The cost of consistency and commitment
We live in strange times where the words commitment and consistency are degraded to the unspeakable 'C's.
There is a lack of commitment across the board. It's a human problem but in technological terms - not a software but a hardware issue.
Commitment is missing from relationships, to jobs, to even oneself.
And the sister of commitment, consistency is given the same treatment.
Much like everything else that the digital age touches, a cool name is what it takes to mask the problem. So 'situationships' is this generation's brilliant solution to one's inability to commit.
Occupationship is the term used for one who switches jobs frequently. Or a career nomad.
What's with these cool names? Aren't these a means to glorify such acts? Or is this generation just too good at naming stuff?
But the problem is not that this new generation have a commitment issue - it's that the world seems to embrace it as if it's the latest wave to ride.
I don't disagree that every generation sets a new precedence for the next to break. My generation did that to the Boomers. What I have an issue with is the loss of integrity in knowingly following a fad and calling it the new normal.
Our ability to hold on to stuff is so bad that it percolates to our everyday life and seeps into my field - advertising and marketing.
Everything needs to move fast. Culture, which would need time to settle and take shape is moving at the speed of our scroll.
What's happening in the process is that we see change as good thing, and a necessary thing.
It's fine in many cases, but not in the field of advertising and marketing where consistency and commitment can be highly rewarding - even in the artistic field of creativity.
A CMO's shelf life in a company is 17 months - that's less than 2 years. In that time - he/she wishes to change things so that they can write their name in history.
Most often - that change is uncalled for. Not only do they change things regarding the brand, but they sever off the relationship with an agency that is given it all to build the brand,
To top it all off, we have marketers and even new boutique agencies who swear by projects. How the fuck is that a good thing?
The compounding effects of consistency is all we learn in the hall of fame of advertising. Kit kat - 40+ years - same tagline. Same positioning. Snickers. Nike. Economist. And the list goes on.
The dividends of consistency in advertising are something that both marketing and advertising can enjoy and savour. But for that to happen, there needs to be a strong commitment. To an idea, to people.
Mark Ritson and Jon Evan's episode in the Uncensored CMO had a great point on having an award for commitment and consistency in Cannes. It's strange that the biggest stage of the creative industry is rewarding freshness over consistency. One can be fresh but own the same positioning platform. Nike anyone? It's in fact harder to have these set guardrails and yet come up with something brilliant. John Lewis knows it, Nike knows it, Cadbury knows it, Snickers knows it. Kit-Kat although promoting a break, having never ironically taken a break from their positioning.
And it brings me back to the core issue of culture today that seems to brainwash people into thinking it's a cool thing by giving it a 'cool name.'
Without commitment - what's the use of building brands? There's no reason why someone will stick to yours as they would shift with equal nonchalance as their previous one.
Commitment breeds consistency. Which is sometimes a great thing.
Commit and see how consistency can bloom into something beautiful.
The fundamental issue is that this is HARD. Change for my generation was hard, and the flip side now, CHANGE is easy today - COMMITMENT is hard.
Comments