Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, China, Comment, Communication Strategy, Context, Creativity, Culture, Customer Service, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Food, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Service, Supermarkets
Isn’t it funny we talk so much about the environment, and yet we are producing more stuff that fucks the world than ever before?
That said, while companies aren’t great at living up to what they state – humans tend to be far better.
One of which has been our ability to find ways to make food last longer than intended.
Whether that’s been creating mustard to disguise the taste of potentially ‘off’ ingredients through to making stale bread into bread and butter pudding, we’ve always found ways to stretch things out.
Of course, the ultimate nation for food maximization is China.
Now, part of that is because during the Great Leap Forward, people were starved/starving and so were forced to eat anything they could to survive. However, while that time is well gone, the attitude of ‘waste not, want not’ has remained which is why there’s so many recipes across the region that utilize a nose to tail philosophy.
Literally.
I say this because I recently saw Marks & Spencer’s [M&S] in the UK be a bit smart with their sourdough bread.
It’s this.
Good eh?
Rather than chuck the bread out as it starts to go stale … shove loads of garlic butter in them, place them in a fridge and flog them as mouthwatering garlic bread you just have to heat-up before shoving down your throat.
OK, they could have given it to the needy rather than find another way to take every last penny from their customers, but it’s still devastatingly simple. And smart.
They’ve also launched a range of ‘minimal ingredient’ food … which is clever for a whole host of reasons. The first being the increased awareness and desire for preservative free food. The second being it goes off faster, so there’s a good chance people will end up having to buy more when their best intentions to eat it gets scuppered with life etc. Given it is probably even more expensive than the preservative counterpart – I know, paying a premium for less, classic capitalism – and everyone can kinda win with this.
To be fair, I’ve always been quite impressed how supermarkets innovate – they’ve done far more and in more ways than most organisations – but while ‘pre-packaged’ garlic bread is not a new thing [though garlic sourdough loaves is a whole other level] … as is finding new ways to extend old/ugly food … it’s still a perfect example of creative thinking.
It’s also a lesson to the ad industry on how to sell creative thinking.
Because for all the systems, processes, charts and models we love to bang on about, the key seems to be much simpler.
Solve a real problem. [Opportunity]
Show why people will really pay for your solution. [Benefit]
Make it easy-as-fuck for them to buy [Action]
[including what they have to do at their end to make it happen]
I say this, but I bet there’s still strategists and agencies out there who would still write a 305 page deck to explain this idea …
As I have said before, if the solution feels more complicated than the problem, why the fuck do we expect anyone to do it?
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand Suicide, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Clients, Clothes, Comment, Community, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Crap Marketing Ideas From History!, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cunning, Devious Strategy, Disney, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Empathy, Honesty, Innovation, Luxury, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Membership, Netflix, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Popularity, Process, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Social Divide, Social Media, Strategy, Stupid
Once upon a time, I was asked to help a client based in Thailand.
They were very successful – having made Thailand the most profitable market in the World for their particular brand.
Anyway, part of the project involved a workshop and part of that workshop was about identifying new variants for their product.
So far, so good.
Until I realized they weren’t looking at this to expand who could become a customer of theirs, but how to get existing customers to buy more of what they make.
Even that was OK, until it became apparent they believed their product was so loved, their customers would continually fill their shopping baskets with 3 or 4 different versions of the same product because they just liked the ability to consume it in more places at more times.
In short, they believed the more versions of their product they made, the more volume of products their customers would buy.
Every time.
Forget that people have a finite amount of money.
Forget that people have other bills, items, people to look after.
They believed, if you made it … people would just blindly buy.
It’s the same blinkered approach that some sales organizations have.
Where they believe if one salesman brings in a million dollars of revenue a year, hiring 11 more will mean they achieve 12 million dollars of revenue.
It’s both blinkered thinking and wishful thinking.
Or – as my father used to say – “the expansion of logic without logic”.
I say this because it feels companies are viewing the subscription model in a similar way.
Once upon a time, subscriptions were seen as the exciting new thing for business.
A new way to charge for your products and services … regardless that ‘direct debit’ payments had been around for years.
There were 3 key reasons why repositioning cost as a subscription was so appealing:
1 It lowered the barrier to entry, so it could appeal to more/new customers.
2 They knew that while customers ‘could’ cancel at any time, data showed most wouldn’t.
3 It could, in theory, allow them to charge more per month than their old annual fee.
And they were right, it proved to be a revelation … until it wasn’t.
Right now, everything is seemingly a subscription model.
Food.
Clothes.
Streaming.
Gym and health.
Car purchasing.
But the one that really is making me laugh, are phone apps.
It’s almost impossible to download anything without it being a subscription service.
And that would be OK, except the prices they want to charge are getting out of control.
I recently downloaded a recipe app that wanted $14.99 A WEEK. A FUCKING WEEK.
$60 a month just so I could send it healthy recipes I see on social media and have them all in one, easy-to-access place.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Sure, it had some features that would make it more convenient than just putting it into a saved folder on instagram … but it sure-as-shit isn’t worth me paying more than it costs me for Netflix, Disney+ and Spotify PUT TOGETHER.
I appreciate everyone thinks their product is the best product.
I acknowledge it takes a lot of hard work and money to make a new product.
But the removal of any ‘human reality context’ – ie: how much money do people actually have available to spend, and the hierarchy of importance they place on the things they spend – is not just stupid, it destroys the potential of good ideas.
Of course, part of the reason for this is because of how tech investment works.
Basically investors want big returns, very fast … so this pushes developers to build economic models based on a ‘perfect scenario’ situations.
For perfect scenario, read: not real life.
So they show things like:
The economic value of the health industry.
The impact of social media on diet choices.
The rise of health-focused products and services.
And before you know it, they’ve extrapolated all this ‘data’ to come up with a price point of $60 per month and said it not only offers good value, but will generate huge returns on the investment in collapsed time.
Except …
+ All this is theory because they haven’t talked to anyone who would actually use it.
+ They probably haven’t identified who they need to use it beyond ‘health seekers’.
+ And they absolutely haven’t understood it costs a lot of money to be healthy and so an additional $60 subscription for the average person is a cost too far … especially when things they use ALL THE TIME – like Netflix [which they already think is too expensive] – is a quarter of that cost FOR THE MONTH.
I get no one likes to hear problems.
I appreciate anyone can find faults if they really want to.
But being ‘objective’ is not about killing ideas – when done right – it’s about enabling them to thrive, which is why I hope business stops looking at audiences in ‘the zoo’ and starts respecting them in ‘the jungle’ … because not only will it mean good ideas stand more chance of becoming good business, it also means people will have more access to things that could actually help them, without it destroying them in other ways.
As perfectly expressed by Clint, the founder of Corteiz …
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Bands, Cannes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Diversity, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Entertainment, Friendship, Influencers, Interviews, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance
Following on from Wednesday’s post …
One of the great pleasures that walking has given me is listening to podcasts.
To be honest, prior to walking I never really enjoyed them.
Sure, part of that was because the podcasts available in the early days were – generally – fucking terrible, but more than that … I just have always enjoyed the act of reading.
Still do.
But the beauty of a podcast is it lets me take my mind off the pain/boredom of walking and instead, let’s me lose myself in the joy of the story. And because I have an addictive personality, it means I rarely stop walking until I’ve heard the end of whatever the hell I’m listening too. Podcasts have literally ensured I’ve walked hundreds of kilometers further than I would otherwise have walked.
However for me to really love a podcast, it needs to be about true stories.
Don’t really care what – or who – the subject is about, it just has to be real.
Interestingly, the companies/individuals who do them best – or at least in terms of what I find ‘best’ – are the ones who have always told stories. Who know the craft of it. Who appreciate the importance of space and pace. Who see is as an expression of who they are, rather than simply the business they’re in.
Which is why I have recently been enjoying Rockonteurs with Gary Kemp and Guy Pearce.
Rockonteurs is a music podcast, hosted by ex-Spandau Ballet guitarist Gary Kemp and session bassist, Guy Pratt. Each episode hears them listening to different icons from the music industry. Not just in terms of artists and performers … but producers, promoters, songwriters and managers.
Now obviously I love music and a lot of the people they interview are individuals from my era … but that’s not why I like it or why you should listen to it.
The thing that stands out most of all is that regardless of decade, genre, country-of-origin, level of success … there is a camaraderie, respect and overall interest in what each person has done and how they approached it that is severely lacking in our industry today.
Right now, in our industry, it feels like everyone is desperate to be seen as ‘the ultimate one’.
The person with all the answers.
The person with all the knowledge.
The person who defines how everything should be done.
There’s not much humbleness in our industry these days – and what there is, comes across as contrived-as-fuck.
That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be proud of what they believe or what they’ve done … but it does mean they shouldn’t speak with a condescending tone or a desire to belittle or destroy anyone who thinks differently to them.
But it’s happening all the time.
Sure, some of that is amplified by the Linkedin algorithm – not to mention the conference industry – that rewards this sort of bullshit … but everywhere you look you see and hear people making some pretty outrageous, self-serving, blinkered claims.
What makes it worse is that in many cases, the things they feel OK with publicly judging/criticising/labelling are things they’ve never actually made/done themselves … though my personal fave is when you hear them repackage well established approaches/rules/campaigns and then try to claim they have ‘invented’ something new.
Even more bizarre is how this behavior is as prevalent with ‘senior leaders’ as it is with people just starting out … who you can at least understand are trying to stand out from a crowd of sameness.
Just last year, I listened to a very, very well-known and successful leader tell a global audience they had identified ‘the secret to success’ … without once acknowledging everything they said was [1] literally information that was decades old, [2] it is how good agencies have always operated.
Now I appreciate they have millions of dollars of reasons why they have to speak with the authoritative tone of God, but that doesn’t make them right – regardless how smart they may be – but what makes it sad is they have no willingness or openness to acknowledge there are other ways, even if they prefer/believe in theirs most.
And maybe that’s why I really enjoy the Rockonteurs podcast … because there’s none of that.
OK, I appreciate all the guests who appear have achieved a certain level of success, so there’s less to prove. I also accept many of the guests are looking back on their career – rather than ahead – so there is less of a commercial demand being placed on them to ‘win people over’. And finally, I completely understand all the guests have a direct connection to one – or both – of the hosts, so they’re talking to a friendly audience.
[Though I have to say the hosts aren’t great – sometimes bordering on annoying – as they often interrupt their guests in a desperate bid to either show public association with them or remind them that they too were once famous. It’s a bit yuck to be honest.]
But that aside, for an industry that still overflows with fragile egos … the one thing that came through once I’d listened to a few of the interviews – especially the first season – was how united they all were in terms of what they value/d … even though most of them all had radically different styles, views and interpretations of what that is and how to get there.
Underpinning this was that regardless on the level of success each guest achieved, they had been successful.
Maybe in terms of popularity.
Maybe in terms of a single song/album/concert.
Maybe in terms of their influence in a particular genre/fan of music.
Maybe in terms of simply having a career, despite never having a breakthrough hit.
But they had pulled something off against the odds and for that, there was something to hear, something to learn and something to respect.
That doesn’t mean they are not competitive.
That doesn’t mean they like everything each other does/did.
But it does mean they appreciate how hard it takes to make something you feel proud of – even if you don’t like it or understand it – and maybe, just maybe, if our industry adopted this stance a bit more, we’d not only be a nicer place to work, we might end up being a place that makes a lot more interesting work.
Because as I’ve said before [or should I say, what Ferdinand Porsche said before]: It’s better to mean everything to someone than be anything to everyone.
Check out Rockonteurs wherever you get your podcast.
I promise, whatever music you’re into.
Whatever era you’re from or adore.
There’ll be something you’ll like. And learn.
________________________________________________________________________
Please note:
There’s a public holiday here on Monday – I know, I know – so see you on Tuesday.
You lucky, lucky people – hahaha.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Career, Clients, Collaboration, Comment, Complicity, Conformity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Freelance, Honesty, Individuality, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Strategy
OK, I’ve given you a couple of days of niceish posts to help ease you into the new year, so I think it’s time I write some stuff that lets out some of my seemingly endless frustrations – ha.
As we all know, there’s a ton of talk about the longevity of the industry with things like corporate consolidation, AI and processes and systems.
I get that and there should be that … but what bothers me is a lot of the conversations are not focused on what got us here.
Because for all the talk about the obsession with efficiency and the ‘illusion’ of effectiveness, what is rarely discussed is the lack of investment in training.
Don’t get me wrong,’outsourced, for profit’ training programs have their role and value in developing skills – even if many have been devised by people who have often never even worked directly in the industry, let alone made anything of note within it – but so much of this is about creating industry conformity, rather than creation.
Worse, it’s industry conformity often based on an individuals definition of what good work is … which is ALWAYS self-serving for them.
And while – as I said – it still offers some sort of value, it also actively devalues individual talent, potential, craft and creativity.
Or said another way, it allows all the things we are spending so much energy complaining about – to thrive.
Add to that too many people only wanting to develop in a bid to get more money – rather than more ability – and you can see how we got where we’re sitting.
But what bothers me most is how some companies are reacting and responding to this shift.
I don’t mean agencies – who, in the main, are not exactly shining with their ‘strategies’ – but companies.
Because for all the demands they have in terms of expectations and standards, they end up showing nothing really matters as much as cost and time.
Part of this is because – sadly – many companies don’t know the difference between quality and quantity.
Part of this is because – even more sadly – there is a lack of training in their organizations as well, so they’re only empowered to say ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’.
Part of this is – possibly most tragic of all – is that many companies have put themselves in a position where they have allowed procurement to be the ultimate decision maker – despite the fact the only thing most know about other industries is how to ‘compare prices’.
Case in point …
Recently I spoke to a strategist who is not just incredibly experienced, but is pretty incredible.
By that I mean the work they’ve done and the impact they have enabled.
And yet, despite all this, they’re finding it hard to find work … exemplified by recently losing out on a project where – objectively – they would be one of the most qualified people in the entire industry to do this job.
They didn’t lose out because they weren’t known.
They didn’t lose out because they weren’t available.
They lost out because the company thought they could ‘hack the system’ by hiring someone who had worked at the same company as the strategist in question, who was asking for a much lower fee.
Now I get – on face value – that sounds a smart move.
Except that was the only requirement for hiring this person.
They ignored the fact these strategists didn’t work in the same office.
They ignored the fact these strategists didn’t work on the same clients or category.
They ignored the fact they never worked or interacted together.
They ignored the fact one strategist has led work, the other has just supported it.
They ignored the fact one strategist has 16 years of experience, the other has under 5.
They ignored the fact one strategist is at a ‘head of planning’ level, the other is ‘strategist’.
I should point out this does not mean the strategist they chose isn’t good – I know who they are and they have some interesting perspectives – but their experience, context, exposure to senior leaders and overall ability is miles off what the other strategist in question has to offer. There is literally no comparison.
Now this is not their fault … with time, I imagine their abilities [like all of us] will increase dramatically, or it will if they are exposed to people who are willing to develop them, rather than expect them to just execute which sadly – even if they had a full-time job – is increasingly seen as a ‘cost’ rather than an investment … but while I have no desire to deny anyone the ability to make a living [especially young talent who have been forced out of jobs because of costs, workload or mental health] everyone is going to lose here.
Everyone.
The ultra-qualified strategist has to look for another job.
The strategist who has been hired is going to only execute based on their frame-of-reference and standards which, as I pointed out, is not what a job of this magnitude requires. And that’s before we even consider how much this job could hold back their development because they’re not being paid to learn, they’re being paid to do.
The company ends up having a solution that doesn’t liberate the opportunity they have … or the issues they need to contend with.
Of course, where you work has a huge impact on how you grow … and the place both these strategists worked, is excellent.
But there’s a massive difference between being there a few years and many years – not just in terms of the work you do, but the challenges and growth you are exposed to – and so when companies choose to deliberately ignore this … be it for cost, convenience or control reasoning … not only are they undermining their own business, they’re undermining the potential of the person they hired and so we all end up contributing to the situation we’re complaining about while also being blinkered towards.
Train properly.
Pay properly.
Place value on experience, standards and craft.
If you don’t, the position of mayhem that we’re in now will be seen as one of the golden ages of where we’ll end up.
Happy New Year … hahaha.
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.