I was reading a trends report (not going to say whose) the other day, and it triggered a few thoughts. In no particular order...
> Brands that never touch political issues are projecting fear and/or complicity. They also could easily lose out on marketing to young buyers who aren't purely focused on price (i.e., the buyers they want). The math for high growth is with the brave, folks.
Perhaps you think corporations that beat their chest about sustainability are just virtue signaling. Maybe you are skeptical about eco-first products as just different items in the landfill, or that privacy is a myth in the current era. But the reality is those views aren't going to help you with new to market in beauty, banking, or a host of other categories where younger consumers are forming buying trends that will last a lifetime.
> High-growth brands stand for things. Consider the doom saying for Nike when they took on Colin Kaepernick; hasn't hurt the brand at all. (Massive understatement.) Or Patagonia and the North Face on opposing the climate policies of the previous administration. You'll likely see the same thing with vaccine mandates moving forward. Whether this relates to, say, a talent walkout at Tesla for moving to Texas despite (or because of?) the actions of the Texas Governor and Legislature, or people opting out of Florida travel, is a wait and see moment. But once again, safe decisions may not be, well, all that safe. Stand for nothing? Fall for anything.
> Diversity isn't optional. (Even in small teams.) I've worked at companies that failed on this mark, and, well, they weren't good places to work. It's becoming increasingly uncomfortable when a workspace is behind the times on this, and teams that aren't diverse are just more likely to miss points (or, maybe even worse, veer deeply into cautionary tactics and go too slow).
> There's going to be math. More and more businesses are looking at creative with a need to know how they performed, which can be problematic for a host of reasons... but the core of the idea is sound, even if the execution isn't always nuanced enough. I can tell you from personal experience that when you used to talk stat sig with creative personnel, many of them looked at you as if you were scary and in the wrong room. Now, they are interested (and, well, still scared). Besides, once you take the math toothpaste out of the tube, it's not going back in.
> You probably should stop thinking about linear customer journeys. The idea that you can roll out a campaign by channel and "know" that such and such a piece is going to close the deal... well, I get that the Old World has its charms, but it's not coming back, folks. Your prospect is going to mix and match channels and platforms to their taste (some social, some search, some email, some will see display, broadcast, podcast, etc.), and that dumb thing you were doing with last-click gets all the credit... well, it's even dumber now. Measure everything, but know that nuance and brand development likely exist outside your spreadsheet.
> Marketing people are being forced to collaborate (whether they want to or not). This has been accelerated by remote work, which is lonely and harder to QA.
Point of order: during the writing of this piece, I wound up having to drop everything for an hour to deal with laundry, pets, a cleaning project and food prep. No wonder the QA's harder, yes?
It's also harder to work this way, since you can't read body language to go softer or harder on decisions. This could also be a factor in the Great Resignation trends among junior levels. But the plain and simple is, as it's always been -- great, fast, cheap. Pick two, and collaborate accordingly.
> It's all getting faster. I'd say more about this, but, well... is anyone really disagreeing?
