Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Comment, Context, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Imagination, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Retail
One thing I’ve always hated about my discipline was how so many liked to talk about curiosity like we are the only people to embrace it.
Not just in advertising, but across all humanity.
That said, curiosity has seemingly taken a backseat in terms of aspiration …
These days it seems we our desperate to feel/suggest we are the smartest people in the room.
That we can solve any problem given to us – regardless of category, culture or context.
As my old man used to say, ‘people who are desperate to let everyone know how smart they are, aren’t that smart’ … and right now, it feels like we’re drowning in those people.
I’m not saying they’re not clever, but they’re not as smart as they like to think they are.
Believing that because they’re good at one thing, they’re good at everything.
Researchers who think they know how to create great creativity … despite never creating anything. Strategists who think they know what people want … despite never spending any time with people. Creatives who think they can make any business successful … despite never running a business. Sure, I’m exaggerating the point to make the point [especially as there are a few people in each of the examples, who are the exception] but you get the idea …
You see it everywhere, especially on Linkedin.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have valid opinions.
That doesn’t mean their experience doesn’t have value.
But putting aside the people who literally have never achieved anything of note yet speak like they’re God … the moment you think only you have the answer and everyone else is wrong and ‘doesn’t get it’ then that’s when you’re become the beast you were meant to slay.
The reason for this rant is that I saw something recently that is so devilishly brilliant, it serves as a good reminder that just because we are paid to do a specific role in the marketing space, doesn’t mean we have the monopoly on good ideas.
This was it …
Evil? Yep.
Bad parenting? Possibly.
Smart thinking? Absolutely.
Of course, I’ve talked a lot about Chinese ingenuity over the years.
For a culture that often describes itself as practical rather than creative, it’s one of the most creative places I’ve ever lived.
Not just by the typical definitions, but in terms of business, food, innovation and motivation …
Sure, there are many examples where the approach taken is more about exploitation than liberation – which is true all over the world – anyone who has lived there for any period of time will know that far from being ‘behind Western standards’, in many ways they’re far ahead.
And while there are many things that have contributed to its momentum, its belief in ‘cumulative progress rather than the wait for perfect’ is a big part of it.
Back in 2007, I wrote about ‘unplanning‘.
In essence, it was about putting the rigor into ensuring you are removing all the unnecessary bullshit around an issue to identify the heart of the problem that needs solving.
The reason it was called unplanned, is because the solution – while creative as fuck – also felt obvious as hell, even though it only was able to be that because you’d trimmed off all the fluff and fat that often causes distraction and deviation.
Given we are surrounded by models, systems, pundits and egos all proclaiming to have the ultimate answer to every problem known to man – despite the fact many have never done anything of note and brands, creativity and the ad industry are losing their value, relevance and impact at an alarming rate – maybe the best thing we could do for our collective future is to stop looking inwards and start looking out, because there we are reminded creativity starts with how you think and see the world, not which property process you follow.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Audio Visual, Brand, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Collaboration, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Distinction, Emotion, Environment, Fans, Film, Imagination, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Metallica, Miley, Money, Music, Perspective, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin
So we got through the first week of this blog in 2025.
Congratulations … we all survived and no one died. I think.
That said, the subject matters of the posts have been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster with things such as anger, frustration and loss. So with that in mind, I thought I’d end the week on a more positive tone.
Kinda.
One thing I have always actively rallied against is stringent strategic processes.
That doesn’t mean I don’t care about rigor or standards – obviously I do – however I don’t think that is demonstrated by blindly following a set process that has pre-determined what is or isn’t of value.
There’s 3 main reasons for this.
1. It automatically narrows and filters what can be used.
2. It ignores differing contexts, situations and categories.
3. You are actively stopping the chance for happy accidents and/or better answers.
It’s one of the main reasons I love working with artists, because at the end of the day – they are the creative – so for them, they determine success by what they FEEL is better rather than what the process tells them it is.
Nothing brought this home more to me than a scene in the documentary about the making of Do They Know It’s Christmas back in 1984.
Bob Geldof and Midge Ure had got together to write a song that they hoped would raise money for the starving in Africa. The single – launched in December ’84 – featured many of the up and coming posters of the era, ‘bullied’ into turning up by the irrepressible Geldof.
Over the space of a chaotic 24 hours, singers … duo … bands … all traipsed into SARM studios to record a song that had just been written and no one knew. Amazingly, there were few egos, with everyone focused on what they had to do, but it’s here that we see a brilliant example of letting the process play second fiddle to perfection’.
George Michael was at the mic and told how to sing his line.
He did it, but while sounding good, he felt it did not reflect the power he wanted to put into it.
So he suggested changing the intonation and sang it.
And he was right, it did sound better …
In fact, it became an iconic moment in the song.
But it might not have been if he was working with people obsessed with following the process than valuing what the process is supposed to deliver.
Fortunately, George was being produced by 2 other singers – and the incredible Trevor Horn, who owned SARM – who recognized that what they had suggested was no where near as good as what he had delivered. And so while it had an impact on how the following lines of the song were structured, they embraced it because ultimately, they knew it was better.
Have a look at this:
[As an aside, you should watch this fascinating interview where Geldof explains how self-awareness about his career meant he was uniquely positioned to identify the need and opportunity for the Band Aid single]
Now you may think this is obvious and I shouldn’t be making a big deal out of it.
And you’re right, it is … except we live in an age where too many companies focus more on the systems, processes and marketing practices than what they produce.
If you think I’m talking rubbish, ask yourself this.
Is there more conversation, debate and value placed on the process being put forward or the work delvered?
I would hasten a guess it’s the former.
It blows my mind.
As I said, process is important – but often its developed without any consideration to what it needs to create or change … blindly believing that if the process is ‘right’, then whatever comes out the other end must be too.
Which – as history and marketing has continued to prove – is bollocks.
Almost as bollocks as people sticking with whatever is made – even though they know it’s not as good as it could be – because ultimately they can point to ‘a process’ and outsource any responsibility of output to that.
How fucking cowardly.
But musicians don’t do that.
Musicians play for the song. Always.
Which is why they’re open to possibilities because the goal isn’t control, it’s expression.
Here are two other examples of it …
First Rick Rubin with his suggestion to Jay-Z on how to start 99 Problems
And Eddie van Halen, rearranging Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ so the solo sounded better:
Let’s be clear here, Jay-Z is hardly a shrinking violet. Same for Jackson. And yet they were open to their guests making a suggestion because they [1] knew it was coming from a good place and [2] it was better.
How often does that happen in our line of work?
How often does someone with ZERO experience in a particular discipline tell someone with a track record how to do their job. How to make something better?
It’s why I laugh when people like Mark Ritson comment on what is/isn’t good creativity.
Don’t get me wrong, he knows a huge amount about marketing practice … he offers real value in developing important marketing 101 rules and behaviours, but he knows fuck all about creativity or innovation.
And I wouldn’t care a less if he didn’t bang on like he was God.
As I said, he is very smart and can make a huge difference to certain sorts of companies. But – despite what he likes to think – not all companies. And the reason why I will always value someone like Rubin more than Ritson is that Rubin plays for the work, not for his own ego.
Open to someone being better. Or smarter. Or just making a better idea.
Not because they don’t care about the process, but because they care more about what it’s supposed to deliver.
Musicians often get dismissed as ramshackle and chaotic.
But if you look at some of the approaches adopted by artists such as Bjork, Metallica, Miley, Travis Scott, ABBA, Radiohead, Dolly Parton, The Black Keys, Rihanna, Marillion, Kendrick Lamare, Prince, Queen, Def Leppard, Pharrell and a whole host more – covering everything from crowdsourcing, business models, brand extensions, distribution management, brand assets, copyright investment, differentiation and distinction, gaming, brand experience and overall innovation in communication to name but a few – you will see they have pioneered more business and communication approaches and practice than almost any of the brands and gurus out there. Or at least done it before most of them.
Part of that is because they’re driven by their need to express themselves with total authenticity. Part of that is because they’re very aware of the context they’re entering – rather than blindly thinking what worked before will automatically work again. And part of that is because the process stops when things outside the process offer something better.
Which is why if you want to increase the odds of making something truly special happen … think like a musician, not a marketing practitioner.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Billionaire, Business, Colleagues, Comment, Contribution, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Imagination, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Sentimentality, Success, Teamwork
After the joy of yesterday’s post – which is more because of Otis celebrating his 10th birthday than anything I wrote – I thought I’d seize the good vibes by writing possibly the longest post I’ve ever written in the near 2 decades of writing this rubbish.
Of course I don’t assume anyone will read it – because who reads any of my stuff anyhow – but it is about an important lesson I learned recently and I wanted to document it – for me, if no one else.
So, one of the private clients I work with is worth an inconceivable amount of cash.
As in billions of dollars. Tens of them in fact.
Now I totally agree that having that amount of money is obscene, but what makes it easier – at least for me – is that:
They’re entirely self-made. They’re a true entrepreneur … taking on all the risk, rather than expecting others to cover it. They’re a patron and advocate for creativity. Not just in terms of their business, but creativity as a whole.
And if you think this all reads as being very ‘corporate toady’, you’d be right … because I am most definitely a fan.
But what’s interesting is how they make their money. Or should I say, how they create the conditions to be able to.
A few weeks ago, they asked me if I could fly to another country to meet someone for dinner.
Not just any person, but a bona-fide superstar. And no, I am not being hyperbolic.
Now there’s obviously a backstory as to how I found myself in this situation and why I was asked to do this by my client rather than [1] them or [2] someone more obvious and suitable – and the reason for it is more bonkers than you could imagine – but within a couple weeks, there I was, sitting opposite this world famous star, chatting about life while trying to act like it was all completely normal for me.
Of course, the person in question had done their homework so knew this meeting was legit, but at one point, they asked why I thought they should consider it.
After reinforcing I was the last person they should listen to, I simply said this:
“All I can tell you is everything they’ve done – and do – is built on wanting a long term relationship not a short term, quick-win”.
That was it. That was all I had.
Now there were 2 reasons I explained it this way.
One is because it’s true and the other is I wanted to convey that their ‘business model’ is playing the long game because it would be easy to assume anyone worth that amount of cash must be ruthless in how they operate and that could be very off-putting for someone who values their creative freedom and integrity.
What I mean when I say ‘long game’ is they invest in the individual, rather than ‘short-term opportunities’ … which means they not only are they happy to give the artists/partners the creative freedom – and control – that made them want to work with them in the first place, but they also don’t expect or demand a return on their investment in the shortest time possible because they see this as a relationship that will be measured in years, not projects.
Now, of course, there is method to this ‘modern-business-practice’ madness.
First is they believe that by investing in trust, transparency and relationship consistency, everyone will achieve a much greater return over a much longer period of time. Secondly is they obviously have no problem in knowing how to make money out of what they do so they know they’re not going to lose out being patient. And to top it all off, they’ve done a similar thing with many other high-profile celebrities/partners which – as they are all still engaged and involved years later – kind of proves they mean what they say.
Which leads to the point of this post.
Relationships matter.
I’m not talking about the sort where one person serves the whims and demands of another – which is how a lot of business today operates, especially in adland – but the type where the relationship acknowledges and values the skills, talent and benefits that each person brings to the table.
No short-changing or undermining. No downgrading or threatening. A relationship where the focus is on ‘what we can make create together’ rather than ‘what I you make out of you’.
How refreshing eh?
Except it shouldn’t be … it should be obvious, however thanks to procurement departments and corporate short-termism – we don’t see a lot of it these days.
At best, it’s a quick collab. At worst, its commercial exploitation.
In this case, my client wanted to work with this individual because they believe in them.
They like what they do.
They believe in how they think.
They’re excited by what can be made possible if they enable them to express their creativity at a different scale and through different art-forms than the ones they normally operate in.
But what makes this work is their appreciation of the artists mind.
The vulnerability of the creative process.
The need to explore before you commit.
The acknowledgement that when you try to create something no one has done before, it will fail before it wins.
And they’re there for it.
All of it.
They understand that to get to something great, the first step is to create an environment of encouragement and faith. Not just at the beginning of the process … but ongoing. Over and over again.
That doesn’t mean you pander. Nor does it mean you hold your opinions to yourself. But it does means you start off from a position of true alignment. Not just in terms of what your hopes and ambitions are, but how you want to realise them in terms of approach, expectations and responsibilities. Meaning everything you do comes from a position of shared responsibility and authority.
The other element is they also understand the adage of ‘it’s business, not personal’ is bullshit.
Business is personal.
Always.
The people who try to claim it isn’t are trying to justify bullshit behaviour.
It’s why my client spends a lot of their time connecting and committing to the other person. To make sure they’re not just in it together, but feel it.
Does that make ‘personal’ approach make things challenging at times?
Probably.
However by ensuring transparency and clarity from the beginning of the relationship – they not only build a relationship based on openness and honesty, they ensure the barriers that often get in the way of focusing on doing great things, get removed.
It all makes perfect sense, except we live in times where people choose to ignore it.
Preferring to optimise interactions.
To put themselves in positioning of authority.
To approach the relationship in terms of ‘what I can get out of them for the least amount of effort or loss of power’.
We’ve all met people like that.
Over the years I’ve had a bunch of people I’ve not heard from in years – or [thanks to Linkedin] never heard from in my life – get in contact wanting me to do something for them and I can literally feel the distain when I tell them, “I’m so sorry, I won’t be able to do that for you”.
I should clarify I have always tried to help people who ask for it … especially in terms of advice or a listening ear. However, when their ask is for me to connect them to friends, colleagues or clients for a shortcut to personal gain … unless they’re an old friend or someone I’ve had a long and personal experience of working with/alongside, they can fuck off.
It might sound harsh but I learned this the hard way.
One person in particular did this to me for a few times.
Continually contacting me under the guise of connecting with me but really wanting me to do something for them.
Contacts.
Introductions.
Feedback and advice.
And I did it, until I stopped.
Because I finally realised they were never contacting me for any other reason than to get something from me. They never just got in contact just to say hi. They never told me how my friends/colleagues had helped them. They never got back in touch to ‘ask me’ the questions they claimed they wanted to know – mainly because that was their ruse to get me to help them with other introductions.
I felt a bit stupid it took me so long, but I got there. And I cut them out my life because who needs that toxic shit.
And I get that sounds harsh, but I don’t care … especially as they still tried to use me until when the point they realised I wasn’t going to … so they went on a public rant about me that reinforced their ego, delusion and fragility.
Which gets to the final point of this post …
The word relationship is badly used, mis-defined and treated with ignorant flippancy.
It’s not about interactions or benefits, it’s about generosity, openness, understanding and trust.
You build it over time by investing and putting time into it.
Time to listen, share, discuss, engage, and give a shit.
It’s an act of consistency, equality and consideration … through good and bad.
And while I appreciate in these optimised, maximised, never-stray-from-the-process-or-rules, big-yourself-up-at-all-costs times, that may sound inefficient … but I have first hand proof, it’s much more effective.
In fact, it’s more effective than every marketing guru with their proprietary process/hyped-up, self-serving academic ‘degree’ – can ever imagine, let alone deliver.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Colenso, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Imagination, Management, Marketing, Music, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Success, Wieden+Kennedy
One of the things I’ve always rallied against is the view the advertising industry is in the ‘service industry’.
Sure, our job is to service our clients need to grow or evolve or deepen their relationships with customers and/or society at large – but that doesn’t mean our job is simply to do whatever our clients want.
In fact, what clients want is the last thing we should be doing – it should always be focused on what they need – but nothing highlights how the industry has fucked itself by adopting ‘subserviency’ as its business strategy.
Or said another way, ‘pandering for pay’.
What makes it worse is this approach – albeit with toxic organisations – tends to work, which is why I think Succession connected to so many people. Because while it was filled with the egos, power plays and delusional drama of the wealthy, the underlying message was ‘those who enable them, benefit from them’.
Which is fucking depressing isn’t it.
But it’s not all bad news because not all people are like that.
Colenso live by the belief of ‘truth over harmony’.
Wieden adopt an attitude that ‘transparency is a demonstration of respect’.
And just recently, I wrote about an artist I’m working with who was evaluating an offer to perform at a major global event based on whether they felt they could do something that would challenge them rather than simply do it for the exposure and/or cash.
Which leads me to the point of this post …
Recently I saw a post by the band, The Pretenders. It was this …
Now I appreciate to some, this may read like they’re biting the hand that feeds them … but that’s not the case. In fact it’s the opposite, because the reality is ‘performing is a two-way street’ so what they’re actually doing is ensuring they can give the audience the best performance they can deliver.
It’s kinda similar to why Billy Joel refused to sell the front row at his Madison Square Gardens residency … because he understood performing to an audience who provide energy – rather than just take it – elevates how he performs because it positively effects how he feels.
Now I get this may all sound like some happy-clappy, hippy bullshit … but be it on stage or performing in an office, the environment you’re in, dictates the level of performance you give.
Or said another way, the less oppressed you feel, the further you can go.
Sure, I get we all have a responsibility to deliver certain standards – especially when it’s your job – but contrary to what many management consultants or C-Suite execs believe, oppression and control doesn’t drive standards, it limits them.
It demands you focus on what’s been done before than what could be next.
It makes you play within the limits of the company mindset rather than culture.
It encourages you to aspire for C-Suite acceptance than debate.
It pushes you to play small, than risk swinging big.
It reinforces bad behavior, than challenging it.
Which is why I have such a problem with the whole ‘service industry’ analogy … because the underlying message is ‘conformity over creation’ and conformity doesn’t seem to take us to many places where we can show what we’re capable of delivering, changing or enabling.
And while tension can unlock the doors of possibility from a creative perspective, it’s as destructive as fuck when it exists between artist/agency and audience/client … because when that happens, you’re not working towards where you could be, you’re working on where you’ve been before.
Resulting in a culture that mistakes:
Busyness for productivity.
Acceptance for success.
Efficiency for effectiveness.
And you know who wins with this?
No one.
But do you know who wins when everyone is excited by what you can do and be together?
Everyone.
Because even if things don’t quite go as well as everyone hopes, you’re still further ahead than you’d be if you simply did what others expected or demanded.
Musicians get this.
Musicians know who you play for impacts how you play.
Which is why I find myself saying [once again] that we should follow the ‘paraphrased’ advice of The KLF – which is focus less on giving clients what they want, and focus more on giving their customers what they’ll never forget.
Or to quote Rick Rubin from my RulesOfRubin series from a few years back:
“If you’re not enjoying it, and there’s not much love in it, how can the work be good?”
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Asia, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Contribution, Corporate Evil, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Environment, Finance, Government, Imagination, Perspective, Resonance, Respect, Values, Vietnam
Over the last year, I have fallen in love with walking.
What once I considered a waste of TV/Gaming/Eating time, now I prioritise it.
I take client calls on walks.
I do team catch-ups on walks.
I do a lot of my work thinking time on walks.
Walk, walk, walk, walk, walk.
And the benefits of this approach to life are plentiful.
I’m healthier – physically and mentally.
I have a skin tone that no longer makes me look like an anemic Dracula.
And I have got to connect more to the places I live and work.
I am not suggesting in any way others need to be doing this, just highlighting how it has had a lifechanging effect on me.
But one of the things I have really got to appreciate with walking is seeing the communities and streets around where I live and how – every now and then – you come across something that makes me stop walking and stare.
This is one of them …
Someone did that.
Someone decided to do that.
To make a little part of the pavement, a jewel.
And I have no idea why … and I have no idea who … but I love someone did.
Not just because they took the time, but they thought is was worth the time.
And that’s the thing I worry about where we’re heading.
Because everything is seemingly evaluated and valued by greatest and fastest ROI.
We’re seeing companies do it with their endless mergers and acquisitions.
We’re seeing tech firms do it with their blinkered focus on optimisation over possibility..
And we’re seeing governments do it with their disregard of the arts in favour of business.
And while, of course, money is hugely important … when the impact and value on how society feels and interacts is disregarded, the economic benefit ends up being even more short-term.
Some people won’t care.
Some people are only focused on what they can get out of something rather than what they can give or enable for someone else.
Which is why I’m so grateful to whoever made this piece of literal street art.
Because it’s far more than just decorating a bit of the pavement, it’s a reminder of the choice we have. Because while the ‘economically functional’ may be easier, cheaper, faster and more convenient, its the stuff that you know is born from someone’s passion that leaves the most lasting impression.
Talking of passion, I’m away next week in one of my favorite places in the World, Vietnam.
[I say that, it all depends on what the doctors say about my eye at today’s check up. Eek]
It’s exciting for 3 reasons.
1. I’ve not been there for years.
2. It’s where I helped create the ‘4×4 on 2 wheels‘.
2. It means that after 3 months of pain, my eye is doing well enough to travel again.
And before you ask, it is for work – even though I get to see friends there at the same time.
So while I’m off experiencing the place with the most infectious spirit, unstoppable energy and relentless optimism in Asia, I hope you have a week finding and celebrating the things that may make no economic sense to an accountant but make so much sense to your soul.
Because in these days of beige and boring, creativity is not so much about art, but an act of rebellion on behalf of the human spirit.
See you in a week.