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, AI, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Focus Groups, Research, Technology
One thing I’ve always hated is the arrogance some companies/agencies have towards their customers.
Blindly believing they are so important and clever, that society will do whatever they want them to do.
Maybe that’s why so many of the methodologies companies/agencies adopt to ‘understand audiences’ does not involve directly engaging with them … and even when it does, it’s done in such a false environment, that what they get out of it are viewpoints from a vacuum rather than real life. [More of that in tomorrow’s post]
It’s only getting worse with the advent of AI … where we’re already seeing research companies using bots to interview audiences. That’s right – under the guise of ‘scale’ – they ditching trained moderators and increasingly using tech to understand the needs, motivations, fears, routines of people.
Hello dystopia!
But this is not about that … this is about the rise of AI driven ads.
Now I have no issue with that, when AI is to liberate possibility rather than drive efficiency.
Colenso have 2 famous pieces of work that openly – and publicly – embraced AI:
Our Cannes Grand-Prix winning Adoptable work for Pedigree.
And our work for our Grand-Effie winning client, Skinny.
But what I’m talking about are the rise in AI generated ‘customer endorsement ads’.
I’m seeing soooooo many of these right now … especially in the health and fitness space … where a particularly healthy, attractive and fit individual talks directly to camera about the impact a particular food/routine/supplement has had on them, WHEN THEY OBVIOUSLY DON’T REALLY EXIST.
To be fair, there is always a super on screen that explains the people in the ad are ‘AI generated’ – not that you needed it, as you can tell from how they look, speak and move – but are they doing this because they think people will blindly believe the words of a ‘human’ who has code rather than DNA, or because they just want to do things on the cheap?
Maybe it’s both …
Maybe it will work – after all, there’s people out there that think Andrew Tate is a decent human.
But why would anyone believe a company who needs to use AI generate ‘humans’ to show how good their product is?
As I’ve written many times before, I think AI is incredible.
I use it, experiment with it and explore it all the time.
And while I am a novice compared to many – while acknowledging many of the people in our industry who claim to be AI experts on Linkedin, are the same people who claimed to be experts on the Metaverse when that was ‘a thing’ – I know it has potential and power to make powerful differences to society in a myriad of amazing ways.
I also acknowledge we’ve only just started to see what it can be and become, so what I am about to say is only going to get better – or worse, depending on your perspective.
However, there is increasingly going to be a backlash against any brand or company who are seen to be embracing it to exploit rather than enable … to drive efficiency, rather possibility … to gain profits rather than deliver benefits.
And while that may take some time … both to gather steam and for companies to notice/care … it will happen and that’s when they will finally realise ‘customers have always been smart, you’ve just not done stuff that made them care about you’.
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: 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?
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Content, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Planners, Planning, Research, Resonance, Respect, Status, Strategy, Success
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.