Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Corporate Evil, Culture, Effectiveness, Linkedin, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Professionalism
Did you have a good Valentine’s Day?
Did you get loads of cards … flowers … money?
Nah, neither did I and frankly, I’m still in shock at how positive I was about it so let’s get back to normal with a rant.
About Linkedin.
Specifically people on Linkedin who seem to think they can do whatever the fuck they want.
I’ve come to the realisation that Linkedin is full of people who used to write posts in early Facebook days that said, ‘like this post if you want to end World hunger’.
I say that because the modern equivalent is when someone stupidly accepts an invitation and within a second, they’re in your ‘inbox’ flogging their advice and/or services and expecting you to want to desperately book a meeting with them to hand over your cash.
Except their emails tend to have a couple of fatal flaws.
They often have absolutely nothing to do with what you do.
Or they have everything to do with what you do, but they don’t realise that.
And they are written with such an attempt at casual professionalism, you know the same email has been received by 10,000 people that day.
Recently I got one within minutes – LITERALLY MINUTES – of absent-mindedly accepting a request.
It said this:
God, I have so many issues with this.
Even the first paragraph pisses me off.
Yes … I do mind them asking me that question. Any question.
I especially mind that they don’t give a fuck because they just launched into it anyway.
And then there’s a matter of that question.
That patronising, overly-simplistic, bullshit question that’s expressed with the sort of casual confidence of an arrogant junior planner who spouts all over Linkedin that they know the answers to why every brand is/isn’t successful, despite having never worked on them, their competitor or their category and yet they still don’t find that a hinderance to talking like they’re the CEO of the brand and their ‘newsletter’ [which claims to be read by people working at major brands, despite the fact it’s likely the intern] holds the secrets to untold fortune so you really should sign up for it NOW.
Breeeeeeeeathe.
And then after that question is their follow up ‘facts’.
And I haven’t even started on the fact what they’re saying is literally my job and frankly, its more insulting than the time I met Phoebe Philo of Celine fame wearing a T-shirt with my cats face on it. Despite her being a bloody awesome and beautiful cat.
I cannot tell you how much I hate this shit.
How over I am of all this bollocks.
Because while I’m all for people having a go, at least put in a bit of effort.
By all means fail gloriously but don’t do it because you’re lazy as fuck.
Jesus, I’m more professional than these fuckers.
Me.
And I went to a meeting with Phil Knight wearing a pair of Birkenstocks.
And as laughable as that, it’s still not as funny as getting an unsolicited email from someone proudly proclaiming they can help me get ‘a deeper understanding of my customers’ while inadvertently demonstrating how they have absolutely zero fucking understanding of the person they’ve just peddled their bullshit too.
Linkedin is kinda-of like reality TV for me these days.
Tears.
Drama.
Fantasy.
Competition.
Blatant self promotion.
It’s amazing … making an episode of Love Island look tame in comparison.
Of course, ‘professional’ is the last word the platform should use, because it’s anything but … promoting all sorts of bad behaviour – from anger and division to judgement and big talking.
And while normally this sort of behaviour is toxic as shit [and still can be to be honest], once you realise the people acting or reacting this way are tragically trying to be a version of stupid peoples, clever people – like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson or even Trump – it’s hilarious.
I say ‘hilarious’, but that’s only because the level of delusion that’s being spouted on there has reached such bible-standards, that you expect them to claim they can part the sea.
My friend Armando Potter wrote about these people not too long ago – with some incredible examples. No wonder Andy once said of the claims of the people on LinkedIn,
“I’ve seen less fiction in a library”.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Comment, Consultants, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Friendship, Happiness, Insight, Linkedin, Loyalty, Marketing, Membership, Relevance, Resonance, Social Commentary, Social Divide, Social Media
Many years ago, Toby Young wrote a book by the name of this post.
It was a journey through his bad decisions, bad timing and bad acts.
And while there was a lot of genuinely funny moments in it, you couldn’t help think he was a bit of a twat – which was confirmed with many of his later actions, decisions and behaviour.
I say this because recently I had a dalliance with someone who could best be described as Toby Young, without the humour.
Look, I work in advertising so I’m used to working with twats.
There’s actually a lot less of them than people like to think, but the ones who are there are generally stupendous at twatdom.
But this interaction was not someone I work with … it was someone on Linkedin.
Yes … Linkedin. The platform that is to community what Boris Johnson is to leadership.
Now even though this person and I are not ‘connected’, I do kind-of know him.
He was in Asia when I was there and had a reputation for grandiose statements that rarely could be backed up.
Anyway, I hadn’t heard about him or seen him for literally years, so I was surprised when a few weeks ago, he suddenly came into my life.
He did this by writing a comment under a Linkedin post I’d put up about one of the biggest mistakes a planner can make.
He asked:
What’s the difference between thinking and planning according to you? And is there a difference? And how do you see modern day account planning influencing business and corporate strategy which is really what CEO’s want to see – they’re not interested in ads or creativity unless its making them money?
I answered as best I could … saying I felt he was implying some planners didn’t care about the impact creativity had on the clients business, just their ego and if that’s the case, maybe he’s spending time with the wrong planners, clients and creatives.
In the blink of an eye, he responded with these 2 gems:
First this …
“I’m not implying anything- I’m asking a question. I be;lieve that’s valid on a social media platform. What I’ve foudn theough Experience s that sometimes it’s better to just answer instead of reading too much into it.”
[Spelling mistakes were his, not mine]
And then this …
“You really don’t get social, do you? You can’t be focused and social at the same time. I’ve been studying clinical psychology and the mind for 7 years. It’s two ends of the same frequency . Planners are focused (head) creatives are social (HEART). Open your heart my friend before a surgeon does the job for you. Good luck. You’re mucking around with someone with a lot of medical knowledge and experience.”
That second comment was bizarre.
Judgemental. Condescending. Patronising. Almost threatening.
I have to be honest, I was quite impressed. It’s been a long time since I’ve come across such a prick who can get so personal and so insulting so quickly.
But then it got weirder, because he then sent this:
Seriously, what the fuck?
From slagging me off to interrogating the most stupid shit [like my bloody camouflage background????] to then asking me to give him free information and advice so he can win a client and charge them money for his ‘help’.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised because Linkedin is full of people who think they can just ask or say whatever they want as long as it benefits them. I’m sure we’ve all had headhunters contact us for names of people they should talk to – when they’re literally being paid by clients to know people who they should talk to.
But there’s something about this persons manner that pisses me off.
Maybe it’s the contradiction between acting superior but still wanting stuff.
I can’t help but feel he is someone who read Neil Strauss’, ‘The Game‘ [who also wrote Motley Crue’s, admittedly great, The Dirt … which tells you a lot] and saw it as a philosophy for how to live rather than the exploitative, manipulative and destructive book it actually was.
Part of me really wants to name and shame him.
If he’s doing that to me, what is he like to others.
Women. Or juniors. Or anyone to be honest.
But I won’t because who knows what he’s going through however – as I mentioned in my final response to him – for all his alleged expertise in clinical psychology and social platforms, he sure hasn’t got the faintest idea how to communicate with people.
So I’ll leave him be but if he does comes back [again] I’ll simply point him to this post and hope he understands the responsibility for clarity of communication is with the communicator, not the recipient. Something tells me, he wouldn’t.
But what all this shows is a mistake that companies, platforms and agencies continually make with the idea of community.
I get why it’s so interesting to them, but the problem is – what they think is a community, isn’t.
A community isn’t where you go to continually satisfy your own needs.
In essence, that’s the total opposite of a community.
What a real community is something built on shared beliefs and values … where you want to work together to help push or achieve a common goal. It absolutely isn’t about personal benefit at others expense, it’s about something much, much bigger.
And while it’s power and influence can be enormous …
Linkedin doesn’t get this.
Agencies flogging membership and community doesn’t get this.
And this ‘competitive strategist’ doesn’t get this.
Because the key rule for a real community is about adding to it, not just taking.
Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Comment, Corporate Gaslighting, Culture, Fake Attitude, Linkedin, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Prejudice, Technology
Over the past few weeks, I’ve had 2 very unpleasant interactions with LinkedIn.
The first was when I discovered my personal account had been blocked by them.
No warning.
No reason.
Just blocked.
I had to look on Google to find out how I could get in contact with them, and after discovering that I had to submit proof of my ID – they got back to me to say that someone had found a post I’d written offensive due to it’s adult content … and as they felt it contravened some LinkedIn policy I’d never heard of, they needed me to apologise to them before they would reinstate me.
Now I appreciate the image I chose was provocative, however it was not just for shock value … it was part of a presentation/post I was giving about the terrible, sexist, bullying behaviour men subject women to in the work place every single day – so I found it remarkable they ignored the context – which was clear – and just banned me and demanded an apology.
I told them I refused to apologise because it’s a genuine presentation about a genuine issue … however, as they appeared to be OK with that sort of behaviour, I would report them to the workplace commission for equal rights as well as the #MeToo organisation.
Unsuprisingly they reinstated my account saying ‘they appreciate I wasn’t trying to be offensive’, despite having previously said they agreed with whoever complained about my post and – contrary to most legal protocols – regarded me guilty, even though they had not sought any information or context about the post from the person being accused.
But pathetic and annoying but that was nothing compared to what was yet to come.
So a week later – which seems a very strange coincidence – the Corporate Gaslighting LinkedIn account was banned.
Again no warning. No explanation. Just banned.
So I went through the same thing and then they got back to me with this …
Yep, the issue is simply the account is under Corporate Gaslighting’s name rather than my own – despite all contact details are.
But here’s where it gets even more annoying.
“Due to the nature of this account, we won’t be able to remove the restriction and/or merge this account with another one.”
That’s right.
It’s blocked. Forever.
Not because they couldn’t link it to my account but because they didn’t want to. Because of the ‘nature’ of the account.
And this is where I’m confused because surely the nature of the account is perfect for LinkedIn?
In fact, when I read the LinkedIn ‘purpose’, which states:
‘Connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful’
… then I can’t think of a more perfect partner for LinkedIn.
But no. They don’t want it.
It’s fine to have shady recruiters taking money from their clients to spam anyone they can get to. It’s fine to have men use their site to hit on women. It’s fine to pretend you’re a z-grade shrink with a guaranteed answer to everything you could ever wish for. It’s fine to allow ‘members’ to spout blatant lies about their achievements or sales tools. It’s fine to have people use the platform to talk about the conformity of professional appearance … but it’s not OK to have someone who is dedicated to helping professionals being systematically undermined by bad leaders, because the way I filled in their form is a violation of the LinkedIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.
I’ll tell you what’s a violation – LinkedIn’s claims they are a community. That they want to help people succeed. That they want to connect people together.
LinkedIn wants everyone to follow their orders. What they have decided is right. What works in their best interests. And if for some reason that doesn’t happen, then they let their god complex run riot – before hiding behind anonymous people and policies that don’t allow for context or conversation … just a brazen and contrived ‘computer says no’ guilty verdict, with all the humanity and consideration of an ATM machine.
Dear LinkedIn. You are in danger of becoming the absolute opposite of what you claim to be about, because if you were, you’d have created your own version of Corporate Gaslighting, but no, you’d rather just ban it. But then, when you’re paying your CEO almost $14,000,000 per year, I appreciate the last thing you’d ever want to do is to take any sort of stand against any sort of professional misconduct, for fear of alienating the companies who allow your CEO to be paid such an obscene amount.
Linkedin has incredible potential to be a real force for good.
Not just for corporations, but employees too.
It could influence real, positive change.
It could drive shifts in values, attitudes and rewards.
It could challenge the rules of what ‘professionalism’ supposedly means and looks like in the modern age.
It could help shape the future of work in ways that benefit all.
And while some could say they are doing this in their own way, the past few weeks have suggested to me their focus is on keeping the C-Suite happy rather than helping people create a new version of the C-Suite.
It’s a shame, because the whole industry is begging for some sort of major change but instead, they not only prefer to keep things exactly the same … they are using their power to ensure it does.
If you – or someone you know – are having your confidence systematically undermined, by colleagues … you are not alone. There is help out there. Not at Linkedin.com but at TheyTriedToKillMeButI.Live
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Distinction, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Linkedin, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Relevance, Standards, Strategy, Trust, Wieden+Kennedy
There is a lot of talk about a new term in marketing, called ‘UBR’.
UBR stands for Universal Buying Reason and there’s a lot of people seemingly wetting their pants over it. In essence, UBR is when a brand owns a position within a category that arguably, anyone within that category could have had, but they were first or the most consistent or invested in making it their or were simply, the biggest spenders behind it.
If you’re thinking this is not exactly new, you’d be right … but many people seem to be more obsessed with being associated with new terminologies or methodologies than actually making stuff that pushes brands and business to new places.
That’s why UBR feels like the next terminology trope in a long line of terminology tropes …
Brand Assets.
Brand Eco-Systems.
Global Human Truths.
Overly simplicitic labels that promote conformity under the guise of effectiveness or efficiency.
[And yes, I know Dan Wieden used to talk about Global Human Truths … and as I told him, he was wrong. Because while all Mum’s may love their kids, a Mum in Wuhan shows it in very different ways than a Mum in Washington, and to ignore that nuance is to ignore truth for convenience and complicity. And as anyone worth their salt will tell you, often it’s the nuance that is the difference between doing things for people or about them]
Of course, like all trope trends, there’s some value in what is being said about UBR – after all, its hardly a new concept given countless brands and categories have used this approach for literally decades, from alcohol to jewellery.
But what some of the people pushing UBR are seemingly forgetting – or not understanding – is that even at the most functional level of category marketing, it requires depth and consideration to fully release its potential … and frankly the lack of discussion about that highlights the industries obsession with providing clients with easy answers/solutions rather than encouraging/pushing/provoking them to appreciate the rewards [and shareholder benefit, let alone expectation] of putting in the hard work to identify how they can consistently build their value, role and position.
What scares me most is that some of the people ‘fluffing UBR’ – but thankfully not all – are in jobs where they’re paid to help clients with their business … and yet they talk in incredibly generalistic and simplistic terms about something that has context and complexity.
Where the hell is their objectivity?
Where is the understanding?
Where is the nuance?
It all feels like a desperate play to be seen as an industry thought leader, where the goal is to highjack whatever seems to be getting industry traction and then aligning themselves to it.
What’s worse is we’ve seen how this approach works as more and more people value and aspire speed and status over substance and experience … and I don’t really care that makes me sound old, because it actually has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with valuing what our industry can do when we do it with craft, understanding and ambition.
What sums it all up [for me] is how one of the brands the UBR advocates bang on about is Tesco’s.
I get why, because on face value, Tesco’s is a supermarket like every other supermarket.
But …
All it takes is a quick look at Tesco’s history – from their foundation in 1919 through to the many acts and actions they’ve embraced and led over 100 years, from the ‘computers for schools’ program to challenging EU law to give their customers access to products at the same price as their European cousins and a million things in-between – and they’d see the ‘Every Little Helps’ position is not something ‘anyone’ could say, but something far more specific to them specifically … something they’ve continually reinforced and invested in through retail, customer and cultural innovation as opposed to just the repetition of a category trope.
It’s yet another example of people needing to know their history before they can claim they’re creators of it.
Or – said another way – why clients and the industry at large, need to get back to valuing those who have DONE and DO shit, rather than just talk it … regardless how popular or well-meaning they may be.
[OK, ‘talking shit’ is harsh, but it sounded good in that sentence, so forgive me]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for pushing knowledge and possibilities, I’m just not for people putting lipstick on a dead sheep and calling it Ms World.
And don’t get me started on how many of these people are ultimately downplaying someone else’s creative excellence to make it all about them.
Wow, that’s like a rant from 2010. Felt good. Thanks industry trope for waking me up.