The road less travelled...

in

Big disclaimer... this ad has some disturbing images. 

I really don't like this ad from Save the Children UK.

I don't like shock value, and I think this ad depends on the easier to access shock value rather than the harder to achieve hope. Its shocking because they think that will get attention, and they're right, it will get attention. But when they have my attention where do they take me? Can they get me to connect to the message and give me money to their cause, which the ultimate goal of this ad.

I think they missed the boat. They could have shown a mother giving birth, we could have heard the baby crying, but what about seeing the happy family members? What about seeing the mother holding her new born baby? They could have told a moving story, a story every parent could connect with, instead they decided to shock us into paying attention.

Instead of relief or happy or hope, they leave me feeling grossed out and kinda spent emotionally, that's not what's going to motivate me to give. The image in my mind is the mother turned on her side crying, is that really the emotion & message they're trying to convey?

Beyond being off-emotion, I think the ad is off-message. The CG's feel misordered, they should have put the midwife information into the middle of the ad, and ended with "Make sure a baby's first day isn't its last..." which has a nice ring to it and hits the message they're trying to deliver.

Attention is easy, real emotion is hard, this ad takes the easy route and is less effective for it.

The power of personality

in

A lot of catching up to do in the pre-Super Bowl quiet.... We'll start today with this ad from a friend of mine. I usually try not to comment on videos when I know the folks involved, but this video is worth taking a few minutes out to watch.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw4n74mgV2U]

What I appreciate about this video beside the clever presentations is that the personality of the candidate shines through. Now I've never met Daylin Leach, but I imagine he's exactly like what I see here. The gimmicks in the video add to the authenticity of the final product presenting an image of an unrepentant liberal with boundless energy, someone who is serious but doesn't take himself too seriously.

The other day, I was on a call and someone said, "Voters are looking for cues about a candidate." I thought that was really insightful. Watch the video again — what cues do you get about Leach?

After three minutes you feel like you know him. Now, if you met him in person or watched him give a speech or already had an opinion of Leach and what you observed or thought doesn't match with the video (in other words the video presents an inauthentic version of the candidate), that's when campaigns get into trouble.  The other question is does Leach's personality so evident here come across in the other aspects of his campaign?

In other words, can the campaign present a unified vision of itself to the public? Its a theme I've talked about before, ads are a great medium to communicate your message, emotion and personality, but its' not enough to communicate it, the campaign or brand has to embody it too.

Personality is great, too often campaigns run from their candidates personality, offering a watered down version of what they think voters want (consumer brands do this too). But what voters (and consumers) want is authenticity, Apple is as extreme a brand identity as any mainstream brand, it seems to do well with buyers. This video is powered by personality, and that's a good thing.

I'll take a story with that burrito

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtnas5ScSE This Chipotle video is the latest video to "go viral" -- as of this writing it has over four million hits.

It's worth watching too full of pathos and top notch storytelling (the animation is pretty clutch too, from the folks who create Morris Lessmore and his Flying Book & Numberlys). The video is three minutes long, and I've already watched it four or five times. Heck, the video isn't even for the Chipotle per se, but a trailer for their new game!

I'm not going to break down all the reasons why I think this is a great video, either you get it or you don't. But I do think there are some important lessons you can learn from this video when thinking about your videos or ads:

1. Story matters. They build a compelling story that's not about the brand, but is precisely about what the brand stands for. A story that shows you their values.

2. Emotions matter. Related to that first lesson, this story is right on-emotion. Imagine a video that had the same message, but maybe it was a narrator with beautiful shots of fresh produce or some other genre appropriate video. It might get the message across, but would anyone watch? And more to the point would anyone remember or believe it?

3. Production Values Matter. Maybe the most important point I could make here.  We all have had clients ask us to produce a viral video, and when we ask how much they want to spend, the amount is usually less than you'd spend on an I-Pad.

Chipotle did fall into that trap. They didn't say well, it's only for the web, they produced a top-notch, story with top-notch production values, and I'm guessing they spent more than some people spend on their tv ads.

4. Your story matters. Chipotle is telling your their story (anti-corporate, fresh food, maybe even anti-establishment), but what they're trying to do is resonate with your story? Are you anti-corporate, believe in fresh food, do you want to be a conformist your whole life? By reflecting your story in theirs, the create believers, they create fans. I'll take 1 over 10 customers any day of the week.

I love seeing videos like this one. These ads and videos are why I write this blog. Chipotle could have fallen into a trap -- hey, we're just selling burritos, so let's give 'em a video about how great our burritos are. Instead they told a compelling story that resonates and creates fans, not bad for the price of a burrito.

 

 

Sometimes we confuse the jelly with the donut.

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_S9iDzgPc4 I like this spot so much better when we're hearing from the candidate...

It's like passion, energy, connections, then Blah (message), Blah (poll issues), Blah (on the nose), energy again.

When it comes to emotion v. message which one will you remember from this spot?

Always aim higher

in

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgC84kDhWl4] A header like, "If you have a heart, this Wrigley gum commercial will make you cry," set a pretty high bar, but also sets off my ok, I'm gonna call that bluff response. Well, the stupid fricking ad did indeed make me cry or the room got incredibly dusty as it climaxed.

Is the gum a bit of a macguffin here? Sure, it could have been anything, but staking out that space, telling an emotional story about a parent and a child, about sharing something in good times and bad, well that's powerful. It's too easy to say, well it's just gum, we should talk about it's flavor or it's ability to solve a problem. Like this crappy gum ad I saw last night:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_XpT8Haohc]

The Wrigley commercial for Extra gum goes to a higher place on the hierarchy -- other gums are minty or clean your mouth, this gum you share and experience, this gum is about love and connection.

The downside here is that I'm not sure this brand of gum has enough of a pre-exisitng space in my brain to make an impression (what's the brand name again). So an ad like this one for a brand that doesn't have a position needs repetition in other mediums, it has to tell this same story of sharing again and again in a myriad of different ways (what about directions for making those Origami birds on the inside of each package or a Web site about creating your Wrigley moment).

Still it's a great ad, and a good reminder that it's not about the function of the product, but something more.

Being for the middle class doesn't mean you have to be so mediocre

in

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MbYXOyIwaB4 Christine Quinn is the first candidate up in the NYC Mayor's race. I only have two short comments to make about this relatively generic ad:

1. Even though she appears in every scene in the ad, I never get a sense of who she is, what kind of person, do I like her or not? As I said above, it's all rather generic.

2. The final line: "While others talk about fighting for the middle class, I've been doing it..." Seems slightly ironic because we've just spent :30 seconds with you talking about fighting for the middle class. Yes, I understand she was "talking" about her accomplishments, but still I found it... odd. Maybe it's because the ad is so generic, and I wasn't emotionally invested so I'm nit-picking or maybe it's they're trying to hard to make their point, the ad yells "4" when it should be whispering "2+2."

3. (Ok, I know I said two short comments, so you don't have to read this one if you don't want.) There's just so many issues in the ad, I get it, you're trying to create a sense of what's she's done, the breadth of her accomplishments, but it feels like they're trying to say everything and instead they end up saying nothing.

It seems the middle class is the big issue of the NYC Mayor's race given this ad and the previous Weiner video I reviewed. Frankly I think Weiner video did a better job of being on-emotion, and showing true empathy. This ad is a list of issues, but ends up less than the sum of it's parts.

It's hard to be funny... let's be angry instead.

in

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iiIaNh0NlGo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiiIaNh0NlGo You know this video (and let's be clear it's 45 seconds long so it's not running on TV) has the potential to be really good. But I think it misses the mark. Why? Because I think it's way off-emotion.

The ObamaCarenado is trendy for sure, but instead of campy parody they go way over the top with fear and anger. Now, I will say I really liked the end, but in general, this video just feels really angry to me, whatever humor it may have is lost in that anger. Now that may play well to the base, but I don't think it works so well with independent voters.

Good humor and good parody are hard. The video takes the easy way out, trying for neither and I think it accomplishes less because of it. Had they really bought into the Sharknado what could they have accomplished? Instead it just a macguffin to be angry. I guess that's one way to go, but the creators of Sharknado have nothing to worry about.

Can you have too much message?

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTvmdBK-OlE

This ad just leaves me... I don't know, kinda flat. The message is right, and it seems like it's on-message, but I wonder if it's on-emotion?

I know it looks like an interview, but it sounds like talking points. Is it a case of too much message? Or just the wrong emotional delivery? The story doesn't feel personal.  

BTW, the McAuliffe campaign is up with this minute long ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaZX_hLkmaY

It's better, though I'm a little confused by the details. Still I think it works better than the social security ad, especially at the end. I think it's a smart play to make Cuchinelli appear untrustworthy rather than going after him for being extreme or otherwise too partisan. 

 

Funny is not being on-message (Represent.us ad)

in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KjE7HXAjuk8 Money in politics. It's an important issue, but one that doesn't really get the attention it deserves. It's also one of those issues that if you ask most people they'd agree that money in politics has corrupted our political system. The problem is both the intentisty of their feeling, the vaguenes of what it actually means, and then ultimately, what do you do about the problem (I had  a poli sci professor, Professor Cobb who always said politicians never idtentify a problem without telling you the solution).

This ad is funny, and the gimmick at it's core seems to be tightly connected to its central message, but I'd argue the ad is both off-message and off-emotion.

I've been thinking about it a lot today because it does seem to perfectly capture the zeigiest around this issue but it nagged at me. Here's the thing, the image of an elderly man is funny. But targetting politicians is too easy, so while the image of an old man on a pole is unexpected, the message that politicians are stippers or whores isn't so unexpected. Who doesn't think that already?

Emotionally, the ad uses surprise and anger. But again the surprise isn't on-message, and we're already angry at our politicians if Congress' approval rating means anything.

So really what is the ad asking the audience to do? It's not driving us to action nor creating a new link or adding a new thought to our understanding of the influence of money in politics.

Refering back to the Apple signature ad I looked at yesterday, this ad does the exact opposite. Apple focuses on the experience that the features create. This ad focuses on the features (politicians will do anything for money) rather than the experience (how congress sells out the middle class to big corporate interests or whatever they're trying to say).

Most of the time when I criticize gimmicks its because they're only about getting attention and don't connect to the core message. Here the issue is slightly different, the gimmick connects to the core, but I think Represent.us has chosen the wrong core. Maybe it gets Represent.us some attention, so in that sense it could be a useful proposition, but it feels like a wasted opportunity to frame an issue and offer a solution.

Being on-emotion

in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ts_4vOUDImE# A friend sent this to me, with the following comment:

"Too long, but pretty awesome."

I have to say, even though I could roughly guess what was coming from the intro (and what I know about Coke's brand), I was still pretty moved in spite of myself.

Here's yet another example of a video that tells the story of a brand. It doesn't use facts and figures, doesn't just tell us we're all the same whether you're Indian or Pakistani, it shows it. The joy of the people engaged in the video is both obvious and contagious.

Does Coke taste better than pepsi? Is it cheaper? Is it healthier than other drinks? Probably not (well except on the taste issue), but next time I'm in the super market I'm going to smile when I see that coke display. Maybe that means next time a Coke executive is testifying on the HIll about sugar in soft drinks or selling to kids, I might be more inclined to believe him because I like the brand.

That's the power of an emotion, and it's a power that "facts" can't hope to challenge.

Real is the new Real

in

http://youtu.be/UVAuMzg0VZk Real emotions win. People can tell the difference between real and fake. That's why actors get paid so much becayuse the best of them can convince us what they're feeling is real.

This Target spot is interesting, highlighting Target's investment in education in a very raw real way. They could have told you how much money they invest (in fact they do, though I can't the life of me remember that number, can you), they could have told you how many students they help or why a college education is so important. In other words they could have stuck to the facts. Instead they focused on the emotion.

I've been re-reading the classic "Made to Stick," there's a point they make in the book: "Statisitcs are rarely meaningful in and of themselves. Statistics will, and should almost always be used to illustrate a relationship. It's more important for people to remember the relationship than the number."

What are you going to remember from this commercial?

More railing against talking points

in

What sells a product? Is it how well it works? Or how well you think it works? Is it what it says about itself or what it stands for? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XpaOjMXyJGk

Much like the Ebay motorcycle ad, this ad isn't filled with talking points. It's not making any claims about its product, its just a brand saying this is what our values are, this is what we stand for, this is what we are about. To the extent that story is authentic and resonates to how the audience sees the product, it is effective.

This video from Dove is absolutely on-emotion and because of that it's on message for the brand. It's easy to be on-message, much harder to be on-emotion, but ultiamtely more important.

Everything you wanted to know about Subtext (but were too afraid to ask)

in

When I was at film school, I had a teacher Bill Reilly who taught me to understand the importance of subtext as a director. I grew up in an acting family, so I knew about communicating subtext to actors, as Boris might say, "Love is not 'I love you,' love is chicken." But I had never thought about how the subtext of a scene might relate to how you filmed the scene. If two characters are talking, but the subtext is their separateness, that's a different shot then if the subtext is their desire to be together. Bill taught me that, and it's been among the most important lessons I took away from NYU. http://youtu.be/bZxs09eV-Vc

When I first saw this ad, I wondered if it was some Onion satire, it was so sharp and funny, a parody of a political ad. It's like a nested doll, a parody of an ad, that's an ad itself, there's a certain post revisionist meta brilliance to it (deconstruct that phrase for a moment, I have no idea what it means, but I like it). It's an actual ad, running on cable not in battlegrounds, but still airing on TV's across the nation.

I think at face value the ad is pretty funny and does a good job at subverting Romney. Not just the message of he's getting tough on Sesame street, but not wall street, though that's important. No, it somehow make Romney seem small and petty, Big Bird, really? Come on, don't we have bigger issues to take on?

That's the surface, but I think the true value of the ad is the subtext of its message. To me, this ad says Obama gets it. It's funny and a bit whimsical, likable and clever. An ad like this makes Obama seem more real to me, because he's tapping into the current meme of the election. It's politics and its serious, but he's not above being a little silly in the face of the ridiculous.

Maybe put another way, the ad is on-message, but it's also on-emotion, it reflects what some voters are already thinking and amplifies it. That's a powerful tool.

I don't know if they intended that to be the subtext of the ad, again as Boris used to say, "your work is on the screen," so whether they intended it or not, once it's in there, that's purposeful enough.

Subtext is a powerful tool, in my mind more powerful than the surface text, because it operates on the viewer, often unconsciously. This ad works on both levels, but the subtext "he gets it" can also translate to "he's one of us." To my mind that's really more useful in this election than a clever hit on Romney and Wall Street.

 

A contrast in styles

in

A couple more quick reviews today. A friend passed this West Wing reunion along: http://youtu.be/v52FLMOPSig

It's pretty clever, and actually does a good job of conveying some important information without sounding too political. Some of that is the format, a lot of that is good acting. It's really amazing what good actors can do, the "bio" section of the video is really well done without too much fanfare.  It's logs in at a little over four minutes, but doesn't feel overly long. Makes me miss the West Wing too.

http://youtu.be/4oIVinDXzOw

Next up another appearance for Elizabeth Warren. I think the script is pretty good hear, it's conversational and common sense. It's the kind of explanation you don't hear a lot of in politics, straight forward, no spin, and it makes sense. My real problem with this ad is how stark it looks. It looks like a response ad from the 90's shot on piss poor betacam. It's flat and ugly. I understand that it might have been thrown together quickly, but surprised at how bad it looks given the ubiquitousness of quality cameras -- especially in the Boston area.

I keep thinking the starkness was a deliberate choice, especially given the fact that there's no music, but whether is a choice or not (Boris would say, "Your work is on the screen") it's unfortunate. Does it matter, maybe maybe not, but I think if the ad looked a little bit better it would be a home run, even looking pretty flat and dark, it's a good spot because the message is right on.

And now a word from our sponsor...

in

Taking a quick break from politics (because there are three or four ads I'd like to write about), I thought in the spirit of the day, I'd write about my favorite Olympic ads.  Fast Company posted this list here. It's an interesting list. Here's their top choice:

http://youtu.be/0eisbkQgY2Q

Funny, this ad didn't do much for me. I mean it was alright, but I don't even think it was the best shoe ad on the list.

I thought the Nike ad "Find your Greatness" was much more inspiring and also much more on brand message:

http://youtu.be/_hEzW1WRFTg

My two favorite ads on the list are #2 and #3:

http://youtu.be/NScs_qX2Okk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKTamH__xuQ

Both ads are well shot, but what really sets them apart is the emotional appeal.  How you can you not get a little teary at the end of the Mom's ad?  And the meet the superhumans is so kick ass and proud, that it would be an insult to call it merely inspirational.

Another element that sets these two ads apart is the outstanding music.  Which both sets and frames a mood, but also drives the spots. Another element that both spots share is reflecting small familiar moments that the viewer can relate to.

The spots just suck you in from the beginning -- they open with a quiet stillness that is both intriguing and engaging.

In the Olympic spirt both spots deserve a gold medal.

Do Production values matter?

in

http://youtu.be/J1pteKuWCEI Interesting ad from John Tester. It's a total gimmick ad, but I like the concept. I think the gimmick works here because it's on message and on emotion, the key elements for any ad, but specifically an ad that revolves around a gimmick. Tester has never seemed Washington, so telling people he packs his Montana steaks, the nice touch with the boots (and the shot of the TSA agent looking at the x-ray of the steaks) works here because it matches what we think of him already.

What I don't like about this ad is the execution. The shots are a little sloppy, the lighting is really flat (especially at the end of the ad), even the audio sounds a little crunchy. Frankly the ad feels cheap, more like a low budget commercial, then a commercial for a US Senator. Maybe that's a stylistic choice, but I think you can be homey without looking cheap.

A good story with poor production values still works, and I think this ad mostly works. The sloppy and cheap execution do hold it back though, it feels less real, more staged, less believable somehow. Compare this ad with the gimmick ads from Hickenlooper, those were highly produced and yet still felt intimate and personal.

So a good concept taken down by poor execution. At least they're trying to be different.

Real Magic

in

When I was in college, I quickly realized something about the class I took.  My best classes, the ones I was most interested in, the ones that I worked the hardest in, the ones, I remember today, weren't always the most interesting topics. Sure some of them were right in my interest wheel house, but many of them were subjects I never really cared much about then or since.  Conversely, the worst classes were often in topics I was sure I'd love.  What separated the bad from the good, the boring from the interesting was the quality of the teacher. The best teachers made subjects (like English History 1600-1658) fascinating and relevant.

I bring that up in the context of this new ad from Jessie Jackson Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0XwaNaxC2o

On the face of it, it should be compelling, it should be heartbreaking, it should move me to outrage..., but it doesn't. The spot is flat emotionally. Now, I know a mom telling the story of her son gunned down on the way to choir practice is inherently powerful, but it's not. That first line "I'm Pam Bosley, my son is dead..." should grab you and make you sick, but it doesn't.

I'm not blaming the mom, who has obviously gone through a tragedy no parent should ever have to face.  It takes courage to get on camera and speak about it.  I blame the consultant.  It appears that she's reading a teleprompter, repeating words from rote rather than telling her own tragic tale.  Then to make matters worse, they have her spouting political blah, blah, blah about there opponent (the highlight of the ad is actually the phone of Debbie Haverston behind Jesse Jackson with that awful expression on her face).

I saw a quote from a screenwriter that said if the answer is 4, write 2+2.  Unfortunately the script here gives us 4.  There's no room for the audience in this ad either emotionally or intellectually. Instead of bringing us into the story they hold us at arm's length.

"A million deaths is a statistic. One death is a tragedy."

By the time she says, don't let my son die in vain, we should be heartbroken.... I read a great line about Jeremy Lin, the Knicks point guard, who came from no where to dazzle the NBA -- a reporter said the true story of Jeremy Lin was "about how in a society full of nonsense and noise, of fizz and vapour, of pretty colours and manufactured products, we ache for real magic."

This ad has the potential for real magic but instead they gave us more nonsense and noise.

 

 

Gimmicks

in

I came across the new JC Penny ads today.  Usually JC Penny wouldn't really hold much interest for me, but Ron Johnson, the new CEO of JC Penny was the man who designed and ran the Apple Stores is remaking JC Penny. http://youtu.be/FlNAvRXfJIo

http://youtu.be/SsFMMf_1VzU

http://youtu.be/SRwki8jOAB0

http://youtu.be/k5F7NG8vBOQ

I liked these ads. Using Ellen is a bit of a MacGuffin, she brings attention to the brand, but also her association lends some character to a brand that's really nondescript -- what does JC Penny stand for anyway? Are they design oriented like Target? Or cheap like Wal-Mart?  What's their story.

These ads are gimmicky and entertaining, but I think it serves a purpose beyond attention -- it signals a new direction for JC Penny. By focusing on four different areas -- returns, coupons, sales and $.99 pricing, they show the new direction.  They could have just run ads saying, JC Penny, no coupons, easy returns, blah, blah, blah. Instead they indicate the new direction, a sense of putting customers first, a sense of caring about customers in way that other stores don't, a sense that they understand our frustrations (and in that sense Ellen as the "every women" is a perfect choice for a brand spokesperson).

My only quibble would be are they JC Penny branded enough? Meaning, do you watch the ads and know it's a JC Penny ad without the fanfare?  But still, I think these are really well done, entertaining and on-emotion, good job.

Here's another gimmick ad:

http://youtu.be/Pj6FP7PkJNo

I liked the way they based the ad on a real stunt -- that kind of coordination is great in a campaign.  The hurdles are clever a way to make it clear the attack on women's health. A minute ad might seem like a luxury, but I thought it was nice that they took their time, let the viewer take in the stunt, the meaning of the hurdles and some of the message, without forcing it on us.

The ad kinda doesn't know where to go after it introduces the stunt, so it loses some steam (there are a lot of shots of people looking at the hurdles, that I'm not sure if they're helping), but it's a solid B+/A-.

Beware the dark side

in

Taking a break from political ads, to look at the controversy around the Westminster Dog show's decision to pull the sad pedigree dog ads it had been running. From the Article, the spokesperson (wouldn't it be cool if they had a spokesdog) said, "The feedback we got from our primary audience was that they were seeing commercials that made them want to turn the channel." Here's the commercial in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD1HsSUrXIo

I thought it was a pretty good commercial, I really liked the copy, which I thought was well written if a bit much.

Here's the ad that replaced it by Purina:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3rwe-386c

Have to say I liked this ad better. The music and inspiring images, made me smile. I could connect to the home images of the dogs and be inspired by the working dogs (like the dog jumping out of a helicopter, maybe he or she could be a spokesdog someday).  I thought the message was clever, make a good dog great.

My wife works in international development, and she saw some polling data some years back that people didn't like to see sad images of kids in Africa in the advertising.  It depressed them, made the problem seem insurmountable, and left them feeling powerless and less likely to respond or act. Now we can argue how sad the Pedigree ad really was, but I wonder if the Westminster Dog show didn't have a point?

Look the Purina ad has nothing to do with pet adoption, but honestly, if you slapped a "Adopt a dog" message at the end of that spot, I'm pretty sure it would work just as well. Like I said, it left me with a warm feeling. The Pedigree ad reminded me of a problem I know existed, but I'm not sure if left me ready to go out and act (not that we're getting a dog, despite my two son's great desire for one). Showing the ads to my my eight year old said the sad ad makes him want a dog more because it makes him worry about them, but I think the feeling the Purina ad invokes -- companionship, the cuteness and love, the sense of play and connection with a pet, are equally powerful motivators (my eight year old says he liked this ad better) and their positive motivators carrying none of the guilt or avoidance of the Pedigree emotions.

Who knows why Westminster did what it, the decision has come under scrutiny, but reading the article Pedigree has found a way to spin the loss into a PR gain. The fight reminds me of something from Star Wars (doesn't take much to go there).  Luke asks Yoda if the dark side of the force (anger, fear, aggression)is stronger? Yoda replies, "No, quicker, easier, more seductive."

I would say the same is true about ads: The way our brains are designed it's easier to appeal to those "darker" emotions of anger or fear. The Pedigree ad isn't quite going there, but I think the point is the same. It goes for the low hanging fruit, guilt, sadness, hoping to inspire action, but the Purina ad reaches higher, it's aspirational, showing the viewer the way things could be and touching on what really inspires us -- that's real strength.