If it feels self-defeating, doesn’t mean it’s wrong
I was going through the never-ending archive of quotes i’ve saved over the last several months (i usually pick one to kickstart a new post here), and found this one. It’s by Hedy Lamarr:
“People are unreasonable, illogical and self-centred; love them anyway. If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish, alternative motives; do good anyway. The biggest people with the biggest ideas can be shut down by the smallest people with the smallest minds; think big anyway. What you spend years building maybe destroyed overnight; build anyway. Give the world the best you have and you’ll be kicked into defeat; give the world the best you’ve got anyway’.”
There are a few scenarios where this sentiment certainly rang true. First, when my partner was pregnant and was wrestling with how long she’d take maternity for. Was it better to keep it short to resume her career, which was now taking off? Or was it better to prolong it because the evidence shows that kids benefit hugely from that exposed bonding time with their parents? But if she did the latter, would that make her (her words) a “bad feminist”? It’s not an easy situation.
My contribution to the debate was very simple. “Whatever you do”, i said, “other people people will criticise you for it. So”, i concluded, “just do whatever feels right for you and know this will be a reality”. She decided to stay at home for 2+ years (and counting) to look after our daughter. And we believe our daughter is much better off for it.
You can’t please everyone in anything. In the world of brands, it’s those brands who have a potentially alienated prospect base that truly resonate with their customers. For better and for worse, our brains are designed to take tribal sides, so embracing a little bit of divisiveness is one powerful route to salience and relative differentiation. See: Apple, Liquid Death, SURREAL, Ryanair, Mark Ritson, SKIMS, the list goes on.
In the world of life (which, let’s be clear, is infinitely larger and richer than the world of brands, something worth reminding ourselves of about once a day), the same principle applies. When i started Salmon Labs, i had a vague idea that i wanted to blend strategy, creativity and making as part of one big chaotic process. Less waterfall where the strategy comes before ideas, and more acceptance that sometimes strategy emerges from messy and occasionally tactical conversations.
This has been seen by past employers as “not quite right”. Surely the strategists need to crack the strategy before talking to creatives. Why? Surely only after do you involve the producers. Why? Here’s an alternative scenario. You start a project with the strategy, creative, production and account lead looking at a problem, and kicking it around, facilitated by the strategy lead whose job is to ask questions.
In this model, strategy is more about being a MC, not a mastermind. Feasibility is as much a factor into the process as is the desire to create brand fame, or whatever thing your agency subscribes to. And not everyone will want to work this way. In fact, some large companies may be explicitly against it, as it feels too messy or constrained. That’s ok. In that context, it’s a self-defeating thing to do. And yet, if this is how your brain operates, the job is to seek contexts where it becomes acceptable, maybe even a competitive advantage. I like to play in the latter camp.
In the true spirit of Hedy’s quote, i’m not judging people who don’t work this way. As above, we’re tribal creatures, and for some this way of working will not feel rigorous enough. Point is: just because something feels self-defeating in one environment, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Maybe the environment, not the method, is what needs changing.
Want more like this? You should subscribe to Salmon Theory, the weekly newsletter that helps 6k+ savvy strategists swim upstream.
