Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Culture, Honesty, Individuality, Innovation, Internet, Marketing, Technology
AI.
The technology that – dependent on who you ask – is going to enhance our life or optimize us out of it.
A way to access and apply all the world’s knowledge to our needs and on our terms.
Except if it relates to:
+ Brian Hood
+ Jonathan Turley
+ Jonathan Zittrain
+ David Faber
+ David Mayer
+ Guido Scorza
Who are they?
That’s the big question … because basically, if you go into ChatGPT and ask about any of those names, it will say, “Unable to produce a response”.
Or said another way, it has been programmed to censor giving any response to those names.
Why?
Well, while there’s all manner of theories behind it, no one really knows … but it’s a pretty good reminder that for all the freedom technology lets us experience, the business model behind the innovation of it, is often based on empowering and enabling someone to have control.
Of the category.
Of the market.
Of us.
I get this all sounds very conspiracy theory and the fact is it could just be the greatest marketing easter egg since the revelation of who KFC follows on Twitter/X … however having only heard about it last month, it has reiterated my belief that before we blame the tech, we need to be questioning the integrity of the people behind it.
Because when they give us something for free, it seems they don’t just want to make us the product … but their puppet.
Christ, week 2 of this blog and I’ve not just turned into a tin-hat wearing lunatic, I’ve conveniently forgotten I am the tech/gadget groupie that lets them get away with all this shit.
Thank god there’s only 11.5 months to go before this year is over, haha.
Filed under: 2024, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Brands, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Contribution, Corporate Gaslighting, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Differentiation, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, End of Year, Experience, Fake Attitude, Honesty, Influencers, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Only In Adland, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Pretentious Rubbish, Professionalism, Provocative, Purpose, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Ridiculous, Standards, Status, Status Anxiety, Strategy, Stubborness, Stupid, Success, Talent, Toxic Positivity, Truth
As tomorrow is one of those terribly indulgent ‘thank you and goodbye to ’24 post’ [the blog equivalent of boring someone with ‘what they dreamed about last night’], I thought today should be a RobMegaRant™ post … ending the year as I hope to start next year, hahaha.
So with that, take a look at this bloody amazing picture.
How awesome is it?
I have absolutely no idea where it’s from or when it’s from but I can’t stop looking at it.
The browns.
The clothes.
And then – of course – the egg salad machine.
You can imagine that at the time, this was a demonstration of innovation.
Of technological advancement.
Of commercial optimisation.
A glimpse into an automated world of high efficiency and effectiveness.
Removing barriers and friction to provide audiences with consistent, satisfying results.
Except it wasn’t was it?
Not in the long-term … and most likely not in the short-term either.
Oh sure, there’s machines that make industrial amounts of egg salad to shove in cheap and cheerful sandwiches you get at the local petrol station … but in 54 years of being on – and around – this planet, I’ve never once seen any ‘public egg salad maker/dispensers’.
Not even in Japan.
And that’s because it’s a shit idea, for a shit-ton of reasons.
Taste.
Quality.
Consistency.
Health and safety.
The fact no one wants egg salad every single day of their life.
And that’s before we even get to issues such as ‘appetite appeal’.
Looking at the picture and you can’t help but wonder, “what the fuck were they thinking”?
Except our industry does a similar thing ALL. THE. TIME.
An endless production line of ‘proprietary’ systems, processes, models and formats … promising the world and promoted using almost identical language and benefits that was likely used for that bloody egg volcano machine.
Innovation.
Automation.
Optimisation.
Advancement.
Transformation.
Effectiveness.
Efficiency.
Put aside that in most cases, the only ‘proprietary’ element is the name that’s been given to it.
Put aside that in many cases, the people behind it have never created something of disproportionate value and impact.
Put aside that the vast majority of these ‘innovations’ are more about not being left behind rather than moving you forward. [Read: marketing transformation]
Put aside that in many cases, the real purpose of the product is to reinforce the ego – and/or bank account – of the person claiming to have all the answers.
Put aside that many of the companies who flock to it tend to be those who choose to abdicate and outsource their responsibility for decisions and choices.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some really good innovations in our industry. There are also far too many people who dismiss change simply because they don’t like it. And we cannot forget that we unfairly expect new ideas to deliver the results of established ideas.
However, when certain parties peddle their products, tools, services, models, formats with the attitude of it not just being the right way, but ‘the only way’ – where they guarantee success regardless of category, country or spend – then frankly, not only should we see their declarations as an admission of [at best] blinkered thinking or [at worst] evidence of being a chancer and/or hustler … we should be asking ourselves why the fuck are we blindly trusting the self-serving voice and opinion of those whose only major commercial achievement is elevating their own name and image.
I am over efficiency and optimisation being peddled as innovation and progress.
I am over process being regarded as more important than output.
I am over loose association being reframed as expertise.
I am over easy being more valued than quality.
I am over people thinking being good in one thing means they’re excellent in all things.
We need to stop thinking of insurance salesmen as pioneers.
Sure, the good ones have a role to play – especially when companies are downgrading training for their employees – but it’s not as a leader of marketing/brand/creative innovation. Even more so when the reality is many are either riding on the efforts and achievements of someone else or simply communicating the 101 of particular disciplines under the guise of it being at the highest academic standard.
Forgive me for my skepticism, but even if it was true – which it isn’t – I don’t see many universities achieving cultural status and influence through their marketing approach. Hell, most universities don’t even know how to differentiate themselves from each other.
Please don’t read this as being anti-education. God no.
The reality is the industry needs more teachers. Or should I say better ones.
Not the self-appointed guru’s who peddle their self-serving blinkered services for profit, but those who have been there and done that. Who have consistently done things at a standard that goes way beyond just basic levels of achievement. Who can talk from the perspective of being at the coalface, not from a pedestal. Watching on with their binoculars. We need to celebrate those with actual experience, not just assoicated opinions.
Or said another way, we need chefs not egg salad salesmen.
Lets hope in 2025, we get back to valuing the ingredients, not just the convenience.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Colenso, Collaboration, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Distinction, Effectiveness, Experience, Honesty, Individuality, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Mediocrity, Metallica, Money, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Reputation, Resonance, Strategy, Success
I recently interviewed a successful artist.
What made them especially interesting to me was less their fame and more the fact they’d left a very popular group to go out on their own.
Not because they were ‘guaranteed’ success, but because they didn’t like how their management and record company dictated what they had to do.
As they told me the thinking that went into their decision, they said something I loved:
“Working for yourself is like being an artist in a studio. You’re free to create … you’re open to possibilities. Where most people have a dream, those with the lust to go out on their own stand the most chance of making their dream happen. Even if I failed, I would have felt good I had failed on my own terms”.
How good is that?!
Of course, I appreciate that when you’re successful it’s dead easy to say you would be OK to have failed … but I believed them.
Part of that is because they walked away from a very successful group. Part of that is they did in the knowledge their contract stated they would no longer be eligible for royalties. Part of that is before they launched their own career, they took time off to reclaim who they were. But most of all, I adore how they equated working for yourself as an artist who is in their own studio.
Despite having – and still – working for myself, I’d never thought of it that way and in the big scheme of things, the work I do for myself is the most indulgent, wonderful shit I have ever done. Not just in terms of freelance work, but in my whole career … and a lot of that has been pretty wonderfully indulgent.
But even with that, I looked at working for yourself much more in the way Michael Keaton looks at working for yourself …
Put simply, you love that you have more freedom, but you’re also aware you are the business … so every decision is weighted with more consideration or deliberation.
It’s why the two things that have helped me embrace what excites me rather than do what makes sense is Harrison Ford’s know the value of your value and the conversation I had with Metallica’s managers before I started working with them.
Now I say all this, but the fact is I also work for Colenso – however the reasons I did that were less about financial security and more about appreciating what makes me happy:
1. I need to work with people and build teams. I’m good at it, it makes me happy and I love seeing people grow and the reality is, when you work on your own, you rarely get the chance to do that.
2. Colenso is a place I’ve always loved and so to have the chance to work at a place that truly believes in creativity when so many just want to monetize any-old-shit was both hugely appealing and exciting.
3. They were totally open to me working a different way, which – for all the talk – few companies would ever consider, let alone allow.
4. When you work on your own, your development is more influenced by the projects and clients you work with, whereas when you are part of a team, your development is pushed and prodded every day. And I like that.
5. It offered us a chance to leave COVID-stricken Britain, even though within months … it hit NZ, ironically via the parents of a planner in my team. The second country brought to its knees by someone I’d managed. Oops.
So while I completely appreciate the privileged position I was in – and am in – the point is there was a lot of consideration about working on my own and working at Colenso … not just in terms of what I can gain but working out what I don’t want to lose.
Of course, there are going to be sacrifices along the way … but if you don’t think it through, you may find you’re running away from something rather than running towards something.
For me, that differentiation is a really important one to identify.
Don’t get me wrong, I get that sometimes you just have to escape the situation you’re in, regardless of where you’re going to end up.
I’ve experienced that situation twice in my life and it was horrible. Horrific even. And so getting away was real, urgent and necessary.
But I’m not talking about people in those situations, I’m talking about the folk who simply didn’t want to work for someone else. Didn’t want to deal with the expectations, the politics, the time pressures and the bullshit.
I get it.
I appreciate the appeal.
I basically covered it in a conversation with WARC back in 2020.
But there’s a major difference between not wanting to do things and creating the conditions to ensure you never have to do them and I’m surprised how often people haven’t done that.
Especially planners.
For example:
Do you know enough people at a high enough level who could be clients?
Do you have the experience that can command the rate you want/need to make?
Do you have the reputation that can protect you from commodification?
Do you have the expertise that ensures you don’t just shitty jobs no one else wants to do?
Do you have the network to ensure your abilities grow rather than stay where they are?
Do you have the commitment to keep learning and developing when it’s all dependent on you?
And while they may sound big questions, they’re not. Not really.
In many ways, they’re the difference between full independence and short-term escape.
I should point out I don’t mean this to sound like criticism.
I also don’t want this to be an obstacle to someone going out on their own.
My intent actually is the opposite. I want more people to prosper on their own terms … and by prosper, I don’t just mean financially, but also professionally and emotionally.
This is not because I am some wannabe Saint, it’s because it’s the only way creativity and strategy can regain the influence, credibility and power over the whims, wants and egos of agencies and companies.
Of course not all agencies and companies are like this … but sadly it seems more are than not.
And the more they try to commoditize the value of the independent professional – and boy, do they want to do that – the more we all end up paying the price.
Because suddenly people have to take whatever they can get.
Have to do whatever someone wants them to do.
Has to accept what someone wants to pay them.
I don’t blame them. Fuck, if I was in their situation, I’d do whatever it took – or whatever I could get – to put food on the table.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, or at least the odds can be improved if we – as an industry – talk more about how to think like an independent rather than talk about the benefits of it.
You see, while I love the sentiment of the artist I interviewed and their definition of ‘working for yourself’, I also deeply value the attitude of Michael Keaton. And maybe you need to embrace both to ensure you can be as free as you choose and be able to stay that way for as long as you want.
Because while the benefits of independence are very easy to see … it takes a fuckload of hard work to achieve it.
But it’s worth it. Or at least worth giving it the right shot to achieve it.
Just ask Zoe Scaman, Graham Douglas, Ruby Pseudo, Jason Bagley, Joy At Large.
And a million others who have done it. Not always the easiest way, but have done it.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Business, Cannes, Chaos, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Insight, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mediocrity, Metallica, Nike, Paula, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Sport, Strategy
It is pretty obvious I have a major issue with a lot of the ‘best practice’ processes and practices certain members of my industry love to bang on about.
Not just because ‘best practice, is past practice’, but because these individuals position their approach as the legitimisation of the discipline they claim or suggest they are an expert in. Implying that anyone who does not strictly adhere to their process is an imposter and a danger to whatever organisation they’re working with.
It’s the sort of deluded arrogance that people who describe themselves as an ‘evidence based’ strategist embodies … attempting to infer everyone else is simply making things up and don’t give a fuck what happens afterwards.
It’s everywhere. Twitter. Linkedin. Conferences.
You name it and someone is bragging and banging on about it.
But what makes this hilarious is that many of these self-appointed experts have never made any work of any repute whatsoever. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Which means their entire viewpoint is either based on their own post-rationalised evaluation of another persons work or their narrow, naive and/or skewed viewpoint of what constitutes as ‘good’.
Don’t get me wrong, process matters.
In no way am I advocating you just chuck it all out.
However the difference is my processes does not require me to outsource my brain, imagination, curiosity, gut or ambition to fit into a format whose goal is to deliver a standardised, consistent response rather than enable the opportunity for greater possibility.
And that’s the big problem for me …
Because so many of these ‘models’ seem to care more about the process than what the process is meant to help enable. Actually, even that is wrong … because more and more of these models don’t even care about ‘enabling’ anything … they instruct you to simply follow the format and then do whatever the fuck comes out the other end.
No questioning.
No challenging.
No pushing.
Just blind adherence.
Martin and I talked about the folly of this approach in 2019 with our Case For Chaos talk at Cannes for WARC and then – in 2023 – Paula joined us on the same stage for our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative presentation.
But still this approach and attitude goes on … and while I don’t deny it can be effective, it rarely has the impact or influence as work that comes from a process shaped and flavoured by ideas, imagination or ambition.
But then I wonder if that is the goal anyway … because frankly, the obsession with efficiency means more and more companies don’t want to move towards where they could be and just want to optimize where they’re currently at. Adopting an attitude of ‘when we fall behind, we’ll simply catch up’.
Though they will never admit that publicly – oh no – what they is they’re investing in ‘business transformation’.
Hahahahahahahaha.
A while back I met one of these ‘dot-to-dot’ advocates at a conference I was attending.
Early in the discussion, they said their company had pioneered a process that “guaranteed success”. And then proceeded to talk about their system that ‘removed the risk of contaminated thinking’.
They literally said that.
I looked around the room waiting for someone to say something. Anything. But no one did.
Worse, they seemed to be nodding their heads in agreement. Or awe.
So I stuck my hand up.
Eventually I was seen and asked if I had a question, to which I replied:
“I was just wondering if you know what the words ‘guaranteed’ and ‘success’ mean?”
Yes, I know that was a total asshole move.
It alienated me immediately.
And while I regret how I asked my question, I don’t regret asking my question because that sort of declaration is insane. Not just because it’s not true, but because their ‘examples of proof’ are rarely more than a brand doing a bit better than it has before.
Now I appreciate that’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s hardly Metallica is it?
A band that plays a niche genre of music, has pensioners as members and yet is the 2nd best selling American group in music history. MUSIC HISTORY!
And I can tell you, that didn’t happen blindly adopting the latest best practice process.
Where are their examples of that sort of impact?
Oh I know … in the hands of the fuckers who do shit, not spout it.
Look, I am not dismissing process.
Nor am I devaluing rigour.
But I am redefining what they mean in comparison to how more and more people seem to be interpreting it.
As we said at Cannes, strategy is the first creative act.
A chance to leap not step.
An opportunity to leave the category behind rather than reinforce the category.
But you don’t achieve that by simply ‘filling in the blanks’ with your functional and rational data.
No … if you really want to have a shot at changing where you can go and where you can be, you have to heed the advice of Rob Strasser – the iconic Nike exec – who said this:
“A shoe is just a shoe until someone steps in it”.
By that, I mean don’t just follow a framework, put your whole self into it.
Filed under: Advertising, Airports, Attitude & Aptitude, Chocolate, Corporate Evil, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Environment, Honesty, Marketing Fail, Reputation, Respect
A lot of companies think ad agencies lack business credibility.
We’re self-indulgent, selfish, and should serve … not challenge.
To be fair, there are some agencies that prove that but – and it’s a big but – you can point the finger of failings the other way around.
Nestle have recently proved that size doesn’t equate to smarts.
Having seen the impact of Tony’s Chocolonely – both in terms of sales, share and corporate responsibility – they have come to the party by creating their own product.
A sustainably sourced, eco-conconious chocolate.
Now normally I would say this is a brilliant thing, because the more brands who embrace ethical production, the better things will become for everyone.
Except given Nestle’s history, you know the reason they’ve chosen to do this is far more about exploitation and profit than doing the right thing.
And nothing shows that they don’t really get it than their distribution model.
Because while I appreciate chocolate sales at airports are big – because they’re either a last minute present or a quick personal treat – the last place … literally the last place a sustainably sourced, eco-conconious chocolate should be sold … is a fucking airport.
Seriously, what the hell were they thinking?
Of course the reality is the only thing they were thinking about is cash.
I swear to god, if they thought they could make an extra $2 a year, they’d sell it at Fossil Fuel Power Stations. And probably still not see the irony in their actions.
Which is why for all the shit companies throw at agencies about their business naiviety, we can throw it right back about their blinkeredness towards human understanding.