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: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Business, Clients, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Innovation, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect
Imagine you go to the doctor.
You tell them your problem.
They diagnose your issue and prescribe meds.
“No …”, you say, “… that’s not right, you need to give me this”.
The doctor listens patiently then explains why their diagnosis and prescription is right for you.
You – with no medical knowledge or expertise – disagrees, and threaten the doctor with a malpractice suit saying, “I know my body so I know what’s it needs”.
The doctor says their diagnosis is based on what you have told them and what their examination of your body has informed them.
You tell them they have to give you what you want, then – despite keeping the doctor busy with your issue – you refuse to pay the full fee because you say you did all the work and other doctors are offering their services for less fee.
After lots of intimidation from you, they agree to the lower fee and you walk out with your new prescription.
Except a week later you become more ill because the meds you were prescribed – that you demanded – were wrong.
So you go around telling everyone the doctor who treated you was terrible and everyone should take their business elsewhere.
Bullshit isn’t it.
And yet, everyday … many companies do exactly this.
Going to the doctor and prescribing their own medicine.
Using procurement to bully their way to get what they want without realizing what they need.
Don’t get me wrong, ad agencies have a lot of issues … there’s a lot they can do better at … but knowing how to use creativity to connect and engage humans is not one of them.
Which reminds me of the time I did a project for the Red Hot Chili Peppers and they – well, specifically Anthony Kiedis – tried to do the same thing to me.
Just over 5 years ago,. I was asked to do some work for them by their team.
I did the work and presented it and he hated it.
In fact, hate is not a big enough word to describe how much he loathed it.
And me.
Was it bad?
Nope … it was simply a truth that his ego refused to accept and one I stand by to this day.
Anyway,, I was told I could present a response to his ‘comments’ so a few days later, I simply presented this:
Yep … that’s all I presented back.
One slide.
.
To be honest, my memory of what I had written was slightly different so when I saw this on my Facebook memories – it was quite nice to see the original work again,
That said, I do remember showing it my wife prior to presenting to see what she thought … and she said, “Hmmmmn, are you sure that’s what you want to do?”
Now normally, I listen to what she says as she’s much smarter than me, but this time I was adamant I was going to present it as is because of how personal, arrogant and just plain fucking rude he had been to me.
And the result of that?
Bonkers basically. He threw some big insults at me then hung up the call.
The next day I was fired.
And while you can say that is not commercially astute, I still wear it as a badge of honour … because while the other guys in the band couldn’t have been nicer, Kiedis was – and remains – a dick. [Which he futher demonstrated to a Guardian journalist who also questioned him on some home truths he didn’t want to akcknowledge – hahaha]
I was signed to work with Muse a week later. I don’t think this was a coincidence.
So while I am not advocating being an asshole to clients. I would also encourage clients who think they know everything about industries they’ve never worked in, to not be an asshole to those who have studied, worked and achieved the very things they are being engaged for in the first place. It’s why it’s worth remembering, even the best in the world have producers, coaches and mentors … because while the spotlight tends to shine on individuals, it’s the people in the shadows who make it better than they imagined.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
As an aside, the reason I am using that photo at the top of this post is very deliberate.
A few months ago a person I’m very close to suddenly suggested I shared ‘resemblances’ to the old TV character, House. I laughed but found myself casually mentioning it to a few other people who know me well who – much to my surprise – all enthusiastically agreed.
“Sarcastic” and “a bit of a prick” were a couple of the things uttered quite a lot.
And then, in a twist of fate that would suit any Hollywood story, I found myself in the US working with the original writer/runner of the show – the brilliant David Shore. At the end of our time together, I sheepishly told him what certain friends and colleagues had said and asked if he saw any shared traits from our time together.
He paused as if to gather his thoughts and then said what you read below.
[The redaction relates to the person we’re both working for who brought us together]
For what it’s worth, I think he’s being overly generous … but his last sentence nailed me … which means I’m less TV character and more greenhouse. ‘Transparent’. Damnit, ha.
Filed under: Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Community, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Experience, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relevance, Reputation, Stupid, Talent, Technology
AI is one of the most talked-about subjects – not just in adland, but all of business.
As I’ve written many times, I think – when used properly – it’s ability to open-up doors and possibilities is revolutionary.
Not just commercially, but from a human enablement perspective.
However, too few companies like it for that reason … instead they’re excited by its ability to ‘optimise’ profits at the expense of hiring employees.
We’re hearing more and more companies getting rid of junior positions – either ‘outsourcing them’ to lower-cost nations [which sounds bonkers, given they’re already the lowest cost in an org] or simply replacing them with AI bots.
This is not pie-in-the-sky … it’s happening right now.
Hell, recently I met someone who’d recently left university who had applied for over 100 jobs at different companies despite having just spent 4 years studying full-time trying to learn the basics of how to get into it.
I find this reprehensible.
+ How is there going to be a future of any industry or company if we don’t let juniors come into the business?
+ How are companies going to evolve if they don’t let the energy and ideas of the young, shape their ideas and thoughts?
+ Why is it always junior people affected when not only are the C-suite, the best paid, but whose decisions and actions tend to be the easiest to predict. [Even more so when many ‘outsource’ their responsibilities to an external ‘for-profit’ consultants]
+ Why are their clients not kicking up a fuss when they’re literally ensuring the demise of their future customers – even though we all know the real reason why.
+ While I’m at it, why do companies expect their people to be loyal to them when so many are literally trying to delete them?
While I appreciate AI is still in its infancy and that even then, there are some incredible things it can do … in the realms of our day-to-day business, its core adoption appears to be focused far more on speed and volume rather than personalization and possibilities. And there’s nothing wrong with that except for the fact many AI models are aggregators who take source material and then promote the most balanced response. There is value in that … except when you are trying to develop value in your own originality, craft and specialization.
Said another way, the approach many companies and people adopt for AI is ‘short-cutting their way into commodotisation’.
As I said, it doesn’t have to be this way.
AI can be used in a multitude of ways to avoid this very outcome.
But in this fast-paced, instant-gratification, short-term-thinking, ego-promoting world … the emphasis of value is seemingly placed on the creation of noise over melody, which is why this comment about ‘the worst of AI’ [ie: what many companies adopt because the people authorizing its use don’t know/care about how it really works or the implications of it] hit me hard and should hit anyone who reads it in a similar way.
“Everything is a summary of something else. Bits regurgitated, vomited from someone else’s throat, then stirred and mixed together to reach that fluorescent level of flatness, the shiny turd of craft that lies in promptly created art” – is next-level viciousness. [In fact, I’ve not heard something spat out with such venom since Queen’s ‘Death On Two Legs’ lyrics]
And yet they are not wrong.
Maybe they’re pretty one-sided in their view, but given what we’ve already seen and seeing – especially from certain tech-leaders who declare they have the answer to making everything better, regardless of category [which always seems to come down to: ‘use our tech and no one else’s because we’re the best’] – not wrong.
Of course, we all like to think we’re the exception to the rule.
That we’re doing it right and everything else is what ‘other people do’.
But the question we need to stop and ask when using AI is this:
Are we playing for a better future or down to a personal convenience?
Sadly, only AI can probably answer that objectively … and that’s only until the people behind it realise they need to stop any possibility their business plans and ambitions could be undermined by revealing the truth of its blind adoption.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, China, Chinese Culture, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Effectiveness, Imagination, Innovation, Perspective, Planning
I’ve written about something I call ‘devious strategy’ for a long time.
In essence, it’s the art of giving people what they want but in a way where they give you exactly what you need from them.
While I’ve covered a bunch of examples in the past – from how Daniel Radcliffe stopped the paparazzi photographing him each night after his theatre performance through to how singer Grace Slick, got Chick-fil-A to pay the LGBTQ+ community to lobby against themselves – the reality is the ultimate Champions of this strategic approach are without doubt, the Chinese Government.
Their ingenuity knows no bounds.
Sure, some of the reasons for this is not great … but let’s be honest, how they ensure people ask for receipts in restaurants so they can ensure they can get the correct amount of tax due to them, is sheer genius.
But I recently learned of a variant of this approach that is less about ‘achieving a favorable solution’ and more about ‘making the problem more difficult for people to ignore’ … and funnily enough, it also comes from the evil genius brains of government.
This time, from local government in Glasgow, Scotland.
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls … allow me to introduce you to Leverage Pettiness Strategy™, and before anyone tells me that’s bullshit, just remember our industry once gave an ‘effectiveness’ award to a supermarket chain for sales growth DURING COVID.
By that reckoning, changing the name of a road should win a Nobel Peace Prize.
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 …