Enlightened Conflict

shared responsibility

April 17th, 2017

 generation think attitudes collective individual share

===========

 

We tend to hold ourself accountable for things we never did.

Hearts we never broke. People we didn’t hurt.

Souls we didn’t crush. “

 

coral-vellichor

 

=================

 

All these years I’ve been looking at the wrong side.

 

(via madelinemharris)

=============

 

Ok.

 

Accountability, or responsibility, is always a good topic. And, yes, I am a big personal responsibility person. But in business, within an organization, being responsibleresponsibility tends to be more shared responsibility than simple personal responsibility.

 

Oh.

 

To be clear.

 

I believe there is a strong relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. The stronger the shared responsibility attitude & behavior within leadership & mentors & role models the stronger the development of personal responsibility muscle occurs in everyday schmucks like me. Conversely, if you are surrounded with lack of shared responsibility examples <or even those who espouse ‘selectively chosen shared responsibility’> the value of personal responsibility diminishes to an individual, therefore, they see less value in exhibiting personal responsibility.

 

We don’t talk about this relationship enough.

Far too often we flippantly suggest “people should take responsibility for their actions.”

 

Well … no shit Sherlock.

 

But if your roles models or leaders are constantly passing the buck when the shit hits the fan to save their own bacon <and image> then what the hell … why would you not do the same?

irresponsibility made easy

Yeah.

Sure.

 

Everyone has to pull their weight and do their job and do what they say they are going to do … but very very rarely does an individual perform in a vacuum in a business.

 

This happens more so even in management.

 

It drives me a little nuts when I hear some leaders discuss “delegating.”

 

Somehow delegating equals “absolved of responsibility.”

 

This is stupid irresponsible thinking.

 

My belief that it is stupid thinking is rooted in some common sesne I am fairly sure the US Military says:

 

 

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

 

 

In other words … you can give others the power to do things … you can delegate … but, no matter what happens … if something goes wrong … the final responsibility always lies with the one who has delegated authority.

 

Sticking with the military as my guidance … this means if your business has an initiative that has gone SNAFU <“Situation Normal: All Fucked Up”> the blame … and the ultimate responsibility for the mistakes <fuck ups> falls … uhm … up.

The leader assumes responsibility.

 

This is shared responsibility.

 

In other words … this is leadership.

 

Yeah.

 

Once you become a business leader past a mom & pop management style business you have to face the concept of shared responsibility <and some embrace it and some reject it>.

 

puzzle people connect shared responsibilityDespite the fact you have delegated authority that ‘authority’ does not represent a discrete event and period in time.

You bear the responsibility for the cascade of events, decisions and actions leading up to the ‘authority giving’ which means everything you have done up until that point provides the context for the delegating … yeah … you own the arena in which you have placed the delegatee.

 

But this gets exponentially worse <if you are thinking about becoming a business leader>.

 

You actually also share responsibility for the consequences … uhm … intended and unintended.

 

This is different than delegating authority <although it relates to it> and owning responsibility for the action … this goes beyond to the actual ripples from the decisions & actions.

 

Now.

 

Some leaders have a nasty habit of assuming responsibility for the decision and the effect of the decision — within a finite period of time. The weakest leaders try and tie “that was out of my control” or “I wasn’t there for that” as soon as they can to a decision they make.

 

The strongest leaders worry less about any carnage that has been left behind but rather start worrying about any carnage the decisions & actions could possibly create for the future.

 

The truth is that business leaders should take a moment and remember the wise words of … well … an American Indian.

 

Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota leader who led his people against the U.S. Army and later as his people transitioned from life on the plains to the reservation, stressed that when Indian people made a decision, it should be done with the welfare of the next seven generations in mind.

 

Whew.

world is yours ours share life

In a short term world where most business leaders are trying to make quarterly goals and just try and keep their job … thinking with the welfare of the next 7 generations seems … well … impossible.

 

I imagine the real point is that most good business leaders assume some responsibility for the generations to come.  Some people may call this ‘long term strategy’ and some others will call it ‘keeping your eye on the horizon’ or even ‘having a vision’ … well … I am no Harvard Business guru and all that high falutin’ stuff seems unnecessary. To me it is much more simple.

You make decisions accepting the burden of responsibility for what will come … and may arise from your decision.

 

You share the responsibility for what will, or may, come.

 

And if you do that? Damn. You will do good and be good.

 

And if you do not do that? Damn. You may get a shitload of attention and applause in the moment and a shitload of attention and anger in the future.

 

 

Why do I say that?

 

Because if you don’t really believe in shared responsibility and flit from one decision to the next in a transactional “responsible only to the moment” way you will end up rushing from issue to issue, reacting without a plan or a strategy or <worse> no care of longer term affect, creating carnage yet to be seen <because that type of leader tends to seek only the cheers in the moment>.

 

Uhm.

 

Innovative solution plan as a pencil trying to find way out of maze breaking through the labyrinth as a business concept and creative metaphor for strategy success and planning achievement.

Just to point it out … with no plan that means anything can happen and a leader can justify anything. Because with no plan to measure a decision against anything can look right … and unpredictable can be touted as ‘flexible to the situation.’

 

All of this fits a short term leader in a short term world.

 

The people are few and far between these days who weigh their responses and assess long term affects. In today’s world it almost seems a race to be the first to judge or comment on a decision or action and far too many leaders actually manage to the public race to comment rather than the longer term assessment.

 

This is scary stuff for anyone to do but a business leader? Dangerous.

Even the best short term decision makers, if forced into a gauntlet of short term decisions, will struggle to insure at the end of the gauntlet they have kept walking northwards as they had been looking down the entire time. More often than not North will not be the direction you are facing nor will you have actually moved any closer to the North star.

 

I am not suggesting this longer term shared responsibility attitude is easy.

In fact .. it is really really hard.

In fact … it almost means you have to embrace a little “impossible” into what you actually make possible.

 

Huh?

 

 

In general I have always liked logical thinking <no matter how random the logic may be> but I always love it when someone combines some unexpected logic.

Generally speaking the best unexpected logic actually comes from those who do the impossible … thinking of the impossible and seeing possibilities — the impossible being “knowing for sure what will happen in the future.” They make the spectacular leaps/chances, accepting responsibility and sharing responsibility, so that business can make the needed changes or just do the semi-risky things that keep a good business doing good things <things that may push against the borders of the status quo>.

 

Yeah.

Spectacular errors can only happen if you take spectacular chances. I am not fond of irresponsible risk taking and decision-making, but I am fond of doing ‘the right thing’ even when it may appear to be going against the stream. Sometimes that means a spectacular success, sometimes a spectacular error. But always something spectacular.

 

And I will tell you … what more could you want to say about your life as a leader but that you have done something spectacular? Especially if that ‘spectacular’ actually happens a generation later which permits you to sit back and say “I did the impossible … I viewed the future well.’

 

Anyway.

 

Shared responsibility is the burden of any good leader. They tend to be the leaders who understand they cannot really be sure what is going to happen to them over time, they weigh the risks to the best of their ability and let the chips fall as they may.

I tend to believe their attitude is one of “you don’t want to act more fearfully than you have to.”

 

Good leaders have a tendency to hold themselves accountable for anything, everything and everyone … in varying degrees depending on the anything, everything and everyone. And, maybe most importantly, I tend to believe they understand that there is a relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility.

 

And, practically speaking, you will never be viewed as a true leader if you do not.

 

Well.my life is my message duty

 

You know what?

 

To end this thing today … let me offer two other words, typically associated with responsibility, obligation and duty.

 

Obligation refers general to something you are compelled to do by regulation, law, promise or morality. I think good leaders feel obligated to assume shared responsibility.

 

Duty, more so than obligation, springs from an internal moral or ethical impulse rather than from external demands.

I think good leaders feel a duty to assume shared responsibility.

 

Shared responsibility … not only do I believe we should discuss it more often <because it will foster better value in personal responsibility> but I also believe we should be demanding it of our leaders more often.

on how we are behaving

April 11th, 2017

 behave toward each other discourse mean

==========

 

“Etiquette means behaving yourself a little better than is absolutely essential.”

 

—–

Will Cuppy

 

========================

 

“The grace of the gesture is as important as the victories.”

 

—–

Rene Lacoste

 

=============

 

Well.

 

Europeans, in general, have always been nicer acting, better behaving and more scared what you see‘refined’ <by degree> than Americans.

<please> Everyone just accept that as a Life truth.

 

So having a European look on in horror at how an American acts is an ongoing event … since almost the dawn of … well … dawn <of every day>.

 

But now it is not just Europeans looking on in horror … we, as in you & I, are also looking around dumbfounded by some of the behavior we are seeing in America.

 

Study after study after study <I just saw another one today> is showing that men are acting more like assholes, white supremacists are acting more like white supremacists, anti-Semites are acting more like anti-Semites, politicians are acting more like caricature politicians, everyone named Homer is acting more like Homer Simpson and, in general, any aspect of our internal asshole in anyone is coming out.

good manners etiquette

I am certainly not suggesting we should all be studying Emily Posts’s Book of Etiquette but behaving well should be about behaving a little better than absolutely essential and not behaving a little worse than absolutely essential.

 

Now.

 

Whether you believe there is a direct relationship or an indirect relationship with Trump … or any relationship I imagine … it is happening at the same time Trump is happening.

 

Coincidence or correlation? … pick your poison.

 

There are a couple of things that seem to be happening.

 

 

Political correctness backlash.

 

Political correctness, for all its good intentions, clashed with the natural political correctness holbrook thinkinability that maybe 90% of people have … an inability to artfully articulate their thoughts.

So let’s say that 90% of that 90% say stupid shit with no bad intentions … this translates into a semi-made up-factoid that almost 80% of all people are getting slammed by political correctness and the majority of them mean nothing bad … they just suck at articulating their thoughts.

 

Sure. Many of those people will attempt to get better at articulating what they feel & think … but, in general, this means a shitload of well-meaning people harbor some bad feelings toward not being able to just talk the way they talk.

 

And then … well … along comes Donald J. Trump … a 70 year old man who sometimes talks like a junior high school bully and sometimes talks like the well-meaning guy at the bar <although he is certainly not well meaning> who has ‘one too many’.   A significant portion of us think “whew, finally, an excuse to say all the things I just want to say without having to weigh every word I say.”

 

There is nothing inherently bad about saying what you are thinking.

 

But.

 

Inherent is what I just shared is … well … you start behaving a little more like an asshole <behaving badly>.

 

Think of this as the puppy set off the leash. The leash gave them some freedom but, once off, they go wild with no boundaries … in general being a boisterous puppy and being the unbounded happy assholeish puppy … at least for a while.

 

At some point they recognize maybe not that the leash was good but that the leash kept them closer to their owner and some of their assholeish puppiness isn’t received as well as they were sure it would be received – and they start going back toward the leash holder and maybe curbing their puppiness a little bit.trump is an asshole mayor

 

My point is the asshole factor has increased but I imagine at some point it will revert back a little closer to what political correctness suggested was a good thing <at least one could hope>.

 

The fly in this ointment is Trump. He has no leash, has never been on a leash and … in fact … seems to believe leashes are inherently bad.

 

He is not exactly a great role model for puppies <or people>.

 

 

I am pissed because it seems everyone else gets a break and I do not.

 

 

Trump only views the world as winners & losers, i.e., if you don’t win you are a loser. Well. What this does is encourage all of us to think of the world as a simplistic fight over limited resources where the other guy/gal is competing for your share. In other words you lose if they win.

 

Now.

 

If you believe this … or this thought even bleeds into your consciousness on occasion … well … you start behaving a little more like an asshole <behaving badly>.

 

I am certainly not blaming Trump for all our increased bad behavior but he is certainly an enabler with the whole win or be a loser mindset.

 

He embodies a toxic resentment toward everyone who has something he believes is his – and this attitude bleeds into how he views America. Germany, NATO, China, Mexico, whomever … all has shit that should be ours. Money, trade, power, etc. him his rightful place in the world.

 

File photo dated 08/04/17 of Saffiyah Khan (left) staring down English Defence League (EDL) protester Ian Crossland during a demonstration in Birmingham, as she has said she was "not scared in the slightest" during the tense confrontation.

Symbolically <to those who claim he has a racist muscle> … this is quite like the resentment of an old white man who believes everything is infringing upon his ability to access the pride, power & pay that rightfully belongs to him.

 

Just like my puppy on a leash example … this is like a puppy who grows up alone but realizes that going to the puppy playground is a shitload more fun … and even more fun if you behave well.

 

The fly in this ointment is Trump. he doesn’t want to play with other puppies, he hates the puppy playground and says … well … puppies are losers … I want to be a lion or the leader of the wolf pack <and fuck whatever female wolf I want whenever I want>.

 

Trump treats everyone outside his immediate family members as people who are out to deny him not only from what he wants but also what he believes belongs to him <this attitude bleeds into how he views America and other counties>. This is not exactly a great role model for anyone who is not part of a rich powerful family <and I could argue it isn’t a good role model even for them>.

 

He is not a particularly good role model if we want to encourage the belief the country is a team which needs to work together, make some sacrifices for the other team members so that the team benefits <and will never go 365-0 in a season>.

 

Ok.

 

Look.

 

We all have flaws and the system, society and institutions are flawed. But just because it is flawed doesn’t mean an asshole president should suddenly set a new bar for behavior that is so low it makes a guy’s junior high school locker room actually appear slightly dignified.

 

But I imagine my point is that the bar for acceptable good behavior has dropped significantly. Studies show it. Shit. Just watch the people around you or watch some tv and you will actually see it.

 

Anyway.

 

I think we all know that Life isn’t just solely about winning and losing. I think we all know that some basic good behavior isn’t something that needs to be dictated but rather it is simply something good for common humanity within a population with a desire to have better things and do better things than we are doing today.

behave well being of society care trust fairness

I think we all know that behaving, at least relatively so the majority of the time, well has a reward that may not always show up in pride, power & pay but rather in dignity, honor & … well … certainty.

 

Yeah.

Certainty.

 

Good behavior by the bulk of a population tends to lead people to a certainty that society will treat them more fairly, institutions will treat them more fairly and the world, in general, will treat them more fairly … because we can become more certain we will be less screwed more often because people will behave less badly more often <plus … we are happier this way>.

 

In the end.

 

I do believe we are behaving more badly.

 

And while I have the studies and I have the research I don’t really need them. I can just turn on the TV and watch a president who behaves more badly than the majority of the typical high school student. With this kind of role model why wouldn’t a significant portion of the citizenry believe they could behave more badly than they had been behaving the day before?

Suffice it to say that if everyone took one step backwards in their behavior, given the wide spectrum of current behavior from good to heinous, it just doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

 

We are acting more like assholes every day.

Even the people who are trying to stand up against the assholes.

 

If I didn’t want to be that harsh I could have said “it appears our level of courteous behavior toward each other is declining” but I didn’t … because research is clearly showing our inner asshole is becoming our outer asshole behavior.

 

bad behavior be courteous all the time represent yourselfI believe we are better than this <and I also believe the average American is better, behaviorwise, than our so-called President>.

We will get through this and I tend to believe in the end we will end up in a better place.

 

But, boy oh boy, the level of our general discourse and behavior has surely declined significantly lately and I cannot wait for it to begin improving.

 

As I stated upfront … I am certainly not suggesting we should all be studying Emily Posts’s Book of Etiquette … but behaving well should be about behaving a little better than absolutely essential and not a little worse than absolutely essential.

 

 

how do ads like Pepsi get approved?

April 10th, 2017

 

pepsi kendall jenner commercial

==========

 

“You aren’t advertising to a standing army; you are advertising to a moving parade.”

 

—-

David Ogilvy

 

============

 

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own.

And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it.”

 

 

==

 

Audre Lorde

 

————

 

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

 

==

 

H. L. Mencken

 

———–

 

frankenstein pepsiOk.

 

This is about the Pepsi fake revolution, fake protest , fake celebrity, misguided brand image advertisement  <which I will inevitably call “the Frankenstein social issue” ad>.

 

While I had been shaking my head over the ad when I saw it I wasn’t going to write anything until there was a really nice article in The Atlantic, “how does an ad like this get approved?”   which does a fairly nice job of walking everyone through some of the backroom pretzel logic steps an advertisement like this goes through to actually end up on air.

 

But.

After reading the article I felt I needed to paint on a coat of some advertising development wacky reality because it neglected to share some of the more obscure things which most likely happened.

 

To be clear.

I could write a 10,000 word diatribe on how this Pepsi ad was a misguided use of a celebrity, a misguided  hijacking of a social event, a misguided use of casting and a misguided tone overall for trying to tie image advertising for a brand with a social revolution <tied to a political issue> … but I will not. Suffice it to say that the ad itself is certainly a mashup of bad ideas … a Frankenstein … but making an ad pepsi mash up commercialseven Frankensteins need to be built <they are not just born> and … believe it or not … there will be some specific things that will happen along the development path which can appear as ‘good business protocol’ but in reality is simply bad laboratory technique.

 

Now.

 

Before I skewer Pepsi and their in-house creative group let me suggest a shitload more of the larger companies are going to be faced with this possibility <of developing a misguided socially issue driven ad> sooner rather than later.

 

I have always believed a company, if it has a strong mission centered on some societal moral compass construct, should be sharing it in some form or fashion <it doesn’t have to be in-your-face> in its external marketing & advertising.

 

I now believe, in the age of Trumpism, it is almost a societal imperative for companies & brands to take a stand publicly. And I say that not suggesting they i will be defined stand up speak outstop selling shit but rather they sell shit through a societal view lens. I do believe more than ever companies who stand for something should publicly stand up for that something.

 

And I don’t really care whether it is a liberal or conservative lens … a business should just elegantly articulate their view in the construct of what you sell and who you are. Society is almost demanding the debate & discussion and no one is better to have it publicly, in a civil discourse versus the coarseness found within Trumpology, than businesses.

 

Saying that … I give Pepsi points for at least making the attempt. I take points away because … well … a brand & company as large as Pepsi with access to so much creative & strategic talent should have made a better attempt.

 

But you know what?

 

Even in their bad they did some good … we talked about standing up for shit and how you should, or should not, stand up for shit.

Rather than beat the shit out of Pepsi for this attempt I will hold my fire until we see the next attempt and see if they learned something.

I would suggest everyone try and do that.

 

Now.

 

As for how and why ads like this get approved.

 

The article suggested this:

 

“How do these ads get approved?

By brand managers who are not doing their cultural homework—relying upon surface-level understandings of the cultural phenomenon they are featuring in their marketing communications and not understanding the deep well of emotions, identity politics, and ideologies that their ads will trigger.”

 

Jill Avery, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School

 

Oh.

 

If it were only this black & white, I could solve this.

It is much more absurdly complicated in order to actually approve and produce something this so brutally off target.

 

Suffice it to say that the issue will encompass a spectrum of things … there will be a spectrum of misguided ‘execution strategy’ combined with some thoughts people stand up i will be definedabsurd “brand imperatives” all wrapped up in a nice snug outfit made up of stubborn edgy creative people, old white executives out of touch with their target audience, brand managers adverse to risk but an unhealthy desire to be cooler than they are and company visionaries who view cultural trends through what is cool rather than what is truly trendworthy.

 

This is a Frankenstein social issue “brand” ad created by a brand built on … well … no real social issues … but rather it is representative of a vapid brand which has convinced itself <at least some time in the past> it was more like a ‘fashion brand.’

 

Of course I should take a minute and discuss the research which “must have been done” to create this ad.

 

First.

 

If there really was any research done we need to remind ourselves this is a ‘fashion brand’ <or someone has convinced them they should think of themselves as  fashion brand … which is stupid> created on some vapid imagey type attributes therefore their research is mostly based on some vapid feel-good “cool” cultural benchmarks.

Sure.

I could have set them up with some research company who could have measured what needed to be measured but <a> they don’t want that kind of truth and <b> someone smarter than I was yelling “how could we measure new information … we need to see results which can be compared to what we have so we can also see some ‘post’ numbers.”

 

Well. That yeller was yelling some well-intended truth but misguided in this case.

 

good and bad research pepsiIn larger companies it is always <always> gobs of “pre” information which you pour over and then setting up a ‘post analysis’ against the pre-stuff. This assumes the “pre” is meaningful and on target and that the ‘post’ is really what matters.

 

Uh oh.

 

Assume makes an ass out of you and me.

 

Status quo is a sonuvabitch.

 

That is mostly research they would have used to inform the development.

 

To be clear.

I don’t think they did any ‘pre’ research. I think they “saw” a cultural movement within their supposed target audience and decided “I want to connect with them <so someone go do an ad to do that>.”

 

If any of this past ‘pre’ research was used it was simply to highlight the aspects that supported the idea they wanted to do <I feel comfortable saying that because I have done just that … cherry picking the “pre” information to highlight the reason why an idea is something worth pursuing and even highlighting some of the first components you may want to start building your Frankenstein with … uhm … any advertising person with half a brain has done this>.

 

Second.

 

Ok.

 

Let’s assume they did some research on the ad itself <which is different than research informing the development of the ad>.

 

Someone probably set up some high falutin’ research methodology tracking trying and researching knowledgewatcher response second by second and checked scores against industry norms <or their own imagey crappy stuff they have done in the past> and the final power point was 30 pages long <with maybe 12 pages of backup graphs> and the printed binder they handed out to a select few to bludgeon themselves with at a later date was probably 80 pages <with nice colored tabs>.

 

Here is the net of all that stuff.

 

The celebrity drove up ‘breakthrough’, recall and ‘brand interest’ <albeit they hid the numbers that said the celebrity did not build credibility or authenticity>.

 

And, yeah, I would also bet someone probably dug up a nice score on “unique from competition.”

 

And I also bet they figured out a way to get a score worth showing <you never show bad numbers unless you can convince everyone that the bad number is actually a good number … yeah … we do that> to suggest the overall message was topical and that their audience related to the importance of “standing up and speaking out.”

 

And I would also bet that they didn’t have a particularly good, nor bad, likeability score … just something that didn’t deter them from this path.

 

And, lastly, I would bet they rummaged through any research they had to seal the deal on what I believe is possibly the worst part of the ad <having the celebrity leave being a celebrity and join the ‘common folk’>. They found a number that suggested “this shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

I added this last thought and call it out because … well … this is about the only thing that could have been said in the final presentation to the old white men, out of touch with their everyday customer, to gain final approval.

 

And let me say about the test scores I just highlighted … this is where testing fails people. It’s just numbers. And it’s just not real world.

 

The numbers don’t match the eye/sniff test.

 

And in a real world <on tv> environment the ad is annoying to anyone who actually wanted to participate in the movement or did participate … and the ad is generally unmemorable <and doesn’t even come close to capturing any aspect of ‘soul’ of Pepsi … assuming they have one>.

In testing it may seem fun and hip and upbeat but on tv it is annoying and bland and soulless.

 

By the way … I tossed in the word “soul” in that discussion.

 

I bring it up to make a point to any and all vapid brands out there thinking about actually taking on a social issue & message.

 

“Cool” doesn’t hack it if you want to be a fabric of society <which is different than a fabric of culture>. Weaving your way into the fabric of society demands you share a little bit of your soul … your heart … so that people can connect.

 

Yeah.

I know.

That’s not vapid. That’s some solid unforgiving truth telling about yourself.

 

Sorry.

That’s the price <and Pepsi was not willing to pay it>.

 

advertising talk to people hughNext.

 

How does this get approved?

 

Well. Let me spend a minute on image advertising and creative people.

 

Vapid fashion brands far too often forget they are selling shit to people. Most times they will just say “that’s the job of promotions” or “that is point of sale efforts and we are supposed to drive people to the point of sale” or “our job is to be cool so that people want us so badly they will drive through … well … neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” Uhm. On rare occasions, maybe a new i-phone, you can inspire that kind of ‘urgent desire to buy’ but in most cases it is just a 6-pack of Pepsi.

 

Creative people are stubborn people in their everyday work life. The non-hacks … the good talented smart creative people, mostly in good ways, stubbornly & aggressively hold on to creative edges <not just to be edgy but rather to insure there is some edge to what is done>. This gets dialed up in image advertising campaigns because for some reason as soon as a creative person hears “image” <or “brand”> they immediately think “vapid” <I don’t have to sell anything, communicate anything specific and the objective is to create an overall sense that what I am saying is good and the brand is some good shit>.

 

Triple the intensity with regard to everything I just said for creative hacks <or almost all non-agency advertising people> and add in they confuse ‘creative edges’ with ‘edgy’.

 

If you are attempting to do an image advertisement you are only partially challenged <fucked> with good creative people and absolutely screwed <fucked> with bad creative people.

 

Lastly.

 

How does something like this get approved?

The “someone.”

 

Ok.

 

With an ad like this, which I assume was polarizing in its final stages, there is always “someone.”

 

someone pepsi speak out convinceSomeone who stands up and says ‘here is why.” Someone to stand up and speak out that bullshit line I just shared with you … “this ad shows that this issue is SO important that everyone, celebrities and fantastic looking poor folk included, shed their exterior Life and gather together to stand up an speak out.”

There is always ‘someone’ in that frickin’ final approval room, usually someone who shouldn’t have that kind of power, who the old white advertising-clueless men will look to in their moment of doubt on whether it is the right thing to do.

In the advertising business you cultivate this ‘someone’ so that they can bring you home <even if you have a bad misguided idea>. Suffice it to say on an ad like this there will be someone at Pepsi right now who is squirming and most likely getting ready to point a finger at some research person for either <a> not giving the right piece of information or <b> not asking the right kind of question.

 

Anyway.

 

I feel sorry for companies who truly do want to start doing image advertising and stay within their brand character and navigate the internal politics and … well … it is nothing they have done before.

 

There are rarely, very rarely, neat & plausible solutions to what a business faces in the here & now on this topic <and if someone tells you there is … they are lying>.

If you are shown a ‘formula for success’ and it looks neat and it seem plausible … it is most likely wrong.

 

That isn’t to say someone like me, or someone with smarts, experience and more talented than I, couldn’t guide a company down a viable path to success … just that there is no formula.

 

What I am now going to say is going to sound painfully inefficient.

 

A business has to create its own way of doing things. It can certainly contain some aspects of things that have been done in the past but those are simply ingredients from which you will build your own formula.

And, to be clear, if you start bolting together different formulas to create a successful business advertising idea … you are simply creating a Frankenstein which the village people are going to end up killing with simple pitchforks & torches <see Pepsi as an example>.

 

Your business formula for success will have to be yours.

 

In the end I would say this.

 

My guess is that Pepsi tried using a formula for something that is most likely really different than things they have tried in the past.

 

And while the difference between brutal and brilliant is a relatively thin line even for the people who do this for a living … you can teeter even more when attempting to enter into the fabric of a societal issue.

 

This ad was horrible.pepsi commercial stupid

Absolutely horrible.

 

But please don’t forget … Pepsi tried. They made the attempt.

 

In a Trumpenstein world in which being silent will only let the monster tear the village apart they spoke out. They stood up.

Misguided? Sure.

The villagers tore them apart.

But maybe, just maybe, the villagers should pick them up, dust them off, and say go try again … because the Trumpenstein is coming … and we can use any voice we can.

 

 

======================

 

“You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters.”

William Buckley

 

Enlightened Conflict