Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Content, Context, Craft, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Differentiation, Din Tai Fung, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, New Zealand, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Tourism, Travel
I have good news for you …
This is the last post for a week. Yep, a week!
You see I’m off to my beloved China for the week so you can rest in peace while I fill myself up on Din Tai Fung, haha.
What a way to end the week eh?
By pure coincidence, this post is about Taiwan – specifically mocking their tourism campaign – which I assure you has nothing to do with me going to China and hoping to have my visa renewed. After all, that’s where Din Tai Fung comes from and there’s no way I’d ever do anything that could harm my ability to keep scoffing down their dumplings.
So over the years, I’ve written a lot about tourism campaigns. Like here. Or here. Or here.
The upshot being that apart from the original 100% Pure NZ campaign – and Mauritius clever idea to bring more foreign income into the country – most are more likely to keep you away than to pull you towards them.
In fact, the only positive of these campaigns is they demonstrate the danger of committee thinking … where the end result is an act of political appeasement than audience understanding.
It’s why I find it hilarious how we keep banging on about all the data we have and yet we still end up scoring own goals.
Why?
It is because we have the wrong data?
Is it because we have people that can’t read the data.
Or is it because people hide behind the data to outsource their responsibilities and decisions?
Well, given this tourism campaign from Taiwan, it may be all 3.
Have a look at this …
What the hell?!!!
My god … Taiwan is a beautiful land full of rich history, heritage and cultural texture and they think this will make people come?!
Who the hell has their ‘data’ told them is the future of their tourism audience … urban architects and local council town planners?
Seriously, what is this supposed to convey … that they have shopping centers?
And they have the audacity to then say ‘Enjoy Now’.
For fucks sake, Taiwan is where the incredible – and my absolute favorite – Din Tai Fung started … that alone could attract more people than this campaign. But no, instead they decided the best way to invite millions to visit is to use the most generic photo ever taken … a photo that could be for literally any place in the whole, wide World … and then shove the words ‘Waves of Wonder’ on it.
What the hell is a ‘wave of wonder’ … because unless it’s a clever ruse to make people wonder out-loud why they should give-a-flying-fuck about a photo of a generic shopping centre, then this work is nothing more than tourism terrorism.
Years ago, I was staying in the W Hotel in Taipei when an earthquake woke me up in the middle of the night.
It was pretty strong and the whole building shook for ages.
And even that is a better tourism campaign than this horror show.
Taiwan is a wonderful place. You should go visit. But don’t go anywhere their tourism department recommends.
See you in a week!
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.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Corporate Evil, Crap Campaigns In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Food, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Mediocrity, Meetings, Perspective, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Respect, Strategy, Systems, Wieden+Kennedy
It’s been a while since I’ve had a real rant, but this is going to be one.
So if you need a peaceful start to your week, look away – otherwise strap yourself in.
One of my real worries for the future o f our industry is not AI … it’s our lack of seriousness.
Before I go on, there’s a couple of things I need to clarify.
First, I am not advocating we add even more process, systems, data and/or logic in what we do – frankly, they’re increasingly becoming an obstacle to both creativity and commerciality as they increasingly view audiences [or worse, ‘consumers’] as walking wallets and the only aim is to bombard them at the moment of potential transaction.
Neither am I suggesting we should be treating all we do like we’re saving the planet with high-concept art. There may be cases where this approach is the right approach … but when I say a lack of seriousness, I mean it in terms of how we think about what we do, more than what we actually create.
For years, the ad industries ‘piece de resistance’ – The Super Bowl – has been a car crash for advertising and marketing. An endless stream of contrived, unsubtle – and often, unfunny – sponsored jokes that feature a production line of celebrities who are all willing to destroy their legacy for a dump-truck of cash being poured into their retirement pension plan.
It’s so depressing.
Sure, every year there’s one – maybe two – ads that really stand out. This year, for me, it was Manscaped … an ad that didn’t feature a celeb, had an actual idea and was actually related to the product they make. But even then, was it up there with 1984 … or Born of Fire? Probably not, but it was fun, memorable and – while not related to the Super Bowl per se – was made for the Super Bowl audience’s entertainment. As was Coin Base’s ‘karaoke’ spot … which, in terms of understanding the Super Bowl ‘ad break’ context they were in and the typical US audience mindset in that context … was a clever idea.
Look, I get how much pressure is in a Super Bowl spot. I’ve been there. It’s a fucking nightmare. There’s an almost endless amount of pressure placed on the work as every-man-and-their-dog adds more judgement, demands and mandatories … fearing their multi-million-dollar investment will be negatively judged by a global audience. And they’re right to worry about that … except the one thing they all seem to forget is the ad agency knows how to write and craft a spot better than all the C-Suite execs put together, so maybe if they let them get on with it, they’d have a higher chance of their work being loved rather than [at best] ignored or [at worse] openly mocked for how bad, contrived and/or embarrassing it is – thanks to either a terrible story/idea, endless and meaningless product features being crammed into the spot and/or the huge pointers in the script to make sure audiences get the gag, because they think people may be too stupid to get it. [When it’s more because they just won’t care]
All this data. All these systems. All this marketing science. And we’re actually getting worse.
And while I appreciate ad agencies have a lot to answer for, they’re not the only reason for this decline – but we’re not allowed to say that are we? Oh no.
We’re not allowed to talk about the impact of procurement departments.
We’re not allowed to talk about the lack of respect for marketing in companies.
We’re not allowed to talk about the dehumanization of people in the research.
And while you may think my tone is being influenced by it being a Monday morning, you’d be wrong – because it has nothing to do with it being the start of the week and everything to do with this:
What the fuck?
Seriously, what the actual fuck!?
And no, it is absolutely NOT an April Fool joke … which would still be bad, but make some sort of sense.
I thought the Ritz Cracker ad at the Super Bowl was possibly the worst thing I had ever seen [and if you haven’t seen it, I am so envious of you] … but I was wrong.
Who came up with this?
How the hell did it get through the endless committees, hierarchies and research?
And why – given the big PR announcements – are they so bloody proud about it?!!
Hell, even the infamous Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad had the good grace to only be tone-deaf and stupid for 40 seconds … but this? THIS???
It actually makes me angry. Properly angry.
Angry our industry is associated with it – even though it smacks of something an internal group at the client came up with or an outside agency who wanted to pander for more business. Angry they will claim this shows how much they ‘understand their customers’. Angry they think they’re sooooo clever and smart for it. Angry that an agency either came up with this or didn’t speak up about this. And angry this is what marketing has become.
Sure, we’ve all suggested some radical [read: daft] ideas down the years.
Name changes.
New product variants.
New category extensions.
But more often than not, they’ve either been killed or they’ve been done with a lot more care, craft and reality than this.
Maxwell Apartments?!
Maxwell fucking Apartments?!
What I find even more confusing is that the owners of Maxwell House – Kraft Heinz – have been so bloody good with their communication over the past few years – or at least Heinz have – which is why whoever sold this [or mandated this] should be both promoted and fired all within the same meeting.
And while I’m sure there’s some people out there that think I am being a snob … I have 5 things I want to end this post with.
1 I understand there may be reasons for this work only those involved would know and – if made public – may help explain why this approach was undertaken. [see: Mouldy Whopper]
2 I understand good intentions don’t always turn into good work for of a million different reasons. [So while I get my hatred may sting, it’s because I know no one intended this to happen]
3 I understand different cultures/audiences have different tastes and maybe I’m not either of them. [Though I did work on Maxwell House at Wieden, so I am aware of the brand and its audiences]
4 Ideas tend to represent the standard of creativity, company, colleague and agency that you’ve been exposed to in your life, and this one smacks of people blinkered by data, inhibited by corporate politics and/or residing in an echo-chamber bubble.
5 And finally – if you think I’m being an asshole – maybe if I tell you how I found out about this idea, you’ll realise I’m trying to encourage us to aim higher, because not only does our industry need it, I know we are more than capable of doing it. You see, I learned of this work – which has been in market since Sept 2025 – from watching a ‘news blooper’ … a news blooper where the TV presenters found it so fucking stupid, they couldn’t stop laughing at it. On air. That’s right, people who are paid to keep a neutral face – whether announcing the best or worst of humanity – couldn’t keep a straight face about this. Not because they loved it, but because they were openly mocking it.
Maybe it made sense at the time.
Maybe everyone involved was suffering an unknown illness.
Or maybe they need better people or a better work culture where this sort of thing can be stopped because people can speak up without being put down so you don’t make newsreaders and the World think you’ve left them with the worst possible taste in their mouth.
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, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Leadership, Management, Mediocrity
I was recently in a conversation with someone who is old school successful.
By that, I mean they built a business to success, rather than optimized it through short-cuts and re-orgs.
He’s pretty scathing towards the way many modern CEO’s run their business, especially those who have been ‘dropped in’ rather than built it themselves … thinking they’re both selfish [ie: doing things for their short-term gain, not the long-term benefit of the company they lead] as well as egotistical in belief they’re better than everyone around them and so everyone around them is disposable.
He’s always had the view you judge the quality of a CEO over decades, rather than financial quarters … but he also accepts those days have pretty much gone given too many CEO’s work for the needs of the market rather than their customers.
And it was here he said something that really hit me:
“When companies can only drive growth through ‘re-orgs, consolidation or buy-to-kill takeovers’ … they’re operating a Ponzi scheme more than a business plan”.
It reminded me of something I wrote about ages ago, when Frank Oz – film director, voice of Yoda and countless muppets and expert puppeteer – talked about how he felt Disney had completely failed to appreciate what they’d bought when they acquired Star Wars because it was negotiated by money men rather than artists and as such, would end up being a more superficial … less crafted … less influential … more commercialized expression of the Star Wars story and world.
Or said another way: They would ruin the very thing that made them want to spend billions on it in the first place.
Is he wrong?
Probably not … especially as some say their ‘strategy’ after acquisition was to churn out as much as possible in as short a time as possible so the market can be flooded with all manner of stuff so they can profit as quickly as possible from the hunger and good will of fans before they stop, step back and say, “what is this shit?”.
And if that isn’t scary enough, let’s remember this is coming from Disney who – whether you like them or not – are at least built on being a creative company who appreciates the importance of craft, emotion and story. So imagine what other companies are like where they don’t share any values beyond wanting to exploit as much cash as possible with as much outsourcing as possible.
Which all leads to a question the CEO I interviewed replied with, “Exactly!”.
“What happens when the CEO’s who are obsessed with outsourcing, optimizing, reorganizing discover they have no one else they can buy, fire or kill?
Or, even more terrifying [for them] … sell to?”
I know life goes fast, but maybe it’s time we recognize the best leaders are the one’s who look to the future rather than look down to maximize their pwn, personal present.