Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, AI, Attitude & Aptitude, Communication Strategy, Crap Campaigns In History, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Humanity, London, Technology
While I was in London, I saw this:
What the actual fuck?
The worst thing is I can imagine they’ll get lots of enquiries … probably from companies who are very vocal on saying ‘their staff are their greatest asset’.
But as we know, the companies that shout the loudest about their people are often the ones who are the worst offenders of them. Like some supercharged gaslighting trick, except everyone knows what they’re doing.
The bit I find confusing though is who do these companies think will be their future customers if they are shedding jobs in favor of AI?
Who is going to have the money and why the fuck do they think those who do, will spend it with them when there is a distinct lack of customer care, craft or consideration?
AI has incredible possibilities, but the scary thing is most companies like it because they see it as being able to do the same things they’ve always done, just cheaper or faster.
That’s it.
What these companies fail to realise is that if their products and operations can be replicated this easily, then they may not be that good in the first place.
I’m seeing this everywhere – especially in advertising.
Agencies and clients banging on about how they have used AI to create an ‘ad’ that would have cost millions before – without once stopping to realise that not only is it something we have seen millions of times before, but while the ad may be visually rich, it is also fucking shit.
Sure, it’s early days … but that so many people are focusing on the optimization of the technology rather than the possibilities of it is tragically sad. But then – as I’ve talked about a bunch in the past – I have always been more alarmed by the people behind the tech than the tech itself.
Maybe this is why my client – the biggest investor in luxury and street culture fashion on earth – believes the future of luxury will be built around personal service. Not the illusion of personal service … but the engagement and interaction with real humans.
Highly trained, highly experienced, specialists.
That doesn’t mean they don’t see the value and power of AI … they do. It’s just they recognize that you can’t claim value when you’re doing everything you can, on the cheap. And yet so many brands forget that … mistaking a premium price for a premium product. Until they find out by the actions, choices and behaviours of the people.
Technology is amazing and nothing is possibly more amazing than AI.
It has the power to liberate opportunities we’ve never imagined.
It can enable and facilitate whole new ways of working and creating.
It will provide an outlet for people who have been overlooked for decades.
This is all incredible and important stuff.
But if companies increasingly see it as a way to cut costs to drive short-term gains … then frankly, not only do they deserve all they will get, they need to realise they are the embodiment of Artificial Intelligence.
So to the people behind Artisan … go fuck yourself.
Said with love. Human love.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Alcohol, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Brands, Communication Strategy, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Devious Strategy, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity
Day 2 of 2025 and I’m still bursting with positive pessimism.
Helped because of stuff like this the following …
We all know one of the key roles of advertising is to add commercial momentum and value to business. Well, I recently saw a rather unique approach to achieving this goal with some work from vodka brand, Smirnoff.
Have a look at this.
What the absolute fuck?
What the hell is that copy?
What does it mean? What were they thinking? How the hell did this get approved?
I appreciate being associated with Russia these days is commercial suicide, but seriously, having Putin as their brand ambassador would be less shameful than this horror show.
And the overt attempt to boost business by attempting to be seen as a ‘social lubricant’ is about as subtle as a cucumber down a pair of cycling shorts.
“Don’t drink alone, drink with lots of people” … they scream.
To which I reply, why?
Why the hell should I?
And why the hell should it be with Smirnoff.
If you want to do that, how about you do something that creates the conditions that make me want to do it. Make it easy for me to do it.
But then, if you did that, it would mess up your ‘please drink responsibly’ message that you use to lobby governments to give you tax breaks because you’re more worried about the impact of declining alcohol sales and consumption than you are about excessive drinking.
Maybe. Ahem.
I’ve always felt Smirnoff – bar a couple of campaigns a 1000 years ago – have had a problem capturing and expressing who they are., but this is new depths of barrel scraping awful.
That said, I appreciate there’s also the possibility it could be an act of creative genius.
I appreciate those are wildly contrasting views, but it’s because I can’t tell if this ad is:
1. The result of the copywriter chugging down copious amounts of Smirnoff as they ‘wrote’ the headline. OR …
2. It has been purposefully designed to be so insane, it will make all who see it want to turn to drink and so Smirnoff sales rise.
Frankly, I can’t help but feel they’d have more luck with this ad if they targeted Pornhub’s audience, because ‘YOU DO YOU … NEEDS MORE US … WE DO US’ sounds more like an invitation to a swingers party than anything that would make anyone else give a damn.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Content, Context, Crap Campaigns In History, Creativity, Empathy, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Resonance
Growing old is a fascinating experience because of the multitude of ways it impacts you.
And while a lot of the narrative around it is negative, it’s not entirely the case.
You give less of a fuck about things that used to bother you because you realise they don’t really matter. And you feel more confident to speak up about issues that do bother you, because you are less nervous about expressing how you feel.
Sure, that can lead to all sorts of problematic behaviour and attitudes, but as long as you’re not a myopic, prejudiced dick … it’s generally good.
But without doubt there’s things that do mess with you.
Parts of you hurt you didn’t even know was a part that could hurt.
You are made very aware that your relevance to society is less important.
And when you look in the mirror, you don’t recognise the old bastard staring back at you.
There’s a lot of money in trying to delay the signs of ages.
Or should I say, the physical signs.
And while I could make this a post about the unfair, unjust and unrealistic expectations [and judgement] that society places on looks – and aging – especially towards women, that’s not the point of this post.
You see I recently passed a cosmetic beauty shop/spa/clinic whose promise to ‘help you counter the realities of growing old’ seemed to miss the point of what potential customers actually are looking for.
Or at least it did to me, because their ad said this …
Now maybe I’m wrong, but surely one of the main points in seeking anti-aging treatment is so you DON’T age your way.
That, if anything, you age someone else’s way.
Preferably someone much younger than you.
And hotter.
OK, with hindsight, I get that’s what they maybe meant.
That they were trying to say their treatment allows you to control how you age, as opposed to leaving it to nature. And if that’s the case, then it’s probably closer to being the right proposition [albeit flawed, generic and contrived as hell] with some of the worst writing.
But then I hate that whole ‘YOUR RULES, YOUR WAY’ ad narrative that appears so often.
Communication that’s devoid of any sort of definitive or differentiated idea, other than utterly preposterous suggestion their product/service empowers you to conquer and counter all the rules, realities and science of the World that relates to your particular situation or need.
The imbecilic idea that people will believe this company/brand has the knowledge/technology/magic to achieve what no other organisation or individual can achieve.
ON THE PLANET.
Jesus Christ, it’s so lazy and unimaginative.
Sure, I get this approach works … but the whole business strategy appears to be ‘get a bit of the same pie everyone is eating’ rather than develop a point of view that will get you more of the pie.
But as bad as that is, I realise there’s something even worse than that
It’s all of the above generic shit … but with a headline that doesn’t even convey it with clarity.
Which is the real ugly side of beauty.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Stubborness, Trust, Truth
I love this clip from South Park about how they think Netflix works.
Sure, it’s taking the piss out of the streaming gods – suggesting their quality control is all over the place because they say yes to every pitch – but in some ways, I can’t help but feel it would be brilliant if more clients embraced this approach.
Now before you think I’m mad, there is a reason for this.
About 14,000 years ago, I wrote a post saying clients should say yes more often and agencies should say no. The main reason for this was I kept hearing companies suggest their agencies didn’t understand their business. That they were more interested in what they wanted to make rather than what their clients needed.
They’re wrong … because in my experience, agencies absolutely want to do the best things for their clients.
That they have different ways to achieve their clients needs and goals is a good thing.
More than that, it’s literally what they are all about.
But right now it seems more and more clients are trying to dictate and mandate work … when, with the upmost respect, many haven’t got the faintest idea what good work is, how to get it, and how to get their audience to be interested and motivated in what they’ve got to say.
Now to be fair, this is not entirely their fault.
It doesn’t help many agencies have sold creativity so far down the river, that the only thing they care about is the head hours they can sell. It doesn’t help many companies only enable their people to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. And it doesn’t help company procurement departments have an outsized influence on the approach and people their agency gets to work with – which directly impacts the work that gets produced – which is why you can see how this often turns into a complete shit show.
But that still doesn’t explain why some clients think they know more about creativity than their agency.
Which is why I think the ‘for profit’ research agencies they surround themselves with have to shoulder some of the blame. Part of that is because supporting what the client thinks and wants is in their personal interests. And part of that is because many of them make the mistake of judging work by clarity of message rather than enjoyment of content.
To emphasise this last point, there’s a brilliant story about Spielberg when he was starting Dreamworks.
You see despite him and his partners being some of the most successful producers and directors of all time, their external investors wanted everything to go through focus groups to ensure everything was geared for success.
Spielberg said no.
He said he made films that were true to his vision, not other people’s.
In fact he was so insistent on this point that the whole deal was nearly off until Spielberg agreed to do it on the condition that any focus group was based around answering just one question and he had the right to decide what to do with the answer, once he’d got it.
They asked him what was the question.
“Were you entertained?”
That’s it.
One question.
One simple question … but arguably the most pertinent question.
Just to be clear, I am not saying research isn’t important.
It is. It’s vital.
In fact I love research. I love what it can uncover and reveal and help you understand.
But it shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate judge and jury.
It shouldn’t be about definitive answers.
The funny thing is I often find company research people understand this very well. They have incredible knowledge while also being very self aware. An openness to explore and consider. Where the most blinkered and stubborn thinking happens is when working with external organisations who harbour ambitions to be strategic partners. Where their goal is to control rather than inform.
Not of course, not everyone is like that. There’s many amazing companies out there … but there’s also a bunch whose commercial interests end up accelerating the disconnection of brands with truth and potential rather than enabling it.
But I digress.
The point of this post – and that South Park clip – is in the quest to not make any mistake or risk upsetting anyone – often their own board of directors – companies end up creating work that says nothing and does little. Meanwhile, with Netflix actively looking for the next big, they’re saying yes rather than no … and while that leads to a lot of stuff that may not perform, their commitment to pushing and exploring means they also have a lot of epic. Which has created a lot of longterm value.
Or said another way, Netflix see the commercial value of trust, creativity and exploration.
And while I know the two can’t really be compared, I’m going there … not just to reinforce the point that self-awareness is commercial intelligence, but because if brands want people to love them, it might be good if they did stuff for them, not about themselves. And it might be good if more agencies got back to valuing creativity rather than just saying they do.
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.