A Conversation with Oliver Maltby, Executive Creative Director at Interbrand
Oliver Maltby is an Executive Creative Director at Interbrand New York. He has been a part of some of the most creative agencies across the world. Consistently helping his clients grow, he delivers both strategic and creative solutions that clearly express and build upon the aims of their business. With more than 60 leading international awards including six D&AD Pencils, three Cannes Lions and two Clio’s awards – amongst many others bits of coverted wood, metal and acrylic.
Previously, Oliver created the No. 1 ranked creative agency in the world, and in 2015 he had the privilege of rebranding the iconic Sydney Opera House.
Oliver is always active within design education – lecturing, mentoring students and judging creative awards. Working across three continents, a selection of past clients include: AT&T, Astra Zeneca, AHM, Alzheimer’s Society, BBC, British Council, BMW, European Tour, Google, Intuit, Medibank, M&S, Orange, PayPal, Royal Mail, Sensis, Sydney Opera House, and TD Bank.
Kavya Chandran (BT): First, it would be great if we could talk a little bit about Interbrand. There are many global companies that work as brand consultants, so how does Interbrand build its own brand and unique identity to stand out amongst the crowd?
Oliver Maltby (OM): We do it in a few ways. The main thing Interbrand is well known for is Best Global Brands, which is a ranking of the biggest brands in the world based on their brand value. We have a proprietary methodology that considers ten internal and external factors, scoring each against publicly available data. Corporations take this ranking incredibly seriously. They want to know how they can move up in ranking and improve. The other differentiator is the work we produce. This varies depending on the geographic market and the focus of the business. Each market differs in how creatively or strategically led it is, so we have a global effect on the world but then our impact on each market is different.
BT: In 2017, you did an interview with Rob Johnston which was featured on Medium. In the interview, you mentioned that Interbrand was mainly known in America for strategy and that you were working on “raising the creative profile” of the company. What has that journey been like over the past few years, and would you say that what Interbrand is known for now is a more accurate reflection of the work the company does and its broad range of expertise?
OM: It’s still an aim to drive the creative reputation of Interbrand. That's should be the goal of any designer working at the company. The challenge we face in the American market is that we work with corporations at such a huge scale, which can alter our role in creating change. It’s a true consultancy role we play. A lot of our time goes towards helping these large businesses move the ball forward in whatever way that might be. The outcome isn’t always a huge impact like a rebrand. Decisions at scale can take months or even years, and sometimes there might not even be a change at the end of the process. The reality is that in smaller markets you can usually make a bigger impact quicker. In larger markets, more people are involved so it can take more time.
BT: Over the years, you’ve worked in London, Melbourne, Sydney and New York City. In terms of the clients or the customer base, have you noticed that there is a significant difference in what makes a brand successful based on the geography?
OM: In the UK, I was focused on creativity as a way to differentiate and drive awareness. The UK has an amazing creative community, but projects tend to be boutique and less commercially driven. In Australia, design had national visibility and the market was really progressive about significant change. Interbrand was a big fish in a small pond, and we could affect the biggest national companies there in pretty epic ways. That was amazing. Of my career to date, I would say we had the most dramatic impact in Australia because corporations were at a scale that we could affect lots of customers, but also agile enough that they could make decisions and move forward quickly.
For instance, there was a company that we repositioned in a portfolio of a health insurer called Medibank. They were getting market share taken away by another premier health insurer coming in from the UK. We helped them reposition AHM to be a challenger in the market. AHM was so successful that they started cannibalizing Medibank’s market share, which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing because of how Australia’s healthcare system works. That was one of the biggest transformational successes I have been involved in. However, I don’t think it’s healthy to focus solely on finances. If you start with money as your main aim, you’ll only ever be trying to ape whoever you perceive as being successful at the time. It is critical to have something more inspiring than just money as your primary aim.
For the last four years I have worked in America, and the challenge I found is scale. One project can feel like you are working with five different companies at once. Getting approvals and navigating the power bases or complexity of those organizations makes it harder (but not impossible) to make significant change. It can slow down the process, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
BT: Shifting now to discuss your long and accomplished career in design, what has been the biggest challenge you’ve faced so far? This could be a particular project, part of the design process, or a change in roles.
OM: The most challenging thing is creating alignment internally or externally. It can be challenging to help people understand, commit and move forward with a vision. Generally, brands are created by many individuals coming together. But fundamentally there has to be a driving perspective within that group.
BT: What are your biggest sources of inspiration? Have they changed over the years?
OM: I chose my University because my best friend (in art college) was going there. It was no more than that. I went along with him, and the University turned out to be a beautiful 16th century mansion with two lakes and grounds. It was basically a sculpture park, and that had a really profound impact on how I thought about design. Even though I was studying Graphic Design, which can be potentially flat or superficial, I wanted to make things that lasting - especially physical things that have corners, edges, and curves to them - kind of like products, without being a product designer. This is a retrospective thought, rather than something I was conscious of at the time.
During that period, and into the start of my career a lot of my work had a physical manifestation. One example was a Christmas gift (Crackers that looked like a string of sausages) we helped create for a luxury butcherer. I really enjoy physical solutions because I think there’s some wit and personality in things that are three dimensional, as well as a sense of permanence. Even later in Australia, with the Sydney Opera House rebrand, I wanted to capture the unique dimensional architecture in a brand.
Fundamentally my inspiration has stayed relatively consistent; I love sculpture and architecture. In fact, yesterday I was talking to my friend who is an architect, and we were trading names on which architects we liked. We talked about; Alvaro Siza, John Pawson, and Peter Zumthor. I also really love Tadao Ando. One of my favorite places in the world is Naoshima, Japan’s Art Island and an underground art gallery he created. Another favorite is Mona in Hobart, Tasmania.
BT: When working on projects for firms that are socially conscious, how do you as a designer help them showcase their intentionality and efforts without it coming off as greenwashing?
OM: Honestly, it’s a hard thing to deal with. Depending on how cynical or critical you are, you can assume anything could be greenwashing. Specifically, with larger organizations, you have to take them at their word that it’s an intent to be better. Our role as designers is to shine a light on those opportunities to be better and bring those discussions to light so companies don’t shy away from it. We can’t fundamentally impact them because there are people in place to make those decisions, but we can help promote making steps in the right direction.
For example, we were working with a private transport company and part of that project was to find a way to talk about their impact on the environment and what they can do to help. It doesn’t mean they are in a position to always make the environmentally right decision, but where possible we have to show the steps they are taking to improve the work they do. The most important thing is the intent to do right.
Another example is the work we did for AHM. The brand idea was called frugalism, which isn’t about being cheap but rather meant that people save their money and spend it on the things they want to spend it on. To reflect the audience they were going after, the brand was built around frugalism, so everything had to be as cheap and functional as possible. We used an off-the-shelf font that was free. We only used black and white to save on printing costs. We got icons directly from the internet. The photos were also black and white to save on retouching etc. We created a brand with value at its core, and obviously this had environmental savings in terms of how they applied the brand. However, this came from the idea of what they provide for their customers rather than what they are doing for the world.
On the other hand, we also work with Google on their sustainability efforts, so we definitely touch upon these issues.
BT: My last question is, what’s the biggest misstep you have seen companies make in terms of marketing or branding in the wake of coronavirus?
OM: I’m very conscious of our own industry, even more than our clients. Everyone is under pressure to have a voice or point of view by adding to the noise of responding to COVID. There’s a place for it, but you have to add to the debate with thoughtful authenticity rather than as a marketing ploy. I see a lot of people in the industry generating ‘thought pieces’, but the reality is that we have to be more thoughtful about what we are all producing right now and if it’s helping.
Sometimes it’s best to just keep your powder dry and directly help your current clients respond to their customers’ challenges rather than trying to make waves by having a point of view on the industry when no one actually knows what is happening and what it really means for our futures.