CULTUREMAKING

Embracing failure since 1848

[IMAGE VIA THE AMERICAS LIBRARY]

I've long been a fan of Wieden & Kennedy's embrace failure philosophy.

Not only is it a great way of motivating staff and clients to push creative boundaries, but on a personal level, I'm conscious that the fear of failure rears its ugly head more often than I would like it to.

I was therefore quite chuffed with this little find; a quote courtesy of J.S. Haliday, author of The World Rushed In, capturing life in California during the 1848-1855 gold rush:

"As like no where else, you can fail in California. And I think the California gold rush taught people that failure was okay.  And the reason being that everyone failed in California - everyone, every day.  So failure, was not a distinction, not a burden, not a mark, not a shame. Failure in Des Moin, failure in Youngstown, failure in Savannah, failure in Philadelphia, well, you'd hear "what's the matter with you?  Your father's disappointed in you." You don't want to fail at home. But you feel free to fail in California. The result is that people accepted failure - which is the equivalent of saying they are willing to take risks. And California has been the most risk-taking economy and society in the nation. Maybe in the world."

This also highlights another crucial point: don't ignore history and the way that it has comes to shape the present.  Embrace history - it might just tell you a few things that consumers can't.

Anyone feeling stuff(ed) yet ?

[IMAGE VIA AD LETTERS FIRDGE GENERATOR]

You hardly need to be a discourse analyst to realise that the language (or tone of voice, if you insist) used in marketing comms has been changing rapidly across a variety of product categories; from food to finance.

To (over) simplify a complex evolution, in 1998 Innocent Drinks was born, and in the years that followed much of the marketing world (in the UK at least) started to grow increasingly self-conscious and feel somewhat awkwardly over-dressed.

Supplanting the usual dry, rational, consumer business speak (bound up in a discourse of formalism, fact and truth) came Innocent’s sweet little human-istic words and phrases like “tasty”, “stuff”, “honest”, “no funny business”, “popping in the fridge” et al.

And a stroke of genius it was.  Innocent soon became the must-have drinking accessory for health-conscious mothers and general guilt-ridden fruit-skippers.  In the brand personality sense, Innocent had pretty much inverted the category; making every other fruit juice look dry, stiff, and dull in comparison.

Interestingly enough, this development roughly parallels the shift from third person reporting to first person introspection; from formal letters to informal emails; from consumer magazines to consumer blogs; and from PC’s to Apple Macs.

Pushing this parallel a little further, it’s hardly an exaggeration to say that many a marketing blog uses language that wouldn’t look out of place alongside Innocent’s advertising, website and packaging.  If I had a [insert a single unit of your local currency here] for every time that ‘stuff’ was used in a blog post (mea culpa), I’d be a rich man! 

Indeed ‘stuff’ - a word that was once considered too vague, imprecise, and sloppy to be of any use to the marketing lexicon - is now somewhat of a fashion leader.  In fact, shock horror, I even had an email from one of my management consultant friends the other day sporting the 'stuff' word (bearing in mind he's typically planned his whole life within the confines of an Excel spreadsheet according to the tenets of planning, implementation and control!  Sorry Rish ... ;)

Also hot on its linguistic tail, ‘honesty’ is now being favoured over ‘trust’, whilst ‘unadulterated’ is also climbing rapidly up the copyrighter buzz chart.

But at the very point when this ‘kidult’-like marketing speak is fast-approaching the Gladwellian tipping point, I’m already starting to feel a little queasy.  Is this semantic-symbolic shortcut for sweet, innocent and natural not already starting to create a sea-of-sameness I ask? 

Let’s consider some extracts from Dorset Cereals website for example – a somewhat brave move considering its identity and packaging is one of the slickest around at the moment …

   

And there's more (this time from its packaging) ...

"We take delicious things and add some more delicious things, then we mix them up a bit"

"It's all about enjoying good things with other good things - like a doze and a deckchair, a flag and a sandcastle or rock pools and crabs"

Now don’t get my wrong, this is all admirably bang 'on trend' right now (for want of a better phrase).  But I suspect “splashing in muddy puddles”, “wooden trucks full of chunky slices” and “lovely beach stuff” is only going to look endearing, cute and cuddly for so long.

Further, with so many brands now jumping on Farmer Giles' imperfectly hand-drawn tractor, it’s starting to feel somewhat mushy, contrived and predictable.  As someone who deconstructs FMCG packaging at breakfast, literally, there are only so many stories about "little things" and "lovely stuff" I can read before the gorgonzola-stilton cocktail aroma starts making my eyes water (and quite frankly ruining my breakfast).

But where in future then?  Back to the dry, stiff, man-in-a-white-coat copy of old?  Well, I certainly hope not.  I guess we’ll just have to remain patient and see – unless anyone else happens to have made an early sighting of the next ‘linguistic turn’ that is?

The Interestingness Economy

[IMAGE: EYE OF HAINT]

Finally got round to reading all the great things about the Interesting 2007 gig – that'll teach me for not snapping up a ticket quick enough!

Amongst all of the brilliant blogging after thoughts, here, here and here for example, it’s got me thinking about the related concept of ‘interestingness’, which is something that Jeffre (here, here, here) and Russell (here) have discussed previously.

It might come as no surprise to even the passing title skimmer of this blog, that my humble contribution to the ‘interestingnessphere' (hey, just kidding!) comes by the way of dialling up the importance of culture in the mix.  Specifically, it’s ocurred to me that interestingness is more or less akin to the cultural theorist’s favourite trump card: cultural relevance.

Here’s some thoughts why…

When something interests people on a global or national level it often goes on to become a visible part of mass culture.

If something interests people on a local or group level it can be considered to appealing to a sub-culture, micro-culture, or at least some kind of neo-tribe.

At an individual level (tying in with the above points), a person's cultural background and value system plays a crucial role in interpretation and ultimately what they find interesting.

Following ideas of the socio-cultural variety, what is interesting is never fixed, it is constantly in a state of flux.  And even when things do stay interesting over a long period, most of the time it’s because they’ve reinvented the representation to keep it culturally relevant.

Rethinking, reimagining and reinventing culture is important, since something interesting is often interesting precisely because it usually contains an element of the re-familiar.

I used to have a quote on my blog title (I should bring it back) by George Washington Carver, who’s quoted as saying: “

“When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of the world.”

This is something that is culturally relevant, innovative, and therefore, interesting!

I thought I’d be a bit adventurous and try running this quote through a trusty matrix to see what happens …

The outcome suggests that perhaps there are four main manifestations of ‘interesting’ (broadly speaking):

Common things in life in a common way
This is the very familiar, not particularly groundbreaking, but if it’s done better than everyone else (e.g. like the Japanese who value perfection and continuous improvement) it's interesting.  Could also include icons, classics and vintage for example.

Uncommon things in life in a common way
The idea is new and unfamiliar, but the design/execution is familiar, so that people can still relate to it and find it interesting.

Common things in life in an uncommon way
The vision of George Washington Carver above.  The idea is familiar, but the design and execution is renewed/refreshed.  Quite possibly the holy grail of interesting to the mass market.

Uncommon things in life in an uncommon way
Abstraction and ambiguity.  Because the idea and the execution are both unfamiliar, we have no direct frame of reference to guide an interpretation.  More likely to interest imaginative artsy folk.

Also just to note that I’m not suggesting that something has a definitive classification here, or that it won't vary person by person.  Further, idea and design/execution cannot be neatly separated – they are ultimately bound to each other.  But sometimes it can still help to artificially split them - and then piece things back together again when no one's looking ;)