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, 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: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Class System, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Consultants, Contribution, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Meetings, Music
There’s a company I work with that has 14 employees.
Of that 14, 4 are specialists and the remaining 10 are very smart, informed, experienced, generalists.
And they make US$100 million dollars a year.
PER YEAR.
Part of the reason they make so much money is the speed in which they make decisions.
Sure, with only 14 people, it’s much easier to achieve that … but that’s not the whole story behind their success.
Because while all their competitors employ 5+ times the amount of people as them [even though their revenues are a fraction of theirs] the driving force behind their speed is down to 3 things.
1 They understand who they are, what they believe and what they do.
2 They only hire truly exceptional talent with experience proven over years.
3 They trust their team so they can make decisions with minimal consultation or debate.
Or put even more simply:
Opportunities don’t get delayed, diluted, dismantled or discarded by ‘heirarchy management’.
And the result of this trust, taste and experience?
They’re not only regarded as one of the most influential and highly regarded companies in their field across the entire World … they’re viewed as being the most successful company in the history of their category.
Hopefully it is obvious why I say this …
But if it’s not, this quote from Dave Trott – I think – sums it up.
I have to be honest, I can relate to this … and what makes this even worse is I’m one of the lucky fuckers, because I generally only work – and have only worked – with clients and colleagues who have the taste, experience and ambition to do what it takes to create good, interesting and original shit day after day after day.
Which begs the question, what the hell is it like for so many others?
I swear the problem is too many companies care more about building empires than producing excellence.
Where the prize is quantity not quality.
Size rather than craft.
KPI’s over creating real change.
Pride in conformity rathe than standards.
And so we end up in this situation where we have countless levels of middle management … where each one dilutes whatever is in front of them to ensure they don’t risk being negatively judged by the level above.
Empowered to only ever say no and never yes.
Resulting in opportunities being killed by either a thousand comments or delayed by a thousand meetings.
Which is why productivity has little to do with which operational model you embrace.
Nor does it matter if you operate with a flat-org structure or an agile approach …
If you want to be killer rather than filler, collapse the layers and elevate proper talent.
No wonder the brilliant Simon Pestridge once told me:
“Middle management want to be right …
… but [good] senior management want to know how to be better”
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Food, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Mediocrity, Meetings, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Respect, Strategy, Systems, Wieden+Kennedy
It’s been a while since I’ve had a real rant, but this is going to be one.
So if you need a peaceful start to your week, look away – otherwise strap yourself in.
One of my real worries for the future o f our industry is not AI … it’s our lack of seriousness.
Before I go on, there’s a couple of things I need to clarify.
First, I am not advocating we add even more process, systems, data and/or logic in what we do – frankly, they’re increasingly becoming an obstacle to both creativity and commerciality as they increasingly view audiences [or worse, ‘consumers’] as walking wallets and the only aim is to bombard them at the moment of potential transaction.
Neither am I suggesting we should be treating all we do like we’re saving the planet with high-concept art. There may be cases where this approach is the right approach … but when I say a lack of seriousness, I mean it in terms of how we think about what we do, more than what we actually create.
For years, the ad industries ‘piece de resistance’ – The Super Bowl – has been a car crash for advertising and marketing. An endless stream of contrived, unsubtle – and often, unfunny – sponsored jokes that feature a production line of celebrities who are all willing to destroy their legacy for a dump-truck of cash being poured into their retirement pension plan.
It’s so depressing.
Sure, every year there’s one – maybe two – ads that really stand out. This year, for me, it was Manscaped … an ad that didn’t feature a celeb, had an actual idea and was actually related to the product they make. But even then, was it up there with 1984 … or Born of Fire? Probably not, but it was fun, memorable and – while not related to the Super Bowl per se – was made for the Super Bowl audience’s entertainment. As was Coin Base’s ‘karaoke’ spot … which, in terms of understanding the Super Bowl ‘ad break’ context they were in and the typical US audience mindset in that context … was a clever idea.
Look, I get how much pressure is in a Super Bowl spot. I’ve been there. It’s a fucking nightmare. There’s an almost endless amount of pressure placed on the work as every-man-and-their-dog adds more judgement, demands and mandatories … fearing their multi-million-dollar investment will be negatively judged by a global audience. And they’re right to worry about that … except the one thing they all seem to forget is the ad agency knows how to write and craft a spot better than all the C-Suite execs put together, so maybe if they let them get on with it, they’d have a higher chance of their work being loved rather than [at best] ignored or [at worse] openly mocked for how bad, contrived and/or embarrassing it is – thanks to either a terrible story/idea, endless and meaningless product features being crammed into the spot and/or the huge pointers in the script to make sure audiences get the gag, because they think people may be too stupid to get it. [When it’s more because they just won’t care]
All this data. All these systems. All this marketing science. And we’re actually getting worse.
And while I appreciate ad agencies have a lot to answer for, they’re not the only reason for this decline – but we’re not allowed to say that are we? Oh no.
We’re not allowed to talk about the impact of procurement departments.
We’re not allowed to talk about the lack of respect for marketing in companies.
We’re not allowed to talk about the dehumanization of people in the research.
And while you may think my tone is being influenced by it being a Monday morning, you’d be wrong – because it has nothing to do with it being the start of the week and everything to do with this:
What the fuck?
Seriously, what the actual fuck!?
And no, it is absolutely NOT an April Fool joke … which would still be bad, but make some sort of sense.
I thought the Ritz Cracker ad at the Super Bowl was possibly the worst thing I had ever seen [and if you haven’t seen it, I am so envious of you] … but I was wrong.
Who came up with this?
How the hell did it get through the endless committees, hierarchies and research?
And why – given the big PR announcements – are they so bloody proud about it?!!
Hell, even the infamous Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad had the good grace to only be tone-deaf and stupid for 40 seconds … but this? THIS???
It actually makes me angry. Properly angry.
Angry our industry is associated with it – even though it smacks of something an internal group at the client came up with or an outside agency who wanted to pander for more business. Angry they will claim this shows how much they ‘understand their customers’. Angry they think they’re sooooo clever and smart for it. Angry that an agency either came up with this or didn’t speak up about this. And angry this is what marketing has become.
Sure, we’ve all suggested some radical [read: daft] ideas down the years.
Name changes.
New product variants.
New category extensions.
But more often than not, they’ve either been killed or they’ve been done with a lot more care, craft and reality than this.
Maxwell Apartments?!
Maxwell fucking Apartments?!
What I find even more confusing is that the owners of Maxwell House – Kraft Heinz – have been so bloody good with their communication over the past few years – or at least Heinz have – which is why whoever sold this [or mandated this] should be both promoted and fired all within the same meeting.
And while I’m sure there’s some people out there that think I am being a snob … I have 5 things I want to end this post with.
1 I understand there may be reasons for this work only those involved would know and – if made public – may help explain why this approach was undertaken. [see: Mouldy Whopper]
2 I understand good intentions don’t always turn into good work for of a million different reasons. [So while I get my hatred may sting, it’s because I know no one intended this to happen]
3 I understand different cultures/audiences have different tastes and maybe I’m not either of them. [Though I did work on Maxwell House at Wieden, so I am aware of the brand and its audiences]
4 Ideas tend to represent the standard of creativity, company, colleague and agency that you’ve been exposed to in your life, and this one smacks of people blinkered by data, inhibited by corporate politics and/or residing in an echo-chamber bubble.
5 And finally – if you think I’m being an asshole – maybe if I tell you how I found out about this idea, you’ll realise I’m trying to encourage us to aim higher, because not only does our industry need it, I know we are more than capable of doing it. You see, I learned of this work – which has been in market since Sept 2025 – from watching a ‘news blooper’ … a news blooper where the TV presenters found it so fucking stupid, they couldn’t stop laughing at it. On air. That’s right, people who are paid to keep a neutral face – whether announcing the best or worst of humanity – couldn’t keep a straight face about this. Not because they loved it, but because they were openly mocking it.
Maybe it made sense at the time.
Maybe everyone involved was suffering an unknown illness.
Or maybe they need better people or a better work culture where this sort of thing can be stopped because people can speak up without being put down so you don’t make newsreaders and the World think you’ve left them with the worst possible taste in their mouth.