The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]


Is Your Audience Research Designed To Create Prejudice ?

Recently I had to interview a relatively well known singer songerwriter.

While their major successes were in the 90’s, they’d always had a place in popular culture – albeit British culture.

I went into the call only knowing what I had read up about them and what I had thought about them when they were making hits … so while I was intrigued to chat, I wasn’t exactly sure how it was going to go.

Fortunately for me, I had a secret weapon and that was a Mum who had instilled in me to ‘always be interested in what others are interested in’.

What this means is your job is simple: listen to them and follow where they take you.

That doesn’t mean you can’t ask questions.
Nor does it mean you can’t challenge them when you feel their answers contradict each other.
However, rather than go into it looking for faults or specific answers, your focus is simply to understand how they think and see the world.

And I am so grateful for that because the conversation was amazing.

Not just in terms of what was discussed, but how much I understood and – even related – to many of the choices and decisions they made on their journey.

A reminder that whoever you are … whatever plans you have … or wherever you’re from … we’re all bumbling along trying to make sense of the stuff we experience and are exposed to, while trying to keep on some sort of path we feel we can manage or hope to navigate.

I came out of our chat with a totally different perspective of this indivudual – both as a musician and as a human.

More than that, it allowed me to look back on my perceptions and realise how much I had let prejudices, associations and media [mis]shape my point of view. Or said another way, how I had chosen to ‘tune out’ their reality and ‘tune in’ to the noise surrounding them.

Noise created by people who often didn’t know them and certainly didn’t know what they were going through.

We all have experienced a version of that in our life. Now imagine it on a national and international scale?

Which is why that chat not only helped me see their choices and career through an entirely different lens … it made me feel deeply ashamed of myself.

Of my prejudice.
Of my judgement.
Of my wasted energy.

And I told them and they were incredibly kind and gracious about it. Far more than I deserved, let alone expected … but I can honestly say, I now look at who they are and what they have done – and do – with deep respect rather than judgement or ridicule.

That doesn’t mean I suddenly love their music – I don’t – but I do now completley understand where it came from and what it represented. Especially to them. And that – ironically – has allowed me to connect to them as an artist and a human far more than I ever imagined was possible … amplified by their openness, warmth and willingness to be vulnerable about moments in their life that were most definitely not easy.

I say all this because I think where I started prior to the interview represents what our industry is doing day after day.

Relying on cherry-picked data points, shortcuts and convenient answers, rather than going out their way to truly understand the textured lives, perspectives and challenges of the audiences they want and need to connect and engage to.

What’s making this even worse is how many research companies are now outsourcing ‘data gathering’ to AI driven bots … reinforcing that business increasingly values speed, convenience and efficiency over depth of underrstanding.

And the result of all this?

False perceptions.
Self-interest driven solutions.
Increased category convention advertising.

Or, to sum it up even more devastatingly … Maxwell House idiocy thinking.

It’s why I’ve always seen strategy as an outdoor job more than a desk job.

It’s why I’ve put-out books about what society is thinking over what marketing is claiming.

It’s why I’ve always favoured working with people like On Road and Ruby Pseudo over the conglomerate research companies.

And finally, it’s why – when told by planners they don’t have time to go out and talk to people – I’ve said that even if they talk to 3 people in the streets, that’s likely 3 more than anyone else. Because as much as it is always the right thing to make time for more understanding, the point isn’t about scale of opinion, it’s about scale of the nuances you will discover … because when you’re open to that, you’ll not only learn how much you never knew, but see how much your creativity can now impact and achieve.

Comments Off on Is Your Audience Research Designed To Create Prejudice ?


Groundhog Day Was A Documentary …

A few weeks ago, I was writing the Colenso strat gang plan for 2026.

What we want to do.
What we want to change.
What we want to break.
What we want to create.

In doing that, I wanted to reference what we had experienced in 2025 against what mates at other agencies around the World had gone through. Not to compare necessarily, more to understand their perspective of what was happening.

Now, despite the fact I have a reputation for never being satisfied, I knew we’d had a pretty good year.

Not maybe by the measure others value, but by a lot of things I do.

Of course there’s things we can, should and need to improve – and we will – but overall, we’d built a foundation of interesting things that was good by any criteria.

Or so I thought …

You see, I spoke to a friend of mine in the US and when I told them some of the stuff we’d done, they kept saying …

“How did you make that much stuff?”

At first I thought they were either being kind or mistakenly believed that because NZ is so small, it’s impossible for the entire industry to produce more than one thing a year … but that wasn’t it at all.

Despite them working in America.
Despite them working in a big agency.
Despite them working on a massive client.
They’d produced nothing.

Nada.
Zero.
Zilch.

Actually, that’s not quite right … because they did tell me they had produced something.

In fact over 60 somethings …

Presentation decks.
For the same idea.
Which the client still didn’t buy.

Now you may assume with that many presentations, my friend is a fucking idiot. But you’d be wrong because she’s utterly brilliant. But – as I’ve written before – this is where we’re at these days. Endless presentations to endless people in endless departments just to get the smallest bit of work through.

But as mad as that is, it’s not as mad as this …

Despite no one making much work, they told me how everyone is as busy-as-fuck.

“Doing what?” I asked.

“I don’t know. I think they’re just creating, shuffling or editing papers”.

Now I’m not saying we’re immune from writing the odd needless presentation at Colenso …

Nor am I saying we’ve not beem asked to present the same deck to different ‘stakeholders’ within the same organisation a multitude of times over the years …

And if the reason for it is because the client spotted or questioned things in the agencies thinking that the agency hadn’t so they had to go back and keep updating it to re-present it … I get it.

But over 60 times?

For the same campaign?

That never moved forward?

If that’s the case, either the client is bad or the agency is.

Who is paying for this shit? Why are we letting this happen? It’s not just utterly inefficient, it’s utterly soul-destroying.

Worse, it also is completely destroying the value, reputation, purpose of our entire industry.

I get consultancies can operate this way – because ultimately, they get paid to offer advice rather than apply it – but we are an industry made for making, creating and doing.

That we are often positioned by business and procurement departments as ‘costly and unprofessional’ while they happily pay salaries to whole departments who never move anything forward or to consultancies who never take any responsibility blows my mind.

So while hearing the situation my friend found themselves could have made me look at the things we achieved in ’25 with a slightly more positive gaze, it served more as a cautionary tale. Because what we’re seeing is the marketing industry potentially turning more and more into the worst of the legal industry … where the goal isn’t to get the right result, but to keep the problem going.

Not because – as is the case with law – it keeps the money rolling in.

But because it keeps mediocrity feeling important and looking busy.

Hell, with this news, I may be nicer to my clients and colleagues from now on.

Emphasis on ‘may’. Hahaha.

Comments Off on Groundhog Day Was A Documentary …


Making Extra Dough Out Of Bread: The Commercial Value Of Repurposing And Making Old, New Again …

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?

Comments Off on Making Extra Dough Out Of Bread: The Commercial Value Of Repurposing And Making Old, New Again …


We All Are Going In Our Own Directions …

Without wishing to sound like a stalker – or a pervert – but I recently spotted this couple walking down Ponsonby Road …

I don’t know who they are.

I never saw their faces.

I only was behind them for a matter of seconds.

But in that time, they made a huge impression on me.

The togetherness.
The lazy pace of synchronicity.
The fact they were heading somewhere only they knew.

So much of our industry is focused on what we want people to do or think … and so little time is spent on where people are at in life. Everyone has their issues, concerns, hopes and ambitions – and yet, too often, that’s seen as unimportant or inconvenient.

We – and by that, I mean research companies as much as advertising agencies – talk about ‘understanding people’, but what we really mean is we understand what clients want to hear. So we churn out an endless stream of characteristics that both say everything about anyone as well as nothing.

Robots more than humans.

The thing is, one of the greatest things about the creative industry is are ability to emotionally impact millions.

How to make them feel … not just think.

And yet every model, system and process I see being promoted on platforms and websites doesn’t talk about this.

In fact, it actively filters this sort of thing out … instead, it talks about ‘identifying the optimum trigger and moment to drive the purchase decision’.

What. The. Fuck.

We wonder why our industry is not as influential as it once was?
We wonder why influencers can impact audiences more than a multi-million media plan?
We wonder why artists can reach and impact audiences without any marketing budget, knowledge or skills?

There’s a simple reason.

We don’t spend enough time caring about this couple.

Who they are.
What’s important to them.
What they’re working towards.
What people misunderstand about them.
When was the last time they felt happy. Or helpless.

All we care about is how we can reach them with ‘efficient and convenient sales messages that convey the key functional reasons for purchase consideration. Never once realizing the real problem is they don’t give a fuck about what we’re saying because all we’re doing is shouting what we want them to care about rather than understanding what they actually care about.

Or need.

So next time you get a brief – or write one – that describes an audience as, ‘urban dwelling, white collar employees who take what they do seriously but don’t take themselves seriously’ ask yourself one thing.

Are you about humanity or commercial landfill?

Which just leaves me with a message to the people in that photo.

Thank you for being an important reminder of what we’re brilliant at and what we’re here to do.

May you have a brilliant life together. Whoever you are. Wherever you go.

Here’s to you continually walking towards wherever you want to go together.

Comments Off on We All Are Going In Our Own Directions …


Why Too Much Marketing Theory Lives In An Ego Filled Vacuum …

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 …

Comments Off on Why Too Much Marketing Theory Lives In An Ego Filled Vacuum …