Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Audio Visual, England, Home, Reputation, Social Media
If you worry about being under surveillance from the authorities, you won’t want to read this.
You see a few weeks ago, I was looking at dog videos on Tiktok.
I know … I know … sue me.
Anyway, at one point, I came across a video of a cute little puppy who was going completely nuts at a cardboard box.
Back and forth it would run around the room, jump on and off the sofa and then jump into – and out of – a cardboard box.
It was sweet but something felt a bit weird.
Not weird in a ‘wrong’ way, just weird.
And then I realized what it was.
It had nothing to do with the dog we were watching, but the house the dog was jumping around in … and there was one simple reason for it.
IT WAS OUR HOUSE!
That’s right, the dog in question was owned by the tenants of our house in the UK.
The house we moved into on the very day – much to our bank managers distress – that we decided to move to NZ. We didn’t even bother to unpack everything, haha.
Now we don’t know the tenants in our house.
We don’t know their name, what they look like or what their personal contact info is.
But we do know they have a dog because the agent looking after the house for us, asked us.
So it’s utterly bonkers that the TikTok algorithm decided – out of all the millions of videos of dogs out there – to serve us a clip of their pooch in our house?!!
The good news is the house looked loved, cared for and in tip-top condition … which is all a landlord could ask.
The bad news – for them – is I can now keep an eye on what they’re doing in it.
Cue: Evil Laugh.
We go on about how social media listens to what we say, but that’s the least of our concerns.
The real worry is you can be watched by people you don’t want seeing you.
Guess that means the dodgy movie Sliver, from the 90’s was actually a documentary …
They just didn’t know it yet. [Cue: evil laugh]
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Clients, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Confidence, Conformity, Content, Context, Contribution, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Education, Effectiveness, Equality, Experience, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Otis, Parents, Research, Respect, School, Standards
As many of you know, Otis has dysgraphia.
For those who don’t know what that is, it’s a condition that means – while his capacity to learn is the same as everyone else’s – the way he learns is different.
I’ve written about how his school has tried to accommodate him and how grateful we are for that, but the reality is – understandably – most schools are designed to cater to the masses, not the edge … so as much as Otis did well, it still meant he was being taught [and measured] to a standard more than his potential.
Anyway, this year – because he was due to change school having turned 11 – we decided to take the plunge and enroll him in a specialist creative school that follows an educational model that has been specifically designed for kids who have ability, but learn differently.
I am massively against private education, but within minutes of walking in – I got very emotional because I knew this is what he needed. What would help him thrive. Not to be better than others, but to be better for himself.
Within a few days of attendance, he proved we were right.
On about the 3rd day, he came home and told us why he knew this school was right for him.
It wasn’t because there’s only 90 kids in the entire school
[when previously there were 70 just in his class]
It wasn’t because the building feels more fun ad agency than place of studious education.
It wasn’t even because it’s next to a beach which the whole class goes to every day.
No, it was this: He doesn’t need to charge his laptop every day.
Now you may think that means he’s not doing much learning … but you’d be wrong. In fact, you couldn’t be more wrong.
You see, at his old school, all he ever did was use his computer.
Part of this was because dysgraphia affects your ability to write with a pen, so he did everything on a laptop. But the other part of this is because his teachers – in a bid to keep him busy while also needing to give attention to the rest of the class – gave him endless worksheets to fill in.
In essence, his education was more about data entry than learning.
That’s not a diss, we understand the situation they were in and were very grateful for the genuine interest in trying to help … however in just a few days, Otis has discovered what education really is about … what it really means … how it really feels.
And while he has stated he finds this harder … he’s not just happy about it, he’s happy about how he’s being encouraged to approach it.
Learn not follow.
Think not repeat.
Experience not reference.
Inclusive not exclusive.
Engaged not left to type.
Which is why the fact his computer only needs charging once-a-week rather than everyday is so noticeable and powerful.
Not just to him, but to his Mum and Dad as well.
It reminds me of the time I was doing a project for Coca-Cola in Indonesia.
We’d launched the Open Happiness work and I’d been sent to Indonesia to talk to kids about what optimism meant to them.
I remember talking to some kids – about 15 years old – when one of them took me to the other side of the street and pointed into the distance.
All I could see was a skyline filled with tall buildings and cranes that were building even more tall buildings so I asked him what I was supposed to be looking at.
“The cranes”, he said. “I’m seeing my future being built in front of my eyes”.
I loved it. I loved how they’d just communicated something pretty fluid and morpheus in a way that suddenly was clear-as-fuck. Something I didn’t just understand, but felt … while somehow also ensuring I was very aware of the context, conflict and challenge they’d gone through leading up to that point.
Like with Otis’ and his use of the battery % on his laptop to help me truly appreciate the journey he’d been on, the comment about the cranes made a lasting impression on me.
Which highlights a really important point.
People very rarely connect, project, express and see meaning in things in ways that reflect how we want them to communicate to us.
That doesn’t mean they lack ability, it means we lack the ability to translate them.
Some of that’s because we’ve become an industry that values convenience over nuance. Some of that’s because we’ve become an industry that values answers over understanding. Some of that’s because we’ve become an industry that values the functional not the emotional.
Some of that’s because we’ve become an industry that values what the clients want to say more than what the audience want to hear. Some of that’s because we’ve become an industry obsessed with the ‘science’ of marketing, not the people it’s for. But most of it’s because we’ve become an industry that places greater value on audiences repeating a specific set of words based on our communication than having them express its impact on them through their individual feelings, emotions and behaviours.
My son … and that kid in Indonesia … not only helped me understand what education and optimism meant to them in ways that no focus group or data set could ever achieve, but they gave me access into their world.
How they see it.
How they interpret it.
How they live within it.
How they cope inside of it.
How they hope to experience it.
The more we open our eyes and ears to what is going on in our audiences world – rather than focus on what we want them to specifically repeat in their world – the more we not only can make a bigger difference to our clients in the work we create, but the more our clients will make a bigger impact on the people they need.
Or as my friend Andy once said:
“Just because someone repeats what you want to hear, exactly as you want to hear it … doesn’t mean they believe a fucking word of it”.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Clients, Complicity, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Efficiency, Professionalism, Reputation, Speed Dial, Standards
Do more.
Be faster.
Think quicker.
Create more.
Be more efficient.
Be more effective.
Give me more options.
Give me more answers.
Give me less questions.
Read my mind.
Do what I say.
Cut costs.
Cut time.
Go faster.
Deliver now.
Be agile.
Be ready.
Sound familiar?
What I find increasingly hilarious is that more often than not, the people who bark these demands are the opposite of ‘efficient’.
In fact, it seems the obsessive focus on speed is more to make up for time they’ve spent/wasted on indecisions … internal process … stake holder ‘management’ … or just not getting round to what needed to be done.
Look, I get stuff happens.
I also get we live in a fast-moving, competitive world.
But while there are times where speed can be a commercial advantage, what about quality???
Do I think everyone is like that?
No.
But by the same token, I’m increasingly hearing speed being talked about as the ‘goal’ rather than standards or quality.
It’s why there’s almost constant chatter about the need to embrace AI.
Or companies smashing themselves together to ‘increase efficiency and value’.
Or the creation of single creative groups, regardless they’re inhabited by talent born from agencies with totally different ethos and standards.
Maybe it’s because the people asking for this stuff – or selling this stuff – believe quality is inherent in their request and/or offer, however there’s 3 key issues with not openly talking quality:
It conveys speed is the ultimate priority.
It positions ‘care and craft’ as ‘nice to have’ but not necessary.
It minimizes the opportunity for an upfront conversation where issues regarding taste, standards, expectation and time can be discussed and aligned on.
This last point is especially important because the time allegedly ‘saved’ just getting on with stuff, often ends up taking even longer than if you’d been given the time to sweat the details in the first place, because what happens is the work is pants and it ends up in an endless review loop to confirm it.
Though there is an even worse scenario.
And that’s when the work gets approved and put out into the world … because then not only does it enter into the public domain, it hurts the brand, hurts the customers and hurts the industry as a whole. And if you think that doesn’t matter, then you’re revealing you may talk about customers, quality and value … but you haven’t got the faintest idea about any of them.
Increasingly the most important job in agency and clients is ‘quality control’ … but sadly, in both agency and clients, they’re no match for the allure of speed.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Bank Ads, Brand, Brand Suicide, Clients, Comment, Confidence, Context, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Customer Service, Finance, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Relationships, Reputation, Service, Standards
So, I have been a customer of ING Bank in Australia, for over 30 years.
THIRTY.
Given I have moved countries so often, I have had to update my country of residence many times – so when I received an email in December, asking me to ‘check my information’ for the banks legal requirements, I took it all in my stride.
Unsuprisingly, my information was – having updated it when we moved to NZ – was up to date and when I confirmed, I got a notification telling me all was good.
So imagine my surprise when in January, I received this …
I have no idea why my ‘document’ was not accepted, when [1] at the time it said it was and [2] it is the same one they have had on file for years – but I went to the website, as they requested, to provide another only to find this when I logged in.
ACCOUNT INACTIVE.
The bank, without letting me know in advance, had frozen my bank account.
Ice cold. Can’t access my money. Can’t spend my money.
What the actual fuck?!
To make matters even worse, they didn’t have any place where I could ‘update’ my information and so I found myself on hold for THREE HOURS.
Now, I appreciate there is anti-money laundering rules that need to be maintained but there’s 3 things I don’t understand.
Why did they freeze my account before asking me for other paperwork?
Why wasn’t my paperwork accepted given it has been fine for decades?
Why don’t they get their own shit in order before bullying their customers …
What do I mean by that last point?
2018 Dutch Settlement:
ING paid €775 million to settle charges with the Netherlands Public Prosecution Service for allowing clients to launder money for years, citing serious flaws in their counter-terrorism financing systems.
Systemic Failures:
Prosecutors identified instances where accounts were used for illicit activities, such as a lingerie trader laundering €150 million, which the bank’s systems should have flagged.
Regulatory Action:
The Dutch Central Bank oversaw corrective actions, and ING accepted responsibility, vowing to improve compliance.
Executive Liability:
While the large fine resolved the organizational charges, Dutch prosecutors later dropped criminal cases against former executives, including CEO Ralph Hamers, due to insufficient evidence for criminal liability, though they noted insufficient steps were taken.
2025:
ING faced new scrutiny in early 2025 over its role in a case involving former EU Commissioner Didier Reynders, with investigations into whether the bank failed to report suspicious activities related to him.
Other Jurisdictions:
ING Spain also received a fine in March 2025 for serious AML failings.
Yep, the bank that wants its customers to comply with money laundering rules has consistently failed to comply with money laundering rules … except where mine was a paperwork issue, theirs was an illegal activity issue.
Financial institutions consistently like to present themselves as ‘caring about their customers’, but the reality is the vast majority only care about themselves and their richest customers.
In that order.
Is it any surprise so many people are turning to things like bitcoin?
Sure, the risks are high but at least there’s a chance you could strike it rich whereas with so many financial institutions, they use fees, interest rates and access to keep so many exactly where they are.
Or worse.
Now I appreciate I am generalizing here.
I get many of the people who work in banks are decent people who are caught in the same situation as many out there. [And the person I dealt with at ING was very helpful and understanding … even when I took her through all of ING’s ‘mistakes]
But when people feel they are forever being spoken at, rather than listened to … there’s a point where people have as much interest in financial organizations as they offer their customers.
Which, according to a letter I received from ANZ Australia, is 0.01%.
The banking system operates on trust and confidence. What a shame those principals don’t extend to how banks see customers. Especially customers who have never done anything wrong for 3 bloody decades.
Well, ING lost one today.
Not because they wanted more paperwork from me but because they made a decision – that could have had a huge impact on me – without even discussing it with me. And if they can do that over a relatively minor issue, which – let’s not forget – their system had told me was ‘upto date’, then why would I ever believe I can trust my money is safe with them?
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, AI, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Billionaire, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Complicity, Confidence, Conformity, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Delusion, Details, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Experience, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Success, Tactics, Technology
A few weeks ago, Jack Dorsey – ex-Twitter and now Block – laid off 40% of their staff.
They say this was not because they were doing badly, but because it allowed them – thanks to AI – to be even better positioned to take advantage of future opportunities.
He also said that he suspects most organisations will follow suit in the near future.
He’s not wrong … for many, reducing headcount is the ultimate commercial dream. Which got me thinking …
What will happen when every company is ‘AI’ led/driven/managed and there’s no more employees who can be ‘restructured’ to satisfy the C-Suite and/or share market?
How will companies exist when the people they once sold to, no longer have an income to keep buying their goods? How will companies compete when they all follow the same AI-led protocols, all learned from the same aggregated models and practices? How will companies build value when they’ve turned everything into a commodity? How will companies exist with ‘access per user’ business models, when AI removes the need for users? How will companies justify their price premium when they keep promoting their use of AI lets them do things for less? How will companies build trust and loyalty when everyone knows they’re being outsourced and managed by an algorithm?
One possibility is employees will suddenly be back in vogue … allowing companies to talk about how their products and/or services are now much more personal, hand crafted, and/or curated than their AI competitors. The other is – as many tech bros have suggested – we enter a world of ‘universal credit’ … except no one talks about where that money will come from and who will control the amount of money given to people.
Given there’ll be a lot less money available to be raised from taxes – as there won’t be enough people earning money from jobs – and the wealthy have an incredible ability to avoid governments taxing them appropriately, are we going to be reliant on the ‘generosity’ of the tech companies and should we feel good about that given they value power and control over a healthy society?
However none of this is AI’s fault. We’re now in a world where the obsession for short term results and/or PR headlines means everything is tactics, not much about strategy.
AI is incredible – as is its possibilities and potential – which is why when companies make a big song and dance about how they’re using it to ‘fast track’ growth and efficiencies [read: efficiencies] I can’t help but think it reveals far more about their narrow and limited thinking than the technologies.
What makes it even crazier is how the share market rewards companies for dismantling their operational structure and knowledge …
Oh I get it if you look at it in a vacuum, but not only is this behaviour often a short-term reaction – designed to boost share price at a time where bonuses or evaluations are due to take place … but why are these so called shit-hot analysts not questioning the leadership who put their company in the position of having so many alleged ‘excessive’ staff in the first place.
Because they don’t really care about anything other than the illusion of radical action.
Actions that allow them to say to themselves, ‘we were right’.
Remember Citibank back in 2008?
Forget condemning the leadership who encouraged their people to engage in a level of economic recklessness that contributed to the global financial crisis, and instead, congratulate them for firing 72,000 employees in the name of ‘efficiency management’.
As I said, I am not blaming AI for this, nor am I saying Jack Dorsey is the poster child for this attitude in management. At least in Jack’s case, he is in tech and recognises his own self interest in what he’s doing/publicising. That doesn’t make what he’s doing any better, but it at least explains his actions with more clarity than a lot of companies who have jumped into AI without seemingly realizing [or choosing to be deliberately ignorant] to the longer term implications they’re creating their own company, category and individual role.
Of course not all company leaders are like this – or doing this with AI – and I obviously appreciate it’s a competitive world out there … but to see them viewing efficiency and speed as the only levers that matter [and that is what AI is for] is pretty tragic. Add to that, many seem to have forgotten this technology is still in its relative infancy, so are basically buying into the ‘dream’ of what AI can do – as being heavily pushed by its creators/investors … which helps companies justify their heavy adoption of it, even though many of the C-Suite in those companies don’t have a clue what it is or how it works but just see the financial rewards of pretending they do … and we’re facing the very real prospect of organisations discounting or ignoring the ‘small stuff’, even though that’s what will determine if the ‘finish line’ is positive or destructive. [For more info on this, see my post about the ‘O Ring’]
As a friend of mine said, “it’s like buying a jet to do the school run”.
Mind you he also said, “beware of people selling promises they’ll never be accountable for, but will always benefit from”.
Unsurprisingly, he’s a lawyer.
In a technology firm. Haha.