people ain’t stupid
By   |  Culture,  Social,  Strategy 
beyonce

Now that some time has passed, we can finally agree on one thing: Tidal is the perfect example that people ain’t stupid. Being rich and famous and having a bunch of rich and famous friends isn’t enough. At least these days. Tidal was the perfect opportunity for the rich and famous to stand up for the not so rich and famous. I like to call that empathy. The smart kind. And people like that. Both in other people and brands. After all, Tidal for all. Is it? It’s like if (Read more)

Now that some time has passed, we can finally agree on one thing:

Tidal is the perfect example that people ain’t stupid.

Being rich and famous and having a bunch of rich and famous friends isn’t enough. At least these days.

Tidal was the perfect opportunity for the rich and famous to stand up for the not so rich and famous.

I like to call that empathy. The smart kind.

And people like that. Both in other people and brands.

After all, Tidal for all.

Is it?

It’s like if someone rich and famous told me: “We are now competing with Ferrari and you can have your own Ferrari, too; the one we created for you! And this time, you can afford the gas!”

No, I won’t.

Furthermore, we don’t want high fidelity music. Unless you’re a producer, no one cares about it.

That’s not why we bought walkmans or discmans or mp3 players, in the first place.

We don’t want curated content. We have Facebook and Instagram and Twitter, now, you know?

I can follow Rihanna and her curated content is fine with me.

You’re an artist. Just pay them more.

People ain’t stupid.

Related articles
who’s the leader of the pack?
By   |  Culture 

After a fairly peculiar and eventful week, I found myself discussing, with one of my coworkers, leadership, judgment, “the right thing to do”, and how to overcome and learn from the usual setbacks of agency work; all in all, the typical thoughts, at the end of the day, of tiredness and (de)motivation. Usually we have a quite similar train of thought and, almost every time, we share the same ideas. However, more often than not, we disagree on how to address the subject, or on which route to take to (Read more)

After a fairly peculiar and eventful week, I found myself discussing, with one of my coworkers, leadership, judgment, “the right thing to do”, and how to overcome and learn from the usual setbacks of agency work; all in all, the typical thoughts, at the end of the day, of tiredness and (de)motivation.

Usually we have a quite similar train of thought and, almost every time, we share the same ideas. However, more often than not, we disagree on how to address the subject, or on which route to take to get us to where we want to. Notwithstanding, and after a good half an hour spent questioning the ‘whys and hows’, the debate ends up focusing on his specific leadership style and on the various others we’ve come across.

And if the subject has always interested me, today it deserves my special attention and care for I too have a team to lead and only God – and many of you – knows what a challenge that is.

In the end, and to sum up, the question and the conclusion are quite simple: are people, in an unrestricted environment, able of act according to their good judgment without ever losing their sense of responsibility, freedom(s) and justice? He believes so. I have my reservations.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of a leadership style that empowers each of the team’s members, and allows them to act according to their consciousness and convictions (death to micromanagement!). So much so, that once, I defended tooth and nail the “please, just don’t make me tell you what to do” approach. Today, I can’t look at that statement without acknowledging in it some immaturity.

Curiously, this morning, I picked up a book that was lying on the shelf, gathering dust for half a year, and, without knowing it, it would make me question further about this particular matter right from the very first chapter.

The approach to justice that begins with freedom is a capacious school. In fact, some of the most hard-fought political arguments of our time take place between two rival camps with it – the laissez-faire camp and the fairness camp. Leading the laissez-faire camp are free-market libertarians who believe that justice consists in respecting and upholding the voluntary choices made by consenting adults. The fairness cam contains theorists of a more egalitarian bent. They argue that unfettered markets are neither just nor free. In their view, justice requires policies that remedy social and economic disadvantages and give everyone a fair chance at success.

Justice (2014), Michael J. Sandel

I realized that to speak of leadership is to speak of freedom. And that it’s impossible to speak of freedom without speaking of justice. Although the previous quotation is mainly concerned with the economy and with prosperity, it still raises some important questions and ties up a few loose ends.

Is the laissez-faire model one that allows, especially when things go wrong, for justice and equity in work relationships based on the premise that we are all sensible adults?

Will I always be able to know when I’m crossing the threshold of what’s acceptable in an office argument?

Will I always be able to understand that I must sacrifice for the greater good?

Will I always be able to [insert here any situation in which you doubted your own behavior/decision]?

The agency, in 2015, has no room for authoritarian/imposing types of leadership, and, if you still work in that kind of environment, it’s quite possible that its days are numbered. That’s just not how millennials work.

But, if the freedom and the autonomy required cannot be mistaken for not having any boundaries at all, one question remains. What is (if there is one) the best model to define those boundaries: the intra-definition or the inter-definition?

Do we still require someone one to guide us, or are we able to set our own boundaries within the limits of the pack?

Related articles
“sorry, amigo” OR you’re not the average consumer
By   |  Social,  Strategy 
helpyouhelpme

Every now and then, there comes an article that makes you think that, MAYBE, you’re not that wrong. That, MAYBE, you should keep on doing what you believe, no matter what. This is one of it: “Imagine for a second that you’re the brand manager for BigSave supermarkets. Your job is to build the BigSave brand so that customers prefer you to SaveMore, and HugeSave. You know how wonderful BigSave is. You want to spread the word. You want consumers to see inside your brand. You want them to know (Read more)

Every now and then, there comes an article that makes you think that, MAYBE, you’re not that wrong. That, MAYBE, you should keep on doing what you believe, no matter what. This is one of it:

“Imagine for a second that you’re the brand manager for BigSave supermarkets.
Your job is to build the BigSave brand so that customers prefer you to SaveMore, and HugeSave.

You know how wonderful BigSave is. You want to spread the word. You want consumers to see inside your brand. You want them to know how responsive you are, and how pleasant you are to engage with, and how willing you are to work with them and help them.

Building the brand is absolutely essential to your career and central to your life. Once you leave the house in the morning, it is the most important thing you do.

Now let’s talk about the average consumer. The average consumer couldn’t give a flying shit about BigSave.

If BigSave exploded tomorrow, the average consumer wouldn’t bother picking up the donuts.

The average consumer has other things on her mind. Like why she gained 2 pounds last week, and why her father is looking pale, and why the fucking computer keeps losing its WiFi signal, and why Timmy’s teacher wants to see her next week, and what’s that bump she noticed on her arm?

The point is this: our brands are very important to us marketers and very unimportant to most consumers. Please read that again.

Are there some brands each of us are attached to? Sure. Are there brands we buy regularly? Sure. Is our attachment to a handful of brands strong and nonsensical? Sure. The problem is we buy stuff in hundreds of categories and are strongly attached to only a few brands.

The idea that our attachment represents “love” or any of the other woolly nonsense perpetrated by brand hustlers is folly.

The clearest demonstration of the weakness of the cult of brands is the dismal performance of social media marketing. We were promised that social media would be the magic carpet on which our legions of brand advocates would go to spread the word about the marvelousness of our brands, and would free us from the terrible, wasteful expense of advertising. It has done nothing of the sort.

In fact, it is often the exact opposite. Social media is usually where people go to scream about the mistreatment we get at the hands of companies. And where companies go to beg forgiveness.

A recent study reported that among a brand’s fans, only .07% — that’s 7 in ten thousand — ever engage with the brand’s Facebook posts. On Twitter the number is even lower — 3 in ten thousand. And these are not average consumers. These are the brands so-called “fans.” (This is a correction from original post which had the number at .7%)

A study I quoted here recently by Havas claims that “in Europe and the US, people would not care if 92% of brands disappeared.”

Having a successful brand is very important to a marketer. But the idea that it is anything like that to a consumer is folly. Brand babble is just the faulty conflation of marketers’ needs and consumers’ interests.

Modern marketing is operating under the delusion that consumers want to interact with brands, and have relationships with brands, and brand experiences, and engage with them, and co-create with them.

Sorry, amigo. Not in this lifetime.”

Originally from: http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com.br/2015/03/what-brand-babblers-dont-understand.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/lcfIS+%28The+Ad+Contrarian%29


Related articles
“Birdman” and the Oscars® or the expected ignorance of our business
By   |  Culture,  Social,  User Experience 
plastic

On one hand we had a movie made with patience, a lot of patience. It took 12 years to finish Boyhood, an honest movie full of heart and humanity we can all relate to. On the other hand we had an exhibitionist Birdman, a movie with an insipid sequence of 2 hours you can’t relate to, but with a lot of visual skills. This is our world. The best design wins the pitch. Screw strategy and humanity. Guess which one took the biggest prize.

On one hand we had a movie made with patience, a lot of patience. It took 12 years to finish Boyhood, an honest movie full of heart and humanity we can all relate to. On the other hand we had an exhibitionist Birdman, a movie with an insipid sequence of 2 hours you can’t relate to, but with a lot of visual skills. This is our world. The best design wins the pitch. Screw strategy and humanity. Guess which one took the biggest prize.

Related articles
Categories
Most read
Must read
• All You Need to Know About Content Writing
What is content writing? Content writing refers to the craft of generating content cialis hair loss...
• The Different Types of Juicer Explained
The centrifugal juicers are still here offering cheap and fast juicing, this is what most of us...
• Reinvigorating Your PPC Campaigns With a Multi-Channel Approach
SEOs around the world felt the walls closing in when Google announced new privacy efforts that...
• Top 3 Problems With the Nintendo Wii
Video games have been in development covet fashion app cheats since the 1950s, but rapid progress...
spark