Filed under: 2025, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Authenticity, Comment, Context, Creative Brief, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Imagination, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Planning, Play, Point Of View, Process, Provocative, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Stupid, Success, Work
So I have good news.
This is the last post for a week.
Yep, I’m away. Again.
Not because of whatever happened with the result I wrote about yesterday – but something else. Though if the result wasn’t good yesterday, the week away for me is going to be very bitter sweet because something that should be full of crazy wonderfulness is going to be infected by sheer fucking panic. But let’s stay positive shall we and ignore the fact I started a company called cynic – hahaha.
[I also, let’s not forget, started a company called Sunshine, which proves I am the living embodiment of a ‘gemini’, haha]
Anyway, I say you have ‘a week’ rest from this blog but I have written a post for next Friday because it’s Halloween and I couldn’t resist posting something truly horrific.
A blast from the past that no one needs seeing again but still makes me laugh.
So apart from that, you’re free from me for one whole week.
What a way to see in the weekend …
So with that, I’m going to leave you with this …
I saw the above recently and it reminded me of a meeting I was in once, where an HR person talked about ‘cultural fit’.
Now I get what they meant – from a theoretical place – but it was what they were trying not to say that bugged me.
Because in essence, they were saying they valued the complicit and consistent over the interesting and challenging.
They didn’t care that people who questioned or pushed were actually doing it because they wanted to help the company be even better … to them, they saw them as ‘problems’ who they could discount or disregard under the guise of being a ‘wrong cultural fit’.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate good companies have strong cultures … a set of principals, values and behaviours that the people within shapes who they are and how they act. But too many organisations mistake this for control and complicity when in reality, it’s about expression, standards and possibility.
And it’s why I loved that piece But here’s the thing, these people make great shit a possibility.
Sure, I get they often need to be surrounded by those with the skills and abilities to both interpret what they say and action it … but without them, you are forever lost in the middle.
Yes I get for some that is exactly where they want to be … but for those with hunger, ambition, a desire for originality, craft and possibility, that’s literally the worst place you can find yourself positioned.
And yet too often, it’s these ‘big talking companies’ who have embraced protocols and processes that filter these people out immediately … replacing them with an endless stream of plastic and beige puppets. It’s why as much as these sorts of individuals can cause all manner of headaches and mayhem – and I say this both as someone who fits this description as well as someone who seeks out people of this description – they remain the individuals who I love to work with and hire the most.
And there’s a reason for that …
Because not only do you never know what they’ll come up with – and often they don’t know wither – you can be sure it will be smart and impossible to forget.
Or to be more poetic …
They are like comets flying across a night sky. They might not stay around for long, but boy … do they always shine bright.
Which leads to something else.
Recently London School of Economics [LSE] asked me to write a piece for their business management and strategy curriculum.
I don’t know if was because they thought my perspective would educate their students or serve as a warning of what NOT to do, but it was lovely to be asked.
The one thing they wanted me to specifically talk about was how I have been able to build and lead successful teams wherever I’ve worked.
And without blowing my own trumpet, I have.
Whether it’s been at different agencies or different countries, I’m proud I’ve been able to help nurture strategically intriguing, creatively interesting teams. Where every place I’ve been, has enjoyed a period that has come to define the department, the agency, the client, the category, the work we create or – most importantly – the people who are there.
The reason that’s so important to me is that where strategy is concerned, you can never be sure if you’re making a difference or you’re just riding on the coat-tails of the talent that was – and is – already there.
Or said another way, are you good or are you lucky?
And while I’m definitely lucky – both in terms of where I’ve worked and who I’ve got to work with – I do believe I’m pretty good at developing people and gangs – and I choose the word ‘gang’ very deliberate.
You see the word ‘gang’ means you have a motley crew of different people with different talents and outlooks who are united by a common philosophy, enemy and planning identity … whereas a department tends to be a production line of similar people, doing similar things with similar backgrounds and expectations.
Or as Lee Hill, my mentor and friend once said, “you can choose to partner with people who find interesting ways to open possibilities or people who are only focused on keeping things the same”.
And while there is nothing wrong with being boringly expected, it’s not what I value or what drives the greatest commercial growth … which is why – as part of the piece I was asked to write – I wrote this:
[Click on the image above to read it properly]
_________________________________________________________________________
It’s why I always say you should beware of those who offer convenient answers.
Or solutions that are more complicated than the actual problem.
Because you may find they end up costing you far more than the people who challenge or push you in terms of who you are pr who you want – or could – become.
See you properly a week on Monday – via something stupid on Friday.
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: Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Community, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Experience, Innovation, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Relevance, Reputation, Stupid, Talent, Technology
AI is one of the most talked-about subjects – not just in adland, but all of business.
As I’ve written many times, I think – when used properly – it’s ability to open-up doors and possibilities is revolutionary.
Not just commercially, but from a human enablement perspective.
However, too few companies like it for that reason … instead they’re excited by its ability to ‘optimise’ profits at the expense of hiring employees.
We’re hearing more and more companies getting rid of junior positions – either ‘outsourcing them’ to lower-cost nations [which sounds bonkers, given they’re already the lowest cost in an org] or simply replacing them with AI bots.
This is not pie-in-the-sky … it’s happening right now.
Hell, recently I met someone who’d recently left university who had applied for over 100 jobs at different companies despite having just spent 4 years studying full-time trying to learn the basics of how to get into it.
I find this reprehensible.
+ How is there going to be a future of any industry or company if we don’t let juniors come into the business?
+ How are companies going to evolve if they don’t let the energy and ideas of the young, shape their ideas and thoughts?
+ Why is it always junior people affected when not only are the C-suite, the best paid, but whose decisions and actions tend to be the easiest to predict. [Even more so when many ‘outsource’ their responsibilities to an external ‘for-profit’ consultants]
+ Why are their clients not kicking up a fuss when they’re literally ensuring the demise of their future customers – even though we all know the real reason why.
+ While I’m at it, why do companies expect their people to be loyal to them when so many are literally trying to delete them?
While I appreciate AI is still in its infancy and that even then, there are some incredible things it can do … in the realms of our day-to-day business, its core adoption appears to be focused far more on speed and volume rather than personalization and possibilities. And there’s nothing wrong with that except for the fact many AI models are aggregators who take source material and then promote the most balanced response. There is value in that … except when you are trying to develop value in your own originality, craft and specialization.
Said another way, the approach many companies and people adopt for AI is ‘short-cutting their way into commodotisation’.
As I said, it doesn’t have to be this way.
AI can be used in a multitude of ways to avoid this very outcome.
But in this fast-paced, instant-gratification, short-term-thinking, ego-promoting world … the emphasis of value is seemingly placed on the creation of noise over melody, which is why this comment about ‘the worst of AI’ [ie: what many companies adopt because the people authorizing its use don’t know/care about how it really works or the implications of it] hit me hard and should hit anyone who reads it in a similar way.
“Everything is a summary of something else. Bits regurgitated, vomited from someone else’s throat, then stirred and mixed together to reach that fluorescent level of flatness, the shiny turd of craft that lies in promptly created art” – is next-level viciousness. [In fact, I’ve not heard something spat out with such venom since Queen’s ‘Death On Two Legs’ lyrics]
And yet they are not wrong.
Maybe they’re pretty one-sided in their view, but given what we’ve already seen and seeing – especially from certain tech-leaders who declare they have the answer to making everything better, regardless of category [which always seems to come down to: ‘use our tech and no one else’s because we’re the best’] – not wrong.
Of course, we all like to think we’re the exception to the rule.
That we’re doing it right and everything else is what ‘other people do’.
But the question we need to stop and ask when using AI is this:
Are we playing for a better future or down to a personal convenience?
Sadly, only AI can probably answer that objectively … and that’s only until the people behind it realise they need to stop any possibility their business plans and ambitions could be undermined by revealing the truth of its blind adoption.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Documentary, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Provocative, Purpose, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Stupid, Success, Teamwork
A while back, I did some work for the rock band Journey.
The ‘Don’t Stop Believin’ mob.
Anyway, without going into too much detail – though a lot of what I’m going to say is common knowledge so I’m not contravening my NDA, and trust me, I asked – it was a rather tension-filled experience.
Not Red Hot Chili Peppers – or should I say Anthony Kiedis – levels of tension, but definitely not chill, put it that way – hahaha.
This time though, it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with 2 of the band members being at loggerheads.
As I said, the fracture in their relationship has been well documented – and I had been warned before hand – but by the time I was involved with them, it was bordering on toxic.
At this point I feel I should point out they were nothing but kind and considerate to me, but like a guest at a dinner party hosted by a couple who had obviously had a major row prior to your arrival – you could feel the tension in every interaction.
But this is less about that and more about the management teams amazing ability to facilitate and negotiate a truce.
Obviously I can’t go into the specifics, but I watched something magical literally unfold in front of my eyes,
Think of it like a cross between the lessons in the hostage negotiation book, ‘Never Split The Difference’, and Kim Papworth.
For those who don’t know who Kim is, he’s the brilliant ex-ECD of Wieden+Kennedy London – and longtime partner to the brilliant-but-bonkers Tony Davidson – who had this incredible ability to keep ideas he believed in on the table … even when clients were initially protesting against them. But here’s the thing about him that was so good.
It was never through bombastic actions.
Never through threats or intimidation.
Never through pandering or false promises.
But always through listening, then gently providing context, clarity, understanding and perspective.
Nudging them forward, rather than pushing them back.
This is similar to what I saw with Journey, with the result of this approach being this:
I have to say the ability to achieve this outcome was inconceivable to me..
Let’s be honest, you can tell from the tweet that it was not something that was easy. Hell, you can tell from the tweet it was not something even the band members expected to achieve.
But it happened because of the work of the management team – who happen to also be Metallica’s long-term management, so are well versed in knowing how to deal with ‘human differences’ as well as musical ones.
Anyway, having seen this happen up close and personal, I can tell you it is more than a skill, but an art. Well, that and starting the whole process with the steadfast belief there was a solution to be found, even if it no one knewwhere, how or when it would happen.
[I wrote another post about this sort of mindset, also involving hostage negotiator, here]
But it is these two criteria that allowed them to help take opposing forces on a journey they likely never imagined they could go on, let alone initially want to. But to achieve that and then get them to be thankful for it while never feeling pushed, cornered, provoked or bullied … is, to put it bluntly, fucking incredible.
I say all this is because I feel too often the way our industry deals with conflict is with more conflict. Or, alternatively, just putting our collective heads in the sand.
Sure, there are occasions – and individuals – where you have to be aggressive.
As Gloria Allred – the powerful US lawyer, of which there is an interesting documentary about her – once said: “Sometimes, power responds to power”.
But that has to be the exception rather than the rule.
In the vast majority of cases, the goal should never be one person gets battered into submission by the other. The key objective has to be ensuring you have properly listened and understood the issues causing the friction … because with this, you can then help both sides appreciate, value and identify what a mutually advantageous outcome could offer for both parties so they feel positive about taking a step closer towards each other.
I say this like you are an intermediary, but I also mean it when you are the one in the conflict.
Now of course this approach won’t always work, but too often our default setting is ‘submit or savage’ and frankly, no one really wins when we adopt either stance.
I appreciate for some people reading this, they’ll be thinking I have a hell of a nerve writing all this when I can have an argument in an empty house – however, over the years I have [slowly] learned that if you want to increase the odds of making great work actually happen, it’s not just about being good at your job … or having taste … or identifying and valuing a good idea you fine tune with craft … you need to know how to deal and address conflict.
Doesn’t matter what job you have.
Doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing it.
Doesn’t even matter what level of role you’re in.
The fact is, great opportunities are born more from unity, than friction.
So if you want to ensure you keep the tension in the work, rather than the relationship … learn the art of conflict resolution, because that will do more to help you actually create great work, brands and careers than any marketing process or ‘alleged’ mini MBA.
There’s no blog posts till Monday as there’s another holiday in NZ [I know, I know] … so have a great weekend and try not to get into any trouble.
Or if you do, use the context from this post to practice getting out of it, haha.
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 …