Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Content, Context, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Differentiation, Din Tai Fung, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, New Zealand, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Tourism, Travel
I have good news for you …
This is the last post for a week. Yep, a week!
You see I’m off to my beloved China for the week so you can rest in peace while I fill myself up on Din Tai Fung, haha.
What a way to end the week eh?
By pure coincidence, this post is about Taiwan – specifically mocking their tourism campaign – which I assure you has nothing to do with me going to China and hoping to have my visa renewed. After all, that’s where Din Tai Fung comes from and there’s no way I’d ever do anything that could harm my ability to keep scoffing down their dumplings.
So over the years, I’ve written a lot about tourism campaigns. Like here. Or here. Or here.
The upshot being that apart from the original 100% Pure NZ campaign – and Mauritius clever idea to bring more foreign income into the country – most are more likely to keep you away than to pull you towards them.
In fact, the only positive of these campaigns is they demonstrate the danger of committee thinking … where the end result is an act of political appeasement than audience understanding.
It’s why I find it hilarious how we keep banging on about all the data we have and yet we still end up scoring own goals.
Why?
It is because we have the wrong data?
Is it because we have people that can’t read the data.
Or is it because people hide behind the data to outsource their responsibilities and decisions?
Well, given this tourism campaign from Taiwan, it may be all 3.
Have a look at this …
What the hell?!!!
My god … Taiwan is a beautiful land full of rich history, heritage and cultural texture and they think this will make people come?!
Who the hell has their ‘data’ told them is the future of their tourism audience … urban architects and local council town planners?
Seriously, what is this supposed to convey … that they have shopping centers?
And they have the audacity to then say ‘Enjoy Now’.
For fucks sake, Taiwan is where the incredible – and my absolute favorite – Din Tai Fung started … that alone could attract more people than this campaign. But no, instead they decided the best way to invite millions to visit is to use the most generic photo ever taken … a photo that could be for literally any place in the whole, wide World … and then shove the words ‘Waves of Wonder’ on it.
What the hell is a ‘wave of wonder’ … because unless it’s a clever ruse to make people wonder out-loud why they should give-a-flying-fuck about a photo of a generic shopping centre, then this work is nothing more than tourism terrorism.
Years ago, I was staying in the W Hotel in Taipei when an earthquake woke me up in the middle of the night.
It was pretty strong and the whole building shook for ages.
And even that is a better tourism campaign than this horror show.
Taiwan is a wonderful place. You should go visit. But don’t go anywhere their tourism department recommends.
See you in a week!
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, AI, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Business, Colleagues, Conformity, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Fashion, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Money, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
A few weeks ago, I found myself in Melbourne, Australia.
I had some time free so I went to the National Gallery where I saw seeing their excellent Westwood/Kawakubo fashion exhibition.
While walking around, it struck me how fashion designers talk about their point of view on society [and how they use their creativity to shape/change it] whereas modern advertising increasingly only talks about their systems and ‘proprietary’ models that drive efficiency and cost savings.
With that in mind, it’s both amusing and sad that for all the business rhetoric we spout on our stages, news pages, and LinkedIn feeds, fashion continues to have greater cultural influence, resonance, and economic impact.
And why is that?
Well, there are many reasons for it, but as someone VERY successful in fashion recently told me: “the top end of their industry is still led by people who love fashion, whereas too much of ours is run by people who crave the love of business”.
Of course, it wasn’t always this way. Go back a little and most of our advertising leaders spoke like fashion designers. And while business will always be essential to our survival – and thank god for that and them – perhaps we’d be better served championing the power of what we create, rather than only focus on the process of how we create it.
Or better yet, let the work speak for us. But not this work.
And if you think I’m being an asshole, spare a thought for all the marketing professionals who attended their MBA course at Imperial College London, when they found I was their guest lecturer. Hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cliches, Clients, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Craft, Creativity, Presenting, Pride
There’s not many things I am anal about, but presentations are one of them.
The story.
The design.
The details.
The feeling.
The editing.
The clarity.
The craft.
The point of view.
Ask anyone who has worked with me and it’s fair to say, they’re going to say I’m a fucking nightmare about it.
Part of it is because I believe it’s a sign of respect towards whoever we’re presenting too.
Part of it is because I believe it’s a sign of respect to the work you’ve developed and crafted.
And part of it is because I believe it’s a demonstration of the standards you hold, value and expect from whoever you work with.
I appreciate it’s not the most ‘efficient’ approach, but there are moments in a process, where ‘efficiency’ should never be the objective, because it either encourages – or invites – lazy thinking and/or lazy application.
This does not mean I don’t care about brand guidelines or toolboxes, I do … however far too often, they’re developed with the sole goal of enabling the ‘lowest form of consistency’ throughout an organization, as opposed to delivering the highest. Of course, this approach is not limited to simply brand guideline development … the same can be said for things like ‘brand experience’ and ‘brand transformation’ … where the language implies ‘executing excellence’ but the reality is often just playing ‘catch up’ to competitors who have been doing the basics better for years.
Look, on one level I get it … especially in big companies, where it’s bloody hard to make everything work seamlessly to a unified level … however if a companies ambition is to identify the ‘minimum standard they can get away with’, then surely that raises questions regarding the standards of the organisation, the people they hire and the aspirations – not to mention, taste – of the company leadership.
Now you may be thinking, “that’s a big call based on how a company creates presentations”, but for me this stuff matters and I’m over people saying it doesn’t.
That’s its ‘overkill’. Fuck off …
Put simply, ‘good in, encourages good out’. It really is that simple … and if you can’t be bothered to do that for a client, why do you think they would want to do good things with you?
And please don’t give me ‘but the content is all that matters’ argument.
Maybe in a Hollywood movie that works … but in real life, how you present is as important as what you present.
Not because ‘pretty wins’, but because design helps convey an argument in a way that can be more powerful felt.
And understood.
And remembered.
Now I completely appreciate not every presentation requires this level of craft and consideration, however at the very least they should all feel people have given a shit about its development. That they’ve sweated over the details. That they want the recipient to feel seen, challenged, understood and helped.
But that’s not happening nearly enough these days.
A creative director at Wieden – the wonderful Paul Stechschulte – once gave me a brilliant piece of advice about presentations.
He said, there’s only two reasons to ever have one: To convert or to conflict.
You’re either there to convert an idea/decision into action, or you’re there to conflict the recipient so they don’t choose or make the wrong idea/decision.
That’s it.
But too often, the goal of a presentation is to have another presentation. To kick the can further down the road. To give permission for people to not make a decision while looking like they’re being productive.
Look, I get some things take time but a lot of this is because too many companies only empower their people to say ‘no’, so the result is nothing gets made and so the focus of the endless presentations ends up being whether the ‘minimum standard guidelines’ have been adhered to, as opposed to can we create a compelling argument that demands they say ‘yes’.
Which leads to the point of this post …
TL;DR Why I will never work for Morgan Stanley. And why I’ve never been so happy about it.
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.
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]