Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Brands, Business, Creative Development, Creativity, Planning, Relationships, Strategy
So a few weeks ago, I spoke at StratCon in Berlin.
I had known about the event because I knew one of the organisers – Fran, from Jung von Matt – but it was my first time ever going.
I knew it was going to be good because the brilliant Paula Bloodworth told me how much fun she’d had when she spoke there previously – delivering a presentation that went down so well that I discovered it was still being talked about TWO YEARS LATER – but even then, I wasn’t prepared for how much I was going to enjoy it.
Part of this was because of the variety of ‘strategy speakers’ they had talking …
Rather than having people from the same discipline all through the day, they had strategists that covered a broad spectrum of the discipline.
Advertising,
Branding.
Research.
Consultancies.
Media.
It meant the audience not only heard a broad spectrum of thinking, it meant they understood the different issues, approaches and contexts that go into those specific areas of strategy … something that is sadly missing from many of the other conferences out there.
Another thing I loved was there were almost zero ‘agency/product pitches’ from the presenters …
We’ve all been to those talks that feel more like a ‘timeshare sales meeting’ than a place where you hear interesting opinions and perspectives … but there was none of that here. In fact, for a conference that had a very focused topic for the day, it was amazing how many different viewpoints we heard, aided by the fact there were a variety of strategists, from a variety of different disciplines of strategy in attendance.
And that range of speakers went one further …
Because not only were they different to the usual suspects at these sorts of events – bar me, obvs – they represented different lengths of time in the industry. In fact for Vinzenz – a young planner from Mother Berlin – it was their first ever industry talk and so not only did we have the privilege of learning what they felt was interesting and important for the development of his strategic career, he got to experience and grow from the experience.
More conferences should do this.
And finally, the thing I loved about StratCon was the audience.
Unlike in other markets where there will be some strategists who slag off every speaker because they think they’re better, smarter and more experienced than them [plot twist: they’re not] this felt like a real gathering of a community.
People coming together to share, learn, connect and hopefully be better.
It felt tangibly different to other conferences I’ve attended … and while that may be because it’s organized by the community rather than outsourced to a company who seek to monetize every element they can from every person and company in attendance or because German strategy is – as more than one attendee told me – ‘starved of inspiration’ so everyone went in with open minds and attitudes, the result was that StratCon was a lovely place to be.
Our discipline is in a weird place right now and as I said in my talk, for it to get better requires more than another fucking framework, an optimistic mindset or a sense of intellectual superiority. Which is why I liked StratCon so much, because it was where honesty – rather than sales pitches – prevailed … and if anything is going to help us get out of this small box we’ve walked ourselves into, it’s dealing with the issues that are holding us back rather than hiding from them with the deluded belief ‘the framework will set us free’.
A huge thank you to everyone who attended and the organizers of the event …
Not just for inviting me – which was amazing – but allowing me to spend time in a city that was hugely important to my Dad.
Walking around that first day let me feel I was close to him again and for that alone, I can never thank you enough.
I can honestly say while I was only in Berlin for a short time, I leave with memories, moments, people, stories and an amazing pre-event dinner, that will last a fucking long time. And given how many incredible things I did and saw on that trip, there’s no higher compliment I can give than to say you were one of the true highlights.
An extra hug of appreciation to Fran, Heleen, Vinzenz, Achim and ‘Hamster’.
Auf wiedersehen …
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Brands, Clients, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Honesty, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planning, Point Of View, Politics, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect
We’re only a few weeks into 2026 and yet last week, a planner in London reached out to me to ask for some advice because they were already feeling burned out by work.
Obviously I’m not going to give details about who they are or where they work, but what I can tell you is their stress wasn’t because of workload, but because they were working with a client who could not clearly define the business problem they needed addressing, and then was blaming them for not giving them a solution they felt was appropriate.
In many ways, this is one of the most frustrating challenges in advertising today.
Where someone uses rounds and rounds of creative work to try and work out what’s the problem they need/want to solve.
Now there’s many reasons for this …
One is that too many companies have completely undermined, destroyed and devalued the role of marketing within their organizations – resulting in a lack of training, a lack of standards, a lack of C-Suite credibility and an unspoken rule that you are only empowered to say no to proposals and opportunities.
But frankly, the blame for this scenario is shared.
Because too many agencies have also completely undermined, destroyed and devalued the role of creativity within their organizations – resulting in a lack of training, a lack of standards, a lack of backbone and an unspoken rule that yo are only empowered to say ‘yes’ to a lack of clarity on problems and challenges.
What a shitshow.
Worse, what a waste of time.
So what ends up happening is both sides throw shade and blame at each other without realizing their own complicity in what’s going on, which results in ..
+ Everything taking 10 times longer than it needs to.
+ Everything getting more complex, confusing and opaque.
+ Everything being designed for – and decided by – committees.
+ Everything requiring more presentations and rounds of work.
+ Everything getting shaped by internal politics/managing up.
+ Everything being chipped away and diluted to beige.
Now of course, not every company, agency or brief is like this.
But a lot are – increasingly so – which is why it’s not exactly surprising the planner who reached out was feeling so burned out. And I’ve not even mentioned the role of procurement, the toxicity of the ‘sprint‘ or the outsourcing to AI to make things feel even worse.
And while this situation is no good for anyone – literally no one – what really bothered me was the fact this planner felt completely isolated by his boss, the team he worked into and the client he was working for.
Everyone appreciated the issue, but no one wanted to address it.
And there lies the fundamental issue that is killing the industry.
Because as I’ve said many times, the only way you get to make great things is if 3 things are present.
1. Clarity on what problem you are solving.
2. Shared responsibility in how that can be achieved.
3. Trust each other and be transparent with each other.
All three are needed all of the time.
And while that might seem like fantasy, I can tell you, it can – and does – happen, even though I appreciate it is seemingly becoming rarer and rarer.
But it can change, though it needs everyone to take responsibility for it – specifically senior people – because without that, the ‘stress reduction’ system shown at the top of this page will become the next global marketing tool found in every marketing department and ad agency around the World.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brands, Cliches, Collegues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Success
It’s been a while since I’ve had an all-out rant, but here we go.
So recently, I saw a quote recently I loved.
It was by Arnold Glasgow, the American businessman and satirist who said:
“Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have trying to change others”.
I say this because too many brands – and agencies – think they can.
Worse, they think they can with an ad … an ad that either tells people specifically what to do/what they should do and/or a list of product attributes that they believe will make someone immediately stop whatever it is they have been doing for decades and change tact because they’ve suddenly been ‘enlightened’.
Of course, this is not entirely the fault of agencies and clients.
Too often, it is backed up by some for-profit research group who has said their findings prove – without any possible doubt – this is what people will do and, even more importantly, want to do.
Now this is not an anti-research stance. Or an anti-agency or client diatribe.
The reality is we need some sort of foundation of information to make choices and decisions and research – when done well, like everything in life – is a universally established way to achieve that BUT … and it’s a big but … the definitive and delusional nature of how our industry talks borders on bonkers.
I get we don’t like risk.
I get what we do is bloody expensive.
I get there are big implications on getting things wrong.
But nothing – and I mean nothing – can be guaranteed and yet so much of the business acts like it can be, conveniently choosing to ignore the landfill of failings from organisations who have researched every part of everything they do for in every aspect of their life.
Sure, it can increase the odds of success … like advertising.
Sure, it is better than not doing anything at all … like advertising.
But everyone acting like whatever they are going to do is ‘a dead cert’ is an act of commercial complicity and co-dependency that borders on Comms Stockholm Syndrome.
A long time ago, when I was maybe a bit more of a menace, a media agency told a client – with me in the room – that they could guarantee they’d HIT their sales target if a particular amount was invested.
I asked, “but you don’t know what the idea is yet and surely that has a role in the level of impact and/or investment that needs to be made?” … to which they said their ‘proprietary data’ gave them the commercial insight that helped their clients achieve their goals.
So back at the office – pissed off – I sent them an email saying this was the work.
Obviously, it did not go down well, but then neither did their ‘strategy’ of just throwing money at the wall until they hit the magic number.
Again, I appreciate we all need information to base choices and decisions on, but we’re getting way too generalistic, simplistic and egotistic in our approaches and methodologies – which is why the sooner we remember how hard it is for us to change any part of who we are, the sooner we may start accepting it takes far more than a business goal … a focus group commentary … a marketing methodology or an ad to get people to even consider doing what you want them to do and so maybe – just maybe – it will encourage us all to start playing up to a new standards rather than down to complicit convenience.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath, which is why I finish this rant with a post that I saw recently I also loved – albeit with ‘paraphrased interpretation’.
Thankfully not everyone is like this.
As proven by the fact, they tend to be the ones behind the stuff we all wish we were behind.
Or as my friend said recently, ‘they’re the ones who play to create change, not communicate everything exactly the same’.
Oh, I feel better for that. Thank you for [not] reading, hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Bands, Brands, Cannes, Creativity, Delusion, Effectiveness, Grifting, Metallica, Miley, Mr Ji, Music, Paula, Planners, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin
When I was going to move to Australia, I was severely stressed.
Part of it was because it meant moving away from my beloved parents.
Part of it was because I would be leaving a job I loved and had worked hard it.
And part of it was because I was moving for a woman who I hadn’t known too long.
While I knew in my heart I wanted to do it, the risk of it was huge – personally, even more than professionally – so I went to see my first ever therapist to ask for help.
This was a big thing for a whole host of reasons – most of which was that ‘therapy’ was an American thing and not the sort of thing done widely in England. But I needed to talk to someone so having found someone relatively close, I went to them and explained my situation.
I’ll never forget his response.
“Yes, what I was thinking was full of risk but the highest risk always offered the greatest reward and I was going into it with my eyes wide open and I should embrace that fact”.
I’m not saying that was the comment that led to me doing it – having my parents support and encouragement was the most important thing – but it did help me feel more peace with my choice … and while my relationship with the woman I went there for, didn’t work out, I can honestly say that everything in my life to this day – bar my relationship with Paul and his ex-wife, Shelly – is because I went.
I say this because I read something that Jeff Bezos said recently that I loved. It was this:
Now I appreciate he is not suggesting you let go of all common sense in your business operations – and nor should you – but at a time where so many of the industry ‘guru’s’ are selling systems that claim to ‘guarantee success’ [when in all reality, they are promoting complicity and insurance] it’s a pleasant change to hear a positive take on being ‘experiment positive’.
Just recently I saw one ‘guru’ announce their new ‘success stack’ for effective marketing.
To great acclaim, they announced this is how you ensure your marketing is successful.
Now I am in no doubt there is value in what they’re selling, but the problem I have is their approach is so myopic, systemized and one-size-fits-all that at best, they’re simply ensuring you hit guideline metrics rather than achieve actual growth.
Add to that, they’ve never made any work of note and are simply analyzing work that has achieved success based on their definitions and metrics, that people should – at best – be treating it as a guide rather than a blueprint.
But no … our industry is so messed up right now, we value the words of – excuse the analogy, because it’s not a good one – the pundits rather than the players.
By that, I mean those who are paid to find fault versus those who create change.
As I said in our speech at Cannes a few weeks ago, it’s like saying that because music has mathematical contexts behind it, we should trust a school maths teacher more than an actual musician.
We’ve gone mad. Or at least, deliberately ignorant.
Of course I appreciate risk is scary for companies.
I also get the numbers involved are huge and the implications even bigger.
But for all the talk of grawth and effectiveness we, as an industry, are far too comfortable playing within the rules, systems and codes of people whose entire ‘for profit’ business model is built on igniting fear and judgement in what you do, when the brands and businesses that experience the greatest growth always allow creativity – in whatever form it takes – some space to play, explore and experiment.
Sure, it might be a relatively small percentage compared to their core business, but they do it and do it without the boundaries and limitations that we are continually forced to adhere to, because they see it as a commercially important investment rather than an act of marketing practice defiance.
And given so many brands are currently acting, looking and communicating the same thing in the same way – because of their blind adherence to certain people’s one-size-fits-all marketing practice protocols, I’d argue there’s less risk leaving space for experimenting than there is following the same systems as everyone else.
Or to quote David Richards – from Paula and my talk at Cannes – it may explain why ‘companies have consumers but artists have fans.
[Of course, the ‘factual’ reason behind my declaration is that I work for the the most profitable luxury Retailer in the World, the most successful fashion and street culture investor in global fashion, the fastest growing eyewear brand on the planet and – of course – the 2nd most successful American band in music history, among others]
As an aside, if you’re interested in hearing the talk Paula and I gave, drop us a line here. If there’s enough interest, maybe we can do it. Not because we think it what we presented is THE ONLY way brands should think, but to ensure no one is daft enough to think there is only one way fullstop.
Happy weekend.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.