Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Business, Clients, Colleagues, Leadership, Management, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Technology
It’s March. Bloody March.
And it’s also Monday. How much change can one person deal with?!
Anyway, when I was young, I had 3 ways to be sociable.
1. Go outside and see who was there.
2. Go to a friends house and knock on their door.
3. Ring my friends house and see if they were in.
That. Was. It.
And you know what … I did the second one most of all.
Didn’t matter what day it was.
Didn’t matter what time it was [as long as it wasn’t at ‘dinner time’ and/or after 8pm]
Didn’t even matter where they lived. I did it … and so did every other kid I knew.
And it’s because of this, we were OK with whatever the outcome was … mainly because we went with hope rather than expectation. So even if they were in but weren’t allowed out, you’d of had some sort of physical interaction to work out where you stood.
I say this because someone recently sent me this …
… and I wondered if people even know how to do this anymore, let alone do it anymore?
Yes, I know you only have to like an update on Linkedin to get some fucker sending you an unsolicited message … but I’m not talking about those pricks, I’m talking about people who put themselves out there and engage someone in person, rather than hide behind emails, text messages or DM’s?
Maybe you think that because my generation are the last who HAD to do this, we’d still be OK with doing this … but truth be told, if someone so much as knocks on our door unannounced – be it friends or family – most of us would have to be physically restrained from calling the Police on their ass.
On one level, I get it … why put yourself in a position of awkwardness when you can find other ways to do it that are less confronting or confrontational. Except by outsourcing our interest to technology – or an intermediary – we lose something.
A way to show the other person matters.
A way to show you’ve really thought about what you want to say or do.
A way to show you’re willing to fail to say something you hope they’ll value.
I have a client who only deals in the face-to-face.
Sure, you can make an appointment to see him, but his attitude is if someone goes out of their way to come and see him, they’re worth more than those who only engage behind tech.
Even more so, if they only engage when they ‘want something’ – albeit wrapped up in the claims of ‘opportunity’.
Sure, it’s pretty old school, and he’s pretty old … though to be fair, the artists I work for also want their core team present for the big meetings rather than be on zoom etc – but that’s not why he does it [and I assume why they don’t either] because for him it’s all about trust and respect. By that I mean ‘earning it’ and ‘proving it’.
And maybe that’s the biggest difference between then and now.
Because back then, you knew you had to earn the right to have a chance of letting good happen. Now, too many expect it.
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: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Clients, Clothes, Comment, Community, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Disney, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Luxury, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Membership, Netflix, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Popularity, Process, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Social Divide, Social Media, Strategy, Stupid
Once upon a time, I was asked to help a client based in Thailand.
They were very successful – having made Thailand the most profitable market in the World for their particular brand.
Anyway, part of the project involved a workshop and part of that workshop was about identifying new variants for their product.
So far, so good.
Until I realized they weren’t looking at this to expand who could become a customer of theirs, but how to get existing customers to buy more of what they make.
Even that was OK, until it became apparent they believed their product was so loved, their customers would continually fill their shopping baskets with 3 or 4 different versions of the same product because they just liked the ability to consume it in more places at more times.
In short, they believed the more versions of their product they made, the more volume of products their customers would buy.
Every time.
Forget that people have a finite amount of money.
Forget that people have other bills, items, people to look after.
They believed, if you made it … people would just blindly buy.
It’s the same blinkered approach that some sales organizations have.
Where they believe if one salesman brings in a million dollars of revenue a year, hiring 11 more will mean they achieve 12 million dollars of revenue.
It’s both blinkered thinking and wishful thinking.
Or – as my father used to say – “the expansion of logic without logic”.
I say this because it feels companies are viewing the subscription model in a similar way.
Once upon a time, subscriptions were seen as the exciting new thing for business.
A new way to charge for your products and services … regardless that ‘direct debit’ payments had been around for years.
There were 3 key reasons why repositioning cost as a subscription was so appealing:
1 It lowered the barrier to entry, so it could appeal to more/new customers.
2 They knew that while customers ‘could’ cancel at any time, data showed most wouldn’t.
3 It could, in theory, allow them to charge more per month than their old annual fee.
And they were right, it proved to be a revelation … until it wasn’t.
Right now, everything is seemingly a subscription model.
Food.
Clothes.
Streaming.
Gym and health.
Car purchasing.
But the one that really is making me laugh, are phone apps.
It’s almost impossible to download anything without it being a subscription service.
And that would be OK, except the prices they want to charge are getting out of control.
I recently downloaded a recipe app that wanted $14.99 A WEEK. A FUCKING WEEK.
$60 a month just so I could send it healthy recipes I see on social media and have them all in one, easy-to-access place.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Sure, it had some features that would make it more convenient than just putting it into a saved folder on instagram … but it sure-as-shit isn’t worth me paying more than it costs me for Netflix, Disney+ and Spotify PUT TOGETHER.
I appreciate everyone thinks their product is the best product.
I acknowledge it takes a lot of hard work and money to make a new product.
But the removal of any ‘human reality context’ – ie: how much money do people actually have available to spend, and the hierarchy of importance they place on the things they spend – is not just stupid, it destroys the potential of good ideas.
Of course, part of the reason for this is because of how tech investment works.
Basically investors want big returns, very fast … so this pushes developers to build economic models based on a ‘perfect scenario’ situations.
For perfect scenario, read: not real life.
So they show things like:
The economic value of the health industry.
The impact of social media on diet choices.
The rise of health-focused products and services.
And before you know it, they’ve extrapolated all this ‘data’ to come up with a price point of $60 per month and said it not only offers good value, but will generate huge returns on the investment in collapsed time.
Except …
+ All this is theory because they haven’t talked to anyone who would actually use it.
+ They probably haven’t identified who they need to use it beyond ‘health seekers’.
+ And they absolutely haven’t understood it costs a lot of money to be healthy and so an additional $60 subscription for the average person is a cost too far … especially when things they use ALL THE TIME – like Netflix [which they already think is too expensive] – is a quarter of that cost FOR THE MONTH.
I get no one likes to hear problems.
I appreciate anyone can find faults if they really want to.
But being ‘objective’ is not about killing ideas – when done right – it’s about enabling them to thrive, which is why I hope business stops looking at audiences in ‘the zoo’ and starts respecting them in ‘the jungle’ … because not only will it mean good ideas stand more chance of becoming good business, it also means people will have more access to things that could actually help them, without it destroying them in other ways.
As perfectly expressed by Clint, the founder of Corteiz …
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Childhood, Clients, Comment, Confidence, Creative Development, Creativity, Dad, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Family, Friendship, Loyalty, Marketing Fail, Mum, Mum & Dad, Tom Stoppard
First of all a huge thanks to all the people who got in touch about my good eye news yesterday. Given how much your support through the challenge of last year meant to me, you just added the icing on the top.
So back to the post …
A while back, the great playwright, Tom Stoppard, died.
His death affected me because he was someone my family didn’t just respect highly, but knew well.
Especially my Auntie Silvana, who first met him when they worked at the iconic Aldwych theatre, London.
If truth be told, I’d not thought about Tom for years but on hearing he had died, I realized the people in my life who would be the most upset at this news – namely my Mum, Dad and Aunt – had all gone, and somehow that made the news the more potent.
Unsurprisingly, news of Tom’s passing led to many stories about him being told in the international media.
Stories about his talent.
Stories about his stories.
And stories about his integrity.
The word integrity is one that is often overused and incorrectly used.
Too often used to justify a one-off decision and/or a small act of consciousness within a big pattern of complicit acts.
But Tom wasn’t like that.
Even those who would label his decisions as ‘stubborn’ would grudgingly acknowledge – and respect – he was simply being Tom. Doing what he said he would do, regardless of opportunity, pressure, money or fame.
At a time where people and companies will seemingly destroy any relationship, promise or agreement for the ability to squeeze out $1 more than they had before … it’s beautiful Stoppard would never entertain doing such a thing.
Nothing sums this up more than this story of when Spielberg wanted him to write the screenplay for Jaws …
Isn’t that amazing?
It was also smart … because not only did it make Spielberg want to work with him even more, it had the same effect with the people at the BBC.
As I wrote a while back, our industry loves to talk about integrity and relationships but rarely seems to understand what those words actually mean, let alone how deeply entwined and interconnected they are.
As I wrote a while back about a private client of mine – the biggest street fashion investor and most profitable retailer on the planet – powerful, valuable and sustainable relationships aren’t built on convenience, but on inconvenience … and how your actions, honesty, transparency and focus continually demonstrate how you never lose sight of what you’re building together, how you want to build it and what each other is able to do because of it.
Also known as integrity.
Thank you Tom. We need more people like you … or at least acting like you.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Career, Clients, Collaboration, Comment, Complicity, Conformity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Freelance, Honesty, Individuality, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Strategy
OK, I’ve given you a couple of days of niceish posts to help ease you into the new year, so I think it’s time I write some stuff that lets out some of my seemingly endless frustrations – ha.
As we all know, there’s a ton of talk about the longevity of the industry with things like corporate consolidation, AI and processes and systems.
I get that and there should be that … but what bothers me is a lot of the conversations are not focused on what got us here.
Because for all the talk about the obsession with efficiency and the ‘illusion’ of effectiveness, what is rarely discussed is the lack of investment in training.
Don’t get me wrong,’outsourced, for profit’ training programs have their role and value in developing skills – even if many have been devised by people who have often never even worked directly in the industry, let alone made anything of note within it – but so much of this is about creating industry conformity, rather than creation.
Worse, it’s industry conformity often based on an individuals definition of what good work is … which is ALWAYS self-serving for them.
And while – as I said – it still offers some sort of value, it also actively devalues individual talent, potential, craft and creativity.
Or said another way, it allows all the things we are spending so much energy complaining about – to thrive.
Add to that too many people only wanting to develop in a bid to get more money – rather than more ability – and you can see how we got where we’re sitting.
But what bothers me most is how some companies are reacting and responding to this shift.
I don’t mean agencies – who, in the main, are not exactly shining with their ‘strategies’ – but companies.
Because for all the demands they have in terms of expectations and standards, they end up showing nothing really matters as much as cost and time.
Part of this is because – sadly – many companies don’t know the difference between quality and quantity.
Part of this is because – even more sadly – there is a lack of training in their organizations as well, so they’re only empowered to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’.
Part of this is – possibly most tragic of all – is that many companies have put themselves in a position where they have allowed procurement to be the ultimate decision maker – despite the fact the only thing most know about other industries is how to ‘compare prices’.
Case in point …
Recently I spoke to a strategist who is not just incredibly experienced, but is pretty incredible.
By that I mean the work they’ve done and the impact they have enabled.
And yet, despite all this, they’re finding it hard to find work … exemplified by recently losing out on a project where – objectively – they would be one of the most qualified people in the entire industry to do this job.
They didn’t lose out because they weren’t known.
They didn’t lose out because they weren’t available.
They lost out because the company thought they could ‘hack the system’ by hiring someone who had worked at the same company as the strategist in question, who was asking for a much lower fee.
Now I get – on face value – that sounds a smart move.
Except that was the only requirement for hiring this person.
They ignored the fact these strategists didn’t work in the same office.
They ignored the fact these strategists didn’t work on the same clients or category.
They ignored the fact they never worked or interacted together.
They ignored the fact one strategist has led work, the other has just supported it.
They ignored the fact one strategist has 16 years of experience, the other has under 5.
They ignored the fact one strategist is at a ‘head of planning’ level, the other is ‘strategist’.
I should point out this does not mean the strategist they chose isn’t good – I know who they are and they have some interesting perspectives – but their experience, context, exposure to senior leaders and overall ability is miles off what the other strategist in question has to offer. There is literally no comparison.
Now this is not their fault … with time, I imagine their abilities [like all of us] will increase dramatically, or it will if they are exposed to people who are willing to develop them, rather than expect them to just execute which sadly – even if they had a full-time job – is increasingly seen as a ‘cost’ rather than an investment … but while I have no desire to deny anyone the ability to make a living [especially young talent who have been forced out of jobs because of costs, workload or mental health] everyone is going to lose here.
Everyone.
The ultra-qualified strategist has to look for another job.
The strategist who has been hired is going to only execute based on their frame-of-reference and standards which, as I pointed out, is not what a job of this magnitude requires. And that’s before we even consider how much this job could hold back their development because they’re not being paid to learn, they’re being paid to do.
The company ends up having a solution that doesn’t liberate the opportunity they have … or the issues they need to contend with.
Of course, where you work has a huge impact on how you grow … and the place both these strategists worked, is excellent.
But there’s a massive difference between being there a few years and many years – not just in terms of the work you do, but the challenges and growth you are exposed to – and so when companies choose to deliberately ignore this … be it for cost, convenience or control reasoning … not only are they undermining their own business, they’re undermining the potential of the person they hired and so we all end up contributing to the situation we’re complaining about while also being blinkered towards.
Train properly.
Pay properly.
Place value on experience, standards and craft.
If you don’t, the position of mayhem that we’re in now will be seen as one of the golden ages of where we’ll end up.
Happy New Year … hahaha.