The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

The only things required are:

1/ An individual with a hint of mischief.

5/ Ears.

Interms of the object we would you you to source, it can be anything as long as it is dramatically out of context [which should be pretty easy given we’re talking about an office toilet!!!] and be relatively innocent.

What that means is you can get a rubber duck but you shouldn’t use a rubber doll.

Without going into the details quite yet, we’d like to know If you’re up for it … as well as spread the word … because if we have enough people willing to take part, we’d like April 19th to be the inauguration of International Mindfuck Day.

If you’re willing to take part – and we promise it won’t be anything so bad that you will get in trouble – then please sign up as well as direct your friends/colleagues here, the more the better.

Without going into too much detail, what I saw shocked me.

In essence, the senior guys at the company were demanding their R&D guys cut development time by upto 50% ensuring that there was a constant stream of new news to drive communication, sales and profit.

Whilst I understood the economic possibilities of this strategy … especially given their increasing competition … I couldn’t help but feel the implications on the brand were alarming, leading me to write a paper to the organisations board entitled:

Why The Quest For Every Possible Cent Of Profit Will Lead To Loss.

The basic premise was that the way this company looked at their market was ‘how many products can we sell them’ … and whilst that was all very well and good … the reality was they had failed to take into account a number of issues from igniting customer dissatisfaction [basically the fact people will get pissed off when a product they’ve just bought is superseded within 3 months] through to a total disregard for the economics of people’s budgets [in essence they ‘forgot’ that people have many commitments and activities that need to be satisfied so it would be impossible – not to mention ridiculous – to assume they would spend every pound/dollar/cent of their budget/income/credit card on their products each and every month]

However the bit that really scared me was the speed of development they wanted to embrace.

By cutting get-to-market times by upto 50% [without dramatically increasing the R&D budget/staff] I couldn’t help but feel corners would have to be cut, resulting in mistakes and problems that very quickly would affect people’s view and trust of the brand, ultimately encouraging them to choose or seek out alternative manufactures – regardless of price-point, distribution and/or features.

Worse.

The R&D investment that was being made was focused more on product evolution rather than innovation – a trait this brand had been built on – so not only were they going to be cutting corners, it was going to be on products/brands that were no longer breaking new ground, ultimately making brands with a lot of good-will, worse.

Despite the full backing of the R&D department, my paper was brushed aside with one of the most condescending rationales from the global head of marketing … and you know what, he was right, because for 3 years they enjoyed record share and profits.

Then it all fell apart.

Badly.

Products that were once seen as the backbone of the company’s reputation were now seen as expensive and unreliable … and when they did release fundamentally new products, they were lacklustre, making you feel they were developed for the sake of development rather than answering a real market opportunity/need.

Fortunately the decline in innovation, quality, reputation and – most importantly – sales, resulted in a change of approach and attitude however even today, they are still fighting the demons of those mad few years of trying to vacuum up every possible penny from people’s wallets and whilst they still were able to make a profit [but only just], it was a real lesson for me both in the arrogance of brands and the power planners have to get to the core issues, not just the communication elements.

The reason I write this is that over the last few weeks we’ve seen major recalls by Toyota, GM and Nissan and I can’t help but feel I’m seeing history revisited, except instead of greed driving the corporations pressure on R&D development times – it’s survival … and whilst I can sort-of understand why that would happen, the thing is as soon as you forget your reputation is only as good as your latest work, you’re investing in your destruction.

The difference?

Well Apple have been able to find a way – by design or by good fortune – to still make their products desirable even when they’re the ‘establishment’ … and whilst I am sure many Apple owners think they’re better than individuals who don’t own or use their products … it could indicate the actual meaning of the word ‘elitism’ – like ‘luxury’ – has evolved and it’s definition can no longer be limited to simply representing a select group of people whose intellect, wealth, training or/or experiences enable them to be viewed by the masses as the group whose views carry the most weight or value.

Of course there’s many reasons for this high value perception … from the fact they beautifully under-design and powerfully engineer their products, right through to the fact that compared to their competitors [ie: Microsoft, IBM, SONY] they are smaller and less corporate so they have – and should have – a challenger brand persona. However regardless of the number of reasons [of which there will be many] the commercial value of this perception is huge because when people think of Apple, the general [Western] consensus will be that Apple make beautifully designed and engineered products that fundamentally understand people’s rational and emotional needs whereas the competition simply make products that perform ‘functions’.

Is this view fair?

Nope … and I do worry where Apple are going given they seem to be more focused on squeezing every last possible bit of profit from the iPod than the development of totally new tech [but as I wrote here, I can’t blame them]… however there was something in the article that I particularly liked and it was this:

Apple represents the “auteur model of innovation,” observes John Kao, a consultant to corporations and governments on innovation. In the auteur model, he said, there is a tight connection between the personality of the project leader and what is created. Movies created by powerful directors, he says, are clear examples, from Alfred Hitchcock’s “Vertigo” to James Cameron’s “Avatar.”

Let me show you something:

Film director James Cameron

W+K founder Dan Wieden

Apple’s Steve ‘GOD’ Jobs

BBH founder John Hegarty

Not very cool looking are they?

I’d bet if you went into a meeting room and didn’t know who they were, your first reaction would be to discount their creative intelligence creds because they didn’t ‘look the part’.

Hell, I bet that if they worked in adland, they’d be out on their ear by now – deemed to be ‘too old’ to be relevant, which is quite funny given they are still producing things that are not just impacting our World, but regarded as highly creative.

As many of you know, I have quite a close relationship with both Virgin and Google … and one of the things I’ve always found funny is how many people say they’re ‘cool’.

Let’s remember, Virgin is a company run by a dyslexic, bad-jumper wearing beardy 60 year old and the other is founded by a couple of tech nerds who have a logo that looks like it was designed by a kindergarten teacher.

A pensioner and a couple of colour blind geeks … and the World thinks they have companies that are cool!!

The thing is – like Jobs and Cameron etc – they have all created companies/products that are a reflection of themselves … companies/products that reflect their unshakeable belief in their philosophies, values and approach … which is why they can spend enormous amounts of time and money on elements that a more process-driven corporation would regard as superfluous because to them it’s more than just achieving financial success, it’s about proving to their peers [and themselves] that their ideas are right, with the masses as the biggest jury in the World.

This doesn’t mean Jobs, Branson etc aren’t commercially astute – that is that’s so far from the truth it’s not funny – but it does mean they ultimately want to be judged by what they do, not what they say … which is why this bunch of old and/or nerdy men have been able to impact society to a much greater extent than all the latest trend spouting, web 2.0, uber-cool, media commentators and agencies put together.

Do all trend spouting, web 2.0, uber-cool, media commentators and agencies talk shite?

Of course not – just like all the pensioners and nerds of the World aren’t impacting the planet with their great ideas – however what I would say is these old/nerd guys believe in the power of DOING STUFF … stuff that crosses categories because they are built on values and philosophy, not just capabilities … whereas my industry – an industry that is supposed to be all about applied creativity let us remember – seem far too comfortable these days just talking about doing stuff.

But do you know why I personally like these guys so much?

Not just because it takes a long time to warm up or because it doesn’t run very well … it’s because it continually fills up with questions to things that should be relatively simple to process.

I know planners are supposed to be able to express the complex in simpler, more interesting and engaging ways … however my problem is that I rarely feel there is one particular view that I am 100% comfortable with.

One of the pleasures of doing this blog is seeing how certain opinions of mine have changed over the years.

Actually, it’s not a ‘pleasure’ … but it certainly makes interesting reading and demonstrates the value in talking to as many people with diverse backgrounds as possible as well as the value reminder that it’s human nature to change – be it our opinions, aspirations and/or pants.

The reason I bring this up is that as much as I like being asked to present at conferences etc, I always find it a bit of a nightmare because I know they want me to express a forthright point of view and I want to express a forthright point of view … but I know there’s rarely ever only one viewpoint so I have to really look/think about all the options before I can feel comfortable saying what I personally believe [at that moment in time] is right for the issue I’ve been asked to speak about.

Saying that, I do tend to cover my arse by [1] highlighting the other key viewpoints in my presentation [2] explaining why/how I came to my conclusion and [3] acknowledging that whatever I have just spoken about could all be irrelevant by the time I’ve finished my presentation because people have this nasty habit of changing their minds and opinions.

Mind you – all that is very easy compared to when you start a company and want to put down all the ideas/values/philosophies that have been lying around your head for a few years.

Seriously, nothing is as big a mindfuck as having to articulate all your gut feelings and opinions into something that resembles some kind of well thought out, commercially viable, longer-term focused, philosophical order.

Why am I going on about all this?

Well I have been asked to talk at a conference about the power of creativity and as part of that, they’ve asked me to write a paragraph about what my general view is.

Now the thing is, the power and value of creativity is quite a massive subject … it is something that can go and grow into all sorts of areas … so to be able to come up with something that covers off all the possibilities is pretty difficult however I’ve given it a shot and I’d love to know whether you think I’ve done a good enough job or whether it’s another example of planning wank ie: conversation puffery with pseudo-intelligent sound bites thrown in.

Creativity is more powerful than guns, money, governments and Angelina Jolie.

I believe creativity comes in many shapes, sizes and skills and by understanding and appreciating it, you can start to build things that can change your World and maybe a few other people’s as well.

Of course, nothing is as disturbing as the fact there are some people who actively seek out my blog out by name, but putting that aside, it would appear the Police could clear up a hell of a lot of their perv crimes by simply tracking – then following – some of the individuals who pop by here.

Examples:

jesus knocking the door
evolution of fatherhood
lindt chocolate bunny
mohammed ali
happiness at the misfortune of others
“2 dogs fucking” indian name
make you go blind
what did napoleon look like
jerking off make you bald
the tin man wanted a heart

I seriously don’t know whether I should feel honoured or devastated … but on the bright side, I can’t possibly feel as bad as the people who were looking for Mohammed Ali and ended up here.