Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Complicity, Corporate Evil, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity
First post of the 20th year of this blog … and it may even be good.
Or less shit than 99% of the last 20 years of posts.
Plus – and here’s the added bonus, especially for a Monday, I’m away for work for the rest of the week – so this is the only post you’re going to have to endure. If only the rest of my ‘post-20 years’ blogging was the same. Except it won’t. Not yet anyway. [Cue: Evil Laugh]
Anyway …
A few weeks ago, The Guardian interviewed David Chase – creator of The Sopranos, widely acknowledged as one of the best pieces of television in the history of television.
He’s a fascinating character – strong willed, challenging, complicated, textured, stubborn and opinionated – but always grounded in a desire to do the right thing, the right way.
Which may explain his open distain for the attitude, approach and behaviour of so many television executives as this quote captures perfectly.
[As an aside, my Dad once told me when he was starting out in law, he was advised by a senior partner to “get used to eating client shit”. Apparently, when he asked why, he was told it was how to get rich to which he apparently replied, “I’d rather eat my own shit and be able to look at myself in the mirror” … which not only highlights how every industry suffers from egotistical and delusional leadership, but I am far too similar to my Dad than even I may have suspected – haha]
Anyway, as the world is all a bit shit right now and all our industry ‘leaders’ are talking about is ‘efficiency and productivity’ [read: so they can justify cutting jobs for AI and pretend they’re business geniuses, even though – as David Chase also said – most C-Suite are like Golden Retrievers, licking their customers faces every night and asking ‘do you like me?’] I thought I’d offer a bit of a Monday antidote to all this bleakness.
OK, if truth be told, it won’t fix the trajectory we’re all heading – we need to come together do that – but if you believe in the craft of storytelling and know the pain of dealing with corporate leaders who know fuck-all about what quality is, let alone what it takes to create it [but think they do because they’ve mistakenly/conveniently decided their ‘big title’ represents ‘superior wisdom’ when often, it’s more about their willingness to exploit others for the benefits of their bottom line] … this will make you feel all warm inside as you read how even Grade-A, internal-fuckery can’t always stop greatness from being able to flourish.
How’s that for inspiring a better Monday morning?
You can read David’s interview here. Enjoy.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Colenso, Comment, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Efficiency
That’s right … creativity helps business make money.
I know there’s a bunch of people who like to claim otherwise, but they’re wrong.
More than that, creativity can help business make money in ways traditional approaches can’t.
Be it distribution, market share, heritage, price-point, tradition, routine, apathy, complexity and god knows what else … creativity always finds a way because – as Martin Weigel and I explained at Cannes back in 2023 – creativity can do what logic can’t.
This blog has literally thousands of examples of it.
From making me, a teetotaler, buy alcohol to making a print ad, produce sound waves to making pasta look even more beautiful than it tastes to making drinking beer from a bottle, an act of love … to helping shelter dogs become adoptable dogs, creativity is a beautiful and powerful thing.
But here’s the thing …
Creativity may always start with the mind, but it needs to be turned into something for it to change something.
I’m fed up of hearing people talking about creativity rather than doing something with it.
Or about it.
Sure, you can argue talking can also bring change … but to me, that’s a cop out.
Creativity needs to be allowed to make an impact.
It needs to be allowed to grow into something powerful and interesting.
Because if you inhibit that, you’re not ‘being safe’, you’re taking the biggest gamble of your life.
History is littered with examples of success that could never of happened or imagined without the influence of creativity.
Creativity helped make hundreds of millions want to become an athlete.
Creativity helped make Americans try sushi.
Creativity helped make the best selling calculator of all time.
For all the consultants out there, flogging their self serving, one-size-fits-all systems, frameworks and models … the inconvenient truth is this.
Business needs creativity more than creativity needs business.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Colleagues, Comment, Complicity, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Planes, Planners, Planning, Process, Success, Teamwork
I appreciate the title of this post may suggest I am advocating kissing colleagues or clients – but HR and legal executives around the world, stand down – because this is a post that reminds us of the importance of, Keeping It Simple, Stupid.
Phew.
Anyway, years ago, one of my mentors – the wonderful Lee Hill – told me something that had a profound effect on me.
“When their solution is more complicated than your problem, why would you do it?”
The point he was making was there are a lot of companies out there who care more about showing-off how smart they are than addressing their clients actual need and so the result is they propose a lot of ‘complexity’ to either justify their price or to satisfy their ego.
There’s one place in my past that embodied this.
300-page decks.
Incredible amounts of technical detail.
An emphasis on their approach more than the problem.
Don’t get me wrong, they were good, had a bunch of talented people and did some truly brilliant work … however the problem [at least for me] was that every challenge ended up being approached in basically the same way because their way was to fit every client problem into how they worked rather than adapt their way of working to solve what the client problem actually needed.
By that, I’m not suggesting they should only have looked for simplistic solutions.
Nor am I suggesting they should have ignored their specific skills and talent.
And I’m not in any way suggesting they didn’t want to help their clients.
However, while you could argue many companies approach their work in a similar way, they were the only ones who seemed to revel in actively showing how complicated their ‘solutions’ were, which may explain why they revered consultancies more than creativity and why there was as much complexity inside the organization as there was in their recommendations.
Which reminds me of a story I’ve told many times:
Decades ago, the US navy were looking for a new fighter jet.
Over a series of days, the admiralty invited executives from the main fighter plane developers to come pitch their ideas.
Each day, a mass of engineers would walk into a room featuring a long table surrounded by highly awarded officers to explain why their plane was the one they should invest the billions of US tax dollars into.
On the last day, 3 people from Lockhead Martin walked into the room.
One went up to the end of the table, produced a ball-bearing and – in true Hollywood style – rolled it down the table.
As it slowly passed the Navy Officers, he stated:
“Gentleman, would you like a fighter jet that registers the size of this ball-bearing on the enemies’ radar? These gentlemen will explain how we can do it”.
They won the contract, which resulted in the iconic A-12.
The point of this is their approach was centered on identifying the clients real need – where all the other shit was stripped away – which allowed them to address the problem in a way where their solution could clearly, simply and powerfully express a focused benefit.
No complexity.
No ambiguity.
Just clarity.
Of course, building a plane is as complex-as-fuck, but by doing it this way everyone was not just focused on the prize, but united in the key objective.
Or as Michael Mann, the film director once told me:
“I explain how I see the movie I want to make to all the people in the team and ask them to bring their talent to make it even better than I hoped. But I remind them it’s how I see the movie, not how they wish I saw the movie”.
The point of this is because I saw something recently that I think is a brilliant example of ‘clarity thinking’.
Something I imagine that was full of challenges and complexity – both in terms of input and output – but has a solution that is compelling, unifying and simple for all parties and audiences.
This.
Don’t get me wrong, I know it takes a lot of hard work to be simple, but somewhere along the line, we seem to have forgotten that … and if you want proof of that, read some effectiveness papers, where it seems the goal is to bamboozle the reader rather than help them understand how everything leads to a single, simple, powerful solution.
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.