Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Business, Clients, Colleagues, Leadership, Management, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Technology
It’s March. Bloody March.
And it’s also Monday. How much change can one person deal with?!
Anyway, when I was young, I had 3 ways to be sociable.
1. Go outside and see who was there.
2. Go to a friends house and knock on their door.
3. Ring my friends house and see if they were in.
That. Was. It.
And you know what … I did the second one most of all.
Didn’t matter what day it was.
Didn’t matter what time it was [as long as it wasn’t at ‘dinner time’ and/or after 8pm]
Didn’t even matter where they lived. I did it … and so did every other kid I knew.
And it’s because of this, we were OK with whatever the outcome was … mainly because we went with hope rather than expectation. So even if they were in but weren’t allowed out, you’d of had some sort of physical interaction to work out where you stood.
I say this because someone recently sent me this …
… and I wondered if people even know how to do this anymore, let alone do it anymore?
Yes, I know you only have to like an update on Linkedin to get some fucker sending you an unsolicited message … but I’m not talking about those pricks, I’m talking about people who put themselves out there and engage someone in person, rather than hide behind emails, text messages or DM’s?
Maybe you think that because my generation are the last who HAD to do this, we’d still be OK with doing this … but truth be told, if someone so much as knocks on our door unannounced – be it friends or family – most of us would have to be physically restrained from calling the Police on their ass.
On one level, I get it … why put yourself in a position of awkwardness when you can find other ways to do it that are less confronting or confrontational. Except by outsourcing our interest to technology – or an intermediary – we lose something.
A way to show the other person matters.
A way to show you’ve really thought about what you want to say or do.
A way to show you’re willing to fail to say something you hope they’ll value.
I have a client who only deals in the face-to-face.
Sure, you can make an appointment to see him, but his attitude is if someone goes out of their way to come and see him, they’re worth more than those who only engage behind tech.
Even more so, if they only engage when they ‘want something’ – albeit wrapped up in the claims of ‘opportunity’.
Sure, it’s pretty old school, and he’s pretty old … though to be fair, the artists I work for also want their core team present for the big meetings rather than be on zoom etc – but that’s not why he does it [and I assume why they don’t either] because for him it’s all about trust and respect. By that I mean ‘earning it’ and ‘proving it’.
And maybe that’s the biggest difference between then and now.
Because back then, you knew you had to earn the right to have a chance of letting good happen. Now, too many expect it.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Class System, Colleagues, Communication Strategy, Consultants, Contribution, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Meetings, Music
There’s a company I work with that has 14 employees.
Of that 14, 4 are specialists and the remaining 10 are very smart, informed, experienced, generalists.
And they make US$100 million dollars a year.
PER YEAR.
Part of the reason they make so much money is the speed in which they make decisions.
Sure, with only 14 people, it’s much easier to achieve that … but that’s not the whole story behind their success.
Because while all their competitors employ 5+ times the amount of people as them [even though their revenues are a fraction of theirs] the driving force behind their speed is down to 3 things.
1 They understand who they are, what they believe and what they do.
2 They only hire truly exceptional talent with experience proven over years.
3 They trust their team so they can make decisions with minimal consultation or debate.
Or put even more simply:
Opportunities don’t get delayed, diluted, dismantled or discarded by ‘heirarchy management’.
And the result of this trust, taste and experience?
They’re not only regarded as one of the most influential and highly regarded companies in their field across the entire World … they’re viewed as being the most successful company in the history of their category.
Hopefully it is obvious why I say this …
But if it’s not, this quote from Dave Trott – I think – sums it up.
I have to be honest, I can relate to this … and what makes this even worse is I’m one of the lucky fuckers, because I generally only work – and have only worked – with clients and colleagues who have the taste, experience and ambition to do what it takes to create good, interesting and original shit day after day after day.
Which begs the question, what the hell is it like for so many others?
I swear the problem is too many companies care more about building empires than producing excellence.
Where the prize is quantity not quality.
Size rather than craft.
KPI’s over creating real change.
Pride in conformity rathe than standards.
And so we end up in this situation where we have countless levels of middle management … where each one dilutes whatever is in front of them to ensure they don’t risk being negatively judged by the level above.
Empowered to only ever say no and never yes.
Resulting in opportunities being killed by either a thousand comments or delayed by a thousand meetings.
Which is why productivity has little to do with which operational model you embrace.
Nor does it matter if you operate with a flat-org structure or an agile approach …
If you want to be killer rather than filler, collapse the layers and elevate proper talent.
No wonder the brilliant Simon Pestridge once told me:
“Middle management want to be right …
… but [good] senior management want to know how to be better”
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, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Brands, Clients, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Honesty, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planning, Point Of View, Politics, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect
We’re only a few weeks into 2026 and yet last week, a planner in London reached out to me to ask for some advice because they were already feeling burned out by work.
Obviously I’m not going to give details about who they are or where they work, but what I can tell you is their stress wasn’t because of workload, but because they were working with a client who could not clearly define the business problem they needed addressing, and then was blaming them for not giving them a solution they felt was appropriate.
In many ways, this is one of the most frustrating challenges in advertising today.
Where someone uses rounds and rounds of creative work to try and work out what’s the problem they need/want to solve.
Now there’s many reasons for this …
One is that too many companies have completely undermined, destroyed and devalued the role of marketing within their organizations – resulting in a lack of training, a lack of standards, a lack of C-Suite credibility and an unspoken rule that you are only empowered to say no to proposals and opportunities.
But frankly, the blame for this scenario is shared.
Because too many agencies have also completely undermined, destroyed and devalued the role of creativity within their organizations – resulting in a lack of training, a lack of standards, a lack of backbone and an unspoken rule that yo are only empowered to say ‘yes’ to a lack of clarity on problems and challenges.
What a shitshow.
Worse, what a waste of time.
So what ends up happening is both sides throw shade and blame at each other without realizing their own complicity in what’s going on, which results in ..
+ Everything taking 10 times longer than it needs to.
+ Everything getting more complex, confusing and opaque.
+ Everything being designed for – and decided by – committees.
+ Everything requiring more presentations and rounds of work.
+ Everything getting shaped by internal politics/managing up.
+ Everything being chipped away and diluted to beige.
Now of course, not every company, agency or brief is like this.
But a lot are – increasingly so – which is why it’s not exactly surprising the planner who reached out was feeling so burned out. And I’ve not even mentioned the role of procurement, the toxicity of the ‘sprint‘ or the outsourcing to AI to make things feel even worse.
And while this situation is no good for anyone – literally no one – what really bothered me was the fact this planner felt completely isolated by his boss, the team he worked into and the client he was working for.
Everyone appreciated the issue, but no one wanted to address it.
And there lies the fundamental issue that is killing the industry.
Because as I’ve said many times, the only way you get to make great things is if 3 things are present.
1. Clarity on what problem you are solving.
2. Shared responsibility in how that can be achieved.
3. Trust each other and be transparent with each other.
All three are needed all of the time.
And while that might seem like fantasy, I can tell you, it can – and does – happen, even though I appreciate it is seemingly becoming rarer and rarer.
But it can change, though it needs everyone to take responsibility for it – specifically senior people – because without that, the ‘stress reduction’ system shown at the top of this page will become the next global marketing tool found in every marketing department and ad agency around the World.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, AI, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Billionaire, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Complicity, Confidence, Conformity, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Delusion, Details, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Experience, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Success, Tactics, Technology
A few weeks ago, Jack Dorsey – ex-Twitter and now Block – laid off 40% of their staff.
They say this was not because they were doing badly, but because it allowed them – thanks to AI – to be even better positioned to take advantage of future opportunities.
He also said that he suspects most organisations will follow suit in the near future.
He’s not wrong … for many, reducing headcount is the ultimate commercial dream. Which got me thinking …
What will happen when every company is ‘AI’ led/driven/managed and there’s no more employees who can be ‘restructured’ to satisfy the C-Suite and/or share market?
How will companies exist when the people they once sold to, no longer have an income to keep buying their goods? How will companies compete when they all follow the same AI-led protocols, all learned from the same aggregated models and practices? How will companies build value when they’ve turned everything into a commodity? How will companies exist with ‘access per user’ business models, when AI removes the need for users? How will companies justify their price premium when they keep promoting their use of AI lets them do things for less? How will companies build trust and loyalty when everyone knows they’re being outsourced and managed by an algorithm?
One possibility is employees will suddenly be back in vogue … allowing companies to talk about how their products and/or services are now much more personal, hand crafted, and/or curated than their AI competitors. The other is – as many tech bros have suggested – we enter a world of ‘universal credit’ … except no one talks about where that money will come from and who will control the amount of money given to people.
Given there’ll be a lot less money available to be raised from taxes – as there won’t be enough people earning money from jobs – and the wealthy have an incredible ability to avoid governments taxing them appropriately, are we going to be reliant on the ‘generosity’ of the tech companies and should we feel good about that given they value power and control over a healthy society?
However none of this is AI’s fault. We’re now in a world where the obsession for short term results and/or PR headlines means everything is tactics, not much about strategy.
AI is incredible – as is its possibilities and potential – which is why when companies make a big song and dance about how they’re using it to ‘fast track’ growth and efficiencies [read: efficiencies] I can’t help but think it reveals far more about their narrow and limited thinking than the technologies.
What makes it even crazier is how the share market rewards companies for dismantling their operational structure and knowledge …
Oh I get it if you look at it in a vacuum, but not only is this behaviour often a short-term reaction – designed to boost share price at a time where bonuses or evaluations are due to take place … but why are these so called shit-hot analysts not questioning the leadership who put their company in the position of having so many alleged ‘excessive’ staff in the first place.
Because they don’t really care about anything other than the illusion of radical action.
Actions that allow them to say to themselves, ‘we were right’.
Remember Citibank back in 2008?
Forget condemning the leadership who encouraged their people to engage in a level of economic recklessness that contributed to the global financial crisis, and instead, congratulate them for firing 72,000 employees in the name of ‘efficiency management’.
As I said, I am not blaming AI for this, nor am I saying Jack Dorsey is the poster child for this attitude in management. At least in Jack’s case, he is in tech and recognises his own self interest in what he’s doing/publicising. That doesn’t make what he’s doing any better, but it at least explains his actions with more clarity than a lot of companies who have jumped into AI without seemingly realizing [or choosing to be deliberately ignorant] to the longer term implications they’re creating their own company, category and individual role.
Of course not all company leaders are like this – or doing this with AI – and I obviously appreciate it’s a competitive world out there … but to see them viewing efficiency and speed as the only levers that matter [and that is what AI is for] is pretty tragic. Add to that, many seem to have forgotten this technology is still in its relative infancy, so are basically buying into the ‘dream’ of what AI can do – as being heavily pushed by its creators/investors … which helps companies justify their heavy adoption of it, even though many of the C-Suite in those companies don’t have a clue what it is or how it works but just see the financial rewards of pretending they do … and we’re facing the very real prospect of organisations discounting or ignoring the ‘small stuff’, even though that’s what will determine if the ‘finish line’ is positive or destructive. [For more info on this, see my post about the ‘O Ring’]
As a friend of mine said, “it’s like buying a jet to do the school run”.
Mind you he also said, “beware of people selling promises they’ll never be accountable for, but will always benefit from”.
Unsurprisingly, he’s a lawyer.
In a technology firm. Haha.