Filed under: Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Community, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Experience, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relevance, Reputation, Stupid, Talent, Technology
AI is one of the most talked-about subjects – not just in adland, but all of business.
As I’ve written many times, I think – when used properly – it’s ability to open-up doors and possibilities is revolutionary.
Not just commercially, but from a human enablement perspective.
However, too few companies like it for that reason … instead they’re excited by its ability to ‘optimise’ profits at the expense of hiring employees.
We’re hearing more and more companies getting rid of junior positions – either ‘outsourcing them’ to lower-cost nations [which sounds bonkers, given they’re already the lowest cost in an org] or simply replacing them with AI bots.
This is not pie-in-the-sky … it’s happening right now.
Hell, recently I met someone who’d recently left university who had applied for over 100 jobs at different companies despite having just spent 4 years studying full-time trying to learn the basics of how to get into it.
I find this reprehensible.
+ How is there going to be a future of any industry or company if we don’t let juniors come into the business?
+ How are companies going to evolve if they don’t let the energy and ideas of the young, shape their ideas and thoughts?
+ Why is it always junior people affected when not only are the C-suite, the best paid, but whose decisions and actions tend to be the easiest to predict. [Even more so when many ‘outsource’ their responsibilities to an external ‘for-profit’ consultants]
+ Why are their clients not kicking up a fuss when they’re literally ensuring the demise of their future customers – even though we all know the real reason why.
+ While I’m at it, why do companies expect their people to be loyal to them when so many are literally trying to delete them?
While I appreciate AI is still in its infancy and that even then, there are some incredible things it can do … in the realms of our day-to-day business, its core adoption appears to be focused far more on speed and volume rather than personalization and possibilities. And there’s nothing wrong with that except for the fact many AI models are aggregators who take source material and then promote the most balanced response. There is value in that … except when you are trying to develop value in your own originality, craft and specialization.
Said another way, the approach many companies and people adopt for AI is ‘short-cutting their way into commodotisation’.
As I said, it doesn’t have to be this way.
AI can be used in a multitude of ways to avoid this very outcome.
But in this fast-paced, instant-gratification, short-term-thinking, ego-promoting world … the emphasis of value is seemingly placed on the creation of noise over melody, which is why this comment about ‘the worst of AI’ [ie: what many companies adopt because the people authorizing its use don’t know/care about how it really works or the implications of it] hit me hard and should hit anyone who reads it in a similar way.
“Everything is a summary of something else. Bits regurgitated, vomited from someone else’s throat, then stirred and mixed together to reach that fluorescent level of flatness, the shiny turd of craft that lies in promptly created art” – is next-level viciousness. [In fact, I’ve not heard something spat out with such venom since Queen’s ‘Death On Two Legs’ lyrics]
And yet they are not wrong.
Maybe they’re pretty one-sided in their view, but given what we’ve already seen and seeing – especially from certain tech-leaders who declare they have the answer to making everything better, regardless of category [which always seems to come down to: ‘use our tech and no one else’s because we’re the best’] – not wrong.
Of course, we all like to think we’re the exception to the rule.
That we’re doing it right and everything else is what ‘other people do’.
But the question we need to stop and ask when using AI is this:
Are we playing for a better future or down to a personal convenience?
Sadly, only AI can probably answer that objectively … and that’s only until the people behind it realise they need to stop any possibility their business plans and ambitions could be undermined by revealing the truth of its blind adoption.
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: Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Consultants, Contribution, Creative Development, Creativity, Dance, Devious Strategy
After the relatively heavy post of yesterday, let’s go on a tangent that I am pretty certain even a protractor wouldn’t be able to measure.
This is a post about dance.
That’s 6 words I am pretty sure you never thought you’d read on here.
But the reality is, I am pretty besotted with dance, just like I am pretty besotted with anything when the person doing it is not only good at it, but is committed to being their best at it, in the moment they are doing it.
That’s more than just talent, that’s a commitment to your own representation and recently I saw the incredible Farrah Ozuuna Wilson, perform a masterclass in giving your all.
It was this.
Now it is pretty obvious Farrah Ozuuna Wilson is – among other things – a professional dancer, but my god, I must have watched this clip of her a hundred times.
I love it.
I love the moment she ‘switches’ from casual to fully committed.
She’s all in, take-no-prisoners, fierce as absolute fuck.
It’s beautiful, frightening, inspiring and exhausting all at the same time.
And yet you come away from it in awe …
Not just at her obvious talent, nor to the obvious hours, months and years she has put into being brilliant at her art … but to her dedication to ensuring when she performs, she will leave nothing to be second guessed or misinterpreted.
You may not like it.
You may not understand it.
But you sure-as-shit are going to know everything she did was her choice and decision.
And yet, you are in absolute no doubt she is enjoying herself.
Both in terms of the control she has over her entire body and the power she can create, generate and express with every part of it.
This is an athlete performing at the peak of their powers.
Unstoppable.
Unquestionable.
Playing to win, never to just get by.
Michael Jordan was the same.
A relentless desire to be great at all costs.
Never phoning it in. Never accepting good enough. Never just being interested.
And while that didn’t guarantee he’d always win, it did guarantee he was always committed to the core. And demanded that of those who were around him – because as amazing as he was, he still knew he needed them to raise their game to stand a chance of getting the result his standards and ambition needed.
And that’s why I love how Farrah dances, because we are witnessing seeing someone who respects their art and themselves enough to always go all in on all they do.
So if a bald, white, 54 year old – who has no dancing talent or experience – can see it, you can be sure people can tell the difference between a brand who means what they say or is spouting ‘purpose bollocks’ in the mistaken belief people can’t tell the difference or worse, their marketing team don’t know the difference.
The reality is truth is more than just what you say.
It’s also more than just what you do … even if it is following the rules someone else has said needs to be adhered to.
It is – as in most things in life – always about how you do it and that is never impacted by place, time or occasion.
There’s a lot we can learn from Farrah, and it’s transcends her incredible ability in dance.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Collaboration, Comment, Community, Confidence, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Mediocrity, Money, Respect, Revenge, Standards, Strategy
One of the toughest things about doing your own thing is payment.
Not asking for it, getting it.
One of the worst situations I ever had was a company – who I obviously no longer work with – who took seven months to pay.
SEVEN.
Not because they were having a hard time.
Not because they lost my invoice information.
But because they thought they could.
And you know what, they could … because in the big scheme of things, I was a mosquito in terms of their ‘suppliers’ and so I was ignored as a priority.
Again.
And again.
And again.
But you know what else mosquitos can be?
Annoying little fuckers and I used that experience to learn from my mistakes, resulting in an updated set of T&C’s that now contain clauses that state – the longer the delay in their payment, based on pre-agreed terms – the more implications they will be subjected to.
It starts off with a relatively small % increase, based on what is owed, added to the bill.
Then there is an increase in the % of a more significant amount.
And then finally, they grant me approval of being able to publicly shame them as well as charge them – up to $1000 – for the costs of ‘advertising’.
Have I ever had to use it?
Well, I have in terms of increasing the amount owed due to late payment, but never anything more than that …
In fact, when dealing with companies with a procurement department, that is the ‘clause’ they generally always demand is removed to which I always respond in the same way:
“Are you intending on delaying my payment for work undertaken?”
Have I lost work because of this approach?
Yep … I have, but not only do I not want to work with people who knowingly withhold payment, I also am of the attitude that chasing up monies is also ‘loss of work’.
I get it’s economically tough out there.
I also appreciate I’m speaking from a position of privilege and good fortune.
And while I’ve not had too many problems regarding getting paid from the people/companies I’ve worked with in the past, I know many do.
In fact, what they tell me is it’s the companies who talk about their values and commitment to best practice who are the worst to pay on time.
Which is why if you’re a sole trader or a freelancer – or are thinking about it – you need to get comfortable with respecting your own value.
You should not feel lucky to be paid for the work you have done.
And while it’s fair to say companies are in a position of power in a lot of relationships, your approach and attitude can help even up the score.
Not by being an asshole, but by being clear in what you will and won’t accept.
Including the small print in your T&C’s.
Anyone going out on their own is doing something special. But those who do it ‘hoping’ it will work out are being complicit in their own troubles.
So to try and stop you making the same mistakes I’ve made – as well as learn the good lessons I’ve been fortunate enough to receive – here are some posts that may/may not be of some use.
Good luck. It’s tough, but my god it is rewarding.
Harrison Ford and the value of value.
Michael Keaton thinking like a small business.
How Metallica’s management appreciate value.
Relationships build business.
Procurement departments are just playing a game called ‘negotiation’.
Know what you’re in the business of actually delivering.
Don’t want something so much you do the wrong things to get the business you want.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Cliches, Clothes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Context, Craft, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Delusion, Distinction, Equality, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, London, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a post about naming strategies.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this before.
A lot of times before.
The processes.
The considerations.
The complications.
… but mainly it’s been about how certain branding consultancies charge an absolute fortune to come up with some utter nonsensical bullshit that they back up with 1000’s of pages of self-serving pseudo-science bullshit and still end up creating something pants. Kind of like the explanation of the Pepsi rebrand from 15 years ago. Or most Linkedin ‘guru’ pontification.
But the other side of this is when people choose to put no effort in whatsoever.
Hiding their recommendation behind terms such as ‘colloquial context’ or ‘cultural vernacular’.
Don’t get me wrong, there are times where a stripped back approach can be powerful.
A way to connect to society by taking their cultural references and contexts head-on.
Hell, cynic used to embrace an approach that we literally called, ‘unplanned‘.
However, while this was about removing any element of pomposity, it still had to elevate how people saw or connected to what we did. Any fool can churn out lowest common denominator stuff … but it takes a certain amount of skill and flair to develop something that not only connects and engages the masses, but does it in a way where the value of the product/brand is increased and improved to all.
We used to call this ‘massperation’ … which still makes me feel sick even today, hahahaha.
I say all this to justify something I saw recently.
Or should I say something Otis saw recently.
You see down the road from us there’s a house being built.
It’s in full-on construction mode and as it is on the way to Otis’ school, he passes it every day.
Anyway, one day he came and told me he’d seen the building site loo and was shocked with its name.
It was this:
That’s right, it’s called the ‘Shitbox’.
To be honest, I’m not sure if Otis should have been more surprised at the name or the fact it proudly states it’s a ‘high viz’ toilet box.
HIGH FUCKING VIZ!
Is the toilet going to be walking along the street late at night? Do builders have such bad eyesight they can’t find a 6 foot high toilet without it being painted bright orange? Are construction workers such bad drivers they need to be warned of where the portaloos are so as not to hit them?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Anyway, I digress.
The point is that while calling the portaloo a ‘shitbox’ may make sense … I can’t help but feel it is also playing into the builder cliche. Sure, cliches happen because they represent a common behavior or attitude that is played out over a sustained period of time … but often this is only a ‘perceived’ behavior or attitude [usually promoted by an individual or organisation who have found a way to monetise the acceptance of this view] that victimizes anyone who does not live upto the cliche.
I appreciate you may think I’ve gone full-on woke … but apart from the fact I don’t think considering others is a bad thing, I see this behaviour over and over again.
Hell, even Jaguar – with their ‘interesting’ rebrand did it by revealing their new concept cars in pink and blue.
PINK AND FUCKING BLUE.
They made such a big deal about how they ‘delete ordinary’, ‘break moulds’ and ‘copy nothing’ and then they actively, loudly and proudly reinforce the most basic of gender stereotypes. On the World fucking stage!
I totally appreciate you can go over-the-top with this stuff – especially given this whole post was inspired by a building site portaloo. I also get people may think I am suggesting we should name products/brands with words that offer no defining characteristic to avoid any potential stereotype. But neither of those are what I’m trying to say.
All I am attempting to point out is that words matter. And while I fully appreciate naming is a difficult task, I find it fascinating companies spend millions on ‘solutions’ that tend to fall into either pompous, basic or made-up.
Or said another way, names that define, limit or pander rather than celebrate those who use them and the reasons they do.