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: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brian Clough, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Empathy, Football, Grifting, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Nottingham Forest, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Positioning, Process, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Standards, Strategy, Success, Systems, Work
A little while ago, A few months ago, the ‘25/’26 Premiership football season started.
Following an incredible season the year before – which saw Forest get into Europe for the first time in 30 years – their first match was against our bogey team, Brentford.
We won. 3-1.
But this post isn’t about the victory … nor is it about the implosion of the team thanks to the ego of the owner and his disastrous and potentially ruinous hiring of Ange Postecoglou who, at this point, has not won a match in 7 attempts and has seen our European and League dreams already end because he’s shit, arrogant and never cared about Forest, just the money he would get from the job [can you tell I’m bitter?] – it’s about the goal Forest scored when Nuno was still our wonderful, beloved manager.
Specifically, THIS goal.
Now I should point out this post is not about the outrageously brilliant pass from Elliott Anderson to Chris Woods that allowed a goal out of nowhere.
Nor is it about how Chris Woods started sprinting towards goal before Elliott had even reached the ball, let alone made the pass.
It’s actually about what Chris Woods did next …
Yes, he scored, but it’s how he scored that I found interesting.
Truth be told, if it hadn’t been for a post-match interview with an ex-Nottingham Forest player, I may not have realized the significance … but when I heard him talk about ‘the successful strikers mindset’, I suddenly realized how valuable – and relatable – this could be to strategists.
You see in the interview, the ex-player – Gary Birtles – talked about how decisive Chris Woods had been when running towards the goal. How he had decided very quickly how he was going to deal with the on-coming keeper. How once he had made his choice, he was going to stick with it which, according to Gary Birtles, gave him an immediate advantage over the goalie. He went on to say how Brian Clough – the iconic and ridiculously successful Forest manager he played under in the late 70’s/early 80’s and someone I’ve written copious amounts about, over the years – had always told him this:
“When you’re in a one-on-one situation with the goalkeeper, make your decision immediately and don’t second guess it. It might not always come off, but if you wait or hesitate, you give the competition the split second they need to adapt and then you lose the opportunity of even having an opportunity”.
I love that.
I love that because it gets to the heart of what sometimes strategy needs to do.
Because contrary to what many say – especially those who make their money flogging for-profit systems and models – the reality is the ‘answer’ very rarely reveals or presents itself, you come to a point – once you’ve done the hard work and rigor – of making a call on what you think is best.
It may be to enable a fast result.
It may be to enable a more effective outcome.
It may be to enable a more interesting solution.
But at some point, you have to decide which side of the fence you’re going to jump on and back yourself.
We don’t talk about that enough.
We don’t talk about the importance of the independent mind.
We don’t talk about the value of experience, perspective and belief.
Right now, everything we talk about is systems, models and processes. And while there is a role in those – or at least some of those – if we are outsourcing all decisions and choices to that, then not only should we be asking exactly what the fuck we’re adding to the outcome, we also have to ask why on earth we think we’re going to get to a different outcome that every other fucker following the same one-size-fits-all, the-computer-told-me-to-do-it approach.
Look, I appreciate what we do costs a lot of money.
I also appreciate that means companies are seeking more and more certainty in their lives.
But while some may say allowing someone to make a call on what should happen next is a sign of insanity, I’d argue the crazier thing is to do nothing and let others make the choices and decisions for you.
Sure you need to have experience.
Sure you need to have put in the rigor and work.
But at the same time, you can’t play to win, if you follow a system designed to play not to lose.
Given all the gurus in our industry flogging their system on how to do the job – despite having never made any work of note – it probably can’t hurt to repost a talk I did years ago about what we can learn from Brian Clough about how to ‘win better’.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Career, Collaboration, Colleagues, Context, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Fulfillment, Loyalty, Luck, Management, Mediocrity, Only In Adland, Perspective, Planners, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Ridiculous, Strategy, Success
We live in a time where the idea of ‘having a career’ is becoming more and more resigned to history.
Not purely because of technology, but also corporate culture.
Where everything is for sale in the quest for profits and bonuses.
Values.
Reputation.
Distinction.
Differentiation.
Companies will kill any baby and sacred cow in a bid to look like they have a plan – even if that plan is becoming more and more short-term, next-quarter focused.
Meanwhile, they still splutter out the platitudes of ‘our people are our best asset’ while continually reducing roles, outsourcing training, lowering salaries and demanding complicity from whoever is left.
It’s the classic story of ‘biting your nose to spite your face’ and what is tragic is we all end up losing.
Employees.
Shareholders.
Clients.
Customers.
Society as a whole.
Hell, at some point we may all be living in a world of parity products that no one can afford because no one has an income that lets them buy anything.
Worse, it feels people at the top of many of these companies know this and so their whole approach to life is ‘make as much as I can then get out before it all falls down’.
Am I being bleak as fuck? Yep.
Do I really think it will end up this way? Quite possibly.
Not soon, but eventually … hell even Elon Musk has accepted a future where society needs ‘universal credit’ to survive and you can be sure-as-fuck his version of that is giving people just enough to stay afloat rather than challenge or thrive.
Which is why the concept of a career is potentially going to be consigned to the dustbin … or at least what a career used to be.
Because rather than meaning you have worked in one industry for your entire life – slowly working your way up the hierarchy – soon, it will evolve to being about using your skills across different industries and companies … finding the optimum moment to jump to gain the maximum value from your skills. I mean, it’s already happening that way but soon it will probably be the only way.
And while this will be the new definition of ‘career’, there will be one thing that remains the same and it’s this:
You won’t be able to say you’ve had a career, if you’ve not had to deal with loss and disappointment.
Loss and disappointment are rarely talked about in terms of career.
There’s this unspoken narrative that your evolution is always a perfect, singular, straight rising line. No detours. No backward steps. No mistakes or leaps. No bad choices and no changing of minds.
And frankly, that is utter bullshit.
Maybe 50 years ago this was the case, but even then I doubt it..
Not just because humans don’t aspire to ‘evolve’ at a constant, universal rate.
Not just because companies don’t elevate their people at a constant, universal rate.
Not just because there are people – and leaders in companies – who are fucking assholes, who actively mess with plans, promises and aspirations.
But because of all those reasons.
Having a career is as much about resilience as it is about talent.
Hopefully you can do it without having to endure too much of the bullshit that so many people have shared on the Corporate Gaslighting site … but we will all face disappointment and loss.
And while we all have the right to feel sad, upset, bitter about it when we experience it, the reality is what you do next ultimately defines who you are.
I’ve personally had a pretty great career.
I’ve generally worked for and with some amazing companies, colleagues and clients.
But not all.
There have been mistakes … little ones, temporary ones, one or two missteps and a couple of great big, fat, bastard ones.
And while I acknowledge some were absolutely of my own making, some were definitely due to people and/or companies actively – and in one case, willingly – wanting to systematically undermine my confidence and ability to do my job.
And while it fucked me up for a while – which I wrote about here – I was able to get through it and past it, ensuring that while my trajectory may have had some bumps, every step still had some big wins.
Which to me is what a career really is about.
Not title, but growth.
I know others may have a different point of view but mine was forged years ago by something a friend said.
Once upon a time, I was talking to a mate about a leader we both knew. We were talking about the work they’d done – specifically one campaign – when my friend said:
“That was 9 years ago, what’s he done since?”
Now while he was being overly dismissive, he did have a point – because the work this leader was universally known for, was something they’d done in the past, not the present.
Sure it was amazing work. Sure it was still talked about. But the reality is they hadn’t done anything in the intervening years that came close to making that sort of impact … and it was at that point I realized what a real career was.
Always building your portfolio of work, rather than just resting on one thing you’ve done.
And that has been both how I define ‘success’ as well as what has driven my choices and actions ever since.
Whether I have achieved this is up to others to decide, but I’d say I’ve got a good case for saying I’m doing OK … especially because I’ve worked bloody hard to try and make it happen.
Sure it has manifested in a lot of different ways – from books to ads to new products to stage set design.
Sure it has been with a lot of different people, companies and clients in a lot of different ways.
Sure it has been in a lot of different countries and cultures.
But I am pretty proud that wherever I’ve worked, I can point to something that was pretty special – either to the subculture, the country, the client, the agency, the department or the industry.
Again, I appreciate others are the ultimate judge of whether I’ve pulled it off … but for me, I’ve always wanted a career of highs rather than titles which is why I’m proud I’ve been able to do it in a way where I can look at myself in the mirror and feel I have stayed true to who I am and what I believe as well as be in the fortunate position that – despite my age – I’ve been able to continue to evolve and grow, as demonstrated by the fact that over the past few years I’ve been able to enter a new chapter of my creative career with the work I do for a small number of very high-profile artists.
If truth be told, that came about by luck rather than talent … but I didn’t take it for granted, I ran at it. Not because I wanted to be able to say I work for Rockstars, but because I wanted to be able to do stuff I never could have imagined I’d do.
Creative highs, not professional titles.
Or as my parents always drilled into me, fulfillment over contentment.
Yes, I appreciate I have a pretty senior position … but as much as I love the job and helping teams of talented individuals create their own creative highs … the thing I love most is that I continue to face loss and disappointment, because at the end of the day you only experience that if you’re still doing what you love.
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: 2025, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Business, Comment, Confidence, Conformity, Consultants, Craft, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Martin Weigel, Mediocrity, Paula, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Process, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
In strategy, one of the biggest insults is someone saying the strategy was post-rationalised to fit the work. The accusation implies you are a parasite of creativity … bigging yourself up on the sweat and tears of the creative team.
I get it. We all like to think we are a vital part of the process … the ignition of possibility … but the reality is, we all post-rationalise at some point, in some way.
I don’t mean we do fuck-all work and simply ‘badge’ our involvement post creative development – well, there’s some who do that, but they’re not hard to spot. No, what I mean is we all fine-tune our strategy as the creativity starts to reveal where it can go.
And that is good.
Because if you are so purist you think what you write is the rule of law, then you either better be fucking incredible or prepared for disappointment.
Sadly, I know there are some who think that way.
People who don’t get strategy without output is intellectual masturbation.
People who don’t get strategy that doesn’t create change is cowardly bullshit.
People who don’t get if strategy doesn’t make the first creative leap, it’s commercially small.
The reality is there’s a big fucking difference between having a vision for the work and dictating the work … and far too often, I see a lot of strategists talk about the former but act in a way that is much more about the latter.
It’s why I’ve enjoyed working so closely with artists – be it fashion, music, photography or authors – because while many approach their work with a clear vision for what they do … and an incredible focus on ensuring every little detail that goes into it is true to what they are trying to express … they also stay open to possibilities, opportunities and happy accidents throughout the entire journey.
Put simply, if they find something that feels/looks/sounds better than they imagined or intended, they go with it.
They chase the excitement and the interesting – which Paula, Martin and I discussed in detail [in particular regarding how Succession creator, Jesse Armstrong, approaches his ‘writers room’] a couple of years ago at Cannes with our talk ‘Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative’.
And that is what strategy should be doing as well. And often it does … and yet, I continue to hear people throw ‘post-rationalised’ barbs like they’re confetti. Given how much work is seemingly churned out without any strategy whatsofuckingever – masked by using a celeb, a gimmick or some made-up ‘consumer need’ – I can’t help but feel we should be focusing our judgment on those who are literally undermining the value of our discipline rather than someone who wrote a strategy, saw work that revealed a bigger possibility and then evolved/adapted their thinking because it helped everyone get to a bigger and better place.
I say this because I recently watched an interview with Bowie who perfectly articulated how the ‘creative process’ that is spouted and sold by so many is often a pile of shit.
As usual, he’s right.
Of course I appreciate there are some industries, processes and jobs where there is no room for deviation.
But in terms of business – and especially the business of creativity – that’s a terrible idea.
It’s why I find it hilarious how many companies and individuals try to claim they have perfected the ‘creative process’ when not only are most basically flogging self-serving insurance policies rather than business liberation but ALL OF THEM – and I mean ALL – are peddling processes that revel in ‘removing process inefficiencies’ without realizing they’re the very bits that allow great work to be born.
And that is the problem with where we’re at right now.
People who have never made any work, creating processes they say lead to great work.
But when you’ve never done it – or never done it at a level that has made a difference – you don’t realise the things that make no sense to you, are often the very things that make special things happen time and time again.
So what do they do?
They get rid of them …
So there’s no time to do nothing but just think about stuff.
There’s no time to shoot-the-shit with colleagues, clients and people in general.
There’s no time to explore, research and experiment with your thoughts and ideas.
There’s no time to collaborate with people who have exceptional taste, craft and vision.
And all this is before we even get to basic shit like being given a good brief, a good amount of time, a good enough budget and good enough people who not only can make the work … but evaluate it and take responsibility of getting their organization to embrace it.
So all these pundit processes sell the illusion of a seamless, processes where the people involved are immaterial to the work that is produced … often using the shit in the market as the ‘ultimate validation’ of their approach, while conveniently ignoring the fact most of that shit was created because of their processes, not despite them.
Look, I get what we do is expensive … I also get what we do has a lot riding on it, so the desire to have more certainty in decisions is understandable. But you can’t expect certainty while demanding possibility … while at the same time, reducing budgets, people and time … and anyone who says you can is not just bullshitting you, but stealing from you.
I’m not saying there isn’t stupid shit in adland, but we also have to acknowledge there’s stupid shit in corporateland.So given we’re all supposedly wanting the same thing – while appreciating what each party brings to the table that the other is not capable of doing – maybe we’d all be doing better off if we talked honestly and openly rather than egotistically and judgmentally.
I know I’m dreaming, but hey … it’s close to Christmas, so when better to make a wish?