Purpose, or is it Porpoise?
I used to flick through the various newspapers cartoons each day – reckon it would be tough trying to create a cartoon each day, based on a major news story, that is both funny and insightful.
Since the PC mob, the Cancellers of Culture, have all but destroyed comedy, I have found a new source of light comic relief – 90% of marketing articles.
Much debate has been had over whether the 4P’s are still relevant. A new “P” has been mooted – Purpose. At first, I thought all the talk was about Porpoises, a twist on Save the Whales.
A while ago I asked the question about what was being smoked at Mastercard, who had come up with a brilliant new concept of aural branding. Again, I confused this and thought it was bloody great idea – oral branding would really catch on.
This morning I read an article (Marketing Week) about Adidas. The head of marketing said they believed “Impossible is Nothing” which taps into the spirit of “Rebellious Optimism”. Not having smoked pot since my first year or two out of university, I thought maybe after a couple of scotches, this would all make some sense. Two questions jumped out:
What are they rebelling over?
Why the optimism?
Two scotches – Nothing
Three scotches – Nothing
Six scotches – Nothing. Felt nothing after 5, after 6, I was dead to the world and woke the next morning with a slight hangover.
Don’t get me wrong, I think business has a major role to play in the communities in which they trade. But for the company to believe:
“Adidas is serious about its mission to help create a healthier planet and open up the aperture of opportunity to reach people through sport”, sounds more like a United Nations initiative than something from a company who is most famous for sporting footwear.
Apertures of opportunity, rebellious optimism, own the game strategy, sustainability agenda, elevate the conversation, brand-driven purpose led. These are just a few examples of the gobbledygook in this article. WTF is “brand driven purpose led” or “owning the game strategy”?
Over the years I have seen countless businesses who talk the talk, but a closer look and the majority minimise their tax through opaque legally, but a clear contradiction to their bleating of how they are “purpose led”.
Something even more disturbing than the buzz terms is:
“She points to the film from Tifanny Abreu, the first trans woman to play in the Brazilian Volleyball Superliga, who encourages viewers to embrace their own identities and live life with courage.”
I only have hundreds of years of cold scientific fact in my corner, but if Adidas wants to fuck female sport, this is a great start. We live in a high-tech society, but the average basic scientific knowledge of this high-tech society is lower than it was 100 years ago.
Call me a heretic, but men have larger hearts, bigger lungs, and higher bone density, giving them a huge advantage over women in strength and durability (this is not some new theory, but basic (very) science). It does not in anyway make men “superior to women”. Analogous to saying an artist is more skilled than a physicist, a pilot tops and engineer etc.
Not many today would know of Flo-Jo Joyner (Florence Griffith Joyner) – she set, and still holds, the women’s 100-metre sprint world record of 10.48 seconds, set in 1988 (a record that has held for 33 years, is in itself a record). Poor Flo Jo passed away at 38. The consensus is the massive amount of male hormones (in particular testosterone), was a significant contributor.
For the 2012 London Olympics, men had to run 10.18 seconds just to qualify for the Olympics. That is nearly half a second faster. For those of you not familiar with track sports, a half a second in a 100-metre dash is massive distance.
We are only seeing the beginning of this debate. That Adidas is getting involved in a very public manner, is beyond stupid. It is extremely dangerous. It has taken many years for women’s sport to achieve the broad coverage they have today. But if transsexuals are allowed into female sport, kiss that goodbye.
I have seen enormous change in advertising and marketing over the past 35 years. I don’t have to theorize what things were like in the 80s and 90s, I lived through them.
Through all the changes, the basics of advertising have not changed. The buzzwords have increased enormously – when promoting a brand/product, we are now told to ensure “brand distinctiveness”, where back in 1983, I was given the sage advice of “Brand the shit out of it”. Same thing just expressed differently.
One of the best definitions I have heard of marketing is:
“Ensuring long-term positive cash flow”. And the basic principles of marketing success were:
Getting the 4P’s right.
Wrapped up in doing so are issues such as
Strong commitment to staff welfare & training
Open & honest dealings with suppliers.
Not avoiding tax.
Support “not for profit” organisations in markets where significant business is gained.
It does not take a business genius to know that unless the company is profitable, it cannot hope to embark on any social initiatives. But even more off the wall than denying anatomical difference between the sexes, is a worrying trend whose impact will be disastrous – business does not have to worry so much about being profitable.
The banks are doing their best to try and make us believe they are run by people who really give a toss and will continue to doll out money to a lost cause.
But then again, those people who ignore basic science and think gender is but a mere social construct, may find the Commonwealth Bank really CAN – Can nail you for insolvent trading.
