Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, AC/DC, Advertising, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Bands, Before Fame, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Career, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Entertainment, EvilGenius, History, Honesty, Interviews, Leadership, Legend, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Meetings, Music, Perspective, Prejudice, Process, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Status, Stories, Stupid, Success, Teamwork, Trust, Truth
Once upon a time, a man – who lived and worked in Newcastle, England – got a phonecall.
When he picked up, he heard a woman with a German accent on the other end, who asked “Are you Brian Johnson?”
He replied in the affirmative, to which the mystery caller said,
“You need to come down to London for an audition next week”.
Now Brian was a singer. In fact he’d once had a hit record with his band Geordie – but now he had his own business fitting car windscreens so it was a pretty left-field call to receive. Still, he was intrigued to which he asked the caller, “Who are you and who is the audition for?
There was a pause before the German voice informed him they worked for a music company – who had to remain nameless, just like the band he was told he had to audition for.
Brian was getting a bit fed-up at this point so pointed out in his thick accent,
“I’m not going all the way down to London for an audition unless you tell me who it is”.
Immediately, they were told that was not possible.
“Can you give me a clue … even if it’s just the initials of the singer or band?”
There was another pause – as if the caller was weighing up which would get them in more trouble: giving them a clue or not having Brian come to the audition – before they said,
“OK … here are the initials of the band, but I can give you no more information whatsoever. The initials are A, C, D, C”
The rest is history.
Brian did go to London and he did audition to replace the recently deceased Bon Scott, as the singer of AC/DC.
He got the gig and the first song he wrote – in fact the first song he EVER wrote – was You Shook Me All Night Long.
Then he wrote his second ever song, Back In Black.
Then his third, Hell’s Bell’s.
And not only did all these songs appear on the first album he recorded with the band, it went on to be the best selling album of the bands career. In fact it get’s even better than that, because the album, Back In Black, sold so many copies it become the best selling album OF ALL TIME [at that time] and even now – 46 years later – still ranks the 2nd best ever seller, with 50 million albums sold.
All this because Brian – through luck and persistence – got a key piece of information that made the difference between him choosing to go down to London or telling some random German female caller to “Fuck Off”.
Now it’s fair to say AC/DC were a known quantity at the time. A relatively successful quantity at the time. But who knows what would have happened if he hadn’t done the audition.
We wouldn’t have those 3 songs for a start … 3 songs that are not just iconic for AC/DC fans, but iconic fullstops.
The point being, one of the most important things you can do, to increase the odds of success is be transparent.
Transparent on where you are.
Transparent on what is needed.
Transparent on who is involved.
Transparent on the facts, timing and money.
Transparent on roles, rules and responsibilities.
Transparent on what the definition of success is.
I say this because there is not enough transparency right now – if anything, we operate in a world of opaqueness, which not only fucks up the potential of what can be created together, but breeds distrust and unhelpfulness.
Sure, things can change.
Sure, not everything may be known at the time.
But the more you hold things back, the more you’re not just fucking others over, you’re fucking yourself.
The greatest demonstration of respect in any partnership is transparency … so if your ego, need for control or fear stops you from doing that, then it doesn’t matter what you claim or who you blame, you’re the problem.
That doesn’t mean everything will fail, but it does mean you’ll never create history.
Or said another way …
If that German woman who rang Brian Johnson way back in ’79 had refused to give him any information on the name of the band she wanted him to audition for – as were their orders – then AC/DC may be a band few people would remember and Brian Johnson would be the graveliest-voiced car windscreen repairer in the North of England.
Of course, there will be some who say if that had happened, we’d never know what we’d lost.
And they’d be right, but they’d also be something else: someone incapable of creating or achieving anything truly significant.
In fact it’s worse than that … they’d be someone incapable of even aspiring to something truly significant and would actively goes out of their way to stop others from achieving it, claiming they’re ‘just looking out for the business’ when really it’s about their fear, ego, power and/or control.
No wonder my dear and clever friend George calls them, ‘commercial assassins and happiness vampires’.
Don’t stop someone finding your Brian Johnson because you think transparency is weakness.
It’s not, it’s rocket fuel.
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, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Bands, Cannes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Diversity, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Entertainment, Friendship, Influencers, Interviews, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance
Following on from Wednesday’s post …
One of the great pleasures that walking has given me is listening to podcasts.
To be honest, prior to walking I never really enjoyed them.
Sure, part of that was because the podcasts available in the early days were – generally – fucking terrible, but more than that … I just have always enjoyed the act of reading.
Still do.
But the beauty of a podcast is it lets me take my mind off the pain/boredom of walking and instead, let’s me lose myself in the joy of the story. And because I have an addictive personality, it means I rarely stop walking until I’ve heard the end of whatever the hell I’m listening too. Podcasts have literally ensured I’ve walked hundreds of kilometers further than I would otherwise have walked.
However for me to really love a podcast, it needs to be about true stories.
Don’t really care what – or who – the subject is about, it just has to be real.
Interestingly, the companies/individuals who do them best – or at least in terms of what I find ‘best’ – are the ones who have always told stories. Who know the craft of it. Who appreciate the importance of space and pace. Who see is as an expression of who they are, rather than simply the business they’re in.
Which is why I have recently been enjoying Rockonteurs with Gary Kemp and Guy Pearce.
Rockonteurs is a music podcast, hosted by ex-Spandau Ballet guitarist Gary Kemp and session bassist, Guy Pratt. Each episode hears them listening to different icons from the music industry. Not just in terms of artists and performers … but producers, promoters, songwriters and managers.
Now obviously I love music and a lot of the people they interview are individuals from my era … but that’s not why I like it or why you should listen to it.
The thing that stands out most of all is that regardless of decade, genre, country-of-origin, level of success … there is a camaraderie, respect and overall interest in what each person has done and how they approached it that is severely lacking in our industry today.
Right now, in our industry, it feels like everyone is desperate to be seen as ‘the ultimate one’.
The person with all the answers.
The person with all the knowledge.
The person who defines how everything should be done.
There’s not much humbleness in our industry these days – and what there is, comes across as contrived-as-fuck.
That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be proud of what they believe or what they’ve done … but it does mean they shouldn’t speak with a condescending tone or a desire to belittle or destroy anyone who thinks differently to them.
But it’s happening all the time.
Sure, some of that is amplified by the Linkedin algorithm – not to mention the conference industry – that rewards this sort of bullshit … but everywhere you look you see and hear people making some pretty outrageous, self-serving, blinkered claims.
What makes it worse is that in many cases, the things they feel OK with publicly judging/criticising/labelling are things they’ve never actually made/done themselves … though my personal fave is when you hear them repackage well established approaches/rules/campaigns and then try to claim they have ‘invented’ something new.
Even more bizarre is how this behavior is as prevalent with ‘senior leaders’ as it is with people just starting out … who you can at least understand are trying to stand out from a crowd of sameness.
Just last year, I listened to a very, very well-known and successful leader tell a global audience they had identified ‘the secret to success’ … without once acknowledging everything they said was [1] literally information that was decades old, [2] it is how good agencies have always operated.
Now I appreciate they have millions of dollars of reasons why they have to speak with the authoritative tone of God, but that doesn’t make them right – regardless how smart they may be – but what makes it sad is they have no willingness or openness to acknowledge there are other ways, even if they prefer/believe in theirs most.
And maybe that’s why I really enjoy the Rockonteurs podcast … because there’s none of that.
OK, I appreciate all the guests who appear have achieved a certain level of success, so there’s less to prove. I also accept many of the guests are looking back on their career – rather than ahead – so there is less of a commercial demand being placed on them to ‘win people over’. And finally, I completely understand all the guests have a direct connection to one – or both – of the hosts, so they’re talking to a friendly audience.
[Though I have to say the hosts aren’t great – sometimes bordering on annoying – as they often interrupt their guests in a desperate bid to either show public association with them or remind them that they too were once famous. It’s a bit yuck to be honest.]
But that aside, for an industry that still overflows with fragile egos … the one thing that came through once I’d listened to a few of the interviews – especially the first season – was how united they all were in terms of what they value/d … even though most of them all had radically different styles, views and interpretations of what that is and how to get there.
Underpinning this was that regardless on the level of success each guest achieved, they had been successful.
Maybe in terms of popularity.
Maybe in terms of a single song/album/concert.
Maybe in terms of their influence in a particular genre/fan of music.
Maybe in terms of simply having a career, despite never having a breakthrough hit.
But they had pulled something off against the odds and for that, there was something to hear, something to learn and something to respect.
That doesn’t mean they are not competitive.
That doesn’t mean they like everything each other does/did.
But it does mean they appreciate how hard it takes to make something you feel proud of – even if you don’t like it or understand it – and maybe, just maybe, if our industry adopted this stance a bit more, we’d not only be a nicer place to work, we might end up being a place that makes a lot more interesting work.
Because as I’ve said before [or should I say, what Ferdinand Porsche said before]: It’s better to mean everything to someone than be anything to everyone.
Check out Rockonteurs wherever you get your podcast.
I promise, whatever music you’re into.
Whatever era you’re from or adore.
There’ll be something you’ll like. And learn.
________________________________________________________________________
Please note:
There’s a public holiday here on Monday – I know, I know – so see you on Tuesday.
You lucky, lucky people – hahaha.
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.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Food, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Mediocrity, Meetings, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Respect, Strategy, Systems, Wieden+Kennedy
It’s been a while since I’ve had a real rant, but this is going to be one.
So if you need a peaceful start to your week, look away – otherwise strap yourself in.
One of my real worries for the future o f our industry is not AI … it’s our lack of seriousness.
Before I go on, there’s a couple of things I need to clarify.
First, I am not advocating we add even more process, systems, data and/or logic in what we do – frankly, they’re increasingly becoming an obstacle to both creativity and commerciality as they increasingly view audiences [or worse, ‘consumers’] as walking wallets and the only aim is to bombard them at the moment of potential transaction.
Neither am I suggesting we should be treating all we do like we’re saving the planet with high-concept art. There may be cases where this approach is the right approach … but when I say a lack of seriousness, I mean it in terms of how we think about what we do, more than what we actually create.
For years, the ad industries ‘piece de resistance’ – The Super Bowl – has been a car crash for advertising and marketing. An endless stream of contrived, unsubtle – and often, unfunny – sponsored jokes that feature a production line of celebrities who are all willing to destroy their legacy for a dump-truck of cash being poured into their retirement pension plan.
It’s so depressing.
Sure, every year there’s one – maybe two – ads that really stand out. This year, for me, it was Manscaped … an ad that didn’t feature a celeb, had an actual idea and was actually related to the product they make. But even then, was it up there with 1984 … or Born of Fire? Probably not, but it was fun, memorable and – while not related to the Super Bowl per se – was made for the Super Bowl audience’s entertainment. As was Coin Base’s ‘karaoke’ spot … which, in terms of understanding the Super Bowl ‘ad break’ context they were in and the typical US audience mindset in that context … was a clever idea.
Look, I get how much pressure is in a Super Bowl spot. I’ve been there. It’s a fucking nightmare. There’s an almost endless amount of pressure placed on the work as every-man-and-their-dog adds more judgement, demands and mandatories … fearing their multi-million-dollar investment will be negatively judged by a global audience. And they’re right to worry about that … except the one thing they all seem to forget is the ad agency knows how to write and craft a spot better than all the C-Suite execs put together, so maybe if they let them get on with it, they’d have a higher chance of their work being loved rather than [at best] ignored or [at worse] openly mocked for how bad, contrived and/or embarrassing it is – thanks to either a terrible story/idea, endless and meaningless product features being crammed into the spot and/or the huge pointers in the script to make sure audiences get the gag, because they think people may be too stupid to get it. [When it’s more because they just won’t care]
All this data. All these systems. All this marketing science. And we’re actually getting worse.
And while I appreciate ad agencies have a lot to answer for, they’re not the only reason for this decline – but we’re not allowed to say that are we? Oh no.
We’re not allowed to talk about the impact of procurement departments.
We’re not allowed to talk about the lack of respect for marketing in companies.
We’re not allowed to talk about the dehumanization of people in the research.
And while you may think my tone is being influenced by it being a Monday morning, you’d be wrong – because it has nothing to do with it being the start of the week and everything to do with this:
What the fuck?
Seriously, what the actual fuck!?
And no, it is absolutely NOT an April Fool joke … which would still be bad, but make some sort of sense.
I thought the Ritz Cracker ad at the Super Bowl was possibly the worst thing I had ever seen [and if you haven’t seen it, I am so envious of you] … but I was wrong.
Who came up with this?
How the hell did it get through the endless committees, hierarchies and research?
And why – given the big PR announcements – are they so bloody proud about it?!!
Hell, even the infamous Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad had the good grace to only be tone-deaf and stupid for 40 seconds … but this? THIS???
It actually makes me angry. Properly angry.
Angry our industry is associated with it – even though it smacks of something an internal group at the client came up with or an outside agency who wanted to pander for more business. Angry they will claim this shows how much they ‘understand their customers’. Angry they think they’re sooooo clever and smart for it. Angry that an agency either came up with this or didn’t speak up about this. And angry this is what marketing has become.
Sure, we’ve all suggested some radical [read: daft] ideas down the years.
Name changes.
New product variants.
New category extensions.
But more often than not, they’ve either been killed or they’ve been done with a lot more care, craft and reality than this.
Maxwell Apartments?!
Maxwell fucking Apartments?!
What I find even more confusing is that the owners of Maxwell House – Kraft Heinz – have been so bloody good with their communication over the past few years – or at least Heinz have – which is why whoever sold this [or mandated this] should be both promoted and fired all within the same meeting.
And while I’m sure there’s some people out there that think I am being a snob … I have 5 things I want to end this post with.
1 I understand there may be reasons for this work only those involved would know and – if made public – may help explain why this approach was undertaken. [see: Mouldy Whopper]
2 I understand good intentions don’t always turn into good work for of a million different reasons. [So while I get my hatred may sting, it’s because I know no one intended this to happen]
3 I understand different cultures/audiences have different tastes and maybe I’m not either of them. [Though I did work on Maxwell House at Wieden, so I am aware of the brand and its audiences]
4 Ideas tend to represent the standard of creativity, company, colleague and agency that you’ve been exposed to in your life, and this one smacks of people blinkered by data, inhibited by corporate politics and/or residing in an echo-chamber bubble.
5 And finally – if you think I’m being an asshole – maybe if I tell you how I found out about this idea, you’ll realise I’m trying to encourage us to aim higher, because not only does our industry need it, I know we are more than capable of doing it. You see, I learned of this work – which has been in market since Sept 2025 – from watching a ‘news blooper’ … a news blooper where the TV presenters found it so fucking stupid, they couldn’t stop laughing at it. On air. That’s right, people who are paid to keep a neutral face – whether announcing the best or worst of humanity – couldn’t keep a straight face about this. Not because they loved it, but because they were openly mocking it.
Maybe it made sense at the time.
Maybe everyone involved was suffering an unknown illness.
Or maybe they need better people or a better work culture where this sort of thing can be stopped because people can speak up without being put down so you don’t make newsreaders and the World think you’ve left them with the worst possible taste in their mouth.