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: Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Comment, Communication Strategy, Confidence, Consultants, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Experience, Focus Groups, Grifting, Logic, Love, Luck, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Process, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Status, Stupid
We’re surrounded by processes and systems.
Each and everyone proclaiming to be ‘the right way’ to do something.
A way that claims effectiveness … efficiency … accuracy and performance are all but guaranteed.
And while it is true that in many cases, they increase the odds of good things happening … that’s all they do.
Sure, many have a ton amount of data accompanying them to back things what they say … but as we all know about data, when used right [or wrong] you can make it say or prove anything you want it to.
The reality is our industry, pretty much all these systems are less a shortcut to wealth and prosperity, and more an insurance policy against failure and destruction.
Nothing wrong with that other that it does the opposite of what many claim and instead, champions conformity more than liberation. But then what do you expect when many of the people doing the spouting of systems and processes have a vested interest in everyone using those very systems and processes.
Again, I’m not suggesting you ignore all these things. As I said, many play an important role in developing products and brands … however when someone suggests they’re ‘the secret to success’ and must be embraced to the letter – then you need to think about whose success are they really talking about.
It’s why I bloody loved this interview with Marc Andreessen – the businessman, venture capitalist, and [former] software engineer. Specifically the bit about ‘why hyperlinks are blue’.
OK, so he tries to rationalize it at the end, but fundamentally what he says is: “blue is my favorite colour”.
That’s right … the colour of our hyperlinks were chosen.
By a human.
Because he liked that colour.
Kind of reminds me of the ‘wings’ on a Cadillac.
There was absolutely no functional reason for them to exist other than the fact the designers just thought it looked better with them.
That’s it.
And with that, they turned a car into an icon. And here lies a key lesson …
Sometimes, the things we like are simply because we like them.
There may be many alternatives.
There may be other possibilities.
But at the end of the day, some choose things for no other reason than it works for them.
And at a time where everything needs to be justified … rationalised … reviewed and tested … I think those people deserve credit for backing their belief, judgement, vision and preference.
It’s easy to do what a system tells you to do.
It’s easy to follow what others tell you is right.
But it takes confidence to embrace what you believe is the right thing to do. And while I acknowledge some will suggest this approach is an act of ego and arrogance … when you consider how many of these ‘dot-to-dot logic™ systems and ‘researched-to-within-an-inch-of-their-life’ campaigns/brands/products fail to perform [often because the impact or output they create is deemed secondary in importance to the adherence of every step of whatever system or logic process you have committed to using] you could argue the person who backs their judgement is no less an idiot than the person who outsources all their responsibility to someone else?
Whether we like it or not, sometimes the best things are a product of someone doing something they preferred.
They will justify it.
They will rationalize it.
But underpinning it all, is their acknowledgment that before they can think about satisfying others, they need to satisfy themselves … and frankly I find that a pretty honourable act.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brands, Cliches, Collegues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Success
It’s been a while since I’ve had an all-out rant, but here we go.
So recently, I saw a quote recently I loved.
It was by Arnold Glasgow, the American businessman and satirist who said:
“Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have trying to change others”.
I say this because too many brands – and agencies – think they can.
Worse, they think they can with an ad … an ad that either tells people specifically what to do/what they should do and/or a list of product attributes that they believe will make someone immediately stop whatever it is they have been doing for decades and change tact because they’ve suddenly been ‘enlightened’.
Of course, this is not entirely the fault of agencies and clients.
Too often, it is backed up by some for-profit research group who has said their findings prove – without any possible doubt – this is what people will do and, even more importantly, want to do.
Now this is not an anti-research stance. Or an anti-agency or client diatribe.
The reality is we need some sort of foundation of information to make choices and decisions and research – when done well, like everything in life – is a universally established way to achieve that BUT … and it’s a big but … the definitive and delusional nature of how our industry talks borders on bonkers.
I get we don’t like risk.
I get what we do is bloody expensive.
I get there are big implications on getting things wrong.
But nothing – and I mean nothing – can be guaranteed and yet so much of the business acts like it can be, conveniently choosing to ignore the landfill of failings from organisations who have researched every part of everything they do for in every aspect of their life.
Sure, it can increase the odds of success … like advertising.
Sure, it is better than not doing anything at all … like advertising.
But everyone acting like whatever they are going to do is ‘a dead cert’ is an act of commercial complicity and co-dependency that borders on Comms Stockholm Syndrome.
A long time ago, when I was maybe a bit more of a menace, a media agency told a client – with me in the room – that they could guarantee they’d HIT their sales target if a particular amount was invested.
I asked, “but you don’t know what the idea is yet and surely that has a role in the level of impact and/or investment that needs to be made?” … to which they said their ‘proprietary data’ gave them the commercial insight that helped their clients achieve their goals.
So back at the office – pissed off – I sent them an email saying this was the work.
Obviously, it did not go down well, but then neither did their ‘strategy’ of just throwing money at the wall until they hit the magic number.
Again, I appreciate we all need information to base choices and decisions on, but we’re getting way too generalistic, simplistic and egotistic in our approaches and methodologies – which is why the sooner we remember how hard it is for us to change any part of who we are, the sooner we may start accepting it takes far more than a business goal … a focus group commentary … a marketing methodology or an ad to get people to even consider doing what you want them to do and so maybe – just maybe – it will encourage us all to start playing up to a new standards rather than down to complicit convenience.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath, which is why I finish this rant with a post that I saw recently I also loved – albeit with ‘paraphrased interpretation’.
Thankfully not everyone is like this.
As proven by the fact, they tend to be the ones behind the stuff we all wish we were behind.
Or as my friend said recently, ‘they’re the ones who play to create change, not communicate everything exactly the same’.
Oh, I feel better for that. Thank you for [not] reading, hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Bands, Brands, Cannes, Creativity, Delusion, Effectiveness, Grifting, Metallica, Miley, Mr Ji, Music, Paula, Planners, Point Of View, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin
When I was going to move to Australia, I was severely stressed.
Part of it was because it meant moving away from my beloved parents.
Part of it was because I would be leaving a job I loved and had worked hard it.
And part of it was because I was moving for a woman who I hadn’t known too long.
While I knew in my heart I wanted to do it, the risk of it was huge – personally, even more than professionally – so I went to see my first ever therapist to ask for help.
This was a big thing for a whole host of reasons – most of which was that ‘therapy’ was an American thing and not the sort of thing done widely in England. But I needed to talk to someone so having found someone relatively close, I went to them and explained my situation.
I’ll never forget his response.
“Yes, what I was thinking was full of risk but the highest risk always offered the greatest reward and I was going into it with my eyes wide open and I should embrace that fact”.
I’m not saying that was the comment that led to me doing it – having my parents support and encouragement was the most important thing – but it did help me feel more peace with my choice … and while my relationship with the woman I went there for, didn’t work out, I can honestly say that everything in my life to this day – bar my relationship with Paul and his ex-wife, Shelly – is because I went.
I say this because I read something that Jeff Bezos said recently that I loved. It was this:
Now I appreciate he is not suggesting you let go of all common sense in your business operations – and nor should you – but at a time where so many of the industry ‘guru’s’ are selling systems that claim to ‘guarantee success’ [when in all reality, they are promoting complicity and insurance] it’s a pleasant change to hear a positive take on being ‘experiment positive’.
Just recently I saw one ‘guru’ announce their new ‘success stack’ for effective marketing.
To great acclaim, they announced this is how you ensure your marketing is successful.
Now I am in no doubt there is value in what they’re selling, but the problem I have is their approach is so myopic, systemized and one-size-fits-all that at best, they’re simply ensuring you hit guideline metrics rather than achieve actual growth.
Add to that, they’ve never made any work of note and are simply analyzing work that has achieved success based on their definitions and metrics, that people should – at best – be treating it as a guide rather than a blueprint.
But no … our industry is so messed up right now, we value the words of – excuse the analogy, because it’s not a good one – the pundits rather than the players.
By that, I mean those who are paid to find fault versus those who create change.
As I said in our speech at Cannes a few weeks ago, it’s like saying that because music has mathematical contexts behind it, we should trust a school maths teacher more than an actual musician.
We’ve gone mad. Or at least, deliberately ignorant.
Of course I appreciate risk is scary for companies.
I also get the numbers involved are huge and the implications even bigger.
But for all the talk of grawth and effectiveness we, as an industry, are far too comfortable playing within the rules, systems and codes of people whose entire ‘for profit’ business model is built on igniting fear and judgement in what you do, when the brands and businesses that experience the greatest growth always allow creativity – in whatever form it takes – some space to play, explore and experiment.
Sure, it might be a relatively small percentage compared to their core business, but they do it and do it without the boundaries and limitations that we are continually forced to adhere to, because they see it as a commercially important investment rather than an act of marketing practice defiance.
And given so many brands are currently acting, looking and communicating the same thing in the same way – because of their blind adherence to certain people’s one-size-fits-all marketing practice protocols, I’d argue there’s less risk leaving space for experimenting than there is following the same systems as everyone else.
Or to quote David Richards – from Paula and my talk at Cannes – it may explain why ‘companies have consumers but artists have fans.
[Of course, the ‘factual’ reason behind my declaration is that I work for the the most profitable luxury Retailer in the World, the most successful fashion and street culture investor in global fashion, the fastest growing eyewear brand on the planet and – of course – the 2nd most successful American band in music history, among others]
As an aside, if you’re interested in hearing the talk Paula and I gave, drop us a line here. If there’s enough interest, maybe we can do it. Not because we think it what we presented is THE ONLY way brands should think, but to ensure no one is daft enough to think there is only one way fullstop.
Happy weekend.
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?