Being Liked or Loved? | Dean Crutchfield | Talks at Google

Thank you all for being here. I'd like to introduce Dean Crutchfield. We are very happy that he's here. Has a lot of years of experience in brand consulting and for the past six years has been with Wolf Olins, one of the top brand consultancies right now in the world. Wolff Owens has done a lot of engaging campaigns like the Red campaign, the London Olympics campaign that we're going to touch upon today. And DIN is going to talk to us about what consumers expect from brands as well as why brands want to position themselves as friendly. And we are going to analyze a little bit more the 2012 Olympics. So that's all. And thanks also to Ivan for organizing this.

Thanks, Christos. I prefer to actually not have a microphone, but sadly, apparently we have to have them because I think we can all hear each other. As I said, my name is Dean Crutchfield. I'm actually here today to talk about a few things. For a start, one, don't be fooled by my accent. I'm more American than most of my friends. I fell in love with the idea of America and New York City when I was at the age of 12 watching north by Northwest. Great scene when Cary Grant puts his arm up, points to a big building as an ad guy and says, this is where I'm based. Deborah Kerr. I remember the moment I fell in love. I had to go to New York. Took me a while, but I got there and live in Manhattan. Got a New York wife who's kick ass and I'm here to stay, you know, never intend to leave. So that's one important thing to remember in terms of today's discussion. Yes, it's about branding, but actually I think it's something more provocative than that. I think one of the things there's three kind of legs to what I want to talk about today. One, we're still listening to the rules of Dead Men. Maybe not yourselves, but certainly my industry and many other industries. Why are we doing that? Number two, how do we shift the paradigm? You're a classic example of an organization of a team of people, a brand that has shifted the paradigm of a category and obviously needs to happen more. How do you do that? And who decides on good taste? Yeah, that does puzzle me a lot. We're nearly super bowl. There's no more consumer generated ads. This super bowl, it ain't happening. Never will happen again. Why? It's pathetic. Just didn't do anything. So they're not going to do them anymore. So we have to be careful who decides on good Taste. The people of America and most of the Western world and in fact all over the world now, are very sophisticated and very switched on to brands. They can see through them. When they're talking rubbish to them, they don't want that rubbish, they filter it. So they're very incredibly sophisticated and know what they want. But how far do you go? Who decides on good taste? And I'm going to talk about that today by using several of the programs we've undertaken to actually bring that to life. So hopefully it will be a fiery debate because I hope that some of you disagree with me, because I love that. My company, Wolf Ollins, is a company that's got a rich history of working in brands since the 60s. We created Apple Records for the Beatles and we've done some amazing work since then and have built a reputation for pushing boundaries and busting categories with regards to work that we actually do. It's like a love affair. The idea behind Wolf Ollins and sits very comfortably, I think, with Google. I understand from Christos that you allow the consumer to talk about you. You don't talk about yourselves. You maintain a little bit of humor and wit about who you are without going too far. And then there's that whole sense that you have about not doing evil and there's a real sense of integrity about yourselves. We at Wolf Wallens have the thought and belief that we are ambitious for our clients and optimistic for the world. Why? We believe that the individual, the consumer, is an incredibly influential, massive component to change. But apart from some of the amazing things we can do individually, unplugging your tv, recycling, being an activist, giving money, at the end of the day, it's corporations, organizations and institutions that can really affect big change. And all of those have a brand presence. Some of it's rubbish. Some of it's extremely powerful. So what our job is to do is to help create new brands or make brands better. And our bread and butter typically is corporations. We do a lot of product development, product creation, brand innovation, I mean, but mostly it's corporate work that we do. So to us, that's very important. It's very core to us to see what we can do to help clients lift themselves and do something different, shift that paradigm. Because I think if we look at the sense of this for a start, let's just think for a moment. Why are we listening to the rules of dead men? Peter Drucker, some of you might have heard of him, some of you not. One of the most powerful management gurus of the 20th century died recently, about four years ago, he was quoted for saying, if you find an executive focusing on csr, fire him and fire him fast. Now, I understand that corporate social responsibility is a bit prosaic in terms of how it sounds. I rather interpret it as commerce, sustainability and revenue, and together they can do amazing things. But there's a massive influential management guru telling people to fire the people who are thinking about csr. That's what I'm saying about dead men. Do not listen to that rule. I mean, look at the absolute need, the power that is happening right now. It's really quite a phenomena that we are with at the moment. So that's what I'm being careful of. And then the next idea of shifting the paradigm of what brands are doing it and challenging the normal, I call trouble the calm. That's the other next thing. And then, of course, don't listen to everybody. Sometimes you've got to put your foot forward. They didn't ask for permission to launch the ipod. They did it. It was very successful at first, you might recall. It was going to be a flop. People weren't. They didn't. They didn't respond to it very well. So things can happen. We all know that. So what's tomorrow's brands? What's happening next in brands? This is not a lecture, but basically a conversation with you. I think one of the important things, one of the beautiful things about this country, about America, is its sense of philanthropy. Last year, America generated 3 and $100 billion of philanthropy. So say you had a weekend off every weekend. That means from Monday to Friday, a billion dollars generated by Americans. Amazing. It's a freak of the world. There is no other country in the world that has anything like that. It's all tiny, huh? I think at the moment, for GDP in terms of what America makes out of its products and services that it creates, it's 15% of GDP is linked for not profit and philanthropy. It's a phenomena. Oh, by the way, did you know that only 3% of that goes abroad? The rest is focused here. We give some abroad. It's only 3%. Obviously it needs to be ratcheted up to be more. But nonetheless, as a country, it's an amazing sensitivity for philanthropy. And we had an opportunity to actually talk about this in the sense of what consumers want next. It's not just charity they want. They want something new. You know, the 20th century was about imagery and icons and legends and myths and superheroes. But then I think we've got to know them a lot different now. And I think it's changed a lot. So we're looking at something very different in terms of our world and we want things to be different and we want businesses to react differently. There's three, I think there's three descriptions you can say of today's consumer precision. Know who I am. You know that spam you get. Rubbish. You get like, you know who I am. The technology is there. Can you, can you communicate with me in an appropriate way? I want reciprocity, okay? I want a two way street here. Just because you're big doesn't mean that you can be arrogant. And I also want flexibility in terms of how we do business together or how I buy your products, or over what channel I buy your products. So basically reciprocity, flexibility and precision are the new language of the new consumer. And they want a lot of different things new. I mean, I think that most importantly, we want brands that actually help us feel better, do better, get more out of life. It's very important to us that we do that. That's what we feel an affinity towards. I'm speaking about myself as well. We're all consumers, right? So at the end of the day, it's about, I think, a lot more generosity that brands have to make. The 20th century was about being protectionist and it was about being monolithic. That is protect yourselves, vertically integrate. I might partner with you, but keep away, stick away. I got my pantones, my typeface, all my controls. Design and branding was about control. It was about locking up, it was about rules and guidelines and how to behave and how to use it and how to misuse it. So I think there's a lot of change happening right now, a lot more flexibility happening. And it's very sexy, it's very, very exciting and it's really challenging because you still have to have some sense of control because it can get out of control. Like the examples of cgm, sorry, consumer Generated Media or advertising that we saw a year, 18 months ago, where it got a bit out of control for some brands and they got stung by doing it. So how far do you control? And then that brings in this idea of good taste. So I see my company sees three elements, brands as platforms. And I know that there's a name up there you don't like, I think it's Wikipedia. But basically platforms like Google, YouTube, Flickr, these are brands that have become platforms for communities and individuals and people to come together and share ideas and do something unique that was never feasible before. And you're one of them. This is the new frontier. This is the new way things are being done. Very exciting. So brands as platforms. A platform to enable you to do something truly unique or affect the world in a unique way. Then there's brands as themes. I think the most toughest one in many ways, because the idea of a theme is how do you theme yourself to a local market or a certain target market? So McDonald's does that with its menus. It offers local flavors to local countries, which is a great idea. But how far can you go? How much can you stretch an identity or a brand before it snaps? How much can you localize it before it loses a sense of itself? Because that's a really exciting frontier. It's like it's. It becomes less of an identity, more of a spirit or an attitude that's hard to really control and make something out of it. And then ultimately, brands as link. It's not just consumers needing platforms. It's companies needing links where they can become constellations, where they can bring different businesses together. Fair Trade has over 600 organizations being a part of it. Really fascinating how it's bringing together this confluence of different businesses sharing a similar philosophy, but very different businesses. So very exciting. So that idea of being a link Red, was that idea. It's both kind of a platform, but more importantly a link and a fascinating job we had to work with. It basically was the opportunity to work with Bono and Bobby Shriver. For those of you who've worked in my business, there's a. You know, there's an old saying we called the beauty parade. You know, you go in and you have to make sure you got the best bikini or you're on the best diet, whatever you want to say. You got to look good, say the right things, and hopefully win the business. Business. We went through the mill on this one. So we had Bobby Shriver and Bono and the Edge actually joined it. He was extremely inspirational, by the way. And we put forward our thinking and our thoughts and what we really thought and actually won the job. So that was fantastic. That was over. So now we can actually do it to create it. And so we work with them to create product Red. Now, I'm not just talking about a design style or an identity here. I'm talking about an entirely new business model that's never been done before. And no one's really talking about it, although you guys are for profit. Philanthropy. Yeah, yeah. Nice one. Good effort. Shift the paradigm. Product Red did it first, but well done. But that was the idea of the model, and everyone was going on about the brand and the partners. You know, it was a really exciting time. But really what's happened with product Red is this idea of a new model for philanthropy. You know, you open up the Sunday supplements and there's the black and white pictures of these horrible situations. Or you go down to a shop and they're selling you this not very well done product that some of the money will go to a good cause. Why? Why can't I buy something sexy and cool and give money at the same time as doing it? Yeah. So when we spoke to Bono about this passion he had about AIDS in Africa, which has been going on for years, we said, there's an opportunity to really do something here. It's not about celebrities. It's not about this organization being a charity. It's about it being a brand. A brand that can partner with other brands and let them do extraordinary things. But for them to do extraordinary things, they have to impact themselves. Most businesses go, I'm a business here. Here's my philanthropy strategy. I cut checks, and off it goes. This was actually bringing a business to red. So it was the business to the power of red. And they would have to impact their portfolio somehow, their products, or create something new. So we created product red. The red obviously is the color of blood, and the actual red is the color of blood. That was Bono's request. But what we were able to create was an entirely new brand that was going to be partnered by some of the biggest brands in the world. And it was a phenomenal kind of success. We've created a new business model. We've created four levels of partnership. We had the key partners already lined up. American Express and Converse and Emporio, Armani and Gap. Big, big partner, and Motorola came in. So those are kind of five guys, kind of five partners who started it originally. And then from there, of course, we've had other great success going forward. Lots of press. This is nothing in comparison to what they really got in terms of the attention that it had. But we also created a whole new language. You see here, you see, it's like Gap to the power of red, or Motoro to the power of red. We call them the hugs. Okay, it's basically red literally hugs the partner brand. If you think about the old days of the Olympics, everyone trying to stick themselves around uncomfortably, getting as close as they can. This wasn't the case here. It can hug them. It can work so closely with them as a brand itself. If Gap has red merchandise in its store, footfall increases 75%. Emporio Armani's line of red products just sold out, just went. The ipod. Nano has been a huge success for Apple. I mean, every time it gets involved, it does something special. And some of these brands are actually producing these goods or getting the materials from Africa, which is the most. That would be the next big step, helping create infrastructure in Africa itself. So really exciting partnerships and thank you very much, Google. Boom. Lovely. That was a fantastic maneuver. Lego liked you the other day too. I believe I saw the Lego. But that actually raises a really interesting issue. It's the idea of not being so rigid about your rules. Christo was just saying about the fact that we have some fun, we allow the customers to talk about ourselves. There's a sense of some flexibility here. It kind of matches what you provide the world. And I think it's special that you do this kind of initiative. And we certainly appreciate it because there was a quiet moment when the partners were up and they'd spent their money and then it was like, who's next? Google was actually one of the ones who dropped in and did a nice little gem for us and MTV and Oprah Winfrey. It was all really exciting times. Now, not that I like the word logos, but the New York Times said, that's for our readers. That's what we're going to call it. But we were talking about brands to them, like red, like Google's flexibility, what's happening next for brands? Remembering that reciprocity, flexibility and precision regarding for consumers, what we're saying is, can the brand carry more of the message? No longer lock down monolithic protection as before, with one singular point of view, can it have many? And the New York Times like this idea of what we call container brands. And by the way, if you can give me a better terminology than container brand, I will be forever grateful. But the idea being it contains something that can. You can obviously change anything that's inside it. So that was the simplest one we could. An incorporated brand sounds a bit businessy, you know, so if you can come up with a phrase, we'd really appreciate it. But the New York Times dived on it and said, I'm not changing it. We're going to call it container brands. And we're like, oh, we don't want to be defined as the firm that generated, you know, created container brands. Anyway, that's what happened. So basically, how can brands hold more of the message? And it's an amazing kind of diversity. New York City, we work with Bloomberg and Dr. Off. New York City, eight and a half million people, 45 million come to it every year. It's not a corporation. I can't control how the cab driver greets you. In fact, it's quite likely he will not, as we all know. But New York City nonetheless is a brand with all its agency, whether it's Brooklyn Bridge, the subways, the parks, famous buildings, the fdny, the New York Police, I mean, but they all run themselves independently. So how can a city look to those massive assets and somehow collate them in a way that could be very useful for generating revenue for the city, further building its reputation and its business attraction to businesses. So it was a big brief, but we were able to suddenly look at New York City. 1 Is it the city of New York? New York? New York City, City of New York. No one could make their mind. So it's official now, it's nyc. That's the official mark of New York City. But looking at the brand it was about, there's nothing. There's only one New York City, but there's no one New York City. And that's because it's made up of all the perceptions of people. All of you here have, I don't know, 30, 40, how many of you are 50, different perceptions of New York, you have different touch points, different reasons to think of it in some way. And we were trying to reflect that. You can't reflect that in one simple solution. So we've developed, although it's yet to be fully rolled out, what we call infinite flexibility. From the actual device itself, you can move it in any direction. You can just use one letter, you can put any content inside of it, moving image, multiple images, anything. It's like this container brand idea and it reflects and is suitable for New York City because it's this amazing confluence of everything happening. So a good reflection. We're currently actually. We're on tv. I can't actually say the other one we were talking about before, the country that we were talking about before. So I won't say that. So that would have been interesting, but sorry. The other one, for instance, working with Unilever, this is like P and G, these guys were getting clobbered a few years ago by P and g. They had two boards of directors in 154 countries. Those 154 countries, which is 300 boards of directors, reported to 12 regional boards of directors and those 12 regional boards of directors reported to two corporate boards. So. So it's pretty slow. And they also had over 1600 brands. Okay, so the focus was one, they didn't have a cause. We were invited to a pitch where they were saying, look, we need to kind of get a consumer face, maybe we need a tagline, some advertising messages. And we basically had the guts to turn around and say, you need a cause, you lack a cause, but also a cause that's going to allow them to make impact on their brands, which P and G already kind of had. Unilever didn't. It was kind of very low profile. So working with them, we developed this idea of adding vitality to life. So for Unilever, now, the purpose is environmentally concerned. It's about customer concerns. All those issues of saturation, globalization, globesity, ingredients in food and products, all these things become very paramount now to Unilever. And it needs to show that consumer face to the world. So we devised a scheme where the. The idea of Unilever's actual Identity itself contains 25 stories, but they're all about benefits to the environment. And also now they're using the idea of vitality across their brands. They've actually got down to about 420 brands now. And one of the filters, because I think a brand idea like adding vitality to life or don't do evil is a filter. It's a compressed management tool. After all that complication and all that information, you can look at something and go, does it do this? If it doesn't do this, we shouldn't do it. Yeah, that's what you ultimately want. And vitality has become that for Unilever. So it literally uses that against every brand as a filter. And if it doesn't come up to vitality, they sell it. So they've actually sold some very profitable brands, but they weren't very healthy, so they weren't right for Unilever. So it's become this compressed management tool. But this idea of using a rich diversity in the communications around the brand itself. Other work we've done for ge, this was an industrial company with no meaning and real presence. It was known for its microwaves and fridges. I'm sure, you know, it's big. We don't really know why, but when we got debris from Jeff Amel and he's basically saying, you know, it's like he wants to know about the. Wow. He wants to know about the cool things they make. MRIs, MRI scans, 3D ultrasounds, pulse detonation engines, whatever they are. But pretty high tech stuff. In fact, I remember the joke was made that they have wind turbines with a thousand moving parts that make an ipod look like a turd. And I thought that was a really good brief from a very senior man. But that was the idea. Can we sex up ge? Can we celebrate it? You know, so what we did was say, well, remember your beginnings. Remember Thomas Edison? I know he's dead and we're not going to be listening to the rules of dead men. But for ge, it was important to remember that inventiveness they had. So how do you give a consumer face to the business? Which we've done, we did a massive overhaul of the business they have now. Market facing divisions like GE Infrastructure has brought literally they had over 5,000 businesses, products, brands. We brought them down to one brand, GE6 market facing businesses, 123 brands. That's it now. That's it. All those thousands have kind of been reformulated under that and it's been phenomenal growth engine for them and it's also changed their face to the world. Why shift the paradigm? Remember some of you might remember the famous man, Jack Welch, who had the strategy, either be, you've got to be one or two in the market or you're dead. We're going to decapitate you. That doesn't work for the G of today. It has to be that. When we started the job in 2002, 73% of their revenue was in America. They owned it. Only 27% was abroad. So, so when Jeff and Mel took over, he's going, there's my business plan. But this strategy won't work. I need to partner, do JVs work with Toshiba and Bear and Matsushita. I need to do partnerships and being one or two in every market is not going to help me do that. So a significant shift in strategy. And I think what he's been able to do now with that new strategy, that new business architecture, et cetera, is take a business from $122 billion to $162 billion in four years. A massive, amazing man, you know. Of 85 initiatives linked to the brand changeover, to imagination at work, they generate an additional $25 billion pretty much within a year, 18 months. A brand can shift a paradigm outside and inside a business. It can really be awesomely powerful. And then of course you've got the ecomagination that came out of it too in terms of seeing that there was a huge benefit in their business. Looking at what's good for the planet is to going good for business. He said he's not being overly moral, he just sees as a huge business opportunity. Back to the point, you know, it's about you don't have to be guilty to do philanthropy. You can make money. In fact, actually, if we made money more like you guys with Google and for profit philanthropy, I reckon we'll clean up a lot more mess quicker than the other way, shift the paradigm. But when Red actually launched, basically it was criticized. People were like, what do you mean they're making money? How come they're not giving every penny? People were upset, angered, because they didn't understand. It's like, well, what's wrong? I mean, these guys are making money and they're giving millions to the global fund. So it's shifting a paradigm we need to do. And then I'm going to move fast. Now on the. The big job that I wanted to talk to you about, which is 2012, this one to me, crashed everything. I loved it. It was like a real kind of dog's dinner out there. We had all the media going wild. In fact, actually, the New York Times called this the best example of Web 2.0 ever. Ever. We became the most infamous brand business in the world. But I think I'd like to say the most famous brand business in the world, eh? Any publicity is good, right? So for 2012, it was a. Ah, welcome to this week's edition of the. It was chaos. I wouldn't worry about the. The actual chaos of. It was wild. I mean, we had so much attention. It was just incredible. We had people in our building. It was like being paparazzi. Britney Spears, our creative director, had cameramen running down the road after his children taking pictures of them. And my chairman was accused of sleeping with the sports minister of the uk. Never even met him before in his life. It was amazing stuff and we've never received so many, so much publicity ever. But it just shows you how emotional people are. But this was worldwide, not just uk. Everyone had opinion, everyone had an opinion on it. You know, what's this about? And it's fascinating because while this was happening, we were in a bit of a jam because the strategy when we approached the Olympics was, everyone be Olympic. Yeah, everyone's Olympics. Everyone be Olympic. We thought the Olympics is becoming quite elitist, quite stable, quite static, and it needed to change. It wasn't just about two weeks, it wasn't about the gold medal, it was about everybody, all of us, young kids especially, getting involved. So we created a solution that we thought answered that. But of course, everyone went wild because one of the things that happened was one the IOC has to be very respectful of. Beijing 2008. Totally understandable. But their lawyers said two weeks before the launch, we can't show the strategy. And that's that container brand idea inside the 2012. You meant to take the bits apart, you can stick anything in them, you can move them around, you can turn them into little characters. So, but then the lawyers called us two, four, saying we can't show that now. And it's like, what do you mean? So we're going to show a flat colored 2012 and everyone's, you know, this is not the strategy, but that's what we were told. Tough. That's the way it's going to be. So it was a real calamity that we weren't really allowed to show our strategy, which was this idea of everyone's Olympics and therefore make the brand itself something that everyone can use, work with from a local school to Coca Cola in any way they wanted to, you know, so to really bring it alive. But I think you'll like this one.

London unveiled it's official Olympic logo. And I've got to tell you.

I.

Am not a graphic designer or artist. I don't necessarily understand the nuances of composition, your negative space, these types of things. But I do know what it would look like if a slot machine went down on a stop sign. And then what's with the yellow? My point is this. If the only thing wrong with this design is that it was ugly, I.

Could live with that.

An animated version of London's controversial 2012.

Olympic logo has been removed from the web over fears it can cause seizures.

You know, there's an old saying in the ad, try not to give people seiz. I know that this logo is obviously not as offensive as some past Olympic logos. I think we all remember the mascot for the 36 Berlin Olympics. Nutsy.

What?

The world's fastest swastika.

Adorable.

And at least he's hurdling. He's doing something Olympian. That is the litmus test of a good Olympic Games logo. Are they doing something Olympian? That's how it was established at the 776 BC Games in Olympia. That logo conveyed what people were going to see. That of course depicts Phobos and Heraklion, gold medalist that year in freestyle sodomy.

Now, thank you. Hey, at least it shows that we have humility. Right? But interesting to know, but at least they were doing something Olympian. Ah, nice. Thanks, John. You didn't realize because you didn't know the real strategy. Yeah, everyone's Olympics, everyone be Olympic. So actually if we had the real opportunity to show it, then he would have Been bang on. What he said, that's the idea of the Olympics. So it's a big step change. That's what we were looking for. The idea behind it, I'll let you know. Little top secret stuff, just to show you how simply and sublime it can be to get an idea. As you all know, a simple gem of an idea was our creative director, Patrick Cox. And I only heard this just recently was at a wedding friend that he'd known for years. And so he turned up at the wedding and the groom, who was his friend, had the most ridiculous haircut he'd ever seen in his life. It was all jagged, you know, it looked like something out of the Flintstones. It was all kind of deliberately cut in a really ugly way. And I mean, like really ugly. And so. And it's his wedding, so he obviously had to say, john, you know, what's with the haircut? And he said, I looked at all the photographs of everybody over the years, like we all do. And he said, you could date them to exactly the year of when they had the wedding. And I thought I'd mix it up. So I cut my guy's hair so bad that you'll never be able to work out when it was. But what that gave Patrick was an idea of, you know, who's got the brief. It's like, you know, we were going to mix it up anyway and mash up the Olympics and I'll explain why. But that was the inspiration behind the buzz lines of the 2012 was somebody's haircut at a wedding or the groom haircut at the wedding. So big step change. You can read. I'm not going to write them off. But basically it has a certain way of doing it. It lasts two weeks, you know, kind of. You either get gold or you're out. All that kind of attitude is kind of elitism, stoic. I mean, stayed. Kids don't get it. The youth aren't really involved in that way. It's TV based and. And you're looking at it and you're usually an adult. Okay. And obviously on the right is what we thought it should be. And that was part of the pitch. But about people. It's every day. It's not just sport, it's a way of living. It's about nations coming together. It's a whole massive event in that way. Kids should love it. It should be on the street. They should be using it, doing things on the street themselves that are linked to the Olympics. How do you let them do that? And of course, it's for everyone. That was the idea. In fact, actually, recently, it was quite funny because Patrick was at an AIGA conference recently and he was sitting next to the guy of the Beijing Olympics and the guy from the Chicago Olympics bid, and he pulled up this stars, this slide, you know, which is, you know, we weren't going to have any stars or kind of brushes or leaping people or, you know, kind of nationalism, all the flags waving and nostalgia. And apparently the guy who did the Chicago one lifted his shirt over his head because basically that's what he'd done. And the guy from the Beijing Olympics was kind of looking the other way. We didn't do it intentionally, but basically, yeah, they've got the leaping guys, the typical, usual, normal. It will be over in two weeks and done. We want this one to last a long time, be relevant for a long time. So it had none of this at all. That was the idea, that was the brief. And as I would like to say, it's a product of, I think, disobedient London, do something new. It's like it has an attitude about it that wants to be something different, but as we said right at the beginning, brand next, people want something different. This is not about just doing something different for the sake of doing it. We actually believe it needed to happen and needed to shift the paradigm of what you see the Olympics to be. Can it be universal, totally recognizable around the world? Can you own it? Can anyone own it? But most importantly, audacious? Can it have real energy, you know, some real fire, put some real genius? And so that's how the mark was born and it's been successful, but so far we haven't actually been able to illustrate its full ability in terms of being this content, this container that allows for total flexibility inside it. And it's amazing how some people are using it there. You get a sense of it in a way, how you can start to have fun, localize it, put your kids, family inside it, whatever it is, really change it up, really do something with it, you know, and then I think at the end of the day, you can use it to carry messages. It's something to me that I think is kind of aggressive. It's got guts, it's got grit, and you're not going to forget it. I think that's also awesomely powerful about it, and also it's the first time in Olympia history where we've actually done the same mark for the Paralympic Games too. So I think that's also a little side benefit of what we've Done. But the idea we're putting forward to them is whole host of different touch points. Whether you lay out the tracks that way, it has lots of flexibility. That was thought through as part of the concept that you could do this with it, put it on Second Life, use it in a new way. Basically, it's the forbidden logo. That's the nickname of it, you know. And we've got this typeface that we've created. Everything's been done. So it's edgy. It's called the buzz line. It's like a buzz cut. Remember haircut, the buzz cut kind of idea. So this is the idea of it, the whole kind of look and feel. But I think what's really powerful, how it could be used in architecture and merchandising. You see, it's starting to come alive now because you start to break it up, you bust it up and you kind of create a whole vernacular around it, which is part of the power. So how do you adopt and adapt? I'm now very close to finishing. We can have our hopefully debate about it. Could you turn up, please? This was at the launch. Literally, after all the chaos happened, we had a call from Adidas. Loved it, absolutely loved it. Loved its attitude, loved everything about it. Wanted to be part of it. I mean, they usually are, but they really wanted to be part of it. They wanted to be the sponsor for merchandising. They really wanted to go to town on it. And it was wonderful. Their energy, you know, impossible is nothing. That's why they kind of liked it, because they just loved the grittiness and the action behind it. So they got very quickly into it. We did the idea of impossible is nothing in everyone's Olympics. And they asked us for ideas and then they executed them. So it was a good relationship. If you want everyone's Olympics. We had poll voters going over London buses. We had 100 meter sprint runners running across the board bridge, the wibbly wobbly bridge, as they call it, from the Tate Modern. So we used all these places where we could actually show sport in real life. We had basketball pitches on the side of buildings. I mean, Adidas did a great job. This is the MAU. He had the guy doing the rings. It was all live stuff. They really jumped on in a great way. Everyone be Olympic, take it to the street, take it to the public. That's where the big benefit for the Olympics lives. We even had like these fences on the top of a tall building, fencing away. It was a fantastic event. They really did it well and showed great Energy of how you can use something. But even some of the others have done different. This is Lloyd's TSP is one of the biggest banks in Europe and basically really grabbed hold of it too. So suddenly after all those complaints, after all that buzz, after all that upset, some kind of funky businesses getting up to it, but also some very conservative businesses taking it on, wanting to be part of it. And that's that coalition again. That idea of a confluence of brands coming together against a singular cause and actually doing things. I mean for instance, this would never happen. The idea of cutting, you know, actually cutting into their equity of their horse. I mean even simple things, you know what firms are like, they don't like doing that. They're kind of very mindful how much you chop and cut. But that's the idea of 2012. Mash it up by that way, it makes it even stronger for you because you're not trying to control it. And this one I won't mention. But you know, the colors, but we're working. They're pretty feisty as well in terms of what they're doing. I think that's a great one. One of my favorites. So you can see how already it can be used. It's like a bit like red actually because we loved all the bored, inspired, tired. One of the loved ones, one of the great ones. I thought in a New York activist place that sadly Red had to say stop was uninsured. I thought that was a great idea for red read. But so how much you can play with it. But also what people are saying. Could the London logo finally see the beginning of the end of designers love affair with Swiss modernism? You know, the first instincts to tidy up, you know, design is about imposing order. The London logo rejects order. You know, this is. Suddenly all the blogs and stuff are starting to talk about it. That there is now released a new. A new perspective. And we didn't even realize it was going to be as powerful. We knew we'd get hit, hit by the press, but we didn't know that the other side would happen too. The real change of thought about what brands are about and how you should approach them. So I think that's been really successful. So that's basically my little presentation on the idea of shifting paradigms. Don't listen to dead men. And who decides on good taste?