Jony Ive, Harold Ramis, copycats, and creative wisdom

I recently read that Apple’s lead designer, Jony Ive, was quoted about his disdain for copycats, calling them lazy, and their actions, theft. Elsewhere, I read of plans to remake Harold Ramis’ classic 1984 comedy Ghostbusters.

This got me to thinking that even as the products, services, and ideas we produce are later copied by weaker minds and less innovative companies, the original remains. The original contributes something that copies can never match; that is, the creative viewpoint of the originator.

Jony Ive’s creative contributions are widely recognized, and many of us benefit from his product design - and in fact will soon be reminded of these contributions every time we glance at out forthcoming AppleWatch. And when the writer and director of Ghostbusters, Harold Ramis, died earlier this year, he left behind not only an impressive body of creative work (including Animal House, Caddyshack, and Groundhog Day) but like Ive, also many wise, quotable insights about the creative process. The quotes from Ive and Ramis below are just a few that are applicable not only to creative professionals, but to those in nearly every line of work. Here are just a few nuggets of wisdom that Ive and Ramis have shared:

• "A psychologist said to me, there are only two important questions you have to ask yourself. 'What do you really feel?' And, 'what do you really want?' If you can answer those two, you probably can leave your neuroses behind you." (Ramis)
• "I think if you do something and it turns out pretty good, then you should go do something else wonderful, not dwell on it for too long. Just figure out what's next." (Ive)
• "My characters aren't losers. They're rebels. They win by their refusal to play by everyone else's rules." (Ramis)
• "‘Different' and 'new' is relatively easy. Doing something that's genuinely ‘better’ is very hard." (Ive)
• "The cutting room is where you discover the optimal length of the movie." (Ramis)
• "True simplicity is, well, you just keep on going and going until you get to the point where you go, 'Yeah, well, of course.' Where there's no rational alternative." (Ive)
• "First and foremost, you have to make the movie for yourself. And that's not to say, to hell with everyone else, but what else have you got to go on but your own taste and judgment?" (Ramis)
• "What I love about the creative process, and this may sound naive, but it is this idea that one day there is no idea, and no solution, but the next day there is an idea. I find that incredibly exciting and conceptually actually remarkable." (Ive)
• "Nothing reinforces a professional relationship more than enjoying success with someone." (Ramis)

The adage that imitation is the highest form of flattery is of little comfort when faced with copy cats, second rate knock-offs, and credit-stealers. Still, while it is nearly impossible to try to stop others’ imitations of your unique ideas, perhaps that is not what is important. Your contribution should be more than the sum of the patents, productivity, and profits you delivered.  It is perhaps more helpful to remember that the true innovator has not only have contributed great ideas to the world, but like Ramis, Ive, and many others before them, have contributed the wisdom that only their unique perspective can create. 

Noisy launches

Here's something startling obvious that often gets lost in the noise of an exciting product launch:

The product is the thing.

The company is not the thing. (An exception perhaps is Apple - which uses its powerful corporate brand to great effect.)

The distribution channel is not the thing. (Your distributors may incorrectly argue the point, especially VARs.)

And most certainly, the ad is not the thing. (Your agency's creatives may disagree, especially if the ads are spotlighted in an article like this one in Advertising Age.

Once you go down the path of suggesting that a "creepy" and "unsettling" advertisement is "doing its job" because people are talking about the advertisement (and not the product per se) you can quickly find yourself sliding down a slippery slope trying to quantify 'mindshare' and 'visibility'.

To be certain, if the ads are effective, they'll be talked about... but more importantly, so will the product. A truly effective advertisement quickly steps back and allows the product to take the spotlight.

After all, no one wants to hear the announcer keep talking once the band takes the stage.

Mystery Meat

You remember mystery meat, in the seventh grade cafeteria, trying to guess what part of which animal was buried under a mound of potatoes and curdled gravy?

How about this mystery meat: A television-centered campaign that promotes an oft-derided product by hiding behind and talking up the virtues of its partners' products? It is what Microsoft is doing in their new 'Laptop Hunters' campaign, and according to a study quoted in this Fast Company article, it is working.

Microsoft cannot put lipstick on this pig, but it can cover that pig by ladling the value propositions of the hardware manufacturers whose equipment runs the buggy OS (Vista, aka OS7) on top of it.

Microsoft recognizes and leverages the one area the Apple cannot readily claim: value for the money, as PCs can be had for an order of magnitude cheaper than even the most budget-friendly Mac. It realizes that for all the hype around the Mac, the product, to many, doesn't deliver the value promised in its advertising. And ultimately, the product experience equals the brand, no matter how well executed the 'I'm a Mac' campaign.

Thus it appears that for the time being, consumers are holding their nose as they go for the PC. Just like swallowing mystery meat.

UPDATE: 7-15: Microsoft: Apple Told Us to Cancel the Laptop Hunter Ads

Apples from the tree of no knowledge

As if we needed further proof that today's communication tools make the idea that we, as the Corporation (capital 'c') control the information about our products and ourselves, take a look at this very recent spreading of a rumor, acceptance of it as fact, and rapid errata posting - all without the knowledge or involvement of the Corporation, in this case, Apple:

Monday afternoon Reuters ran with a story that quoted a report from a Taiwanese analyst for JP Morgan. In completing due diligence on the iPhone, the analyst discovered a patent application that (patent-happy) Apple filed in November 06 for a phone with a clickwheel. The analyst, faced with what he thought was a grand discovery, added information given him from 'unnamed sources' and issued a report to his clients and colleagues at JP Morgan. In it, he predicted that Apple would release a mini-iPhone by the end of 2007 and suggested strong sales numbers.

Trouble is, its all wrong. Completely unfounded. And it was picked up by Reuters, who ran with the story.

Day traders scored Apple shares and drove them higher, but by that afternoon, JP Morgan issued a second report by other analysts essentially discounting the first. "We believe a near-term launch would be unusual and highly risky."

So what to learn from all this? Once again, we marketers have little more than the appearance of control over market information and in many ways, even less over brand perception. We can dress it up, encourage it, steer it this way or that, but ultimately our brand belongs to the consumer, and they are prone to believe just about anything.

Expect to engage in brand stewardship, but to expect that you'll ever have brand ownership will just make you crazy.