Filed under: 2025, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Authenticity, Comment, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Imagination, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planning, Play, Point Of View, Process, Provocative, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Stupid, Success, Work
So I have good news.
This is the last post for a week.
Yep, I’m away. Again.
Not because of whatever happened with the result I wrote about yesterday – but something else. Though if the result wasn’t good yesterday, the week away for me is going to be very bitter sweet because something that should be full of crazy wonderfulness is going to be infected by sheer fucking panic. But let’s stay positive shall we and ignore the fact I started a company called cynic – hahaha.
[I also, let’s not forget, started a company called Sunshine, which proves I am the living embodiment of a ‘gemini’, haha]
Anyway, I say you have ‘a week’ rest from this blog but I have written a post for next Friday because it’s Halloween and I couldn’t resist posting something truly horrific.
A blast from the past that no one needs seeing again but still makes me laugh.
So apart from that, you’re free from me for one whole week.
What a way to see in the weekend …
So with that, I’m going to leave you with this …
I saw the above recently and it reminded me of a meeting I was in once, where an HR person talked about ‘cultural fit’.
Now I get what they meant – from a theoretical place – but it was what they were trying not to say that bugged me.
Because in essence, they were saying they valued the complicit and consistent over the interesting and challenging.
They didn’t care that people who questioned or pushed were actually doing it because they wanted to help the company be even better … to them, they saw them as ‘problems’ who they could discount or disregard under the guise of being a ‘wrong cultural fit’.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate good companies have strong cultures … a set of principals, values and behaviours that the people within shapes who they are and how they act. But too many organisations mistake this for control and complicity when in reality, it’s about expression, standards and possibility.
And it’s why I loved that piece But here’s the thing, these people make great shit a possibility.
Sure, I get they often need to be surrounded by those with the skills and abilities to both interpret what they say and action it … but without them, you are forever lost in the middle.
Yes I get for some that is exactly where they want to be … but for those with hunger, ambition, a desire for originality, craft and possibility, that’s literally the worst place you can find yourself positioned.
And yet too often, it’s these ‘big talking companies’ who have embraced protocols and processes that filter these people out immediately … replacing them with an endless stream of plastic and beige puppets. It’s why as much as these sorts of individuals can cause all manner of headaches and mayhem – and I say this both as someone who fits this description as well as someone who seeks out people of this description – they remain the individuals who I love to work with and hire the most.
And there’s a reason for that …
Because not only do you never know what they’ll come up with – and often they don’t know wither – you can be sure it will be smart and impossible to forget.
Or to be more poetic …
They are like comets flying across a night sky. They might not stay around for long, but boy … do they always shine bright.
Which leads to something else.
Recently London School of Economics [LSE] asked me to write a piece for their business management and strategy curriculum.
I don’t know if was because they thought my perspective would educate their students or serve as a warning of what NOT to do, but it was lovely to be asked.
The one thing they wanted me to specifically talk about was how I have been able to build and lead successful teams wherever I’ve worked.
And without blowing my own trumpet, I have.
Whether it’s been at different agencies or different countries, I’m proud I’ve been able to help nurture strategically intriguing, creatively interesting teams. Where every place I’ve been, has enjoyed a period that has come to define the department, the agency, the client, the category, the work we create or – most importantly – the people who are there.
The reason that’s so important to me is that where strategy is concerned, you can never be sure if you’re making a difference or you’re just riding on the coat-tails of the talent that was – and is – already there.
Or said another way, are you good or are you lucky?
And while I’m definitely lucky – both in terms of where I’ve worked and who I’ve got to work with – I do believe I’m pretty good at developing people and gangs – and I choose the word ‘gang’ very deliberate.
You see the word ‘gang’ means you have a motley crew of different people with different talents and outlooks who are united by a common philosophy, enemy and planning identity … whereas a department tends to be a production line of similar people, doing similar things with similar backgrounds and expectations.
Or as Lee Hill, my mentor and friend once said, “you can choose to partner with people who find interesting ways to open possibilities or people who are only focused on keeping things the same”.
And while there is nothing wrong with being boringly expected, it’s not what I value or what drives the greatest commercial growth … which is why – as part of the piece I was asked to write – I wrote this:
[Click on the image above to read it properly]
_________________________________________________________________________
It’s why I always say you should beware of those who offer convenient answers.
Or solutions that are more complicated than the actual problem.
Because you may find they end up costing you far more than the people who challenge or push you in terms of who you are pr who you want – or could – become.
See you properly a week on Monday – via something stupid on Friday.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Conformity, Culture, Customer Service, Effectiveness, Experience, Fake Attitude, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
NPS – which stands for Net Promoter Score – is a way for companies to evaluate how their customers view them.
The higher the score, the more satisfied they are with the company. Or so they say …
Because while I appreciate there will be a lot of evidence to back up this equation, I find it fascinating that the way they do it is by adding a layer between brand and customer.
More than that, it dimensionalises ‘satisfaction’ into a numerical value … meaning humanity, nuance and individuality is washed over. Now I appreciate when you’re dealing with potentially ‘millions’ of people, it would be almost impossible to achieve this with more texture and intimacy, however I can’t help but feel this methodology also suits the C-Suite in companies because it allows them to be incubated from having to deal with customer issues and simply point to an outsourced number to justify how well they are doing.
Add to the fact that when asked to evaluate a company, most people will just choose a random number – simply because the service they experienced was transactionally efficient rather than something more meaningful or memorable – and the whole NPS score should be taken far more as a guide than a fact.
Of course, we live in a time where everyone sells everything with the confidence of unquestionable authority … which is why I saw two things recently that reminded me what good customer service is, without having t refer to a number between 0 and 10.
First was this:
A young boy was at a baseball game [Philadelphia Phillies] and his father was able to retrieve a ball that had been hit into the stands to give to him. Almost immediately, another fan came up and claimed it was theirs [it wasn’t] and basically intimidated the father into giving it them. Someone in the team saw this and immediately made amends … first sending them a bag of ‘team goodies’ while they were still in the stands, and then following it up by inviting him – and his Dad – to meet the players and receive a signed baseball bat from one of the stars.
It probably cost the team $100 max, but the emotional value was way, way more than that … which was also only increased by the speed of their action.
No processes to go through.
No layers of approval to obtain.
Quick, decisive action from the whole team – rather than just one department.
You can read about it by following these links.
First the incident.
Then the first follow up.
Then the meeting of the team.
Then the positive internet reaction.
The other is much closer to home and involves a courier company I wrote too.
I had got an email saying an item had been delivered to my house. Except it hadn’t.
I wrote to them to tell them that and almost immediately, they responded and told me they’d checked and could confirm delivery. Crucially they were able to tell me what was sent and I realized they were right and had confused their original notification for another product I was waiting for.
I wrote back to apologize and explain they were right and then – again, almost immediately – they sent me this.
Now I appreciate there may be an element of ‘lost in translation’ in this reply … but ‘we wish you a happy life’ is delightful. Even more so given it was my fucking mistake. But the real power of it is that as ridiculously over-the-top as it is … it’s also undeniably human. Not some contrived, often repeated set of words that have been carefully designed to ensure the company does not convey an inch of accountability in any interaction.
That’s customer service.
Everything else feels more like being in-service to the company legal department or C-Suite ego.
So while I appreciate we have to have systems and processes in place to deliver a level of consistency … when they take the precedence over ensuring customers comes out of any situation feeling at least seen or heard, then it’s no wonder we’re seeing more and more companies hiding behind NPS scores rather than listening, interacting and enabling their teams to deal with the needs of their customers, rather than the egos of their C-Suite.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Culture, Management
Just a reminder that anyone who delivers feedback that’s purposefully designed to push you down while actively lifting themselves up, is an asshole.
No ifs. Just butts – so to speak.
Just to be clear, that doesn’t mean people can’t take feedback.
That doesn’t mean people can’t take tough feedback.
That doesn’t mean they’re being ‘woke’.
If anything, it’s how you ensure your feedback is understood rather than just heard.
I say this because far too many people use feedback like a sword and seemingly feel happy about it … which not only means they’re a prick, but that they have deliberately chosen to ignore the recipients feelings as well as where they may be complicit in what’s happened.
Which is why if anyone needs a reminder on why remembering this approach is not good – which is terrifying in itself, but so be it – check out the stories on Corporate Gaslighting.
And don’t think I’m not looking at HR departments for their role in allowing this to happen.
If I need to remind you, your job is to protect the people, not the C-Suite.
Thank god for the good ones out there … the ones who make is a worthy profession rather than the scapegoat department.
Happy Monday, hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Career, Collaboration, Colleagues, Community, Context, Contribution, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Experience, Eye, Health, Jaques, Jorge, Linkedin, Loyalty, Management, Martin Weigel, Maya, Mr Ji, Paula, Pride, Purpose, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect
Many years ago, I sent letters to anyone I felt had had an outsized impact or influence on my career, as it was then.
Some had been in my life a short time, some for many years … but all of them had made a significant difference to where I was and where I wanted to be.
And not one of them responded.
Nada.
Zilch.
Zero.
Eventually I reached out to one person to see if they had received it – fearing something terrible had gone on with the post.
“Robert, how are you?” … they said, as soon as they heard my voice … “are you OK?”
I remember how weird I thought their response was but reassured them I was fine and asked if they’d got my letter.
They confirmed they had and then – after a pause – asked if I was suffering ill health.
When I asked why, they told me they thought my letter was my way of saying goodbye to them before I died or something.
The irony was within months, I would get very ill, but I had no idea that was going to happen which is why my immediate response to their fears, was to piss myself laughing.
Fortunately, so did they.
And over the following weeks, I slowly heard from a number of the other people I’d written to who all had heard through the grapevine that rather than saying my farewells, I was simply expressing my gratitude.
The reason I say this is that recently, I started writing about another set of people who I felt I owed great thanks to.
There was no agenda other than to publicly acknowledge their importance in my life and my thanks for their talent and friendship.
At the time of writing this post, I’d written about Paula Bloodworth, Martin Weigel, Maya Thompson, Chris Jaques, Jorge Calleja, Clare Pickens and Jason White.
[There will be a ton more, but that’s all I’ve done so far … mainly because I have a job I have to pretend I’m doing diligently – ha]
Now, maybe it’s because people know this time I am suffering from ill health – specifically my eye – but the response to these celebrations, while different to the previous occasion I did it, are also quite similar.
In essence, they can all be summed up in 2 words: Gratitude and concern.
Gratitude for my words.
Concern for why I wrote them.
Now I appreciate my eye situation is getting very alarming, but this has been going on for almost a year so while I recently received less than favorable news …. this and my ‘Campbell Gratitude’ series are purely a coincidence rather than some sort of correlation.
But what IS concerning is how this reveals the true state of professionalism these days … in so much that the idea of someone saying nice things about someone else with absolutely no agenda, can only be explained away by them dealing with a major health issue.
Maybe this is what’s wrong with where we’re all at …
That no one should ever show generosity without having self-interest motivations.
Platforms like Linkedin haven’t helped …
For all their claims of being a place for the professional community, it has nurtured an environment where anyone who comments/likes or accepts a request entitles them to bombard you with unsolicited, irrelevant sales pitches or non-stop declarations of ego and bravado.
Mind you, let’s be honest it’s not just Linkedin is it.
From what I know, every dating site out there is doing exactly the same thing.
Claiming love. Championing self-interest gratification.
Look, I get it’s tough out there.
I also appreciate I am privileged as fuck.
But if we can’t say thanks to the people who mean a lot to us – simply because we want to celebrate to others WHY they mean a lot to us – then it’s no surprise we are promoting a culture of transactional interactions. The irony of which is that this literally undermines the chance of what all these people aspire to achieve.
Because as I wrote here, the most important and powerful relationships are based on your commitment to who they are, not what you want or can get out of them.
Like many words advocated by my industry, the meaning of loyalty has been completely fucked-with.
Changed beyond all recognition to justify self-serving actions and behaviors.
It’s why I love something I heard recently about how one person defined loyalty …
Someone whose entire business is based on appreciating what someone has done for them in the past, rather than simply evaluating them on what they can get out of them tomorrow.
“Always leave the dance with the person you came with”.
I love it.
I love what it means and how they expressed it.
There’s a lot of companies who could do with following that advice.
There’s a lot of professionals too.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Politics, Professionalism, Respect
I saw the below image recently and it got me thinking about how it is a perfect representation of how most – but not all – ‘multi-agency’ relationships really work.
As I said, it’s not always the case, but it increasingly feels ‘the norm’, often influenced by a procurement process that places more importance on ‘who will do the most for the least’ rather than who is best equipped to lead.
Just for the record, I’m all for collaboration.
Done properly, it is a powerful way to achieve incredible things in collapsed time.
However to stand a chance of achieving this needs a lot of careful thought and pre-planning.
For a start, you need to ensure the people in the room all have similar standards, experience and seniority or you end up only being as good as the least experienced person in attendance.
Or the loudest voice.
Too often there is a view that all you have to do is shove different organisations inside a room and tell them to get on with it.
And while companies do want the best for their clients … they all have their own agendas, definitions, remuneration structures and egos and to expect that to all be put aside because you want them to work together is naive.
It’s why curation, transparency and clarity on the ultimate goal are vital in enabling a strong outcome … but the problem is too often, collaboration is used because of timing pressures rather than seizing opportunity, which is why so much of what comes out of it feels like the worst of ‘committee thinking’.
When it works, everyone wins.
When it doesn’t, everyone – at best – stands still.
Of course, with companies increasingly turning to AI to ‘optimise’ every element of their business, the future of collaboration will be through bots rather than people. And while that may be music-to-the-ears of leaders who view employees as an frustrating expense … the result of this will be even more ‘lowest-common-denominator thinking’ because in the World of AI, everything is a summary of something else – whereas with well-run human collaboration, it doesn’t conform to where we’ve been, it builds to where we can go.