Contrary to popular belief, I genuinely love the ad industry.
When it’s good, it is very, very good indeed.
However when it’s bad – and I have seen a lot of it recently at Cannes – it’s deceitful, shameful and a load of indulgent bollocks.
There has been a lot written about how Cannes may be ruining the ad industry but I would say the ad industry is doing a very good job of that themselves. Thank god there are a few agencies – of which I am very fortunate to be in one – that don’t subscribe to the scam strategy for success, though I wish the ones who did were named and shamed a bit more regularly because ultimately they are making our lives far more difficult than they should be.
Mind you, if a client chooses an agency on the awards they won through scam, then they deserve all they get.
But that’s not what I want to write about, I want to write about this:
Yes, it’s an old ad.
An old product ad.
An old product, print ad.
But look at it …
Look at the writing – not just the headline, which is British charm at it’s best – but the copy.
How they openly admit how expensive their product is [and don’t forget when this ad came out, 3 grand was probably a years wages for many] … but not because they want to claim it gives you ‘status’, but because it costs a lot to make – and own – some of the best sound products in the World.
It all combines to make an ad that communicates brilliant sound quality, production innovation and brand swagger without once spelling out – or should I say spoon feeding – sound quality, product innovation or brand swagger.
Better yet, they manage to do all that simply and succinctly and in a way that demands to be read, rather than ignored.
Yes, I know it’s from a past time, but when I compare it to many of the print ads – actually, scrap that, ads in general – that get put out today, I can’t help but feel we should be looking to the past for our standards rather than continue to run manically towards the edge of obsolescence. Or idiocy.
Though – to be honest – that statement could also apply to SONY as a company and marketing managers as a whole.
Filed under: The Beatles
… we had cables.
Or in The Beatles case, lots and lots of cables.
Let’s hope those little amps were real, or the audience would hear nothing at all.
Actually, they probably wouldn’t anyway.
Not just because of all the screaming, but because that amplification couldn’t outshout a wet fart in an empty pub, let alone a stadium of thousands upon thousands of fans.
Mind you, when you listen to an audio recording of the concert where that photo was allegedly taken [their last ever concert at Candlestick Park in San Fran] you start thinking that the ‘old days’ concerts, weren’t as gentle and innocent as the historians would like us to believe.
… The Daily Mail isn’t a newspaper, it’s the British version of The Onion.
Now everything makes sense. Including this.
After all, no ‘serious’ newspaper would ever run this as a major story when there’s so much going on in the World that needs genuine reporting.
I feel such a fool. Way to go Daily Mail.
Filed under: Advertising [Planning] School On The Web
First of all, a massive, massive apology for the delay in giving you all this feedback.
As I mentioned previously, the majority of judges were very prompt – some actually submitted their feedback before the deadline – but one of the judges was involved in a major business deal and couldn’t get to it until recently.
The fact he wanted to do it is testimony to both what he wants to do for the industry and how much he believes in people who are willing to ‘give it a go’.
Without doubt, this assignment was way, way more difficult than many initially thought.
Not just because of the challenge, but because of the limitation that was given to you in terms of number of words or video duration.
Before I get into the specific feedback, some general comments …
1. Many of you felt that a Marketing Directors key concern will be their ‘communications’. Marketing is so much more than that and to imply otherwise shows a bit of naivety
2. Some of you felt it was fine to almost slag off the predecessor. You might be trying to play to their ego, but you just end up looking like a 2-faced, petty, untrustworthy fuck.
3. Some of you have watched too much Mad Men and think some beautiful prose will convince someone to change their mind. Maybe [and it’s a big maybe] that is the case when you meet them in person. As a letter? Never.
4. A lot of you inadvertently positioned yourself as a supplier rather than a knowledgeable and valuable partner.
5. Hardly any of you talked about solving their business problems.
As I said, this is a very difficult brief but what struck me most was how ‘nice’ everyone was being.
I get you want the client to feel ‘important and valued’, but all I ended up feeling was you were relinquishing control of the relationship over to them – which means you are relinquishing the opportunity to either save the account or maintain it’s profitability.
Maybe I’m naïve, but I would have maybe approached it in a very different way.
If I believe the client is going to change the account for personal prejudice reasons rather than professional and the result of this will be hundreds – if not thousands – of people’s jobs being lost, millions of dollars of revenue disappearing and share holder value being diminished without any chance of being able to immediately get some business in to reverse this situation, I would have executed what I call ‘the bridge strategy’.
What the ‘bridge strategy’ is, is an approach where your goal is to extend the relationship for a further 12 months at the same terms, so that you can spend the time nurturing the replacement client.
Now you might ask how I would execute this.
Well, acknowledging this is all ‘in theory’ rather than ‘in practice’, I would have pointed out to the client that all WPP’s companies around the World use FedEx which means they are a top tier global client.
I would then say that if they move agencies, we would have no other course of action that to immediately stop working with them and work with their main competitor.
Of course, I would convey this in a professional, none-threatening way [even though it’s a blatant threat] but that fact is, while it’s a super harsh and super dangerous approach … I have nothing to lose.
It’s a strategy you can only do once – and it has to be for the reasons I listed above rather than just being a bad loser – this approach would, in theory, buy WPP a year to identify and win over a replacement client, while maintaining revenue and profitability, then I think this is exactly the time you would action it.
Not to mention the fact it immediately positions you as equals, not master and servant … which I felt some of the entries were doing.
But that’s me, let’s hear what the judges thought of what you did.
[Note: We are not posting the submissions as we forgot to ask permission to do this]
The thinking behind the backdated letter is interesting, but the actual execution of it is massively flawed.
Not only does it require an incredible amount of luck in the new CMO finding it, remembering it and relating to what you want them to do moving forward … the fact is you had a chance to use your main letter to address your ‘agents of change’ point of view rather than adopt this cheapish trick.
That said, the suggestion you knew what the old CMO would do given your close working relationship was a nice touch to make them stop and think … however the overall feeling from the judges was this was not enough of a pull to make the client fundamentally re-evaluate what he was probably going to do. Especially with the back-dated letter idea.
Interesting thinking. But not brilliantly executed.
So the main feedback from the judges was the correspondence was way, way, way too chatty and rambling.
While we appreciated the attempt to forge a relationship from the off … there were a number of things that just felt awkward.
The first was that this was supposed to be a letter written by Sir Martin Sorrell and while there is room for a lot of artistic licence, none of us can ever imagine him writing the sentence …
“I look forward to having a fellow bean across the counter.”
While the introduction of 2 new hires was interesting [especially as Jonathan was my old boss at Google] … you were still implying your marketing approach to helping your client was through ‘storytelling communication’, which smacks of a company who wants to help their client by helping themselves.
Also the brief explicitly stated the old CMO had gone to DHL, so where you go Uber from is anyones guess.
But the last thing – and possibly the most worst thing – is you tell the client “to call you if there’s anything you can do for him”, rather than showing a hunger and proactiveness to get things working and moving together immediately.
All in all the basis of your approach seemed a bit flawed.
Too nice … too passive … too focused on making content, not business.
So this is hard for me to write because I know Bryan personally and I know he’s super smart and doing things adland could only dream of.
Based on his submission, he should stick with that.
OK … before people call me a bastard, I’m only saying “based on this submission”, because I know this is not representative of who he is or how he thinks.
What’s my issue?
It sounded more like a boy trying to flatter his way into a girls pants than a letter that would open a productive and mutually advantageous conversation.
It read like a Hollywood speech … something delivered by a b-grade Al Pacino – with swirling violins in the background.
I know a lot of business people are flattery operated, and while it would make the new CMO feel ‘on-par’ with Sorrell, it also would make them feel they may have a stalker.
I’ve seen your best work mate and it’s fantastic. This isn’t one of them.
Without doubt the judges all liked that you were positioning WPP to help FedEx with their marketing needs, not just their communication and by talking about your unparalleled global network, you basically said you could make things more efficient than any other agency group – which is pretty compelling, especially for a CMO who was an accountant – but unfortunately after that, it all went a bit corporate talk. [Which to be fair, is probably quite WPP]
Now I know you’re not a planner and the fact you identified that to stand any chance of winning them over, you needed to talk about their needs not yours – that’s great – but while you could never write a letter that would explain all the details behind how you were going to help them more than before, you could have given them just enough of a quantifiable hint to gain his interest enough to win a meeting to pull them over the line from there.
Last thing, all the judges loved the line …
“Delivering growth to your business is our primary goal”.
That could have been the backbone of your letter, instead, it just ended up being a great line in the middle of an OK letter. That’s a shame because the best way to strengthen the relationship with the Marketing Director is to explain how you’re going to grow their business.
But you should take positives out of this and I hope you do.
You didn’t answer the brief.
Sure, you included a letter … but sending pages of background and context with it basically undermined the point of the challenge.
As a rule of thumb, if you need to explain why you did what you did, then you’re either suggesting the judges/recipient are too thick to understand or you know you’ve failed to convey what you need to in the letter.
Neither is good.
It’s a shame because there was some good thoughts in the set up [including the importance of meeting up as soon as possible because you know what the old CMO will do] but there were way too many things that would alienate rather than attract, from calling WPP a ‘comms agency’ to referring to the ex-client as ‘a devil’.
One of the judges said he felt ‘youthful arrogance’ in your submission.
The line between confidence and arrogance is very thin and the irony is the truly successful – including Sorrell – know how to stay on the right side of the line.
Some good thoughts, badly executed.
First of all, big congratulations on having the balls to do a video.
Sadly, at 6 minutes 52 seconds in length, it was too long by far.
Part of the reason is that you spend a lot of time talking about yourself.
We all understood why you were doing this but you forgot the fundamental rule of business … people buy what benefits them, not what others want them to think benefits them.
If you had focused your energies on what the CMO of FedEx would want to hear, your video would be more concise, your argument more focused and your submission more positively received. Saying that together you could produce ‘more convincing advertising’ didn’t really do it for anyone.
What makes it slightly more annoying is your ‘Bringing People What They Want’, is not a bad idea. But, like Karen, you should have led with this because it immediately sets out your agenda for driving their business forward [even though we all felt the expression of your idea would be more comms focused rather than marketing focused]
The overall comment from the judges was they liked your spirit but felt your material needed editing and focus.
Oh … and if you were really Sir Martin, then your stool would be much higher. [Sorry, just teasing but a judge really did say that, ha!]
Everyone felt this was nicely written and you used their ‘We Live To Deliver’ positioning in a nice – rather than cheesy – way.
The problem is there was a feeling the overall tone of your letter felt more like you were pleading to keep working with them rather than making an argument that would make someone see the value in your expertise.
Part of the reason for this was because you mention insights but never actually specify them and that’s a lost opportunity because not only could they help demonstrate your deep understanding of their business, but it could also to tempt them to want to know more.
Ending your letter with “We trust that you will continue to appreciate this relationship” … sounds more like a threat from the mafia than a genuine statement of partnership, so ensure you evaluate your letter from your audiences perspective, not just yours.
Similar to Bryan, it seems you have tried to write a scene from a movie rather than a letter to make a client give a shit.
We get you are trying to inspire the client by giving a history lesson on Apple … but FedEx is not Apple and if anything, it’s likely to sound patronising rather than inspiring.
But the key issues for us are that you are implying that advertising can solve everything.
Advertising is powerful and important, but a CMO wants a marketing partner not just an ad agency and the fact you don’t mention that WPP has so many specialised disciplines in their group seems a lost opportunity.
Last thing – and this could be an English thing – it feels like you’re promoting the power of average.
I’m sure that’s not what you mean, but you talk so much about it that the overall impression is ‘average wins’.
Our advice is that you should think about what the clients fundamental business problem or opportunity is and how you’re geared up to help them overcome or realise it.
Talking about other companies or yourself doesn’t inspire confidence and ultimately you leave the client feeling you don’t understand them even if you want to work with them.
So this felt like a correspondence of equals.
It felt like there was a level of appreciation of the role, opportunity and challenges that some of the other submissions didn’t have.
The judges also liked the acknowledgement of needing to hit the CMO’s professional and personal goals. A small – but nice – touch.
Finally, the overall tone of the letter felt just right.
It highlighted the history of successes, but more importantly, explained why this would be a powerful benefit for the future.
You really sensed the desire to keep moving things forward rather than running the risk of being seen as resting on your laurels.
Where the debate started was when you highlighted this was the clients first CMO’s role.
We get the reasoning behind mentioning it, but while it could show empathy, understanding and a desire to fill any gaps they may not have due to their previous roles, it also smacked of being both a bit corporate toady [implying ‘you will get marketing but not many marketers will ever be able to have the breadth of knowledge and experience you do’] as well as a bit condescending by [not that subtly] positioning the agencies marketing skills as being higher than the clients. That may be true and it may be a smart psychological move but in terms of first impressions, it’s probably not necessarily a good business one.
Especially in a letter.
Mind you, where ‘slagging off another agency’ was concerned, there was no debate.
This is a no-no for both professional reasons and for negotiation reasons – because the moment you drop another agencies name into the mix, you make a client wonder why you are so concerned about them.
Overall, while your letter didn’t really say anything you would do, it was sharp, brief and focused and would probably leave a more positive impression of WPP – and Sorrell – than they previously had.
So your submission caused quite a bit of debate between the judges.
Everyone felt it was well written and treated the client as an equal.
It also felt like you were ‘putting your cards on the table’ which immediately makes the recipient feel he is working with someone who wants to make things better. Together. Now.
That’s good stuff.
Where the debate started to come was when you started to talk about “you need us as much as we need you”.
While you can argue there is logic in that statement – especially with an old CMO who is now at a competitor fixated on taking market share – the reality is it is a blatant threat.
Now cards on the table, a lot of judges didn’t like this.
However, if you read how I would tackle the problem at the start of this post, you’d know I don’t necessarily share their view.
Personally, I like how you wrote this letter because you made a blatant threat sound much more palatable … though personally, you would never do it via a letter, always face-to-face.
But that aside, there is no doubt the CMO would know what you were actually saying, and you did it in a way that had – at least to me – the quiet menace of a person who knows he holds a lot more cards than the other person initially thought.
That said, I think you could have been discussed the [scary] implications of both companies parting ways. No new CMO wants to be associated with a huge client loss and the early day are when you make or break your reputation. Especially if you have never been a CMO before.
As I said, I liked this. Many judges didn’t.
There were some areas where the judges were united and that was – unfortunately for you – where you made some silly mistakes.
Saying “I want to see you respected the way I am” might help Mr Sorrell feel above the new CMO, but it’s also likely to make him fucking hate him.
And saying that it was ‘a blow to WPP’ that the previous marketing director left seems weird.
That said, the energy and pace of the letter was great and while the strategy might have caused division, it would certainly make any CMO stop and think.
Even if it cemented their desire to get rid of their agency at the earliest opportunity.
So as I said, this was a hard assignment.
It is also an assignment where there is no way to determine ‘a winner’ because everything is ultimately very subjective.
In all honesty, for simply having a go, you deserve to be congratulated.
I mean it.
Anything is easy for the person who doesn’t have to do it and the fact you put yourself out there is brilliant and I hope the feedback – though tough – is also something you feel is fair. And valuable.
In terms of judging a winner, we decided that we would ignore the ’tone’ of the letter [even though some were the antithesis of how WPP’s CEO would speak] and just focus on what is being said.
After evaluating all the entries the overall opinion is none of the communication would stop the inevitable ’sacking’.
Some would definitely get a meeting with the CMO but some may actually reaffirm why he would want to change agencies.
Now of course the reality is no letter – or single meeting – is likely to change someones attitude 180 degrees, but that’s not what this assignment was really about.
The point of this assignment was to test your decisiveness.
The tragedy of strategy is that it seems to have morphed into being about appeasing the masses rather than sacrificing the superfluous to enable you to directly address the people who matter with a message they care about … which is why in my opinion, a lot of strategy isn’t a strategy at all.
That’s why this assignment was developed.
It was designed to see who had the courage to be decisive as well as remind people they should always embrace it.
Some may say this approach is not liked by clients.
I’d say it’s simply not liked by bad clients.
What I’ve found is that when you are dealing with people at the very top, they want answers to their problems – not platitudes to their seniority – and while you always have to be respectful, truth and clarity go a long, long way.
It’s for these reasons that we have determined Rob is the winner [but based on his decisiveness rather than his approach] with honourable mentions to Thomas and Duncan.
Congratulations to all of you and if you could email me your home/work addresses, I will send you your prize – which is something called a book. Made of paper. That is similar to the stuff on your Kindle, just better.
Should any of you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to write to me and thank you again. You should all feel good about what you’ve done and I hope you understand the feedback is to make you better.
It’s worth remembering the people who have judged you [excluding me] are all highly regarded and experienced in their chosen fields so what you’ve just had is a lesson in dealing with some of the best. And that can only be a good thing, even when it’s via a dose of tough love.
Have a great weekend, you’ve earned it.
Filed under: Agency Culture, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Egovertising, Innovation, Marketing Fail, Only In Adland, Square, The Quest To Progress
… that would explain this.
Make sure you watch the video.
You HAVE TO watch the video.
Seriously, when someone senior in adland says …
“The industries future is solving problems rather than just driving awareness”
… it not only shows how out of touch and out-of-date they are with the things countless agencies, brands and individuals have been doing for years, but how much this industry needs progressive leaders – and clients – to get us all out of this mess.
It only gets worse when the example he gives to demonstrate this ‘new thinking’ is Volvo Paint … an idea that’s OK but ignores the countless others that have not only been developed in the past 10 or 20 years, but have genuinely infiltrated popular culture.
[Though, to be fair, that’s more by brands than agencies]
What next, a speech on how WAP will make every mobile a potential marketing platform?
For fucks sake. Seriously, for fuck, fucks sake.
NB. As I am writing this post quite in advance of when it comes out, there’s a chance you may not be able to access the clip because you have to be a paid subscriber. If that is the case:
1. I will try and find a link to what I’m talking about that gets around the ‘paid’ block.
2. All you really need to know is that Grey’s deputy worldwide chief creative officer – who I am sure is a lovely man – say’s ‘solve-vertising’ … the ability to solve problems not advertising awareness of them … is the future. Yes, solve-vertising.
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.
Utterly, utterly tragic.
I’m a big fan of media planning.
Not the sort of mouse-clicking, box-ticking rubbish that goes on way too often … but the sort of planning that truly demonstrates an understanding of cultural behaviour to help realise a clients commercial ambitions.
Now that sort of approach is nothing new, if anything, it has been the basis of how media planning was supposed to work from day one … which is why I never fail to be amazed when certain specialist agencies make it sound they’re being revolutionary when all they’re actually doing is adopting the fundamental approach of their discipline.
But what really bugs me is that despite all their big [read: small] talk … despite them having more data, tools and opportunities at their fingertips than ever before … media planning was arguably more inventive in the past than it is in the present.
Of course, part of the reason for this is that the most important attribute a client wants in their media partner is quantifiability … which means they are automatically limited to choosing platforms that already have industry ‘measurement criteria and benchmarks’ built-in.
Now I totally understand and appreciate why clients regard this as important, however knowing how many people have been exposed to a message is very different to approaching communication with the goal of influencing change of attitude or behaviour.
It’s for this reason that I still find it amazing how few companies give their media partners 10-20% of their media budget to experiment or explore alternate approaches with. It’s almost like they feel safe in the comfort of predictability – which is of course exactly why they don’t do it, because in corporateland, it’s better to not cause any surprises than run the risk of doing something great.
How I wish they would. Not just so infectious creativity could be put back into media strategy … not just so they could see how impactful this approach can be on their business … not just so some very good and talented media strategist mates of mine could truly show how brilliant they are when given real freedom … but to stop out-of-date, slightly awkward, speeches like the one above from ever happening again.
How’s that for a clickbait title?
Do you think I qualify for a job at the Daily Mail yet?
What about US Weekly?
Anyway, the reason for that header is because I recently read a great post about why adlands obsession with adland awards could be contributing to the demise of adland as a whole.
And yes, I think that is some sort of record for saying adland in a single sentence.
Now please don’t get me wrong, I think it is vitally important to celebrate what we do – especially in these days where business questions our validity and importance – however being myopically focused on winning awards that either  only appeal to the ad industry or  have questionable validity to the wider world of business … doesn’t seem that clever.
[As a case in point, if you claim your work achieved game-changing results but the client then didn’t adopt that strategy – or increase their marketing investment with you – the following year, then it’s fair to assume the validity of your claims may well be called into question ]
Anyway, have a read what Aussie ad legend Ted Horton has to say and you’ll also find out why The Great British Bakeoff presenters may as well be the judges at next years Cannes awards.