Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Banks, Brand, Brand Suicide, Clients, Comment, Communication Strategy, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Embarrassing Moments, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Microsoft, Money, Perspective, Process, Relationships, Reputation, Standards, Stupid, Technology
Over the 20 years of writing this blog, I’ve written a bunch of posts about corporate stupidity.
But of all the things I’ve seen or been exposed to, one act stands above all: when they try to gaslight their customers into believing the removal of a product and/or service, is a demonstration of how much they value and care about their customers.
We’ve seen it with ANZ Bank … when they tried to say reducing bank account interest to basically nothing, was their way of aiding financial responsibility.
We’ve seen it with NIKE … when they claimed the best way to serve their customers was to stop customers being able to order NIKE products from overseas and closing down their app.
And now this …
Yep … Microsoft are saying that to prove they’re always IMPROVING their Microsoft 365 service – a service millions pay a monthly subscription for – they are going to remove a feature that many people use.
That’s right, contrary to popular interpretation, they have decided improvement means deletion, which begs the question – whose ‘improvement’ are they talking about? Something tells me it’s their bank account.
OK, so they say that many – but not all – of the features are available in other products that you get as part of your subscription, but this is just bullshit.
They don’t tell people what those products are.
They don’t tell people how to use them in a way that will give them what they were using Microsoft Publisher for.
They don’t even fucking help you transfer all your existing Microsoft Publisher documents and files into something you can use – or turn to – later.
Nope … all they do is say, “we’re going to stop putting money into this product, you better save them as pdf’s or you’ll lose them and – while we’re at it – you better learn how to educate yourself and adapt your products so they fit with what we’ve decided you need, even though we never asked you and keep charging you an increased subscription fee.
Surely they know this is the opposite of good service?
Surely they realise this is not ‘improving’ their product?
Surely they understand customers can see through this bullshit?
In some ways I hope they don’t, because while it would mean they’re thick-as-shit, it would also mean they’re at least not trying to gaslight us.
But I am afraid it might be both …
Because Microsoft’s ability to fuck themselves – and their customers – thanks to terrible decisions is legendary.
Windows Phones.
Bing Search.
The killing of Office.
The shit that is Teams.
Skype.
Nokia.
Co-Pilot.
And basically 99% of the UI of 99% of their products.
This is a company that wants us to believe their vision of AI is one that is good for humanity and yet their behavior is more Dictatorship than democracy.
But as I pointed out at the top of this post, they’re not alone. We’re constantly seeing companies attempting to gaslight their customers with claims that by deleting a service, they’re offering a better service … even though they don’t offer an alternative and if they do, it’s either not as good or costs even more.
Which demonstrates 4 things:
Many companies care more about maxing money than doing good things that earn them money.
Many companies are gaslighting themselves more than customers because we sure-as-shit aren’t falling for this rubbish.
Most companies demonstrate the corporate culture is all about managing up rather than doing what is actually right for their customers.
Most companies hire consultancies because they validate their bad behaviour rather than hold them to standards and expectations of customers.
Which is why when a company goes on about how good their NPS score is, remember – it’s coming from a faceless data point, based on an average of other players in their category – rather than the voice of customers and how they evaluate the service in terms of anything and everything they experience and endure in their day.
More proof that there’s lies, damn lies and not just statistics but customer data.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, AI, Comment, Corporate Evil, Management, Money, Music, Technology
While this post doesn’t rely on you watching this clip first, it may help explain why I have written it …
As many of you will know, I am a huge fan of technology.
Which means, I am also a huge fan of AI.
However, what I’m not a huge fan of, are the vast majority of people behind it. Or more specifically, their reasons for doing it. And the implications we’ll all encounter because of it.
It’s because of that, I’m fast coming to the view that the vast majority of tech bros, should be called terrorist bros – hence the title of this post.
Let’s be honest, for all their expensive manufactured PR claiming they want to help society ‘win at life’, we continue to watch their hunger for power, money, ego and control wreak havoc across society through their self-interest crafted half truths, delusion and manipulation.
What makes it worse is AI can do so much good for so many people so it’s doubly sad the vast majority of tech leaders [and corporate leaders] seem to just want it for pushing profit and productivity – regardless of cost or implication on everyone else both short term and long.
Which made me think …
What if another nation acted this way? Did things that were purposefully designed to destabalise how another society functioned or operated (be it environmentally, socially or economically) for their own benefit?
Would we just accept it or see it as an attack? An act of commercialism or an act of aggression?
We don’t have to look too far to see how certain countries respond to ‘perceived’ threats that aren’t anywhere near as overt or obvious as AI. [Cough cough]. So when do the tech companies get reigned in? When do we get back to valuing substance and experience not just celebrate how fast we can get to the aggregated superficial? When do we get back to investing in people and training rather than reducing and discarding?
OK, rant over. But wouldn’t it be great if we all looked up to the values and standards of Prince rather than the culture vampires like Mikey Shulman.
Finally …
How grateful are you that I don’t drink?. Can you imagine what this would be like if I did? Haha.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, AI, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Business, Colleagues, Conformity, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Fashion, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Money, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect
A few weeks ago, I found myself in Melbourne, Australia.
I had some time free so I went to the National Gallery where I saw seeing their excellent Westwood/Kawakubo fashion exhibition.
While walking around, it struck me how fashion designers talk about their point of view on society [and how they use their creativity to shape/change it] whereas modern advertising increasingly only talks about their systems and ‘proprietary’ models that drive efficiency and cost savings.
With that in mind, it’s both amusing and sad that for all the business rhetoric we spout on our stages, news pages, and LinkedIn feeds, fashion continues to have greater cultural influence, resonance, and economic impact.
And why is that?
Well, there are many reasons for it, but as someone VERY successful in fashion recently told me: “the top end of their industry is still led by people who love fashion, whereas too much of ours is run by people who crave the love of business”.
Of course, it wasn’t always this way. Go back a little and most of our advertising leaders spoke like fashion designers. And while business will always be essential to our survival – and thank god for that and them – perhaps we’d be better served championing the power of what we create, rather than only focus on the process of how we create it.
Or better yet, let the work speak for us. But not this work.
And if you think I’m being an asshole, spare a thought for all the marketing professionals who attended their MBA course at Imperial College London, when they found I was their guest lecturer. Hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Apple, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Colleagues, Craft, Culture, Customer Service, Emotion, Experience, Fake Attitude, Japan, Luxury, Marketing, Mercedes, Money, Packaging, Resonance, Respect
Over the years I’ve written a lot about brands who spend time and money ensuring their customers feel they’ve purchased something of significantly greater value than the functional cost of the item they’ve purchased.
The original ‘brand experience’ as it were.
There’s Tiffany with their iconic ‘little blue box’.
There’s Apple with their packaging and attention to detail.
Hell, there’s even Absolut with their special edition bottles – though I accept that’s more a satisfying novelty than something that builds real additional value for the brand.
But what I find interesting is for all the talk of ‘brand experience’, most brands – except those truly in the luxury space – suck at it. And that’s not counting the masses of brands who don’t even bother with it – often believing their customers should consider themselves fortunate for owning whatever it is they’ve just handed over their cash to buy.
But that aside … the problem with a lot of ‘brand experience’ is it’s starting point is the cost to do it, not the emotion they ignite because of it – so we end up with countless Temu versions of whatever it is they want to do or what they think people want to get.
Now I am not saying that these approaches don’t work or aren’t liked, but we end up in parity status very quickly – which has the result of completely nullifying whatever ‘value’ you hoped you would get from it in the first place.
The reality is experience is less about what you do and how you do it …
Not just for distinctiveness.
Not just for memorability.
But because it conveys what you value and the standards you keep.
This should be obvious as hell – but the problem is, when companies evaluate it against the cost – or time – many view it as an expense rather than an investment in their brand and customer relationship, so before you know it, they strip things back to its most basic form.
It’s why I love how Japanese brands tend to approach brand experience.
As a society, care and attention seem to be built into the DNA.
You just have to see how they package anything to realise they – if anything – over engineer brand experience.
It’s a culture that places high importance on standards, respect and consistency – which is why I like this video of someone picking up their new Lexus car.
On one level, it’s not that different to a lot of car manufacturers around the world who place a bow or blanket over a car when it’s about to be picked up, however when they do it – you know the amount of effort involved in executing is minimal, whereas this – whether part of a fixed process or not – requires commitment and time.
Is this overkill?
Yep.
Is this more culturally influenced than category?
Undoubtedly.
And is the whole thing a bit awkward?
For many, it absolutely would be.
However, the point of the Lexus example is less about what they do and more a case of showing a brand who are committed to expressing who they are and who they’re for – because where brand experience is concerned, too many companies approach this key part of the ‘sales process’ with passive energy whereas Japan is almost aggressive in ensuring its point of view in expressed in an active and engaged manner.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Business, Comment, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Culture, Data, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Marketing Science, Money, Reputation, Research, Respect, Srircha
3 years ago, I wrote about the amazing story of Sriracha sauce.
How it is a testimony to belief, standards and stubbornness.
If you didn’t read it, you should – especially as the brand, right now, is suffering badly.
Now you may think this is where I say I was wrong …
That I mistook a moment of success for a story of sustainable excellence.
But you’d be wrong … because while the brand is suffering, it’s more to do with values versus ingredients.
You see at some point, the founder – David Tran – asked his son to take a bigger role in the company operations.
While William – and his sister, Tassie – grew up with the company their father founded, William had worked at a management consultancy and as such, thought he could modernize the approach that his father had built his business on.
Was this by investing in better machinery? No.
Was this by buying some of the suppliers they relied upon? No.
Was this by producing new products founded on Sriracha principles? No.
It was by trying to re-negotiate the contracts of their long-term partners and by replacing the ingredients used with cheaper alternatives.
That’s right … rather than make choices that could add to the potential of the business, he chose to exploit what the business already did.
Or said another way, he wanted to squeeze every possible penny of profit he could out of every possible inch of the business.
And the result of this?
Well, their long-term suppliers walked away.
Their product quality fell away.
And their customers walked all the way to their competitors.
So, what’s the point of this?
Well, it’s that we’re deep in the cult of optimsation. The common consensus success is defined by how much you can squeeze out of what you’ve got rather than grow to what you can become. Where standards are deemed as optional when offered the opportunity to make a teeny bit more money by lowering them.
And it’s this bullshit viewpoint that is at the root of so much bad in brands and business..
Of course, you have to manage costs.
Of course, business is hard and challenging.
And of course, you want to be open to new possibilities and opportunities.
But doing it in isolation, delusion or arrogance of any possible implication is bordering on psychotic … just like the fact that despite all the data and research they invest in, less and less companies seem to have a real appreciation or understanding of who their actual customers are, what’s going on in their lives, what they actually need, want and expect from them and what business they’re actually in.
Oh, they will say they do.
And they’ll use numbers to explain or justify choices and decisions.
But too often, there’s an underbelly of arrogance that customers will blindly accept – or take – whatever they want them to have. That they know more than the people they serve, so are free to do whatever they want that serves their own best interests and goals.
So, they start using lower standards of ingredients.
Or they make pack sizes smaller, while keeping prices the same.
Or they remove features and claim they’re doing it for ‘environmental’ reasons.
Or they find underhand ways to increase usage, like widening the bottle nozzle pour.
Or they claim their product is ‘healthy’ simply by changing pack design and/or serving sizes.
Always looking to shortcut or shortchange … justified and underpinned by an attitude that in business, success is awarded to those who can stretch or squeeze their customers and suppliers, regardless of what it destroys or costs.
That’s where we are folks.
That’s where the school of business is increasingly taking us too.
Optimise, Optimise. Optimise.
Nothing … absolutely nothing matters more than the quarterly result. Except maybe the corporate ego, which is why we end up with research done by bots … innovation designed by spreadsheets … marketing created by systems, rules and AI and decisions evaluated by the ability to optimize not liberate.
Or as my friend told me, “optimise yourself to commodification”.
As I’ve said for far too long… the only thing that differentiates business from competitors are the values you hold.
And when you allow them to be sold for a quick, temporary gain, then you don’t become the same as everyone else, you become worse. Because contrary to popular opinion – people don’t choose you simply because of your price, habit or convenience … but because of something the world of business consultant loves to dismiss as an unnecessary cost …
Standards.
Just ask Srircha, or any of the countless household companies/brands who have turned-to consultants to find ‘clever’ ways to boost business, even if it ends up being at the cost of everyone, except the C-Suite and Wall Street.