The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]


Why Wrong Reveals The Systems Limitations Rather Than The Participants …

I recently saw this piece of brilliance …

Isn’t it awesome?

Of course some people will think it’s cute … but wrong.

Whereas others may think it’s cute … and smart.

Putting aside the fact the responsibility for clarity of communication is with the communicator, not the recipient – which means the exam board have to accept their role in the answer given – it also highlights how one persons ‘normal’ is another persons ‘lateral thinking’.

I know that sounds a big leap for what is a young kids incorrect/correct answer to an exam question … but at a time where the British PM wants to kill the arts and freedom of expression for kids in schools – in favour of even more logical and rational studies – it’s a sign how early we try to destroy/control/devalue the imaginations of the young.

What I find ironic about the British PM’s stance is that he seems to be of the belief that having people study maths for longer will make everything better.

Putting aside the fact that much of the UK’s global influence – ignoring the violent invasions of other countries – has come from the arts, that’s a big call to make.

Even more so when you consider the financial mess the UK is in right now, has come from the hands of the very people he wants to encourage more of.

As a parent this situation is very difficult.

Of course we want our children to be set up to embrace life. But if they’re all being taught the same thing … in the same way … without consideration of what their own personal talents, interests and abilities are … then are you actually preparing them to thrive or simply survive?

Recently Otis got diagnosed with a learning difficulty.

I say difficulty, but really it’s a complication.

It’s called Dysgraphia.

While this doesn’t affect his ability to learn, it does affect how he does it and what he may be able to do because of it.

We are incredibly grateful the school he goes to – Birkenhead Primary – not only embraced this situation by changing the way he could engage and present his schoolwork. They did it by specifically tailoring their classes and approach to ensure Otis could participate in ways that actively played to his strengths while maintaining the pace of everyone’s learning. And if that wasn’t impressive enough … they were the ones who first noticed there may be an area of challenge for him and were proactive in acting on it.

The impact of this approach on Otis has been enormous.

Not just in areas of his schoolwork that were being impacted because of dysgraphia, but in his overall confidence, enjoyment and willingness to participate.

He has always been a kid who tries hard and wants to do the right thing [so definitely more like Jill than me] … but thanks to his teachers, he now feels he can express himself fully rather than having to become a smaller version of himself in an attempt to find a way to get through certain areas of class that challenged him because of his dysgraphia rather than his ability.

Frankly I doubt this would have happened if we were still in the UK.

Not because the teachers aren’t as good, but because the system doesn’t allow the sort of deviation of approach that Otis’ school created for him.

What’s scary is Sunak’s attitude towards education will only make this situation for kids like Otis, even harder.

Either actively leaving them behind or setting them up for a life of anxiety, guilt and feelings of inadequacy. And yet it doesn’t have to be that way.

So many of these complications aren’t barriers to learning capacity, just accessibility.

A bit of flexibility can unlock the full potential of a child, especially with the power of technology these days.

But the schooling system is increasingly about ‘targets’ rather than learning.

Preparing you for exams rather than life.

Systems rather than needs.

And while I totally accept creating an education system that caters to the masses as well as the edges is incredibly difficult, having a one-dimensional system that ‘succeeds’ by forcing compliance and oppression is not the solution either.

What the British PM needs to understand is making kids study maths for longer isn’t going to solve the UK’s economic woes. But maybe designing an education system that enables teachers to help kids learn how to play to their strengths, is.

Or to paraphase Sir Ken Robinson … see creativity and imagination as a strength, not a weakness.

We’re so lucky Otis’ school values potential rather than parity … but I can’t help but wonder how many other clever kids are out there who have been written off simply because the system would not allow for them to be recognised, embraced and helped.

When will certain governments understand an educated generation is a successful nation?

Probably when they understand school should be about learning not teaching and it’s an investment rather than a cost.

Comments Off on Why Wrong Reveals The Systems Limitations Rather Than The Participants …


Delusional Education …
November 8, 2022, 8:15 am
Filed under: America, Education, Innovation

I was walking through the airport in San Fran when I saw this billboard …

Now I accept I didn’t go to university.

I acknowledge I got 2% in Mrs Kirk’s math class.

But even with that incredible lack of academic achievement, the last thing I equate with innovation is the legal industry.

Especially the highly litigigous American legal industry.

I appreciate a lot of this view was influenced by my Dad and his experience and work in the US, but it doesn’t take much digging to see the role of the US legal industry is to provide rich clients with the assurance no one can question, challenge or undermine them.

In other words, oppress rather than liberate.

Which is why I think what the ad should say is:

Come to the University of New Hampshire. We’ve been helping stifle progress, fairness and justice since 1866 … that’s even before the American bar association.

Comments Off on Delusional Education …


Politicians Need To Represent Us, Not Judge Us …
August 11, 2022, 6:45 am
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Culture, Education, England

Rishi Sunak, the potential Tory leader, has laid out a three-point plan to transform education in the UK – including that statement in the photo above.

Yep, he wants to ‘phase out university degrees that do not improve students’ earning potential’.

What the absolute fuck?

Apart from the fact the easiest way to transform education is to actually invest in schools and teachers across the country rather than continue to see anything other than private education as a wasted expense – mainly because they all went to private schools so have a misguided and warped view of what teaching, learning and intelligence actually is or can be – can you imagine what their idea of subjects worthy of a degree actually are?

There will be no arts. [Waste of money]

No history. [Except about Britain, presumably]

No languages. [As it supports Brexit and immigration]

The only thing we’ll see are subjects related to business, maths and maybe law.

I cannot tell you how angry I got reading his ‘plans’.

Those degrees he hates, aren’t worthless. They’re life.

They’re what helps stops society fall down a blackhole of endless repetition, mediocrity and middle-management.

A production line of duplicate attitudes, approaches, values and experiences.

Not only that, those degrees that ‘do not improve earning potential’ contribute far more to the economy than he knows or wants to admit … even with their best efforts of killing it.

Like those gun lobbyists in America whose attitude towards stopping ‘gun attacks’ is to either give more guns out to people or make schools buy bullet proof rooms… not forgetting those pricks who have decided woman can/can’t choose what is right for their own bodies … Sunak and the rest of his Tory scum seem to think the best way to help a generation they’ve actively and purposefully robbed of hope through deliberate acts of underfunding, denial and obstacles is to tell them what they should find valuable and what they should do for the rest of their life.

10 years ago I wrote a post about a Dad who wrote a letter to his son about his impending liberal arts education.

I suggest every Tory – and parent – should read it, even if they will never understand it.

We all want the best for our kids.

We all know education is a vital part of that.

But it blows my mind that so many people – including those in power – fail to understand the better the education we give to all – not just the privileged – the better the chances people, communities and the country as a whole will have to prosper.

Or said another way …

Education can help a nation achieve what all politicians say they are there to make happen.

Which highlights that Tories don’t actually want that to happen. They just want it to happen for people like them. Rich people. Rich, white people.

But here’s the thing, private education does not automatically guarantee smart people come out the other side. Yes, they have more advantage and opportunity … which they would pretty much have anyway given they generally come from affluent families … but there is plenty of evidence to suggest many create more myopic, self-focused and damaged individuals.

And here’s the thing …

In a world that is increasingly encouraging, valuing and producing the same thing over and over again, we need to remember the arts aren’t worthless to society and economies … they create the value in the known and reveal the opportunities in the things Rishi and mob would never see on their own.

Fuck the Tories.

Comments Off on Politicians Need To Represent Us, Not Judge Us …


Leave Them Wanting Less …

Despite using examples that probably featured perspectives that were the opposite of every MBA case study they had read, it all went pretty well.

I got a bunch of questions and even received some lovely notes from people in attendance.

But the reality is, I kind of ensured that the end would be remembered better than the beginning.

You see Otis saw me writing my talk and asked if he was in it.

So I added this as the last slide.

Which means regardless what went on before, the ending was always going to be perfect.

#Strategy

Comments Off on Leave Them Wanting Less …


You Can’t Stand Out If You Want To Be The Same As Everyone Around You …

Tone of voice has always made me smile.

A list of cliched terms that somehow supposedly captures the distinctive characteristics of a brand, despite using 90% of the same language.

Fun … but aspirational.
Premium … but approachable.
Smart.
Human.
Innovative.

Blah … blah … blah …

What ends up happening is two things.

1 It ends up all coming down to a ‘look’.
2 It ends up with some people ‘getting the brand’ but never being able to articulate what it is beyond those same cliched words every brand uses
.

That’s why I loved when Dan Wieden said …

Brand voice was given a huge amount of focus and time at Wieden.

It wasn’t some scribbled words shoved on a brief at the last second that everyone ignored … it was really delving into the soul of the brand.

How it looked at the world.
The Values and beliefs.
It’s point of view.

Oh, I get it, that sounds as pretentious as fuck doesn’t it … but that’s why you can tell a NIKE spot within 1/10th of a second … regardless of the sport, the audience, the language it’s in, the country it represents or even the style of ad.

That’s right.

They get brand attribution and can be as random as fuck.

And before you say, “oh, but that’s just NIKE” … Wieden [who are/were the undisputed champions of this] did the same thing for Honda, P&G, Chrysler, Converse and any number of totally desperate brands.

The reality is, when you really invest in getting the brand voice right – both from an agency and client perspective – it becomes something far more than a look or a tone, it’s a specific and individual feeling.

And that’s why I find this obsessive conversation about ‘brand attribution’ so amusing.

Oh I get it, it’s important.

But the simplest way to get it is to simply do something interesting.

An expression of how you see the World without constraint.

A point of view others may view as provocative but actually is born from your truth.

That’s it.

It’s not hard and you’ll get attribution automatically.

And not just any attribution … but the sort that has short and long-term commercial value rather than begrudged and meaningless familiarity.

However so many brands – and the brilliant Mark Ritson has to take a lot of the blame for this – think attribution is built on the repetition of brand assets.

And while there’s some truth to that … the difference is when ‘brand assets’ ARE the idea rather than born from it, then you’re not building a brand or creating change, you’re literally investing in complicity and invisibility.

Especially if those brand assets are so bland and generalistic that to not make any impact in the real world whatsoever.

Here’s an uncomfortable truth …

You can’t have commercially advantageous attribution and be traditional at the same time.

Oh I know there’s a lot of agencies and consultancies who say you can, but they’re literally spouting bullshit.

I’ll tell you something else …

If you’re relying on opening logos, watermarks or number of brand name mentions per execution to ensure your work is being attributed to your brand … then you’re not just likely to be showing your neediness and desperation, you’re probably admitting that you’re not saying or doing something that is worthy of making people care.

In fact the only thing worse is if you hire a ‘celebrity’ to front your campaign, then have to label who they are because no one knows them.

Sorry.

Now I appreciate this sort of approach may get you a ‘Mini MBA’ from the Mark Ritson school of marketing … and it may help with internal consistency and familiarity … but I can assure you that it won’t get you a sustainably disproportionate commercially advantageous position in your category, let alone culture.

And maybe that’s fine, and that’s OK. But if it is, then own it … rather than put out press releases announcing your leadership position in the market when really what you’ve done is dictate the blandification of everything you say or do because your marketing strategy is based more on ‘blending in, than standing out’.

And nothing shows this more than tone of voice.

An obsessive focus of playing to what you think people want rather than who you are.

It’s why I always find it interesting to hear how planners approach what a brand stands for.

So many talk a good game of rigor but play a terrible game of honesty.

Spending weeks undertaking research and holding ‘stakeholder’ interviews to learn who the brand is – or wants to be – rather than going into the vaults and understanding not only why they were actually founded … but the quirks of decision they made along the way.

Don’t get me wrong, research and interviews have a place, but for me, learning about a brand at the start of life is one of the most valuable things you can do because it reveals the most pure version of themselves. Or naïve.

No contrived brand purpose … not ‘white space’ research charts … just a true expression of who they are and what they value.

Or wanted to be.

And when you start piecing those things together, you discover a whole new world.

Better yet, you get to a very different – and authentic place.

Oh, the things I’ve learned about companies over the years.

Not for contrived, bullshit heritage stories … but to understand the beliefs and values that actually shaped and dictated the formation and rise of the company, even if down the line it failed and/or modern day staff don’t know any of it.

There’s a reason The Colonel purposefully chose bigger tables to be in his restaurants when he started KFC. There’s a reason Honda made their own screws for their machines. There’s a reason Prudential helped widows and orphans.

It’s not hard, it just needs effort, commitment, transparency and honesty.

That’s it.

And while I could say this quick-fix, fast-turnaround, communication-over-change world we live in means good enough is good enough … the reality is for a lot of companies and agencies, they don’t think they’re sacrificing quality. They don’t think they’re sacrificing anything. They think they’re creating revolution and that’s the most fucking petrifying bit about the whole thing.

Inside the vaults lie the stories and clues that help you get to better and more interesting places. Not for the sake of it, but because of it. And when you get there, it will naturally lead you to bigger, bolder and more provocative acts and actions. And when you do that, then brands get all the attribution they could ever wish for, because by simply being your self, you will be different.

_______________________________________________________________________________

For the record, I truly respect Mark Ritson.

He’s smart, knowledgable and incredibly experienced.

He has also added a level of rigour in marketing that has been missing for a long time.

I also appreciate some of the issues I talk about are a byproduct of many other things – from talent standards, corporate expectations and plain misunderstanding.

However, when you say a course is the equivalent to gaining a Mini MBA, it not creates a false sense of ability – to to mention gets more and more brands thinking, behaving and expressing themselves in exactly the same way – it suggests the focus is on personal gain over industry improvement and you run the risk of becoming the beast you wanted to slay.

That said, he’s still much smarter than I’ll ever be.