← The Art of the Brand
The Art of the Brand
Why Playing It Safe Is Killing Your Brand: Google, AI, Black Mirror & the Canadian Election
01:05:46
Loading summary
Transcript251 lines
- [00:00]
A
I heard nothing as a Canadian from the Conservative Party, nothing, because he didn't talk to reporters.
- [00:06]
B
Trump, as I said before, gives more interviews than any president in history. Pierre was insulated because they didn't want a mistake. Whereas in today's world, it moves so.
- [00:15]
A
Fast, you have to take risk, you have to take calculated risks. Politics is so important for us to learn from because it shows you the current sentiment within the human populace, which is who's buying from you. You don't need to have money to have taste. Right. Like, to have taste doesn't mean to have designer brands, to have logos. In fact, it's. It's actually the opposite of that. To have taste is to have a refined and confidence in a brand.
- [00:40]
B
ChatGPT should be immediately launching a messaging and an email platform.
- [00:45]
A
Yeah, right.
- [00:45]
B
And a web browser.
- [00:46]
A
Google used to be your assistant. It was your insist assistant until technology got better.
- [00:51]
B
It's funny that Google Assistant was the.
- [00:54]
A
Best assistant until AI came along.
- [00:58]
B
What a brand, what a brand, what.
- [01:00]
A
A brand, what a mighty good brand. Say it again now. What a brand, what a brand, what a brand, what a mighty good brand. Welcome back to another week of Art of the Brand. This episode we're going to cover a lot of interesting topics. We're going to kick it off with Google losing its throne, and we're going.
- [01:18]
B
To talk about the Canadian election because it is a catastrophic choke by one of the parties. And I think it gives a nice case analysis for how businesses drop the ball when they could win and the strategy behind that.
- [01:34]
A
Yep. We're going to touch on the difference between money and taste. I think that's really relevant for marketing managers and business owners for navigating the minefield of spend versus impact. We're going to talk about the book that I read recently that was really interesting is Competing against Luck. And I want to talk about the American Girl strategy. And I think that there's a lot to unpack there. We're going to chat about Black Mirror and then we're going to head into our hot or not. So lots to stick around for. All right, so we're going to kick this off with Google and there's a really interesting business takeaway from this, the current issue with Google. So Philip and I were having a conversation this week about Google's losing its throne and how much money they put into Gemini and why it's not working. And their quarterly report came out and there was a really interesting conversation on the all in podcast that was speaking about the future state of Google. They're not looking for the dollar for tomorrow. They're too focused on the dollar for today. And I want to break down that problem because I think it's very important to look at the Google issue as a way to apply it to your business and your brand. There's a really, really f fascinating change that's happening to Google where we've been seeing the death of Google for a while.
- [02:51]
B
I don't think we're seeing the death of Google. Google is doing exceptional when you look at their financial reporting, they're making money on so many other channels. They have hundreds of millions of subscribers to YouTube and Gmail. And that's a distinct advantage in the language learning model. Battlefield and Gemini is as good as ChatGPT. But people aren't saying, I'm going to Gemini something. They're saying they're going to chatgpt something. Like, how do you, how do you use those? You were describing how you use both of those platforms. Right. And so what, what we were talking about is when you have hundreds of millions of subscribers who are using your platform every day, Gmail and YouTube ask, we can ask the listeners, is it easy for you to Gemini something?
- [03:34]
A
I don't use, but I don't even like. I don't even know where to access Gemini.
- [03:37]
B
And you have like our businesses run on a G suite platform because.
- [03:41]
A
But that's where I think that Google is dying. I think Google has invested in really smart plays like Gmail and YouTube. But you were recently hacked. Your business was hacked through Gmail. We've recently found out that Gmail is not secure. I'm using a G suite platform. But if ChatGPT came out with an integrated email platform or if one of these platforms became better, I'm in a position where I would switch because the integration of where like Slack to G Suite, like where that was before, that API is now synonymous with most platforms minus Microsoft. Right. So if that's where I feel like with this conversation, what we need to explain is Google's in a really interesting and difficult position because they have siloed themselves, they've stove piped, they've been. They generated all of their money off of becoming the first search engine. It's colloquially become to Google it if you want to search something. But the search experience on Google is no longer the best and it hasn't been the best for a while. And as more and more people adopt ChatGPT, people are moving away from the Google platform. And the whole point of the conversation we're having is that Google could win and Google could kill it if they focused on the dollar of tomorrow, losing money on ad revenue and syndicating all of their platforms to make it a holistic single use. Exceptional experience.
- [05:03]
B
I think it's a theme of some of our topics today is the courage required of a founder or of a leader to make tough calls. And so when you look at Google, they have this beautiful, reliable, sustainable revenue source that comes from Google Ads. And what they have to do is change their identity because their identity is that Google page. I feel lucky, right? That one page that's been there, it's become a staple in all of our lives.
- [05:30]
A
It was a staple in our lives.
- [05:31]
B
And because they don't want to lose ad revenue. Because if that was just Gemini, right? Or if Google, if that landing page was just a Gemini, you put the query in and you don't get paid ads. They lose revenue, but they would control. They could take over the whole AI space because of their G Suite and YouTube data database of subscribers. But they're allowing a competitor to come in and this happens in businesses space because the competitor is not seeking the same revenue stream as they are, but they're gaining subscribers and followers.
- [06:04]
A
I don't think that's the issue. I think the problem is that ChatGPT blew everyone out of the water from speed to market. And Gemini and Apple, which was the whole point we talked about last week with the Apple not having AI yet is because it's been a race to the best artificial intelligence. And Gemini got there before Apple did and they launched it. But app, sorry, but Google isn't focusing on this. The real estate that ChatGPT took from them. And the reason why I think this is a relevant point is that the speed to market for an all in one email suite service is much faster today than it was 10 years ago when G Suite became kind of the preferred second to the Microsoft Office. Right. And that it was much harder back then to build it. But what we're learning is it from a UI UX perspective it looks fantastic, but it could be better. And that to me is what this whole ChatGPT experience represents. And before you jump in, it's relevant to show you that Google has integrated Gemini. When you ask Google questions, the default is now that the top comes up as a Gemini based answer. The problem is that one, it took too long to get here. Two it doesn't represent AI in the use case that AI is creating in our lives. So it's an AI simplified answer. Opposed to the way that I see AI Integrating into our lives is more like an artificial assistant. So it's not like answering your search question. It's getting. It's kind of enhancing you in business and leadership.
- [07:54]
B
You have to make tough calls.
- [07:55]
A
Yeah.
- [07:56]
B
Google is not losing. Google is winning in terms of profitability and revenue and it's growing. I think they can lose if they don't make some changes. I don't think their leadership understands courageous decisions or I don't think they have a sense of taste. And Chamath said it beautifully. You can put like Steve Jobs had taste, so he was able to drive an Apple brand that had taste. It was beautiful. When you put kind of MBAs in there or computer programmers who are very intelligent, all the money in the world won't give them taste. And we'll talk about that later. But the interface of Google was successful because it was the first search engine that did it well and they've stayed with the same delivery mechanism. To me, Google should just be Gemini. And so you should just put in. When you put in google.com, it shouldn't be old Google with a Gemini extension. But somebody has to have the courage to say we're going to walk away from potential billions of revenue sale so that we can be the leader in. And when you say assistant, I think it's perfect. Google should be your personal assistant. And they have an advantage because they have the data of all the YouTube content that goes on. They have the data of all the email emails. They could be a far superior AI than ChatGPT because JBT only has what people are putting in. They don't have a base of subscription content. It's why GROK is a better AI in some ways is because they have all of the X and Twitter posts that give them new information real time that AI can then process. And what I think we're seeing with Google is what we see in businesses is business owners who don't want to adopt something new. It could be like social media, right? They had revenue or they got customers by word of mouth and they don't want to go away from what they think is reliable revenue versus what the future revenue is.
- [09:33]
A
But that's why I think Google is dying. Last week announced that they're finally going back to no more digital working like, no more remote working like it took them way too long to get back to that. Like that's why they're so behind in a lot of these progressions when they had the most money. Right. It wasn't too long ago that there was these massive antitrust court cases because they had all the money and all the power. And with one sweep of AI and ChatGPT, they've lost their throne and they're not focusing on winning through taste like they used to. And even to your point, Google used to be your assistant. It was your assistant until technology got better.
- [10:16]
B
It's funny that Google Assistant was the.
- [10:19]
A
Best assistant until AI came along.
- [10:23]
B
And then they didn't double down.
- [10:24]
A
They didn't double down because they wanted.
- [10:26]
B
Yeah, like, it's a bad decision.
- [10:28]
A
And to me, like, you know, there is a, there is a, a Runway to having late adopters to technology as being your core revenue drivers. And it's, it's a huge issue also with SEO because we get a lot of business owners who, who look to us for advice and it's just the constant conversation is SEO. And if you're just stupid, still doubling down and talking about SEO like you're on a train and I'm on a plane because, like, it's, it's just, it's no longer the focal point. And I think that because Google, it's changing so quickly and they're not adapting fast enough, they're allowing business owners to keep spending crazy amounts of money when search decline. It's actually decreasing Google search volume. Alex was telling me this, so our, our head of it was saying that it dropped another 7% last month for people on the search engine. And a lot of business owners who are, who are, you know, they've got their head in the sand, they're a bit slow to adoption. They're just spending, they have these agencies that they're friends with. They're spending all this money. They're going to become very angry with Google and they're kind of the last people that are on it because they're spending so much money and they're not going to be seeing the results because nobody's on Google.
- [11:42]
B
To me, it's an interesting point when I think of it from business perspective that, that kind of bet big and be right angle. There are critical times that come in your business where you actually have to use data to make a big decision. And I think the weight of momentum of big organizations going in one direction, it's hard for them to stop and say, wait a second, we've identified a trend. They have the most, the fact that my email and YouTube and my messages could all be integrated with an AI and I could just say, hey, Gemini, draft an email to X and it goes right into my contacts, or I could, and then they have the web platform of Chrome. Right. Hey Gemini, book me an appointment for a haircut on Thursday next week. Right. They have the Google my business info linked onto it. It should all be.
- [12:28]
A
They have everything and it's unacceptable.
- [12:31]
B
They haven't taken that step because they're, it's, it's being hamstrung by old patterns of Google Ads made us money.
- [12:39]
A
Yes.
- [12:40]
B
And that has affected their decision making where they had a giant opportunity to go forward. And I just. ChatGPT, your point? I don't, I don't remember us talking about it, but it was brilliant. ChatGPT should be immediately launching a messaging and an email platform.
- [12:56]
A
Yeah, right.
- [12:56]
B
And a web browser so that you can do everything with. You could, hey chatgpt do this for me. And those are AI agents, but people are thinking about them becoming standalone like humans that are AI agents, whereas these platforms can become the AI agents.
- [13:11]
A
Well the, the other thing too that's super relevant is that the, a Google search for the most part is generic, right? For the most part you're providing like, you know, hair salons near me or what is this? Or why is that like they're for the most part generic. And ChatGPT provides a better experience for the generic and then for the specific. When you're like looking for a restaurant or if you're looking for like a place to go, Google isn't the best because it's word based, it's not visual. So for a lot of like for the longest time, like looking for like vacations or like agencies for things to work with, if it was specific, Google wasn't the best because it's like text based opposed to visual based. And when you even think about YouTube is video. But YouTube and Google weren't properly integrated. It was a separate tab. It's a separate platform. It's not that the Google experience has become intuitively visual. Like you have to click different tabs. It's more work. It's, it's just, it's not it. And that's why Instagram and ChatGPT and TikTok have really taken that place. Because I can get everything I need in Instagram before I'm ready to buy, like visually. And then when I'm ready to buy, Instagram still gives me the click to the website if I need to call or there's contact info in the bio. Like it's much easier to do that. And then in addition to that, when you think about the Google products like Google, like Google Meets not better than Zoom.
- [14:38]
B
I find it's a little better than Zoom.
- [14:40]
A
It's not because if you're presenting as a business owner you can't see anybody. So on Zoom, if I'm presenting I can see your facial expression, I can see if you're paying attention. Like what's the worst when you're presenting on a screen and you can't see if people are like engaging in your presentation, like you can't see anything. And also with Google Meets, it's like it's more like a casual like FaceTime than like a real like business experience. Google hangouts where you like Google chats or whatever not better than Slack. They didn't integrate the platform properly, they were lazy and they were focusing on DEI issues. They were letting people work from home. They're spending all this money for this like this huge ass office in California that nobody worked out and they lost the plot.
- [15:21]
B
The interesting thing about ChatGPT I noticed last couple weeks is they finally said that they'll integrate all of your chats in the past yet to create a project, the value is allowing the AI to get to know you so it can respond better. So now I can go into ChatGPT, create a new chat and say analyze all my chats and give me a summary of what I care about and it'll do a good job. Google was in a beautiful position to do that because I've used email with them for 15 years.
- [15:49]
A
Well that's the whole thing too, right? Is that people say like Google knows more about you than anybody else with the search engines.
- [15:55]
B
So if it would have integrated that in a way that made me feel confident, then when I say Gemini, can you do this? I'm going to get better results. And they're losing, they're losing the battle.
- [16:04]
A
Well, two things to that. One, there's that like crazy lawsuit in the US where when Google was selling data through like its third party cookie data, basically a family was found out their daughter was pregnant before they knew because of her search behavior on Google. They Google sold data to Target and.
- [16:25]
B
Basically so all of a sudden the daughter starts getting in the mailborn baby stuff before she's had a pregnancy test.
- [16:31]
A
Because of what she's searching the morning, nausea, like all these things. And Google was able to predict she was pregnant before she was pregnant. And then it became this like this basically a privacy lawsuit because they had so much data. But the other piece to this too is chatgpt is an AI is progressing at a, at a rate that is scary inconvenient. Right? Like they're rolling out new things almost weekly. That if you're like an avid ChatGPT user, you're just constantly blown away by the ease of use and ability that it's giving you to your life. When was the last time you felt that way about Google? Like, when was the last time where you felt like you were. You were getting new rollouts to the experience? Never.
- [17:11]
B
It's true. Like, other than YouTube is maybe feeding me better videos.
- [17:15]
A
But no, like, you're not getting a better search experience. You're not really getting a better. Like, even we pay for Boomerang and Google. Like, how easy would it be for Google to introduce Boomerang and it not be $7 a month. Like, they haven't been focusing on. For us to be really addicted. They really focused on the phone transparently. Like, that's been really. Their core focus is like, let's launch products. Because their phone is actually a quite a good comparable product. But their actual SaaS suite of services, they've been lazy.
- [17:44]
B
And their interface on Google, just putting a Gemini paragraph there, but still focusing on the ads like it shows you that they're missing the plot of where the future.
- [17:53]
A
Yeah. So. And the name of when a brand name becomes a common term is called genericization.
- [18:00]
B
Genericization.
- [18:01]
A
Genericization.
- [18:02]
B
So like Band Aid, Kleenex, Google it.
- [18:05]
A
Here's the definition. When a brand name becomes a common term, it's called genericization. This happens when a trademark term is used so widely to describe a general type of product or service that it loses its unique association with the brand and becomes a standard word for the category. For example, Kleenex is often used to describe any brand of facial tissue, even if it's not a Kleenex next product. So genericization.
- [18:27]
B
So that's a. That's an amazing brand.
- [18:31]
A
That's. That's the ultimate.
- [18:32]
B
That's brand is religion Ultimate. Right. But it's often related to novelty. So it's the first person that gets traction in the industry and gets enough that people. There's really only one.
- [18:42]
A
Yeah.
- [18:42]
B
And that's why Google kind of got.
- [18:44]
A
It and it requires time. Right. Like the, the products that become the name standard have been around for so long as the novel product.
- [18:54]
B
That's where naming is important too. Because it's chatgpt. It's easy to kind of say, but like grok. Like you're not going to say, I'm going to grock it. Right. Like, or I'm going to Gemini could be it.
- [19:04]
A
But ChatGPT, I think the opposite. I think Grocket Feels cleaner than Gemini.
- [19:09]
B
Yeah.
- [19:10]
A
Because Gemini to me already has an association. Right. Like people like Gemini is, is more like Google was a made up word. Kleenex is kind of a made up word. Like it, it stands out as, as its own. But like, yeah, like band aid, like.
- [19:27]
B
Gemini Band aid sounds better than bandage, which is interesting. All right, let's move on.
- [19:32]
A
Cool. So love to hear your guys thoughts on that segment. Let's talk about the difference between money and taste. I know we touched on it in the last segment, but I think it in and of itself really is its own conversation.
- [19:46]
B
Yeah, and I think it, I think it's, it's some of the clues that we can find behind successful brands is that the founder, the decision maker will often have taste. And you can't buy taste with an MBA grad who like essentially is just used to getting good marks. Like, and how do you get taste? Like I asked that to you because you have good taste and you hang around with a lot of people, especially men, but you hang around with all of people.
- [20:10]
A
I don't hang around with a lot of men.
- [20:11]
B
No, no. I mean have good taste in men, but hang around with people who have good taste. How does one acquire good taste so that they can affect the behavior and, and minds of humans?
- [20:27]
A
Well, it's a part of the perfect, the like the perfect formula. Right. Like to have great taste, it's almost something you have to aspire to have unintentionally. Right. Like you have to, it's a, it's, it's a natural thing that you have to take on and you have to see the world and you have to be exposed to different things so that you can acquire taste. And that's what makes, that's what makes taste so unique and so complicated. Because money can't buy taste. And that's like why that statement is so powerful is like we see so many people with money and they're frickin tacky because it doesn't matter if you have all the money in the world. That, that doesn't mean you have taste. And that's what most brands miss. Like they're just throwing money at stuff like copying things and copying things to hope to break through. But like that's what makes Zach Moose so interesting is that they've got taste. They've got money, but they got money and taste and that's why it breaks through and it's you.
- [21:23]
B
But just to talk about money, like there's people in small neighborhoods and their house has taste.
- [21:28]
A
You don't need to have money to have taste.
- [21:30]
B
And I'm just thinking of it from the human perspective because not everybody who becomes wealthy is better than other people. There are some people who have amazing taste, but they never had an opportunity to get into certain industries where it would have been recognized. Right.
- [21:43]
A
In fact, I think actually most people who have taste don't have an abundance of money. Right.
- [21:47]
B
I'm just trying to think of it from the human perspective. How does somebody get taste? Yeah, you gotta travel. But there are some people who just organize things well or who can, like, pick out what works well. They put outfits together better than I.
- [22:00]
A
Taste is a collection of refined personality. Right. Like, to have taste doesn't mean to have designer brands, to have logos. In fact, it's. It's actually the opposite of that. To have taste is to have a refined and confidence in a brand, whether that's your own brand, whether that's your business's brand. And that's what. One of the things that I keep coming back to on a smaller scale with the people I work with is that there are subjective preferences to brand and approach to taste and style. And you can't make somebody have your taste. So that's where it becomes complicated when you're hiring a team and a lot of business owners, they want to outsource the brand.
- [22:39]
B
I think in a lot of organizations, you need a leader who has taste and then who can give direction. You want to get feedback, but it's such a cool and rare skill, taste. And where I find a lot of the marketing or branding discussions go off the rails because you have competent people in the room, but they don't have taste at the same level as people who are skilled at it. Right. And I was trying to think of, how would you define taste? And we didn't look it up. But, like, to me, it's. It's an observational skill about how to kind of integrate design and space to make something aesthetically. Aesthetically pleasing to us. Right. Like, it's what. Like, what is taste? Like when somebody puts together an outfit that looks amazing based on what they have in their closet, what are they doing? They're making decisions about what works together, what's functional, as opposed to somebody who kind of puts on a white belt with black pants and a purple shirt. Like, the human mind is processing to pick outfits or to design a house or to design a logo. How do you define taste?
- [23:41]
A
Taste is confidence in the selection of things that you choose. It doesn't have anything to do with space.
- [23:48]
B
But I saw Somebody the other day wearing a purple shirt with a black tie.
- [23:51]
A
But that's not space.
- [23:52]
B
That person was confident, right? So I don't think it has anything to do with confidence. But when I say, when I say space, I mean you have to use objects around the human animal to put them together into something that creates a reaction in another human animal. And so that's why I say space. It's because how you decorate a room will be space. How you decorate yourself will be space. How you decorate a product or a message is space, function, color, so that another human animal appreciates it. It's kind of like art, but it's in like the day to day. Like I'm trying, I'm struggling with it because I don't know what it is, but I'm trying to figure out how I would define it.
- [24:30]
A
But I don't, I don't think it's about focusing on their appreciation of taste. Like having taste is almost a self confirmation of when you think about the, the best artists. Right. The point of what we're talking about is like, is like a Steve Jobs, you know, founders need to have taste. They had taste for the sake of their own obsession with aesthetic, with feel, with approach, with what they wanted to put forward into the world. Like it was almost more for their own approach to aesthetic and art than.
- [25:06]
B
It was about, okay, but you're talking about what their skills are, but what is taste like? I'm trying to, I'm even thinking about going back to the root of the word. So the word taste came from tasting food, right. And so I think when somebody has good taste, right, they were able to detect nuances in an experience. And so I think good taste is the ability to kind of synergize nuances and put it together and integrate it into something else. Like I'm interested in why it came from a food aspect into a lifestyle aspect. What's the definition of taste?
- [25:42]
A
Effectively, the definitions of it in the rate in the, in the dictionary is the amount needed to give a flavor pleasing to someone eating a dish.
- [25:49]
B
And so that, I think that extends to the visual that when people say they have good taste in clothes, good taste in cars, good taste.
- [25:55]
A
There's a flavor, there's like, there's a feeling to it. When you talk about a purple and a white belt and a black belt, there's no flavor to that. There's, there isn't a marriage of different.
- [26:05]
B
Is like mixing sour and another flavor that leaves a bad taste. So if you had taste, you're able to Like a dish complement a bunch of things to produce an amazing effect. Right. Is that. And taste is the ability to understand that.
- [26:21]
A
Yeah, I don't know.
- [26:21]
B
But anyhow, we were talking about how in businesses, money doesn't create taste. Taste is a human skill that people who are obsessed with it can develop.
- [26:30]
A
Well, I think there's two issues with taste. The first issue is that you can't outsource taste. So the brands that become the most prolific and do the best has an obsessive founder with taste at the helm. And it's not about having more cooks in the kitchen. It's about executing the recipe. It's having the chef.
- [26:51]
B
Yeah, and that's the problem with marketing, is that they're really not comfortable with having a chef because everybody has an opinion on marketing. And so if you have too many cooks in the kitchen.
- [26:58]
A
But it's not marketing, it's branding. Marketing is advertising. So that's the problem, is that CEOs feel that they're too busy to drive the flavor of the brand. But that's all that the brand is, and it touches every aspect. And that's why Apple is dying, is because their phones still look good, their phones still function, but they're not executing at the level of taste at what Steve Jobs obsessed over. And that is the slightest slow death of a brand.
- [27:26]
B
And that's where committee, business by committee, where everybody sits down and you get 20 people giving an opinion on the logo. Right. Whereas you need a chef who decides what is that dish going to go out and represent? And he's. He may get some feedback from the prep cook, but they're not the ones that are deciding what the taste of the meal is.
- [27:43]
A
They're not building the dish. They're not the. They're not the maestro that's at the helm of it. They're. They're pieces in getting that out the door.
- [27:50]
B
And that's why you get $50 million logos that are bland or don't do anything.
- [27:54]
A
But there's a second issue with taste that I want to discuss, which is one that I kind of came up against recently. And it's that the business owners that are reaching out to hire people, to support them, to get into momentum, to get them into inertia. And I noticed that there's a. A desire to outsource and hire people to get things done, and then a frustration on not getting things out the door because it's not aligned with their taste. And when you're deciding to work with a team to get things moving, like There's. There's brands at different stages. And the brand that I'm talking about here in the second issue is the business that really isn't investing in developing a personal brand online, or you're really not modernized in the approach to socials, and you hire an agency and a team. They're getting things out there that are on brand, that are worth, that are not horrible. But your fixation on it not being your taste is getting, is. Is stopping the production and moving forward. And maybe I should just explain the story. So I had this. We had this team that had reached out, and they are basically in very much the beginning stages of launching a business or brand. And they watch a lot of content and they feel like they should put content out there. And we're working with them to create content and to record content and to. And to put it out, and they're approving it. But then when it cuts time, time to, like, post it or when it's posted, they want to take it back and retract because it doesn't feel like them. Right. Even though it's been approved and it looks good and it reads well. But just there's this, like, frustrated, this, like, anxiety of, like, I don't want to put this thing out there because I wouldn't have done this. You know, you did this. And it comes down to the discussion of taste, because when you talk about approaching socials, like, there is a lot of taste in it. Like, when we analyze what makes Bayes good versus what makes another brand good, it's that there's that element of tast taste that's there. The reason why I want to touch on this, on this week's episode is what I said to them, which I hope is insightful for you. The whole point of going through this and being pushed into action and to be. To feel uncomfortable is to be in a state where you can reflect on what I'm getting you to do so that you can take notes, to refine it, to add your taste. But at a place where you've received data and it's gotten out there and there's just a lot of people that are too afraid to start and they can't get anything in motion to allow and to execute their style and their. Their taste in creating content and doing a brand.
- [30:23]
B
I think what's relevant is, like, I know at our agency, we've moved away from being hired, hired to work for them. And now we say, no, no, we're going to work with you, because if you need to build A brand, you don't tell us what to do. Like, you have to work with us to build that brand.
- [30:40]
A
We're working with you, not for you. Like, we work with you. Like, we're good at what we do. I'm gonna get you content that performs. I know what I'm doing. But it's also okay if you. If you would take a different stylistic approach. I can disagree with it from a. How I would approach it. But it. You're now in the position of, you're thinking about it, you're writing it down, you're doing it. You can now feel confident to go and take your own stab at it. And the whole point of this is that you should be testing things to find your taste, your style, your approach. That's what makes brands truly stand out in the current age. That it's not a copy and paste, it's finding your own way, your own brand.
- [31:16]
B
I think that's our skill set is when we. That's why we love working with founders as opposed to big corporations, because big corporations, it's hard to find taste to build a brand. But with a founder who's often been just really busy with their head down, kicking butt, building, building, and their force of will have done it. But by that time, they now have a brand that's like a statue hidden in a piece of stone.
- [31:38]
A
Yeah.
- [31:38]
B
You know, and we can kind of, kind of chip away at it by talking to them and say, okay, this is actually what you are. This is your brand. And then you. You do have your own style and taste. And that's the secret sauce I think, that we're doing now in the agency.
- [31:50]
A
Totally. And even to speak to myself on this, I've had. My social media coordinator has been posting a lot of the stories for me, and it has been my taste. They're not wrong. They're not bad. It just has been my taste. And that feeling of like, it's not my taste is normal and right. But the best part is, is that she has kicked me in the butt to be like, I'm gonna prioritize my stories. I'm gonna take this back from you. I've seen what you did, I've noted what we've done. You haven't made typos, you haven't made any. You haven't done anything wrong. You're just not me. And I think that that's a big piece to this. This whole journey is that it's. It's sometimes helpful to have someone to help get you into the position to prioritize it, I think even with your own content. Right. Like, you even had your kind of, your own realization of like, it's just going to be better when I do it. And that's also a good reality because.
- [32:39]
B
Oh, Jesus, can I jump in? Because I think it's, I think it's amazing. I think this is almost an analogy to what we were talking about with Google from a founder perspective, is that the founder doesn't think they need to show their taste out there.
- [32:51]
A
Yes.
- [32:52]
B
They're looking back kind of like Google is. They're attached to that old model. But the real growth in the next level of scaling is understanding that you have to now, you know, project yourself in order to make the next step in business.
- [33:04]
A
And that's exactly it. And that's what the big piece of what's missing is like. To really kill it. You have to show up authentically. And you can't outsource authenticity. You can't outsource it. There's pieces where you can get assistance and help, but you have to be in a driving seat to say, I'm presenting myself to the world. Like, people are following you. They're not following. Four random people that sit behind the desk and are pretending to be you. Like, that's never gonna work.
- [33:30]
B
It's kind of funny when you think back to Jobs or Bezos. There's videos of them talking about what they see the world as authentically before they became huge.
- [33:40]
A
Yeah, right.
- [33:41]
B
They weren't shy about what they felt was their brand or what they felt was important. Right. And it's interesting that too few founders are doing that in their business.
- [33:50]
A
Yeah, right.
- [33:50]
B
Because they're trying to copy faceless corporations. But those corporations have changed from the founder that made them amazing. You know what I mean?
- [33:58]
A
Well, I think a lot of the ones though, that stay relevant are the ones that people write books about are the ones that haven't.
- [34:04]
B
Right.
- [34:04]
A
I'm even right now reading the Nvidia Way. And it's the whole, the whole, the whole point of the book though is that Jensen Huang is Nvidia and he's been the longest standing CEO for a Fortune 500 company. Next to. It was like some other, it was like one other person a very long time ago. Like, it's in really like the ones that people write books about are these brands where the founder is so ingrained in who they are and their taste into the brand. And it's. We need to get back to that. Like, social media isn't a buzzword. It's not A box to check if you're outsourcing it and you're not involved and people are sending you content concepts like, that's why it's not performing. Like, you can get help, you can get coaching, but like, you need to be very much involved because it has to be authentically you.
- [34:44]
B
I think we nailed that. There's some, there's some good stuff in there.
- [34:47]
A
Cool. So, want to move on to the Canadian election?
- [34:51]
B
Quite a few people in the States and in Europe are talking about the Canadian election because they're trying. It's kind of a contrast to compare to what happened in the US Everybody is kind of benchmarking what's happening with Trump. And politics aside, there's a skill to messaging and branding your campaign or your. And in Canada, I think what we just saw was one of the biggest droppings of the ball by the Conservative Party that had a giant lead because of Trudeau's essential mismanagement of the country over 10 years. Canada's GDP hasn't grown over 10 years. From an immigration perspective, it's a bit of a disaster. I think by all accounts, it was a failure compared to other countries over the last 10 years. And it looked like a sure win for the consensus Conservatives and they ended up losing it in this election. And we were discussing why we thought that was the case.
- [35:38]
A
The Conservatives lost the election before the election even started. And it's, it. And I think it's such a, regardless of what side you're on, I think it's, it's relevant to have a conversation of overt confidence when you're not doing the, the, the things needed to get you the win. Right. They, they avoided a lot of necessary steps. And you have a really interesting insight because, you know, a lot of the behind the scenes people for that party and very much the narrative over the last year was we just, we, we're just, we're just, we just can't lose. So it wasn't like an aggressive lean in. It was like a. We're just gonna do the baseline of what's needed to not lose. And going into this, this past election, I'm like, there's just, there's no chance, like, they've completely disappeared.
- [36:26]
B
It's unfortunate. And I think for business, like the phrase that comes to mind is fear is the mind killer.
- [36:32]
A
Yeah.
- [36:32]
B
And I think we've all watched our favorite sports teams and I've always wanted to study this at some level. But why in every game is the last two minutes or five minutes? Why is there always that comeback, something changes in the mentality of who's winning and who's losing, right? And so we've always had our team that we've had a team that's winning by a certain amount, and all of a sudden they start playing defense, and. And then the other team just starts pressing, and then mistakes happen. And I think that's what makes sports so exciting. And when your organization or your company has a strategy that is, let's not lose, it's the surest way to lose. And in this particular campaign, they just thought they would win, so they didn't want to make a mistake, so they were playing to not lose. And what happens is you lose what people believe in you about, whether it's your product or your business or. Or your platform. If you play defense, people don't really. You can do it when you're a monopoly who's got control of the whole market, and you're not fighting against an equal. But when you're trying to win in your competitive market or in politics, you can't play not to lose. You have to play to win, which means leaning into something. And in Canada, by the way, I think this is insightful for people because I had talked to some of the strategists in the Conservative Party, and I was like, you should go on Joe Rogan, Patrick Beck Davis, Theo Von. He was invited to all of these podcasts. There's a couple of advisors there. And this happens in business. You get surrounded kind of by the worm tongue character in the Lord of the Rings who whispers into the ear of the king, don't do that. Be scared. Don't trust anybody. And they told Pierre Poliev, don't go on Rogan, because Rogan endorsed Trump. Now, regardless of the politics, Rogan is the most popular podcast in the world and in Canada. And that fear of being associated with something that he was going to be associated with anyhow led to him not doing it. And he lost by a small margin after having such a huge win. Whereas if he would have gone in there and engaged with voters who don't generally vote, who feel unrepresented, I think, I guarantee he would have won. And it's. It's a messaging campaign that was playing not to lose, and it failed completely.
- [38:39]
A
Playing to win versus playing not to lose has to be the title of the segment because there's so much ground to cover with the current landscape and climate, because for those who are, who don't know, like Trudeau stepped down because he was so disliked in the country and there was so many things that people were so upset with that it was a very difficult and tumultuous time for the Liberal government because the liberals to have won the way that they won based on the sentiment shows you that they won because the conservatives lost. The reason why this is relevant from a, from a branding and a business perspective is that the messaging, the positioning, the, the conversation of bringing people in who weren't already loyal brand advocates for the Conservative Party were not brought in. And that's relevant because the US election was, which was literally a few months ago, painted a very different picture of changing people from other brands over like converting, converting the target market Persona. And it's relevant to talk about because seldom do you have such a comparison of the two and to see when messaging and strategy goes wrong and what happens based on a current client climate. Because if anything, they were actually very comparable situations. Right. Biden, there was no, there wasn't trust within the country. Trudeau, There wasn't trust within the country. They were very comparable and it shows you the difference of, of messaging.
- [40:13]
B
But this is where I like the phrase words talk, numbers scream.
- [40:17]
A
Yeah.
- [40:17]
B
And Kamala was going to go on Joe Rogan and I've read the reports, you had one agent who hated Trump and hated Rogan, a young advisor who should never work again, ever in politics. But politics aside, again, if she would have gone out in Joe Rogan in over two hours, conducted herself in a.
- [40:34]
A
Way that was inspirational, it would change the election.
- [40:36]
B
It could have changed.
- [40:36]
A
It would have.
- [40:37]
B
Right?
- [40:37]
A
Yeah.
- [40:38]
B
But they didn't look at the data, said the numbers, mean this is a great platform to speak at. But the words are, oh, we don't like this person. And if you want to be a change agent, whether you like Trump or not, he's a change agent and he realized that the media in the US weren't ever going to treat him well.
- [40:53]
A
Yes.
- [40:53]
B
So why bother to please them?
- [40:55]
A
Which is the same as in Canada.
- [40:57]
B
Yes.
- [40:57]
A
Right.
- [40:58]
B
The CBC.
- [40:59]
A
Yes. CTV, CP24, they're all liberal owned and controlled media.
- [41:03]
B
But the conservative leader, Pierre wanted to play in that playground because it made him and his advisors feel like they're in the cool.
- [41:11]
A
It comes back to what Jordan Peterson said, which is what you introduced to me, is that Canadians want to feel morally superior. They, they didn't want to play the game that was put proven. And this is a huge learning opportunity for business owners because media has changed, marketing has changed. You have to be able to adapt and you have to take risk. And if you're not prepared to take risk on the fear. But you're going to lose anyways, so at least lose trying. Because by. Not by. By only using the traditional media outlets. I heard nothing as a Canadian from the Conservative Party, nothing.
- [41:45]
B
But they had a social media team that was active but ineffective.
- [41:48]
A
I saw nothing on my algorithm because.
- [41:52]
B
He didn't talk to reporters. Trump, as I said before, gives more interviews than any president in history. Pierre was insulated because they didn't want a mistake. Whereas in today's world, that's what I'm saying.
- [42:02]
A
You have to take risk. You have to take calculated risk. And politics is so important for us to learn from because it shows you the current sentiment within the human populace, which is who's buying from you know what?
- [42:16]
B
We have an amazing client, Christina. But when we see clients who decide to say f you to the haters, because you're gonna hate me anyhow, and you just lean into what you believe in, like, that is the type of person you follow and you trust. You know, you don't trust the vanilla person who doesn't say anything, especially to lead your country. But when your handlers tell you to be safe, to be vanilla, don't talk to the press. Don't go on Theo Vaughn. Like, I don't know if you saw Theo Vaughn. He brought J.D. vance on, right? And they had this great. They had this great. You should look up the clip where Theo Vaughan goes. You know, our country is kind of where we're in a place where you can't even say if you do coke anymore. And JD Vance just started laughing and laughing hysterically, but it so humanized him that it made people like him. But it goes back to what we're talking before. People are doing what they. What used to be done.
- [43:07]
A
Well, it's interesting. I saw this. I don't know who to give credit to, but there was like. Basically, the whole concept of the series on Socials was like, in order to build a loyal audience, you have to be controversial. But it's not that you have to be controversial. Like, the Post wasn't like, be ridiculous. You know, be hateful in order to be followed. It's that you just have to actually, like, show up. Because people want to, like, love what you have to say, or they want to hate that you have to say, but they want to just know what you stand for.
- [43:33]
B
In order to be loved, you almost have to be hated.
- [43:35]
A
You do.
- [43:36]
B
It's like, everything.
- [43:36]
A
In order to be happy, people have to disagree with you. And people genuinely. They want to follow People that they can actively disagree with because at least they have an opinion. At least they have a stance. Right. Opposed to. I'm just going to say nothing which is, which is going to break through nowhere and it's going to connect with nobody because we just, we live in a world with so much noise. It's our phones, it's our I iPads, it's, it's, we now don't even have to go to Google. We go to ChatGPT that serves us. No ads like you go on socials, you're only served your algorithm. If you're saying nothing, you're not breaking through. And it's even funny when we talk about hot or not. There was like one of the things our team sent us was one of these brands. It was like totally, you know, Philip coated in that. They brought this like the next generation of soccer stars. And I think it was like Gatorade or Powerade and it was like. But the, but it got no traction. It didn't break through. Like nobody picked it up because it was like it wasn't good enough.
- [44:33]
B
In order to make change or be a change agent in your industry, there has to be friction. And if you want to live a life where nobody criticizes you or there's no risks, you're not going to be a change agent. You might be successful because of luck, but as founders or change agents drive through the friction, be a force of nature and say this friction is normal because I want to disrupt this market. I want my vision of my product or service to become the best known. I have to drive through friction. And as I say in the seals, like just embrace the suck because at the end of it you're different and you're successful. But if you shy away from that pain and friction, you're never going to get to where you want to go.
- [45:15]
A
100% agree. And I think a wrap up point to this is the circumstances seed to plant is not to embrace a character that is not you, but it is to do what you see fit and to roll with whatever the feedback is. Because for the, for most of you you're not hidden trump like figures where that's like bubbling at the seams. But you are making decisions that aren't going to upset anybody. But it's holding your brand back because you're just, you're not doing what you want. And it's often the average person I'm speaking to isn't like dying to do something extremely controversial. It's an idea that they have that's Good. That's a genuine good idea. That wouldn't upset anybody. Could be the difference that makes them stand out. But they're not doing it because they just want everything to be so sterilized, and it doesn't work. All right, let's talk about the next segment. So let's talk about Black Mirror. So Black Mirror has a new season. Season seven is out, and every single episode has dropped. Like, slight differences, but the same. Like, nothing changes in the context of the plot, but, like, names will be different for the brand will be different. The actor will look almost the exact same, but is actually a different actor without seeing anything on different people's Netflix accounts to effectively create a guerrilla, like, marketing campaign of, like, people kind of arguing about what they saw and what the words were that they were talking about.
- [46:46]
B
What's the name of that thing where you f. Like, they. They bury something in a movie that you're supposed to discover. There's a phrase for that. Easter eggs. They're hidden in software games, movies, TV shows, because you go hunting for Easter eggs.
- [46:57]
A
Cool.
- [46:58]
B
So essentially what Black Mirror did is they kind of expanded on the concept of the Easter egg. So they didn't just hide something in the show. They actually made two similar versions of the same show and then delivered it to audiences on a random nature. And you have to even think, how would it be discovered? Because which person is going to watch? But if they rewatched. I think how it was discovered is somebody rewatched an episode they liked and was like, wait a second. She's wearing a different color shirt than she wore on the first one. And it's an interesting way to generate interest in their product.
- [47:28]
A
Well, I think how people found it is that people started having arguments about it. So, like, the next day, they would talk about a detail, and the detail was different, and they were trying to correct each other.
- [47:37]
B
Small detail. Like, it wasn't key to the. To the plot. Right. So it was. It was very. It was very subtle. But the fact that that Easter egg was planted to kind of be discovered down the road, you know what I mean? Like, they didn't make it an obvious plot thing that people would be arguing about. Right. It's like, in one scene, she's wearing a red jacket. The other, in the exact same scene, she's wearing a white jacket. I think that's the interesting nuance.
- [48:00]
A
But they did more than that. Like, they changed. Like, when they were in, like, animal costumes, like, instead of it being like a hot dog, it was a chicken. Like, they. They did do things that you would talk about the next day that were different. Like they like you.
- [48:11]
B
Oh, that was great. Last night when she was in the chicken costume.
- [48:13]
A
Yeah.
- [48:14]
B
What do you mean it was in the dog costume?
- [48:15]
A
Yeah.
- [48:15]
B
And people are so sure because they're actually both correct. But you get into this argument.
- [48:20]
A
But that was. The point of it is that the show came out and they said that Metro news in the uk, it was a deliberate feature of the episode designed to explore how technology and social media can alter perception in reality. And it's. It was. The, the concept of it was that we can both be on socials and we could receive news and we can have a very different perception of what we saw that can also differ from reality. So it was. It's a further to what the black does.
- [48:48]
B
But I don't think it's. It's a different perception because both people have the correct perception. They're just.
- [48:54]
A
Well, that was their way to touch on that current phenomenon.
- [48:56]
B
Right.
- [48:57]
A
Like, that was their way of having this conversation because it'll. It create. Created a fury on the Internet of people talking about the two things that happen on socials. And it's not a perfect one for one, but it speaks to how changing details in something that people both saw can allow for a different narrative.
- [49:16]
B
Yeah, I just think it was. It was a brilliant marketing advertising angle to get people talking about a show. And when people argue and they're right, then they're posting and reposting and then people go back and watch the show show again and then they watch a different version. They're like, yes, so probably like doubled view count by doing that, which then made a lot more money. So it was an interesting way to get way more eyeballs on their product by creating these subtle controversies.
- [49:39]
A
Well, I thought it was brilliant because it blew up on my feed. Like, people were like, really like the amount of money and extra effort that Black Mirror went through to like record two different. Of the same scenes, to hire two different actresses for the same role, to like for. To get the shot and to do it again as a TV show or multiple episodes is a huge.
- [50:04]
B
I don't think it's that much of an expense from a production perspective, but it was an expense that generally has tremendous roi, like just disproportionate roi. Because now everybody's going to be rewatching the shows. Like, I know one episode I almost want to rewatch because I saw one version of it and I think it's hilarious that there was another one.
- [50:20]
A
Yeah, I know it's crazy, but I do think it's actually also, though, especially because Black Mirror is. Is tailored to a younger audience. I think it is a. The way that Black Mirror came out and did its pr, talking about, like, the perception of social media and reality, I think is really impactful for that Gen Z and millennial audience who's so confident and sure, based on what they're receiving on social media, but I'm not.
- [50:44]
B
Sure it's just young because I think what it deals with is, is social and tech in terms of the future. It's like it's kind of sci fi, but in a way that's, that's more present. Like when it talks about how AI clones, partners who are not real. Like, it's dealing with real interesting issues, just like the Twilight Zone did. And anybody likes Black Mirror should go back and watch some of the original Twilight Zones because they were real mindfucks. Like, and I love that there's something out there that are making people think.
- [51:11]
A
Yeah, agreed. Let's move on to hot or not. Okay, so first one is cloud popcorn. Khloe Kardashian launched popcorn protein popcorn. So I guess it's popcorn that is high protein. The whole trend right now is the proteinization of food. You're seeing kind of protein is the big thing for health and wellness right now. So either that or like the. I guess that would. I guess that be what. What it would be. Or unless it's like, it'd have to.
- [51:43]
B
Be whey because it's kind of dairy. It would go with the cheese flavor. I imagine. Like, it's smart for them to get on top of it, but it shows the importance of being affiliated with somebody who can get eyeballs on your new product. But at some point, I think, no.
- [51:55]
A
She developed a product. It's her product.
- [51:57]
B
Well, I'm sure. Or somebody came to her.
- [51:59]
A
But you know, what they're actually doing that's really intelligent is they're tracking trends. And then now, because they've got so much capital, they're launching it so that a mother does create, Chris does like, all of the PR and pilots like, the branding. And it's probably like the same. There's like two CEOs for, like, and their husband and wife that do, like, good American skims like all their other brands. And they're just getting on a trend. Right. Like, popcorn is so big because it's low calorie and it fills up your stomach. And then it also taps into protein, which is interesting. I thought it was hot because it's being sold at Target. It's so it's like an easy thing to grab for, you know, the average American. That's like grocery shopping. It taps into the protein trend. However, I've been. I've been told it's got really bad reviews, that it's not good.
- [52:47]
B
Well, then that's if it doesn't taste good. But I think that the campaign looks good enough. Like, I'm lukewarm.
- [52:53]
A
I'm lukewarm. You know, I. I respect what they're doing and that they've.
- [52:57]
B
Is there going to be Kardashian fatigue at some point?
- [52:59]
A
I think we're there.
- [53:01]
B
You know what they should do. Kardashians, we talked about this in the past. Remember how we talked about leaving for a while so you could come back fresh?
- [53:08]
A
Yeah.
- [53:09]
B
You know what I mean? Like, and I think what they need to do is have a conspicuous absence for a while and just create rumors about what they're doing because there's just like a new product, like every month it seems like, and I think it's still living the brand.
- [53:20]
A
They're an interesting case study because the whole, like, their whole empire is kind of based on, like, generic popularity. Right. Like, they're not particularly high end. They're not particularly, like, people aren't really focusing on them for fashion trends anymore. They're just kind of that like, all American first family that started reality tv. So it's almost like a part of their contract is to like, crash and burn because they've been a part of the social zeitgeist. They like, they made the social zeitgeist with the wave of digital. So I don't think that to their brand they can fundamentally go away and come back. I think they will just ebb and flow in relevance. And it's really interesting because Kim Kardashian really hasn't had a breakout moment since being with Kanye.
- [54:08]
B
That's what I mean. Like, there's no controversy, just the name is cool.
- [54:11]
A
Yeah.
- [54:12]
B
And it's stuck. But okay.
- [54:14]
A
But where that goes for them, I think is interesting from a. Because what was really making her relevant and super ahead of the curve, like, she really drove fashion trends, but it was because of Kanye. So it, to me, there's definitely an interesting strategy there for where that needs to go. So the next one's actually also Kardashian focus, funny enough, and it's 818 with Toni Bredinger and she is an all female NASCAR driver. But I actually thought it was a really hot campaign. I think it's it's actually cool. She's super cool for how cool a.
- [54:47]
B
Female NASCAR driver is. Honestly, I think we could have done that cooler, you know, just from like a shot perspective in some ways in terms of what she's speaking to. Because I could see her appealing to so many different audiences with that.
- [55:03]
A
Yeah.
- [55:04]
B
But it's definitely hot for her to be getting into that. I just think you guys would have shot it better.
- [55:09]
A
I actually don't think we would have. I think it's exceptionally done. I really like her brand. I like that they 818 is breaking into a drinking culture like NASCAR has a drinking culture. So to add some like who's your audience on that two prong one, Toni Breninger is so cool. She's an IMG model. Like she's become a model that the average person that isn't nascar like me, thinks she's cool. So it allows me to like they've tapped in through a sport that isn't relevant to my target market. And 2 people who are NASCAR followers, like people in the south, obviously.
- [55:47]
B
That's what I mean. But is it, is it the wives of NASCAR fans or is it the nascar. Is it men who want to drink?
- [55:55]
A
No, it's females. 818 is cool because it's owned by Kendall Jenner and there's a lot of young girls, like university students because that's where the men are. So like it becomes like a drinking. It's a tailgate thing. So they're adding in that like cool like Kendall Jenner. And 818 is a very cool brand for university students. So she's tapping into a different segment within the university kind of segment. But what's cool is they also brought like me into it. Like it. Because NASCAR is growing in popularity. But 818is, is actually cool to a broad base because it's just a cool brand. Cool to me, it's super hot. I was very, very impressed with this and I had nothing negative to say. I think they did a very, very great job. Kudos to you. Kendall Jenner and Kris Jenner. Next one is. This is actually really interesting. So this is Billy Pitts. So Billy Pitts did this interactive billboard. They basically did scratch and sniff of armpits and they did these like close up shots of armpits and you could actually sniff like the real sense of their deodorant. I'm. I'm giving it a hot because it really stuck out on socials.
- [57:01]
B
It's so certainly a way to get your brand recognized because the Placement of the, of the logo and the brand in the middle and the sniffing on both sides. I think it'll. It'll get people to get that traction of what the brand is.
- [57:12]
A
Yeah.
- [57:13]
B
Whether or not somebody then goes to buy, you know what I mean, Based on what they're doing is. Is a different thing, but it certainly is getting attention to a brand. And if it's a good product, this, the sniffing is. It's got an ooh and kind of an interesting factor at the same time which, which attracts the human eye.
- [57:29]
A
Well, the way that I love that they shot it is they shot it like they were spying on people doing it.
- [57:34]
B
Yeah.
- [57:35]
A
And I, I think that that is a really important feature of this creative. Is that the, the moments that they shot it was like watching people doing it without it being like a. A moment where they were being observed. So it shows intrigue and it makes me.
- [57:50]
B
They should have shot a homeless person rubbing themself against it just to. Trying to get the same.
- [57:55]
A
But it makes me think that it smells good because they're. They're capturing people in like an intimate moment doing it, and their reaction is positive.
- [58:06]
B
Works on a human psychology level because nobody really wants to go around smelling other people's armpits. But by having the picture of an armpit and then just by having a simple platform where you can get a scent off of something. Right. You're actually smelling something. That's okay. You're not really smelling an armpit. But then it smells. It's lodging in the human brain because humans would never do that. And they're like, oh my God, these humans are doing it. Oh my God, it must smell okay. Because they're doing. Hits a lot of human psychology things that I think makes that a hot.
- [58:34]
A
Yeah. And it's like a huge armpit. Okay, so next one is Chamberlain coffee. So we've talked about Chamberlain Coffee before. For those who don't know, Emma Chamberlain is a. One of the biggest kind of YouTuber transitioned into like product sales influencers that a lot of people talk about as like a case study for disrupting coffee. And they did this like weird animation collaboration with Dove that is very on brand Chamberlain Coffee and a very off brand to Dove. And it. It's basically a teaser that there's a collaboration coming. And it's not with Emma Chamberlain, but it's with her coffee brand. So this person in the bathtub, EMMA Chamberlain, the YouTube that is it.
- [59:16]
B
So it's meant to look like her.
- [59:17]
A
Yeah, it's meant to look like her to Me, I actually thought this was hot because I saw it on my algorithm and it looked so different from what I'm used to seeing from, like, animations that it got my attention. And I think that's worth rewarding, even though it's weird.
- [59:33]
B
Yeah, it's one of those things that's kind of weird. But if the goal was to get people's attention. Yes, But I don't get. I don't get a feel. The coffee's good.
- [59:40]
A
Her coffee is like, number one, though, with Gen Z's.
- [59:43]
B
Okay, but I'm just saying I don't get that. But it's always like, what is the goal of the ad? Right in the end? Like, is it to get more Gen Z to drink it or is it to get.
- [59:51]
A
No, this is a Dove partnership.
- [59:52]
B
Yeah.
- [59:53]
A
It's not about coffee. It's about Dove Body Body Wash.
- [59:56]
B
So this is about Dove.
- [59:57]
A
Yes.
- [59:57]
B
This is paid for by Dove, not Chamberlain.
- [60:00]
A
So it's a collaboration between Dove and Chamberlain Coffee. And it's like glowing skin meets your morning brew. So I'm assuming it's going to be like a coffee scrub by Dove and Chamberlain Coffee. But what's interesting is that they partnered with her coffee, her product. But the. But the influencer who owns the product is at the center point of the ad.
- [60:19]
B
It. To me, it seems like a collaboration for collaboration sake. Like, it could work because I don't know if it makes me like Dove, but I don't generally have morning baths with a coffee. I don't know many. I don't think I've ever had coffee in a bath.
- [60:31]
A
True.
- [60:32]
B
Like a glass of wine, maybe you're.
- [60:33]
A
Very much not the target.
- [60:34]
B
Like, I think Dove should partner with, like, a good after evening drink. But morning bath, you know, to me.
- [60:42]
A
Kind of funny, but, like, honestly, all the comments are very positive because she's got a very big fan base and Dove is very big with, like, Gen Z's because they've gone after, like, a lot of the younger influencers. And I think it's actually quite smart. I'm here for it and I like that. Obviously, Emma Chamberlain was able to put her, like, creative spin on it because she's kind of known for her, like, her weird artistic direction. So I thought it was a good one. Next is. We got two collabs. First is Mew Mew, New Balance and Coco Gauff, which is crazy. It's like three collaborations. So New Balance with Mew Mew, with Coco Gauff, the tennis player.
- [61:18]
B
It's agency spending a lot of money and a bunch of people saying, oh, my God, this is so cutting edge. But to me, it does nothing for me.
- [61:25]
A
The thing that's odd to me is that I. I don't think New Balance and Mew Mew is a smart collaboration.
- [61:32]
B
Unless she wears the. Oh, sorry, Mew Mew. Yeah, the tennis player meant what wear and Mew Mew.
- [61:37]
A
But, like, I think Mew Mew x Coco Gauff makes sense. I think Mew Mew x New Balance. From a pricing positioning standpoint, that collab doesn't make sense. I think the designs they came up with for the shoes were cool. Like, I like these gray ones, I think they're slightly sleek, but I don't think it's going to translate into bringing over New Balance customers into the Miu Miu universe. And I don't think it's going to bring Mew Mew customers into the New.
- [62:04]
B
Balance universe, you know, and it always risks. Kind of like the risks of a throuple is that one party always feels ignored. You know what I mean? And how does it make. Is it serving each of them equally? I wonder, from a spend perspective, even.
- [62:17]
A
Like, how it's helping who. Yeah, I agree. I'm going to give it a. I like the design, but I'm going to give it a not.
- [62:23]
B
No, it's not. And the design looks like a movie. A movie director who's making too many cuts for the purpose of trying to make it look like he's edgy.
- [62:31]
A
Yeah.
- [62:31]
B
Or she's edgy, as opposed to it being a great flow. It's going to be our last one.
- [62:36]
A
This is our last one. This is Malbon x Jimmy Choo Melbourne.
- [62:40]
B
One of my favorite brands.
- [62:41]
A
Shout out to Connor Smith, our friend who's running the marketing for Malbon. It's funny because to me, the Jimmy Choo x Malbon collab is hot. Even though what we just said with New Balance and Miu Miu, I think that Malbon is a cool enough brand, like from a design execution, that this was a very well done collab across positioning and price point.
- [63:05]
B
Well, I think like, a brand can exude confidence when they can kind of step across a couple of like a boundary and do it with panache. It's even like kind of wearing a boot with a good shoe, like we were discussing yesterday. Like, Malbourne doesn't care. It just it. It creates its own coolness. And Jimmy Choo has always been cool. So I think that collaboration resonates with me.
- [63:26]
A
But I also think Jimmy Choo's also been cool because Jimmy Choo has been in shoes.
- [63:30]
B
Yes.
- [63:31]
A
Right. So because New Balance is like a Nike in that they have so many. Like, they have so many skus. Like, they've. They've become this like, ch. Cheap activewear brand. Whereas Jimmy Choo has always been about shoes. So to move into kind of golf shoes. This is the second year also with their partnership. So last year was their first kind of launch and it was with a shoe collection. And now they've diversified with more like bags and. And. But I think it was because of the demand. Like, people loved the collab so much.
- [63:58]
B
Well, Melbourne's collab was so like almost every brand, like, you can get Adidas, Melbourne stuff like they. They. They've done. I think they're like the experts of collabing.
- [64:07]
A
They are.
- [64:08]
B
But this collab is kind of making golf sexy. You know what I mean? And I think that's where people are going, like a lot. A few younger people are going in, and so they're giving an age, they're giving an edge to it, to a sport that was sometimes.
- [64:21]
A
Well, I think this actually is like Korean coded. Right? Because golf in Korea is such a status thing and there's so much. There's so much luxury around it for the people who have money and fashion that this came out of a need. But to me, it's not about that. Malbourne has been doing collabs with everybody. They did a Jimmy Choo shoe launch last year that was very successful. And then this is like further to the partnership. But I agree with you, like, Malbourne is just. It's not a new balance. And I do think that those matter. Those differences matter. And the reason why I wanted to bring this up as. As a hot is that when we. When we on something, for lack of a better term, it's not because of the concept, it's because of the brand application. So it has to be an on brand decision. And these two brands make sense to collaborate versus the Miu Miu and New Balance. They don't have brand alignment.
- [65:12]
B
That's hot. Love Melbourne. Melbourne makes golf sexy.
- [65:15]
A
Awesome. Well, that wraps up this week's episode of Art of the Brand. Thank you for powering through that, Philip.
- [65:22]
B
Let us know what your thoughts are. I have to hop on another one, actually. Right after this, all of our YouTube.
- [65:27]
A
Followers are going to see how much you've been yawning in the last 10 minutes.
- [65:30]
B
I've not been yawning.
- [65:31]
A
I'm putting him to sleep in this hot podcast room. Well, guys, as always. If you like this episode, please share it to somebody else. We appreciate you tuning in every week and continue to focus on improving the art of the brand. Have a great week.