with 360 brand experience is as flawed as the 360 media approach from a while back.
Frankly conveying the same message everywhere felt more like brainwashing than engaging.
Experience is a very important part of the strategic and creative process.
Always has and always will be.
It can make a major difference to how people feel about a brand and interact with a brand.
But like anything strategic, sacrifice is a vital part of the process.
While in theory it is nice to think every interaction will be something special and valuable, the reality is that is almost an impossible goal.
Different audiences.
Different cultures.
Different needs.
Different times.
Different budgets.
Different technologies.
Different interactions.
So anyone who thinks experience should be executed ‘down to a level that allows for mass consistency’ rather than ‘up to a standard that allows key moments to be exceptional’ are creating another layer to get in the way of making their audience give a shit.
Or said another way, you’re adding to apathy rather than taking it away.
OK, I accept that for some categories unspectacular consistency can be valuable – hospitals for example – but the reality is in the main, audiences care less about consistent brand experience than brands and their agencies do.
That doesn’t mean you can’t make them care by doing something great – like Tesla did with their ‘dog and insane’ modes for example – but you need to understand you’re playing as much to your audience standards, as yours.
Now I appreciate I’ve gone off on one, given this post was originally about a search engine response to a murdered woman’s photograph rather than brand experience … but while they’re very different in many ways, there is one thing that is the same.
They’re all focused on satisfying an audience need … and while standardised processes can help ensure we are ‘dumbing up’ with our approaches to the challenge, when that manifests into a standardised experience, then you are dumbing down the value of who you are and who you can be.
For the record Getty, this is what Lana Clarkson looked like.
There’s no ‘perfect’ photos of her death.
But there’s plenty to signify the person she was.