How to build a community and create authentic content #119

A warm welcome to a new episode of Noll till hundra. My name is Fedja Porobic, and as usual, I have Fredrik Ankarsköld with me. Good to be here. A new week, a fresh start. Absolutely. We were recently at Breakit Ecom Day. One thing mentioned regularly on stage was that it's important to build community, but that you mustn't try to build community, because it can get cheesy.

And creating authentic content and being authentic. One funny thing was that I walked around during the breaks asking people: ‘What does authentic mean to you?’ The answers I got were wildly different.

I asked: ‘If you have an AI-generated ad where the person and setting are AI, is it authentic?’ They said it could be. I thought: ‘How can it be?’ The answer that emerged in the discussion was that if it's based on real reviews, it's more authentic than a UGC creator who claims to use something but is lying, or claims something about the product that isn't true.

I'm going to say Skogshjärta. They'd paid Pernilla Wahlgren and some others to stand there saying: ‘Don't use plastic when frying and cooking, because it contains toxins.’ That's true. But then they said: ‘Use Skogshjärta, because it's Nordic, real craftsmanship and free of toxins.’ But it was just a dropshipping product.

From China. What's more authentic, then? An AI-generated video with real reviews of a real product where what's said is true, or a real person saying something that isn't true? It's incredibly interesting. First, I want to go back to Ecom Day. Breakit put on, by far, one of the year's best e-commerce events.

I missed D-Congress this year, so I can't comment on that. I was stuck in Dubai with missiles overhead. A good reason to miss it. I've been to lots of other events. Tech Arena is fantastic, but it isn't just about e-commerce; it covers lots of themes.

But Ecom Day, bam! What a hell of a day. They pulled it off very well, from a normal time in the morning until very late if you count the afterparty hosted by Pango. Unfortunately, I missed that. I'd have liked to go but didn't have the time and prioritised something else. I always prioritise family in the evenings.

I don't like all the invitations you get: ‘I'm gathering a group of e-commerce people for dinner.’ Not me. Why? I prioritise family and having dinner together, not being at an e-commerce event. There are exceptions if I have to go to another city. Qliro is holding its Ecom Summit on 5 November in Gothenburg.

I want to be there as much as I can, and I'll probably moderate the event. Perhaps that's public now. Fun! Then I have to go to another city and miss a whole day, especially dinner with the children. At D-Congress, I miss time too. Sometimes I have to travel to Italy.

Sometimes I travel to Vilhelmina. There are already built-in, more important things that make me miss family time because of work. Why would I then accept other dinner invitations where the theme and mix of people are a bit random? If it had been lunch or an afternoon coffee, that would have been nice, but not dinner.

So the timing is really more important than what's happening? Both. The most important thing is, of course, what's happening. If they'd put something together with the king… This is Gary Vaynerchuk or Sean Ellis. Then perhaps I'd have considered taking time away from the family.

Otherwise, it's family first. My priority is health above all, then family. If I don't have my health, I can't be there for my family. Then come work and other work settings. Back to Ecom Day: I know you talked on stage about being authentic.

Perhaps it wasn't the main theme, but you talked about it in the presentation. It was mentioned on stage. In the last episode, you sent a completely AI-generated video. I thought we'd play it again as part of the introduction.

Yes. If you're not watching the video format but listening through headphones, you'll still hear it, but I recommend going to YouTube and watching the full episode.

And Spotify Video. Damn, you get so much more out of the podcasts now, because we show a lot. Later, we'll break down an ad. Then you get to see the whole ad and the ads we're looking at. Let's go.

[Demonstration clip in English:] ‘Babe, I want to do a demonstration for the viewers on how realistic AI video is now.’ ‘Using us?’ ‘Exactly. Okay, look at my face. Skin, hair. I'm not real.’ ‘Do the hands. AI always messes up hands.’ ‘Five fingers, five fingers. Groundbreaking. Okay, hair.’ ‘Every single strand.’ ‘And you're still fake.’ ‘Rude. Jewelry, fingers, hair, and nothing's melting into anything.’ ‘Exactly. Okay, reflections?’

[The demonstration clip continues:] ‘Reflections are ridiculous now. Movement used to expose AI instantly.’ ‘Okay, watch this then.’ ‘Still fake.’ [inaudible] ‘Okay, catching things too?’ ‘Apparently.’ ‘You are just teasing them now.’ ‘Show off. Walking, touching things, clothes moving properly, bumping into your annoying friend. What about this?’ ‘AI. Even drinking?’ ‘Babe, you're not even thirsty. You don't exist.’ ‘That's actually quite rude. I don't think they believe us.’

[The demonstration clip:] ‘Let's prove it.’ I just want to check something, when they put the necklace on. [The clip plays again:] ‘Okay, hair.’ Did it go around the hair? ‘Every single strand.’ ‘And you're still fake.’ ‘Rude. Jewelry, fingers, hair, and nothing's melting into anything.’

Managed to put it behind. [unclear in the Swedish source: He impressed.] [The clip:] ‘Reflections?’ ‘Reflections are ridiculous now. Movement used to…’ No, that went a little too fast to be a real action. Good catch. Yes, but that's because we've seen it before.

I think it's… Oh my God, how far we've come. Above all, I want to emphasise the interaction between the two characters and how the dialogue is handled. It's extremely good.

There are even sound effects when they bump into each other. Exactly: the sound effects, reflections and script. Obviously, someone who's a very skilled video creator made this. Is it fake? Yes. But is it more real than some paid-for fake? Look at a professional actor, like George Clooney for Nespresso.

How genuine is that on a scale of one to ten? You know he gets a million dollars to sit on the aeroplane drinking his Nespresso. How fake is that? Yet people make that kind of advertising and have always done [unclear in the Swedish source: restorationer] with big celebrities. They're very good in front of the camera.

Then it's trickled down to it needing to feel real: creators, our own users and our staff. But that's scripted and fake too. How authentic is it really? Really?

I've reflected on that a bit. Where do you draw the line for what's real? I looked in a Swedish dictionary at what it means to be, because people often say ‘to be authentic’. You can't ‘be authentic’, because it's not something actionable.

It's a general term. In the dictionary, it means being genuine. Then I asked: how are you genuine? We could take it endlessly far. For example, you could have content you've filmed on your phone that's scripted, but you're selling false nails.

Are false nails genuine, or do you count them as a kind of jewellery? They can be part of someone's outfit. Where's the boundary for genuine there? We don't have the answer.

That's a question of how to define the product you're selling, not what I'm talking about. When I was on stage at Tech Arena in February, the tagline was: ‘In an AI world, authenticity is the marketing advantage.’ I stand by that thesis and raised it at Breakit Ecom Day too. It's important and much more relevant today than six months ago.

I looked a little into the future at how much AI slop there'd be. It's got a term now, when you put out lots of AI shit. But before AI slop, there was UGC slop. Exactly! I was a little anti-UGC. Those who've listened know I've been against UGC advertising for a very long time. In our companies, I've advocated hiring actors from schools that teach acting.

You're newly graduated, or learning and need to build your CV. You're much more trained in being in front of a camera and acting from a script. You can even send a complete script. They do it much better than a UGC creator who yesterday didn't know what it meant to be in front of the camera.

Some creators are quite good, but others just want to make quick money. They know they can charge thousands of kronor and then have rights to the advertising material for ever. No, get rid of that. In advertising terms, it feels recognisable and fake, not authentic. I'd draw the line for authenticity at it coming from the heart.

It comes with logic from the brain. You do it with care and for real. What defines…? I'll get to that. There's a reality at its foundation. For example, our story from the production line in Vilhelmina for the products we sell at Västerbottens Såpa. The recipe is great-grandmother Fredrika's, and we have fantastic craftsmanship at the core.

It's based on reused cooking oil or rapeseed oil. That's authentic and something people can relate to and get behind. They can think it's better for the environment, me or the planet. There's something to get behind. You could also make authentic advertising for false nails without it feeling fake.

What's defined as fake? Which boxes do I need to tick for you to feel it's fake? Fake is a lot of copy-paste, mechanical, when you automate the creativity away. Do you have an example? Any number. One is just asking AI to write copy: ‘Give me a good one to sell false nails,’ or to sell cleaning products on Meta.

If you give such a general instruction, it writes something good enough, even if it knows you and has your previous history. Perhaps sixty per cent. But because so many marketers use AI for copy and have done for several years, everything starts to feel the same.

We need to understand the terminology. It's a large language model. It's good at predicting the next word based on training data with thousands, millions or trillions of data points in the background. They're built on people and what's already there. We humans instinctively try to find a new angle or a new creative way to reach people when we create an ad.

You can copy a working concept, but also be inspired and make your own version. There's a big difference between a copy and an inspired ad. A copied ad where you take the concept wholesale and say the same thing word for word, scene for scene, isn't innovative and, above all, isn't authentic.

However well you do it, human or AI. If you take inspiration and make something of your own that you can stand behind, feel and get people to relate to, it becomes more authentic, with or without tools like AI. Are you with me? What we saw was still an ad in the end, for a bootcamp.

I think it's more authentic because it's innovative, compared with much of the rubbish otherwise. So innovative counts as genuine? [unclear in the Swedish source: men in och in.] Surely it's logical that if you've copied… But most people don't copy someone, do they? A great many copy.

I'd say nine out of ten, even word for word. If you put two ads or creators side by side, you can see it. Even the news copies each other. I've seen that when segments from forty TV channels were edited together. They all say the same thing.

Exactly. It happens on TikTok, Instagram and everywhere with UGC creators for different brands. You can even see the same creator saying practically exactly the same thing for two completely different products. They've changed the product in the sequence, nothing more.

Okay, then at least we have one point: you mustn't copy someone word for word. I'm trying to break it down, because when people say you should be authentic…

…what is it about? Which checkboxes should you tick to be authentic? Obviously, it varies case by case, but there are basic fundamentals. What do you need to do to be inauthentic? The first thing is you shouldn't lie, meaning Skogshjärta.

Don't say a product is Nordic, has Swedish craftsmanship and is free of chemicals if it isn't. The second is not copying someone outright. How much can you copy? When you model yourself on and take inspiration from others, you'll partly take certain segments.

Absolutely, fair enough. You can take the intro and make it your own, or bits of content. They had that type of lighting, which you make your own. They had good, crisp sound. You see in the editing how they achieved that sound.

Make it your own. That's inspiration, but you have your own story. A superb ad I saw a few years ago was by a guy selling pet necklaces from a company called [unclear in the Swedish source: Silvercat]. They'd taken inspiration from Steve Jobs and the nineties ad: ‘This is for the crazy one, the odd ones, the misfits… the ones that are crazy enough to change the world are the ones that eventually do.’

He sold electronics, computers and MacBooks. This person sells personalised necklaces for dogs, jewellery, and made a very similar story: ‘This is for the crazy ones.’ A declaration of love for your pet.

He rewrote the whole script and did it his way with his content. He wasn't standing on a stage talking about it and didn't have the Beatles, Elvis or others as icons. He remade the whole thing and did his own version. I know it was their bestselling ad for years. I thought it was very authentic.

You could see the similarities and inspiration from the original, but you felt it deep in your gut. When we talk about authentic marketing, advertising or ways of working, it really isn't about AI or no AI. Nor is it about having checkboxes and just checking: am I lying or not?

Those things are obvious. For most people, they aren't. Why do you think we see so much… Shit? Yes. Same as when I walked around the audience asking: ‘What does authentic mean to you?’

I wasn't walking around during the actual event, but in the breaks. I asked what was authentic to them and barely met anyone who gave a similar answer. Where the boundary lay varied enormously. Okay, perhaps it's not as obvious as I'm making it seem. To me, it's obvious.

That's why I want to pick your brain now. If you know what you're doing is a copy… That glass is exactly the same, and we mass-produce it in China. We know it isn't authentic. But if you've put time and soul into innovating or further developing a product and really know this is better…

…then you know it's authentic at product level. Then you have to advertise it. You know it feels fake if you send it to ten creators with a script where you've decided what they should and shouldn't say and what they should or shouldn't compare it with.

You pay and get the material back. Deep down, you feel it doesn't feel quite right, but you have nothing else, so you run it. That's where you end up: everyone else does it, so I have to as well. If you just take a picture of yourself and write your story, about the craftsmanship and time you've put in, I almost promise that ad will perform better than all ten creators you've paid dearly for.

It can be planned; it should be planned. It doesn't need to be spontaneous in the moment. I have no problem with planning, but with it somehow being artificial.

What do you define as artificial? Knowing you don't stand behind what you're saying. The product doesn't stand for it. The ad is made in a way that you, deep down in your gut, can't stand behind.

Do you have an example? A thousand. Give me one. One is the ad from the last episode with the Stanley tumbler. It was a straight copy of a format that worked once, but is played out today. They sell it with: ‘Look how close it is to the original.’

But what's the difference between following a trend and being unique? You come to a point where the question is how unique you should be. Some people work by following trends because that works too.

I usually say good marketing should be felt deep in your gut. When you receive it, you should feel something. But that doesn't mean the ad and background are genuine. It could be pure nonsense.

Absolutely, it could be nonsense. But first, you should evoke a feeling: recognition, engagement or a little frustration about a problem being solved. When you feel it in your gut, at least you've done something right with the ad.

But if I immediately see I've seen it a thousand times before, I don't feel anything in my gut. Then it's just: ‘This is an ad.’ If I can see from an aeroplane that it's an ad, I scroll on. That in itself isn't authentic. How it's made doesn't matter.

Here's the next challenge. Some people think that if I film on my phone and have bad lighting, it's authentic. No, absolutely not. It can be just as authentic with or without the phone. The tool doesn't determine authenticity.

I know companies using cameras that cost eighty thousand kronor whose content feels authentic. A hundred per cent. Look at professional videos from big brands, Hollywood and the like. It feels authentic when you watch a Scorsese film.

You won't say it feels fake. It evokes feelings, is innovative and a fresh spark. Something new and unexpected happens. It feels authentic.

I'm thinking of Stella Adler and a book written for her; she didn't write it herself. She at least had a school of acting called Art of Acting.

The reasoning there is that if you play a role in a play and someone afterwards says: ‘God, you played that role well,’ then you've failed. You haven't got them immersed enough in the story and what you were playing.

They've still defined it as you playing the role well. I agree a hundred per cent. But there's another problem here. I saw an influencer saying: ‘I don't count calories any more. You don't need to count calories to maintain your weight or lose weight.’ That was quite a true story.

I thought: but you were a fitness influencer and competed before. You've counted calories for eight or nine, I don't know how many years, but a great deal for several years. You already know a good portion size and roughly how much protein you need. You don't need to weigh the food any more because you've done it for so many years.

Same with scripts: someone may have done it so many times that it's rehearsed. Then perhaps people say another person has to prepare a great deal, and it isn't authentic because you have to plan and write a script. Then there's someone who's done it so long they no longer need that. They've subconsciously learned all the necessary checkboxes.

Yes, they can be two different things. Take the podcast, for example: completely unprepared, no script and no questions. I don't know what we'll talk about when we press record. We only have a theme for the day. Sometimes we've read up on society and Swedish e-commerce. But there's a lot of real deal, real talk and authenticity in the podcast.

Compare that with a podcast where you've received all the questions in advance, prepared every answer and even rehearsed. You've had a thirty-minute briefing with the guest: how we'll talk, structure it, what to keep in mind and how to answer. I know from listeners that a lot of podcasts out there have become boring to listen to.

Couldn't it be about you having more hours in front of a camera and on podcasts? Your preparation is that you're genuinely active in the business. I've filmed experts who can barely say three words without stumbling. They have to prepare because they've never been in front of the camera.

They're very nervous. But even the nervousness can be authentic, so you see it's real. I mean, then it isn't the amount of preparation. You've prepared through all the years you've worked with it and all the hours in front of the camera.

The camera should really just be the background. You should be having a conversation. It's the moderator's or host's job to get the guest relaxed in a setting with cameras: let's just talk like an ordinary day or lunch, even though the cameras are on.

It isn't the preparation… Of course, some people are camera-shy and can't sit in front of a camera and talk as if it were nothing.

I understand. But that doesn't mean it isn't authentic. The authenticity comes from the person having a real story, something that genuinely happened, which others can relate to, engage with, resist or have some thought sparked by. Something you feel in your gut.

Something that doesn't feel fake, rehearsed or invented just for the podcast. Do you understand? I see the feeling of genuineness as the result of a number of actions. It differs between companies and people. Same as when we're going to talk about community.

One person on stage said: ‘It's important to build a community. You shouldn't try to build a community.’ Then I thought: how do you not try to build a community? It's like me saying: ‘I want you to lift the chair, but you shouldn't lift it; you should try to lift it.’

How do you try to lift a chair? I understand what they mean: it shouldn't be forced. But what criteria do you set for something becoming forced? Very simple: a try-hard philosophy. Everyone's talking about community, so now we're going to start one. Where?

Everyone else starts on Facebook, so let's do that. If you just do what everyone else does… What mistakes do they need to make in the Facebook group for you to say it's forced?

It'll feel fake from the start. When you start the community, you usually invite people from your email list.

A couple of hundred people join. What do you do then? Nobody talks to anyone. There's no shared context to talk about, and they have no relationship with each other. Why should they be in the Facebook group? They were invited and perhaps thought they'd get a discount code. If the incentive is just gathering people because everyone else talks about community…

…then it's fake. Because there's no reason to gather them? A hundred per cent. Can't you invent a reason? Fine, but it has to be strong, good and engaging enough for people to start and keep talking to each other there.

Do you have examples of companies where it feels forced, where they've created a community without a thought-through strategy so people have something to engage around? Loads. Usually the big, or medium-to-large, brands in Sweden thinking: lots of people are creating communities now.

One example is Lyko. They made the Lyko app and put a lot of effort into building a community in it. But it wasn't a natural way for those shopping at Lyko. We were there for good prices on decent products and a wide range. There was a reason to go there, not to hang out in a community sharing product experiences.

They tried to force it in. But quite a lot of people share their experiences of makeup and things? A hundred per cent.

Then it feels like something that could become an active community. Yes, but their strategy was to put a lot of technology into building the best possible app. Then they lacked a strategy for how people would actually gather and share there.

Five years later, the community started to have a little life of its own. People started sharing. Were they ahead of their time? Maybe. Did they do something others missed? Maybe. It's a little to do with what Rickard talks about: luck and timing. The timing was wrong.

Luck wasn't on their side, but I don't know. That's what I'm thinking about trying to do something. If you're trying to lift a chair, you grab it and lift. You can pull it back and forth and grip with different strengths. Another thing is if the chair is so heavy it can't be lifted.

Then perhaps you've tried. That's probably the closest. I don't know about this chair example, Fredrik. But I want to look at what ‘forced’ means. Usually, they've done a few things: gathered a community through an email list without a strategy for what they'll talk about.

Exactly, without a strategy for engaging people. You have Västerbottens Såpa: ‘For those of us who love cleaning’, or what's the group called?

‘Those of us who love cleaning with Västerbottens Såpa’ is what our community is called. A company wanting to learn to create a community has to start somewhere. Then it's easy to say: ‘You shouldn't try, and you shouldn't push.’

What actions do they at least need to take to give the community a chance to succeed? First, people must want to share, communicate or engage with your products and with other people.

To get that, not all marketing and sales can be based on pictures and association. Do you have examples? Any number, almost any clothing brand that only posts nice pictures.

I buy the jumper, bracelet or watch because I want it. I don't buy because I'm genuinely interested in the story or craftsmanship behind it. Take Såpa as an example. We didn't start by creating a Facebook group and bringing people in there.

We created good advertising, a good story and engagement. In the ad comments, we saw people sharing personal stories. Someone was going to buy the product for next year. Someone said the deck soap worked so well because it really replenished the oils in the decking.

Others explained why it worked and shared tips and tricks. Someone had done DIY projects with nice shelves at home for the products. Someone showed how the refill packaging could be reused for something else. Then we saw it.

You also had ads with questions encouraging people to share. Yes, to get questions and more sharing. We also often use engagement bait. We look at it and use engagement bait.

What do you mean? I'll get to that. We saw a lot of engagement and created a community around it. Instead of it being scattered across ads, emails, the site or questions to us, we wanted to gather people. Suddenly, they could help each other.

That builds community. In the same way, we built one of Sweden's strongest communities with Switch Nails, and now with Better Bodies and GASP. If you want to look at communities that are alive and work, those are good examples. Then we have a foundation: you should start with advertising?

Yes. You need to reach quite a large ad volume to get the engagement. You need enough customers for some to share their experiences.

Of course. Then we have a criterion: a certain volume of customers and advertising. Then you can… What did you say you did, engagement bait?

We do, but you don't have to. Sometimes you get it anyway. What we do, for example, is make customer service's primary task not just answering incoming emails, but above all making the ads live longer. That requires a dialogue. On social media, we should be social.

It's not a monologue where we pump out products; we want interaction. Then we need to ask questions, be genuinely curious about the customer and genuinely interested in solving the problem, and spend time on it. That's our basic strategy. I've talked about it on the podcast before, but many still miss it.

If I'm asked what the difference is between our soap and a competitor's, I'm genuinely curious about the person asking. First, I want to answer professionally. It shouldn't feel like a robot, meaning it shouldn't be copied from a document.

When people write angry comments, support sometimes replies automatically: ‘Thank you for your comment. If you'd like to contact support, you can write here.’ The same copied answer to every comment.

Fuck no. You want to meet the person in their problem or curiosity. There's a curiosity gap: the person genuinely wonders about the difference between two products. Answer as honestly as possible about the actual difference, without exaggerating or pushing a sale. If the other product is good, say so. You won't suffer for it.

It'll feel more genuine, so people get behind it. It does more for the ad: it lives longer, performs better, becomes cheaper and gets more clicks and purchases. Do right by people, and the ads do better too.

We also want to ask follow-up questions: ‘What's your thinking when choosing between products?’ Then the customer comes back to the ad: ‘Thanks for the answer, now I see the differences. But would your product work for this?’ Then you answer that. Perhaps it's about the customer's decking.

You can ask another question: ‘What type of decking do you have, and how large is it?’ Then you can guide them further: ‘Perhaps you need two or three cans of deck soap, not one.’ Or: ‘Unfortunately, our product might not work for that type of decking, but we can recommend something else.’

Lyko has been good at this. When someone searches for, for example, Caia, whose products they don't carry, they still link to the products on Caia's website. It's a fantastic way to create authenticity and credibility for the brand. In what way? How do you define authenticity for that brand?

Now we're talking community, but I'm thinking about the definition of authenticity. Is it support genuinely trying to help? Yes, exactly: customer service really being interested in solving the problem, not just pasting in an answer and working quickly to close the case.

If you're genuinely interested, love the product and really want to help the customer, perhaps you need to ask a few questions. Then a dialogue forms on social media, and the same person is drawn back to the ad, sees it in the feed again and comes back to comment.

More people engage. Those who didn't dare ask read the question and the entire dialogue: ‘They really want to help the customer here, not just copy from a sheet.’ Perhaps you have an answer in a sheet that you then modify to speed things up, or for similar questions.

Exactly, a library to start from. It doesn't need to be identical, because then it feels fake. Would you use a macro? If you've used Gorgias, for example, you can have different macros that detect what the person is asking or commenting about and provide a draft.

But you don't copy the same thing to everyone; you change something so it doesn't feel copied? Yes, a hundred per cent. Not just a certain change, but genuine interest in the customer. You shouldn't think I'm going to copy an answer just because it's correct.

A correct answer is fundamentally important, but you should also be genuinely interested in who the customer is. It's not just a number in an Excel sheet, but a person behind the screen.

How do we show genuine interest in the customer and their willingness to buy from us? How do we treat customers as more than numbers in an Excel sheet? There are actual people behind the screens. How do we meet their problems and make our products solutions in everyday life? Fundamentally, perhaps the customer doesn't care about your community or products.

The customer just wants to solve their physical problem and get on with life. People don't always want more than that, for example spending a lot of time in your community.

Sometimes they just want clean laundry. Genuinely help the customer get that. That's the first part. Then: understand the customer. If there's a dog in the profile picture, perhaps you should be genuinely interested in it. What breed, what's the dog's name, how old is it? Something outside the product itself.

Don't you feel like a stalker? No. It's like an interaction with someone in town. If the person asks for help and has a dog with them, you can be ice-cold and say: ‘The way to Sergels torg is to the right,’ and then just move on.

It doesn't feel like you've been authentic or genuinely interested. If you give every person time and want to learn, you can see the person asking the question. Then I think you get a deeper relationship and greater engagement. Fundamentally, it's about the human in us.

Can we train an AI to do that today? Yes. I think so too. I don't see why it couldn't be trained or automated. But what are we going to automate away? Shall we go into this week's ‘soap it or scrap it’? I'm joking. I liked the segment, but now we have a weekly segment with the ad of the week. We talked about Ecom Day.

The Gallerist got a lot of attention there because they won Revenue Rocket of the Year. They'd grown from two, three or four million, I don't know what it was, to around sixteen million in revenue with good underlying profitability, around five million. After the talk, I asked how this year was going. They were then running at a fifty-million pace.

That's incredibly good. Young guys, born in the nineties, had been running it for three or four years and sell handmade sneakers from Portugal online. Good products, genuine craftsmanship and a newer version of the design. They've made a sneaker a little better. Shall we play an ad? Perhaps let's take the still images first. We've talked about being authentic.

Golden Goose is one of the competitors, with shoes that also look a little worn. We'll show them first, then go to The Gallerist. I don't mean it's a copy, but they're sneakers in a similar style.

Where's the line between a copy and inspiration? I'm not saying The Gallerist took inspiration from them, only that the style is similar.

They probably did. You have to give them that: good job. You've taken inspiration from a trend that works and developed it further, perhaps made it better. Here we have the first ad.

‘Don't buy our sneakers.’ It could be AI-made, but I don't think so. I think they've photographed the product and looked at trending concepts in the industry. Here, it's the antithesis, as we discussed over two years ago on the podcast, when I said one of our best ads was the antithesis.

Meaning: be sceptical of your own product. Here, they say: ‘Don't buy our sneakers.’ Then you wonder why you shouldn't, and stop.

Then you read the small print: ‘If you don't promise to wear them as much as possible.’ A little hilarious. You see the sneakers close up in the picture, not the craftsmanship directly, but can read the copy above if you're interested. It says: ‘The Berlin is a distressed leather sneaker, handmade in Portugal from full grain calf leather.’

‘Each pair is lightly distressed for a worn-in look and built on a durable rubber cupsole with high comfort premium insole. Made to be worn every day, available in a range of colors.’ The text is very salesy and inside-out. We take the product and explain it from us to you. It doesn't answer what problem we solve or what the customer is looking for.

You explain the product. I don't usually say that type of copy is good, and I'm not saying this is good. I don't know whether the ad performs. But it's a trending approach we've used for several years. They've obviously followed a global trend to make people stop in the feed.

It's better to follow a global trend to get people to stop than not to. But back to the question: is the ad authentic? If the shoe was inspired by other shoes? I don't know whether they've done that. I find… No.

[unclear in the Swedish source: På cop-in och trenden är jag så pass långt gången folk att sätta det här i sitt flöde.] I'd say no, it isn't authentic. It isn't innovative and doesn't really make me feel anything in my gut. The text and copy are very inside-out.

I see it's been running for twenty-two days. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but that it could work much better. One more thing: something doesn't have to be authentic to sell. Coca-Cola advertising, in my world, isn't authentic, when a very slim person runs on the beach and is incredibly happy.

The reality may be that lots of sugar makes you feel worse, gain weight and such. It isn't authentic, but they sell anyway.

I'm absolutely not saying the ad doesn't sell. It might work, but could work more with authentic advertising. They're growing, but that doesn't have to be because of fantastic advertising. They may be fantastic at other things: building authenticity in their content, livestreams or organic feed, or have good product-market fit.

In this case, I believe the last one. Perhaps they're growing despite the advertising. Absolutely, it could even be bad, but they're growing because other things are good. Product-market fit shouldn't be underestimated. You can have a fantastic product and fail because of bad advertising, but also have a fantastic product and bad advertising and still do very well.

Here, perhaps it's a middle ground with okay advertising. This ad is okay, absolutely not bad. It's a nice, pin-sharp picture where you see details and can zoom in. The text is well placed. It's not a badly made ad. The copy isn't bloody great either, but not very bad.

It shows what you're buying: full grain, handmade, Portugal. It's all in running text. In this case, you can say it, because it's handmade in Portugal and real leather. They're not plastic shoes from China.

Exactly, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'd guess most shoes in the world are plastic shoes from China. Nice, in any case. Perhaps not all leather shoes. I'm not thinking of leather shoes, but sports shoes. Here, it's full grain calf leather. A lot of leather production happens in southern Europe.

Turkey, Italy and Portugal account for a large share of leather production. We see they're targeting Australia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Quite a few countries, so you understand the English. Men between eighteen and sixty-five, but the reach right now is around sixty thousand. With a CPM of, say, a hundred kronor, the ad has burned around six thousand.

We can sort by reach. But it doesn't have to be the right reach. It could also be a hundred and twenty thousand or five hundred thousand. Reach doesn't always show exactly how much you've spent, because an ad may have several previous iterations. It's just this iteration that's reached 60,279.

Okay. Doesn't it sometimes say if there are several versions of the ad? Yes, but we can't see that now. Normally, the number of variations is listed, which it isn't here. I see Sweden… We shouldn't spend too much time on this one.

Those watching video can see the statistics or go to Facebook Ad Library. It's been running since 8 September, as you said. The platforms are Facebook, Instagram and Messenger. They've deliberately chosen several platforms and perhaps excluded some too.

It's a broad ad for men over eighteen, because men are going to shop. I think that's done right. If we rate it, it's four or five out of ten for creativity and seven or eight out of ten for product photography, which is one of the most important things for an ad like this.

Overall, perhaps five and a half or six out of ten. Does it have a place in an ad account today, in 2026? Well, maybe. I'd have remade it and the copy, and made it much better. Are you listening, guys? I know you are, because someone will send this to you.

I hope you take the feedback on board. Next ad: ‘The Geneva brand’, no, ‘The Geneva is our bestselling distressed leather sneaker, handmade in Portugal from full grain calf leather. Each pair is lightly distressed for a worn-in look and built…’ Same copy. ‘…on a durable rubber cupsole with a high comfort premium insole.’

‘Made to be worn every day, available in a range of colorways.’ Same copy. The other one was Berlin, though. Didn't they also say that was the bestseller? No, they didn't.

Then something is different. Geneva is the bestseller. Here, someone's holding a sneaker in front of a lake. It looks like Switzerland or Lake Como in Italy in the background. It feels very typical for this type. It's a summer picture.

Do you think it's AI-generated? No, I actually think it's made for real. They probably thought it was fun to take, whether it was them themselves or…

So we go to another country just to be able to deduct… Or they happened to be passing and had sneakers with them anyway, so they just took a photo with the camera.

I have no idea any more whether some things are AI. No, you can't know. But you can see which angle they're using, and here it's fantastic. Many arriving on the site as top-of-funnel traffic may think: ‘Fucking hell, expensive, 2,700 kronor for sneakers.’

Earlier, we saw 269 euros. Competitor Golden Goose charges five hundred… Even six hundred. So they charge double.

In euros. Here we see: ‘I could get three pairs for that price.’ They address a comment they've surely received in ads many times. That's great to do in the ad. Why can't you actually say you get three pairs for that price?

In their case, they answer: ‘Then get three pairs.’ A bit like ‘I don't want you as a customer’, a cocky style. But they also have their USPs: ‘Handmade in Portugal, stitched sole, gold rated, full grain calf leather.’

‘Then get three pairs’ is a very cocky punchline. I haven't seen it in ads before, a little on TikTok, but not in Meta ads. I've seen people address price, but not the ‘Then get three pairs’ angle followed by a load of USPs.

I think it's much more innovative and authentic, with the picture and text. At the same time, you see the sneaker's details, close up and in your face. That's what you're selling and want to buy. Another company cropped its images. Here, there's very little space at the sides of the shoe.

They had pictures taken from further away to show the setting. They took the same pictures and cropped them, and then got higher conversion on the cropped products. Their guess was that it became easier to see the details of what you were buying.

You see that between two types of brands. A problem-solution brand, like soap or skincare, has a problem and a solution. Then it's not this type of picture. It doesn't matter whether you see our bottle or soap pump zoomed in. Perhaps for some, but not the majority.

We call the other type lifestyle brands. They belong here, as does your brand. Then you shouldn't have problem-solution: ‘Here's a sneaker that solves all your problems.’ You need shoes. Here's a sneaker that's better than others, but they rather want to build a lifestyle.

Around the brand, what was it called? The Gallerist. Is that a clover? A three-leaf clover. Handmade in Portugal is obviously important. Full grain calf leather and stitched sole too. Let's go a little further down.

Men are also the target audience who, in this case, care more about the USPs around craftsmanship. If the same sneaker were sold to women with exactly the same ad, I don't think it would be as successful.

What would work then? More association and more angles. People want to see the shoes on lots of people and be able to aspire to something. The lifestyle around them and what the shoes are associated with become more important than the USPs. We see things differently, and production for women often has faster and cheaper material choices than for men.

It seems iteration happens faster when selling such products to women. For men, there isn't much to develop further in these shoes. They could have been sold ten years ago and can be sold in ten years and still work design-wise. For women, perhaps it wouldn't have been like that: you develop lots of versions with different heels, heights, lengths, widths, designs, embellishments, cuts, narrow, wide, thick and long.

There has to be something new. Then the newness of the design sells. But now we're generalising. Surely there are different audiences within both? Fast fashion is an example.

Yes, and quiet luxury. It depends on which audience within the gender you're targeting. Every trend has counter-trends too. Fast fashion has a counter-trend in slow fashion and timeless fashion. Back to basics: things that work over time and are high quality.

Every trend has counter-trends. Let's continue with the ad: ‘Free shipping worldwide and easy exchanges. Every silhouette, every colorway, all handmade in Portugal. Shop now.’ Nothing wrong with that part. The ad is good. Compared with the other, I judge it more authentic, innovative and original. Is it authentic even if the image were AI-generated?

Yes. Even if the background is AI-generated, I don't think it matters. The tool doesn't matter. Is a picture less authentic because it was taken with a particular camera, or the text created on a computer instead of by hand?

No. The tool doesn't determine authenticity. When I see it, I get a feeling through the association between the shoe and the setting. That's what I'm thinking about. Good job. Here, you also have the shoe and the setting with leather behind it.

I understand the thinking with the leather armchair. Then let's take a video ad, also with the same text: ‘The Geneva is our bestselling distressed leather sneaker.’ Again. Let's play it. It's quite long, so bear with me. [Ad clip:] ‘20,000 pairs sold. Here's why.’

[Ad clip:] ‘My name is Ma…’ We can start with the hook: ‘20,000 pairs sold. Here's why.’ Social proof, herd behaviour. We often talk about buying something that stands out and being unique. At the end of the day, we still look at others and dress much like they do, following trends.

Then social proof is one thing: we've sold twenty thousand pairs; you're not the first. Join in and be one of the group. Good. ‘Here's why’, and then comes the story. The hook was quick, just a second or so.

Look at how many scenes happen in the first two or three seconds. Loads: they take a shoe out of a box, sound effects in the background and text across the screen. Your eye can barely register it. It fits well with the scrolling society where we quickly want to move on.

Enough happens here to get the dopamine going and make you want to stay and watch. Let's play the whole ad. [Ad clip in English:] ‘20,000 pairs sold. Here's why. My name is Malte and my cofounder's name is Ville. We're The Gallerist, a Stockholm-based startup on the pursuit of creating the best sneaker of all time.’

[The ad clip continues:] ‘We sold our first sneaker on the 16th of March 2024. Since then, we've sold over 10,000 pairs of sneakers while constantly improving our product with real feedback from customers. Our bestseller, The Geneva, has had eleven different versions since start. Mostly minor changes to improve the construction, but also some major, like our sole change in May. We believe that quality is achieved through five steps.’

[The ad clip continues:] ‘Number one: design and engineering. Number two: choice of materials. Number three: testing. Number four: customer data. Number five: repeat the loop with the data from the customers. By going through this process many, many times, we can confidently say that we're contenders to having some of the best sneakers on the market. However, we don't intend to end this cycle. Our sneakers will never be perfect, and they're not intended to be.’

[The ad clip continues:] ‘There will always be some minuscule detail or maybe a flaw that other sneaker brands probably wouldn't even fathom to care about, that we just have to improve. We choose to handmake our sneakers in Portugal, specifically because machines simply can't deliver the level of precision we want. Along with that, the region north of Porto is home to artisans whose expertise has been refined over many decades.’

[The ad clip continues:] ‘We're not a luxury brand, and we don't claim to be one either. The Gallerist is a product-first brand. If you're interested in learning more about our products, please check out our website.’ Shall we break down the ad?

[Ad clip:] ‘20,000 pairs sold. Here's why. My name is Ma…’ We started with the hook, which I thought was very good. When we watched several times, we saw a lot happens very quickly and early. They change the picture and show all the products to catch interest and get the dopamine going. Then they slow down. The pace increases and decreases quickly.

‘My name is Malte.’ Let me take you back to how the story began. It's like music, with tempo going up and down and different segments. Exactly: up in tempo, then down. Classic storytelling technique. Very good. I don't know whether they did it consciously, unconsciously or were inspired by others, but it's superb.

Then they show a picture: this is me, Malte, and my colleague Ville. We founded The Gallerist, a Stockholm-based startup. Good storytelling. Here, it's about making people feel something and relate. I've also been young and wanted to start something.

I've also seen a problem in the market. Exactly, that's the feeling you want, and they communicate it very well. Then comes a product sequence: ‘The pursuit of creating the best sneaker of all time.’

That's their mission. Do you want to align with us? Yes, I also want the best sneaker of all time. It's a good mission statement that makes people feel they're on the same journey, or on a journey with us. Then they show through the ad and timeline how they've gone about it.

We started like this, here's where we are today, and we're not satisfied: we always want to improve. Founder stories can be part of authenticity. Yes, that part is very authentic. They show the entire journey with pictures, visual language, copy and text, and get people to follow all the way. It's bloody good.

However, they contradict themselves. In the hook, they say ‘20,000 pairs sold’, then ‘10,000 sneakers sold’. I don't know if you noticed, but I did. Here they say ‘10,000 pairs of sneakers’.

That's half. Wait, didn't you say twenty thousand? It feels inauthentic, fake, scripted and bad. Someone's made a mistake. Or they recorded that segment earlier, have since sold twenty thousand and are using the same old clip, which is the likely thing here.

It's easy to insert a new number in the video. You can edit, even put a black background over the old one. You don't even need that: cross out ten thousand and write twenty below.

Then you can see we're now at twenty. That was a contradiction in the story I reacted to. The other negative in the narrative is that we follow the journey, that they want to test with customers and show the process…

Everything so far is good. Then they say they're never satisfied and will always improve small things and details. As a customer about to buy sneakers for 2,700 kronor, I think: wait, if you're not satisfied, why should I be satisfied buying them?

Then I'd rather wait three months until the next iteration. When's the next major model release? Then I'll buy. Especially with a purchase of 2,700 kronor for the audience, perhaps guys between eighteen and thirty-five. I don't know what the audience is, but it could be that.

If so, the audience may be price-sensitive and perhaps not want to buy sneakers for that much. It's a part of the story I could cut to get more leverage in the video. Otherwise, a very good ad. They say: ‘Mostly minor changes… to improve the construction.’

‘To improve the construction’, which is quite a big change. ‘Some major, like our sole change in May.’ Many don't think about how it can be very [unclear in the Swedish source: incomplete sentence] to mould a sole. Perhaps they had a generic sole at the start and switched to a moulded one when volume was high enough to afford it.

Very possible. [Ad clip:] ‘Quality is achieved through five steps.’ We can skip to the end where they talk about Portugal and Porto. I was thinking about them saying quality is achieved in five steps and including customer reviews. They'd already mentioned customer reviews earlier. When they talk about the founding, they mention good ratings and happy customers.

Here: ‘With real feedback.’ Then they bring up how you create a good shoe. They've already talked about good feedback; why is it needed again? I understand it's a good way to develop shoes, but it keeps becoming what you said: the shoe isn't finished.

Does that engage people, or do they feel the shoe isn't finished because it's being developed from feedback? I think it can be counterproductive when you're about to buy something for a lot of money. Like buying a new phone.

‘We've improved it based on your customer feedback. It's as good as it can be right now, but we're still improving it. Just so you know, a new one is coming soon.’ We know from phone launches that people now wait longer between their phones.

I guess they developed enormously at the beginning. Same in the camera industry, where I've bought a lot. A YouTuber I followed who reviewed cameras quit this year because the difference has become so small. Several years ago, it was fun.

Every new camera was different enough to really give a nicer image, better sound or make life easier by becoming smaller, handling heat better and such.

Now it's: a new camera might have some feature that's a little better, but not enough for him to review it. So he stopped, even though it was the foundation of his entire YouTube channel.

Fucking cool. Exactly. I think that part can be cut from the story because it's counterproductive to the purpose: getting people along for the journey and to buy from us. It's a story in an ad.

The ad drives clicks to the site, which perhaps sells the product. It could be improved. The story is fundamentally good, but the process they describe could be revised, especially that part. At the same time, quite a large part of the ad is about the process of improving a shoe.

Or their shoe. It's not necessarily other companies' process. They don't always sit reading reviews, revising and improving the same shoe year after year. They have a model and sell it.

Then they create new designs. I know a shoe brand, I think they still do this, whose founder I saw in an interview. They had a shoe shop in New York.

When they developed products, the people making the shoes could make unique models in the shop. Inside the shop, they sat making new models.

Cool. They put them on the shelves and saw how quickly they disappeared. Salespeople could ask customers directly: ‘Why did you choose this one? What do you like?’ Then they could improve the product. It wasn't a whole new shoe launch, just the individual shoe to see how quickly it disappeared from the shelf.

From the conversations about what customers liked or didn't, they could reinforce certain things, make a new version and perhaps produce ten, fifteen or twenty pairs. If they disappeared quickly, they ordered a larger production run sent to all the shops.

That's a good way to develop further with real-time customer feedback. Another way is having the product on the site and seeing which ads sell a product that isn't even fully developed. Then you can get real-time data on interest in colour, shape or other things.

Back to the ad: overall, it's very good. It ends with how and where the shoe is made, with genuine craftsmanship in Porto, Portugal. Portugal is known for this kind of industry and production. It becomes authentic and real.

They aren't trying to sell something they aren't or that hasn't been done. During the ad, the price is justified. Do you classify it as genuine because the shoes are actually made in Portugal and it's not an invented story?

It's a real story, but the original thesis was ‘the mission to make one of the world's best sneakers’: join us as we make the world's best. It would have been very fake if the shoes turned out to be made in Guangzhou in China with PVC leather or other mass-produced rubbish material.

Then you'd ask whether the mission statement really matches the ad. I bloody well don't think so. One thing I like, which you've also used at Västerbottens Såpa, is factory footage where people are actually standing stirring the soap. Exactly.

Here, they have simple videos, which could actually have better production. I just want to say it doesn't have to be a simple video.

It could be a much better video. I just think they took a few shots while at the factory. But they show the shoes actually being sewn by a person.

There's craftsmanship behind it. I agree. I have extensive experience of shoe production and have seen it live many times. A shoe passes through an incredible number of stations to become a shoe. This is bloody good. ‘We are not a luxury brand.’ There, they're trying to [unclear in the Swedish source: dra ner anledningen för att du ska köpa].

They say it so you understand you're not paying an inflated price for the shoes. We're not a luxury brand and aren't trying to be. The underlying meaning is you get a lot of value for money.

Then it ends with a drum roll and the shoes in place. Nice. The loop with lots of designs returns. Nice. And a call to action: look at our website if you're interested.

I noticed the address is .se even though the ad is in English. Very interesting. Hadn't you noticed that? Nice that you did. It was the first thing I thought at the end.

It must be an editing mistake. It should be thegallerist.com or some other address. They're targeting the ad at the world, or at least large parts of Europe. Thegallerist.co. Exactly, you see Austria and all sorts.

It must just be an editing error. Great. What rating does the last ad get? It's very good. Overall, eight and a half or nine out of ten. Especially the hook, the story, the guys behind it and getting to follow the journey. I thought it was very good.

There's no problem with it being long. In some cases, you get a higher CPM for a long video. But those who stay and watch it all are much more sold on the product than those who've seen fifteen seconds. You've followed the journey, like it and understand the brand better.

Yes, you get a higher CPM and pay more to reach a thousand people. But you'll convert better on the site after the click. I've noticed it myself with ads to the same landing page. If they've seen a long, explanatory and educational ad, the likelihood they buy increases radically compared with just an image or a short video.

Otherwise, they arrive on the page and think the product costs more than they'd expected. Then they see the price, don't even read further and leave straight away. Exactly. As I said, it's a very good ad.

Fundamentally, they've taken a page from my playbook for storytelling ads. I think perhaps I was among the first in Sweden to run the format that hard and push in podcasts and everywhere that it works. It'll always work. Storytelling has existed throughout history and will always exist.

There's always room for that tactic and format, especially top of funnel, when you want to reach new people and customers and move them along the buying journey. As long as you make your own version, don't copy someone, so it becomes authentic, feels real and you genuinely mean what you say.

And lead to products that deliver what you say. The product promise. Great. Thanks for another episode. If you like hanging out with us and find it exciting, suggest topics you'd like us to talk about next week. We're happy to take feedback on board.

We've had quite a few comments about P&L, forecasting, numerical examples and cash flow, which we've talked about and will explore in more depth. We'll also go deeper into advertising. This segment has received very good feedback.

Very positive comments. If there are brands you'd like us to go through, send them to us. Fredrik and I will look at the ads, rate them and break down every segment: what works, doesn't work and could be done better. Join us next Thursday when we release the podcast.

If you like the podcast, send it to a colleague or friend. Bye! Bye!