Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, AI, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, Business, Conformity, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Technology
I appreciate the commercial benefits of being associated with technology – especially technology that’s at the forefront of change – but I’m getting fed up of companies shoving the letters A and I ahead of everything they do in a desperate attempt to look cutting edge.
Do they realise they’re not fooling anyone – except, maybe themselves?
Have they forgotten what happened to WeWork when they persisted in their claims to be a tech company when even Stevie Wonder could see they were nothing more than an office space rental firm.
But it’s happening everywhere with everyone claiming everything they do is now ‘AI shaped/influenced/enabled.
AI project management systems
AI consultancy services.
AI home theatre systems.
AI photocopiers.
AI toilets.
AI. Ai. AI.
And even if I accept all these things now have some element of AI in their process and product, how come so much of them operate exactly as they did before?
All that advanced tech and everything still operates the same way as it always has.
That can’t be very good can it?
Surely that means the people behind it are either idiots, attempting to gaslight their customers or they have used AI to remove employees roles so they can squeeze out the last remnants of profit before they scraper and enjoy sitting on their millions.
While I’m at it …
Why is it the worst offenders of this sort of behavior tend to be the most conservative and traditional companies and industries?
[You can tell who they are as they tend to use images like the one at the top of this post because they think that proves they’re all about the ‘future’, haha]
On one hand I appreciate their desire to modernize, but the problem is – if the only thing that changes is the speed they can do things or the price they can do them for … then arguably, they’re proving they haven’t got the faintest idea what AI could do for them if they’re limiting its use to efficiency and productivity.
So to all brands jumping on the AI bandwagon …
Using Claude to speed up your manufacturing process doesn’t mean you’re an AI company.
Using ChatGPT to write articles about your products does not mean you make AI tech.
And positioning any form of automation as AI does not mean you’re a cutting-edge tech company.
Am I exaggerating?
Yes. But not nearly as much as you may imagine …
Every day I see ads and articles from companies claiming AI is at the centre of all they do.
Products.
Service.
Systems.
Manufacturing.
Marketing.
You name it, someone is saying it … which is why the best way to tell ‘who is trying’ versus ‘who is claiming’ is to embrace the same evaluation criteria as used to judge strategy, which is:
Can customers, employees and competitors notice a fundamental difference between how things were and how things now operate and behave?
If they can’t, it’s hype or self-serving commerciality. You’re welcome.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, AI, Attitude & Aptitude, Confidence, Conformity, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Independence, Individuality, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Strategy
One of the many things I love about China, are their proverbs.
Whatever the subject, there will be an expression that captures the issue in a brilliant, wonderful way.
And there’s so bloody many of them … and each one not only makes you nod your head in agreement, but also makes you think and then look at things differently afterwards.
Anyway, I heard one recently that I love.
In fact, I love it so much I’m going to use it as the ‘final lesson’ in a presentation I’m writing for a talk in Berlin – more of that in tomorrow’s post.
The quote is this:
I love it.
I love it for a load of reasons.
One of them being that China tends to encourage conformity rather than individuality – so this is beautiful for simply challenging that convention.
But the other reason is that it sums up the heart of the presentation I’m writing.
Especially in a world where so many people are – rightfully – worrying about the impact AI will have on their job, career, livelihood.
Because to take that quote one step further …
If you spend years doing all you can to become a perfect, straight tree …
A tree who stands perfectly with all those other perfect straight trees …
Not only could you find yourself being chopped down and turned into boards, you may discover that’s all you were ever going to be allowed to be.
Or said another way:
When you blindly follow someone else’s definition of ‘best practice’, the result isn’t just that you get turned into boards … it’s that your career is spent being walked on and walked over by people who never cared what you could become, only what they could become.
Which is why if you want to increase the odds of living a bigger life, be the wild tree.
Because while others may mock your shapes, bends and scars … you’ll know they’re signs of a life well lived, not a life walked upon.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, AI, Comment, Corporate Evil, Management, Money, Music, Technology
While this post doesn’t rely on you watching this clip first, it may help explain why I have written it …
As many of you will know, I am a huge fan of technology.
Which means, I am also a huge fan of AI.
However, what I’m not a huge fan of, are the vast majority of people behind it. Or more specifically, their reasons for doing it. And the implications we’ll all encounter because of it.
It’s because of that, I’m fast coming to the view that the vast majority of tech bros, should be called terrorist bros – hence the title of this post.
Let’s be honest, for all their expensive manufactured PR claiming they want to help society ‘win at life’, we continue to watch their hunger for power, money, ego and control wreak havoc across society through their self-interest crafted half truths, delusion and manipulation.
What makes it worse is AI can do so much good for so many people so it’s doubly sad the vast majority of tech leaders [and corporate leaders] seem to just want it for pushing profit and productivity – regardless of cost or implication on everyone else both short term and long.
Which made me think …
What if another nation acted this way? Did things that were purposefully designed to destabalise how another society functioned or operated (be it environmentally, socially or economically) for their own benefit?
Would we just accept it or see it as an attack? An act of commercialism or an act of aggression?
We don’t have to look too far to see how certain countries respond to ‘perceived’ threats that aren’t anywhere near as overt or obvious as AI. [Cough cough]. So when do the tech companies get reigned in? When do we get back to valuing substance and experience not just celebrate how fast we can get to the aggregated superficial? When do we get back to investing in people and training rather than reducing and discarding?
OK, rant over. But wouldn’t it be great if we all looked up to the values and standards of Prince rather than the culture vampires like Mikey Shulman.
Finally …
How grateful are you that I don’t drink?. Can you imagine what this would be like if I did? Haha.
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: 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.