#1: Why does some nostalgia work and some doesn't?

Hello!

Welcome to the newsletter. This is the first one of hopefully many, but also, maybe the last one ever.

If it’s the former, I can’t wait to go on this journey with you. If it’s the latter, this has been really fun.

Each week - or day, or hour, or minute - I’ll bring you three things:

• A big thought about something I’ve observed in media / marketing

• A bunch of little thoughts on the same topic

• A random thought on the…same topic

Yes, this is a media / marketing / business newsletter. I know a bunch about the first two, and like to pretend I know stuff about the last one.

So let’s get to it, and thanks for subscribing.

One big thought

“It sometimes happens that advertising enters the culture…this kind of thing is manna from heaven, but nobody knows how to do it on purpose. At least I don’t.” - David Ogilvy

Well, that “sometimes” has certainly happened recently. Barbie is everywhere. In your theater as of yesterday, but also in your newsfeed, in your shopping store window, in your Slack channels. It’s vindication for the crazy guy at your agency with big ideas, and a godsend for people like me who need something to write about.

Taking a step back, why does some nostalgia - the Barbie variety - work, but other recent tries haven’t? June was full of trips back in time to a younger self, like going to an Indiana Jones movie, or reading a Flash comic. Yet these felt like thuds, vs. experiences you couldn’t miss out on.

Let’s put the obvious aside, including Barbie’s stupendous marketing work. At its core, there’s really something different. I first thought it was due to quality. Barbie is supposedly a good movie, while Indiana Jones, The Flash, and others are simply not. But that doesn’t explain why Super Mario Bros. has a 58% Rotten Tomatoes score and has grossed $1B at the box office.

So, I think there are a few reasons for why some nostaglia works right now, and some doesn’t.

The first is, despite being old, the nostalgia that works today is new. As pointed out on a recent episode of The Town, the movies that work are old characters with new stories. And these are characters beloved by Millennials, who are finally growing into their always promised purchasing power, and portrayed with modern flair. No one wants to see an old Indiana Jones. They want to see a variety of Barbies and Kens.

Plus, they’re fun. It’s interesting, insightful, and maybe even a little ironic (if I’m using the word right) that a Christopher Nolan movie is premiering opposite Barbie and will debut to about half of Barbie’s opening weekend. 15 years earlier, Nolan debuted The Dark Knight, a nostalgic entry in its own right, which set off an entire genre of noir superhero films that still see offspring today, like The Flash.

But we’ve been doing this dark shit for 15 years. And if the first movie that blew up post-COVID taught us anything, Top Gun: Maverick - also a nostalgia hit - people just want a little optimism. At the very least, they want a little sing-a-long with Rooster at the piano bar.

But the biggest thing, I think, may be a potential problem if people and marketers take it too far. And it’s the fact that what works today is nostalgia with a pinch of crazy.

The Barbie movie is likely to be wacky, and funny, but a little dark. McDonald’s Grimace campaign only became popular when people started to pretend the shakes were killing them on TikTok. The most popular brand on Threads at launch was childhood favorite American Eagle, because it was literally acting like a crazy person to get followers.

People like Jack Appleby have been railing against unhinged social accounts and brand social managers just in the name of getting followers, but I think this is bigger than that. We’re seeing it fuel the ascent of both media in popular culture, and what marketing campaigns get talked about.

Now, crazy can mean a lot of things. For the Barbie movie, it’s the length to which it shows up in the world - it’s definitely all over the place, in a lot of contexts you’d least expect it. But in tone, while derangement can be fun, putting a thumb too much on the scale towards that can be lame at best and destructive to IP at worst.

Ultimately though, that’s the current playbook. New, fun, a little crazy. It’s why at its core Barbie is working, and these others haven’t. And it’s a good checklist to keep in mind if you’re thinking of dusting off nostalgia in your marketing playbook.

Little thoughts

…is LinkedIn really the Twitter killer? Per the WSJ, Threads usage is down considerably since launch - now at 4-5 minutes per day, down from 19 minutes on launch day. Sheesh. For context, Twitter users spend 30 minutes on the site per day - so 6x that.

Threads doesn’t have a reason for existing on its own, just a reason for existing (barely) vs. Twitter - a cautionary tale for brands who only market themselves as alternatives to another category option. If anything, its reason for existing is to be an ad platform - again, a cautionary tale for brands who heavily invest in and market product features that are obvious revenue drivers but not reflective of what users want.

But these numbers got me thinking - is LinkedIn really what we want out of a Twitter alternative anyway?

• A strong level of verification (check)

• A solid balance of news, education, and debate (check)

• A paid tier that helps, but isn’t imperative (check)

• Room to scale your network with people to share thoughts (check)

There are obvious downsides to LinkedIn, including the self-congratulating and salesy shit. But I think that checklist is wayyyy more than what Twitter defectors are looking for vs. Threads, which is destined to become a cesspool of memes and bad jokes. LinkedIn users spend ~7 minutes per day on the site per SimilarWeb, and I find it hard not to imagine that that number won’t increase if Twitter continues to falter.

The only thing holding it back? People hate work.

…I feel like Spotify can charge more? Spotify is raising their prices by…$1. You get 80 million songs and 5 million podcasts on Spotify. For the same cost of $10.99 on Disney+, I think I get 3 shows I actually watch (granted, I don’t have kids yet).

I can’t help but think Spotify is underestimating how much people love their service, are resistant to change, and would rather cut other services vs. go back to audio ads.

After all, ads are still endemic to the most popular forms of video - TV and YouTube. For Millennials, audio ads feel like a crime, an unfair tax on pregames, house parties, and most importantly, “me time.” This feels like a wasted opportunity.

…Get ready to be locked out of sports. The writer’s strike is going to push out other content to mid / late 2024, consolidating the big guys’ ad investments around sports. Plus, presidential election ad dollars will put pressure on the entire system (and also take out politics as an environment for brands concerned about brand safety).

There’s a chance that there is general pullback in 2024 ad dollars if the economy softens. But if it’s full throttle, and you’re a small brand or budget strapped media buyer next year, sports might be downright impossible to buy into.

…early 2024 shows are going to be popular by default. There will likely be fewer TV / streaming shows that come out to start next year. As a result, whatever airs will be a TV darling, out-punching their actual quality. These shows will have that Top Gun: Maverick vibe - are they actually good? Maybe. But we’re just happy to be watching something new.

On the flipside, the end of the year will be the opposite - 10 shows at once, each not getting enough oxygen to cut through.

…Media companies don’t see the future well. So let me get this straight - first the streamers like Netflix swindled the media companies into giving them their content for years, effectively giving these streamers runway and momentum. Then, the streamers convinced these same companies to pull their content and lose billions of dollars trying to create their own streamers. And now, they’ve convinced them to hold the line against striking actors and writers, despite the fact that Netflix is clearly the winner of an elongated strike given their overseas production and content already in the tank?

…and I’m supposed to believe these media companies I negotiate with know what the fuck they’re doing?

Random thoughts

A quote from Connor Roy on the writer’s strike and the fact that companies won’t pay streaming residuals, from WSJ - “It doesn’t apply anymore…Why? Because they said so?” Spoken like a true brand marketer talking to a digital “performance” team.

Did anyone buy ads in front of Barbie or Oppenheimer this weekend? I can’t imagine a better time to do a deal with NCM or Screenvision. These movies are events, and are likely the only times people are actually getting to theaters early to get their food and drinks, go to the bathroom, and get in the seats for showtime. And, to revel in it all a little bit. If you bought ads during this phenomenon, let me know - you’re a genius.

Stay thinkin,

Danny