Why AI won’t kill these ‘Oasis-Metallica-AC/DC’ retro comms classics + Woke in 3 diagrams + The front page rule

I was recently taken to see UK rock legends Oasis.

Despite a sixteen-year hiatus due to the Gallagher brothers’ estranged relationship, the band’s popularity appears to have surged. They played five stadium shows in Sydney and Melbourne to more than 300,000 fans – many of whom were not even born when the band formed 34 years ago.

While there’s nothing new about ageing bands reforming and fronting big shows – cue The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys – it definitely seems we are in the midst of a major retro rock revival. A few weeks after Oasis, Metallica (44 years old) and AC/DC (52 years young!) each played to packed stadiums.

Acts that just keep delivering

Nostalgia is obviously one explanation for the popularity of these legacy acts. In turbulent times, we all crave the certainty and glow of the past.

But their ongoing success highlights another point – that good things usually keep working.

A point that I think is particularly important right now.

AI has exploded onto the scene with its Sex Pistols-like nihilism screaming “no future for you” … and certainly no future for marketing or comms people.

Technology, most notably AI, tempts us to believe everything will become obsolete. But while some things do become outmoded and passe, others, like Oasis and AC-DC, just keep delivering.

And it’s no different in communications and marketing.

The Lumineers of B2B marketing

We can look at one small area of marketing, B2B content (admittedly not the main stage, but important nonetheless), to find an example of an older, classic channel more than matching the new when it comes to performance.

Email newsletters have been reliably releasing material to audiences for almost 50 years.

But in 2002, along came a hot, sexy new act, LinkedIn. (23 is very young in the B2B marketing world!) LinkedIn reached new heights of popularity during the Covid pandemic, and its moment has continued so that now almost everyone wants to be a ‘LinkedIn influencer’.

Overshadowed by LinkedIn’s charisma and critical acclaim, good old email newsletters seem ridiculously antiquated. And yet, if we look closely, there is strong evidence that email newsletters display some of the long-term superior performance of an Oasis, Metallica or AC/DC.

Research shows that email marketing – including newsletters – remains one of the most powerful marketing channels of all, with ROIs that would make any promoter blush with envy. (Some 70% of companies that use email marketing report an ROI of higher than 10:1, and 30% report an ROI of between 36:1 and 50:1.)

Email newsletters deliver other benefits:

· An intimate, direct connection with your audience away from the noise of socials

· Protection from moody, fickle algorithms

· The ability to monetize audiences, much like merchandise

So maybe it’s not so surprising that, despite being dismissed by many, email newsletters are now having somewhat of a comeback.

Retro classics

But email marketing isn’t the only old-school tactic that still works.

A rough list of other tried-and-true retro marcomms techniques and tactics renowned for their evergreen effectiveness includes:

· Sophisticated white papers

· Well-crafted press releases

· Beautifully written direct mail letters

· Stimulating in-person events and seminars

· A compelling case study

· Creative print advertising

· Well-designed printed magazine and newsletters

· A clearly thought-out marketing or comms strategy (now that’s retro!)

The evergreen

AI threatens to lay waste to everything in the established order, from advertising to copywriting, planning and PR.

But we need to remember that, despite declaring the old order dead, it was the Sex Pistols who flamed out in 1978. A year later, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister; and the British monarchy still reigns to this day.

Similarly, we shouldn’t forget that, despite advances in technology, in our world of marketing and comms, yes, some things are ephemeral. But others, like the retro classics of marketing, keep delivering for year after year, decade after decade – just like Oasis, Metallica and AC-DC.

***

‘Woke’ explained in 3 simple diagrams

Piers Morgan has released a new book, ‘Woke is Dead’.

But what even is woke?

I was having a coffee with a friend recently, and we were arguing whether a particular debate was ‘woke’.

I had a pad handy and drew a few simple diagrams to illustrate what I think woke is:

1. The oppressed – minorities, victims, etc – have been at the bottom of a pyramid/social structure dominated by the majority and oppressors.

2. The goal of woke, therefore, is to ‘invert the dominant paradigm’: to flip the pyramid so the victims/oppressed/minorities are elevated to the top.

3. This, of course, creates a new hierarchy through which to rank groups. The higher you are, the more you are judged to be good, deserving and virtuous; the lower, the badder you are. 

I didn’t just make this framework up (though I simplified it into a drawing).

I learnt it years ago when I helped a relative with their teaching degree. I was exposed to what budding teachers were being taught: hard-core Marxist theory.

The dominant paradigm

As mentioned, some, like Piers Morgan, are arguing that this woke view of the world is dead.

But, as I’ve outlined before, while it might be challenged and facing a backlash, it is still potent, particularly in Australia.

Woke remains the dominant paradigm through which the mainstream media, both major parties in Australia, university academics and administrators, the public service, educators, major corporations, the advertising industry, and the arts, all view the world.

Most of what passes for debate and disagreement today is either

· A rebellion against woke (but not a new paradigm) – ie Trump.

· A zero-sum jostling about who fits where in the hierarchy (Palestinian higher than Israelis, etc).

Woke remains potent because it is a simple, compelling story.

Like religion, it taps into people’s natural compassion for the oppressed (the meek shall inherit the earth).

It also taps into what I call growing ‘moral narcissism’ – our desire to appear more compassionate than others to boost our self-esteem and social standing.

The right woke

Now, before you accuse me of being biased against the left by focusing on woke, I will point out that we are seeing the emergence – particularly in the US – of what’s been dubbed the ‘right woke’.

That’s right, a section of conservatives views the world through the woke framework described above.

Only, they believe that white people are the oppressed, and that the dominant (left-woke) paradigm needs to be inverted to put whites at the top again!

Communications context

Like woke’s explanation of the world, my simple diagram is simplistic.

But as communicators, we operate in a broader ‘context’.

And I’d argue that, despite the backlash, the context communicators face today is still defined by the woke lens through which the powerful and influential – perhaps now subconsciously – view the world.

***

The old ‘front-page’ rule for behaviour still applies

I mentioned in a recent newsletter that the media can’t have rational and reasonable debates about many topics, such as immigration … largely because it has been captured by the woke paradigm above.

That’s forcing people to go online, where they are exposed to much more radical opinions.

The Financial Times has produced an interesting diagram that highlights this nicely.

As you can see above, social media carries more views that could be deemed ‘extreme’ (both left and right.)

This creates an interesting situation for communicators and for organisations managing employees’ social media use and possible impacts on their reputation.

As the diagram above shows, what’s deemed ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ on social media can be deemed ‘extreme’ by the traditional media if they take an interest in what you and your staff have been posting.

The old rule used to be: would you say or do this if it were to end up on the front page of the paper?

While somewhat diminished – and perhaps not applicable for activists seeking to push boundaries – it’s still a useful rule of thumb for most people and organisations, particularly around social media use.