Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Business, Clients, Colleagues, Leadership, Management, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Technology
It’s March. Bloody March.
And it’s also Monday. How much change can one person deal with?!
Anyway, when I was young, I had 3 ways to be sociable.
1. Go outside and see who was there.
2. Go to a friends house and knock on their door.
3. Ring my friends house and see if they were in.
That. Was. It.
And you know what … I did the second one most of all.
Didn’t matter what day it was.
Didn’t matter what time it was [as long as it wasn’t at ‘dinner time’ and/or after 8pm]
Didn’t even matter where they lived. I did it … and so did every other kid I knew.
And it’s because of this, we were OK with whatever the outcome was … mainly because we went with hope rather than expectation. So even if they were in but weren’t allowed out, you’d of had some sort of physical interaction to work out where you stood.
I say this because someone recently sent me this …
… and I wondered if people even know how to do this anymore, let alone do it anymore?
Yes, I know you only have to like an update on Linkedin to get some fucker sending you an unsolicited message … but I’m not talking about those pricks, I’m talking about people who put themselves out there and engage someone in person, rather than hide behind emails, text messages or DM’s?
Maybe you think that because my generation are the last who HAD to do this, we’d still be OK with doing this … but truth be told, if someone so much as knocks on our door unannounced – be it friends or family – most of us would have to be physically restrained from calling the Police on their ass.
On one level, I get it … why put yourself in a position of awkwardness when you can find other ways to do it that are less confronting or confrontational. Except by outsourcing our interest to technology – or an intermediary – we lose something.
A way to show the other person matters.
A way to show you’ve really thought about what you want to say or do.
A way to show you’re willing to fail to say something you hope they’ll value.
I have a client who only deals in the face-to-face.
Sure, you can make an appointment to see him, but his attitude is if someone goes out of their way to come and see him, they’re worth more than those who only engage behind tech.
Even more so, if they only engage when they ‘want something’ – albeit wrapped up in the claims of ‘opportunity’.
Sure, it’s pretty old school, and he’s pretty old … though to be fair, the artists I work for also want their core team present for the big meetings rather than be on zoom etc – but that’s not why he does it [and I assume why they don’t either] because for him it’s all about trust and respect. By that I mean ‘earning it’ and ‘proving it’.
And maybe that’s the biggest difference between then and now.
Because back then, you knew you had to earn the right to have a chance of letting good happen. Now, too many expect it.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Art, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Bands, Comment, Creative Development, Creativity, Music, Technology
A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a very successful musician.
It was a fascinating chat because – quite frankly – their career is fascinating. However, there were 3 things that made the conversation especially interesting to me ..
1. They’d achieved a highly successful career over decades.
2. They’d witnessed change in almost every are of what they do and how they do it.
3. They’d embraced these changes in ways that only made them more successful.
Now I appreciate the music industry is a fucking basket case, but as Paula and I discussed in our talk at Cannes last year for WARC, there are some artists – of which we’re very fortunate to work with a few of them – who have proven to be better at managing the long term value and relevance of their brand than 99% of companies, consultancies and agencies out there. Add to that, they are able to drive greater greater financial returns and true customer loyalty [contextually speaking] from their audience even though they have neither the budgets, marketing theory or media that we’re increasingly told are the only ways to be effective and efficient in today’s commercial landscape.
But I digress.
The reason why my conversation with this musician was especially interesting to me was because of their view on AI.
Put simply, while they recognized it would have a huge impact on how people did things, his view was that it was not as black and white as many like to portray – to which he used the drum machine to reinforce his point.
Back in the 1980’s, technology had evolved to a point where the ‘electronic drum machine’ was a reality.
Suddenly musicians – whether in bands or in their bedrooms – could create music with even greater freedom and control.
Better yet, drum machines always stayed in time, turned up on time, didn’t need loads of space for their equipment, could play at much quieter volumes and didn’t have opinions.
It was a revelation.
In fact it was more than that, it was in many ways, their first experience of ‘artificial intelligence’.
However …
While these machines helped explode the electronic music genre, it did not kill music.
Or drummers.
Sure, there was a period where this technology was ‘flavor of the month’ as artists of all genres experimented and explored what was possible with this new tech – including drummers – but it didn’t kill all drummers, it didn’t stop kids wanting to be a drummer, it didn’t stop new bands starting and it didn’t make every drum manufacturer go out of business.
Yes, some had to evolve.
Yes, some parts of the industry changed.
But it didn’t signify the end of days for drummers, drumming or music as a whole.
If anything, it elevated it, inviting and encouraging more people to come in.
To try.
Explore.
Create.
What’s also interesting is that it also helped some musicians appreciate the human drummer.
Their ability to create new patterns to music.
To play off the beat rather than perfectly to the bar.
Their unique skill in bringing different energy to songs.
Their contribution to the chemistry of the moment and the creation.
In the case of the musician in question, they absolutely use drum machines – both to demo music and when they perform – but they still also have a ‘human drummer’, for all the reasons I’ve just mentioned.
Or as they put it:
“Technology offers musical consistency. Humans offer musical interactivity.”
We are obsessed with looking at everything in binary terms.
One person wins.
One person must lose.
And while there are cases where that can and will happen – the drum machine is proof there’s a whole lot of other possibilities and outcomes that are available. The key is seeing the technology as something that liberates far more than just ‘commercial efficiency’ … and while companies may be unable to see anything but that, humans can.
Not just because our life depends on it. But because our life depends on being able to express who we are and how we feel.
And while AI may be able to execute at levels we could never previously imagine, it doesn’t have a point of view … it doesn’t see, let alone understand, the invisible energy that can lie between people and it doesn’t know how to feel.
So while the tech companies are telling us we need it, the reality is it needs us.
The best of us. And then maybe we’ll all remember life isn’t binary, it’s filled with possibility.
______________________________________________________________________________
Please note:
Believe it or not, it’s another holiday tomorrow, so you’re free from me for 3 whole days.
So here’s to you having a great weekend … maybe playing with AI on your terms, rather than using it as seemingly every influencer and Tiktoker is trying to push you into using it, for cheaper holidays, making your first million or signing up for their ‘course’ to learn how to become a business icon. Ahem.
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, AI, Attitude & Aptitude, Business, Comment, Technology
This post kind-of follows on from yesterday’s.
You see, recently I saw this image from the IBM training manual of 1979.
Interesting isn’t it.
That even then, they both saw the power and the potential folly of enabling technology to have ‘too much’ autonomy.
But these days, it’s all the rage … driven far more by a quest for profit than a desire to make life better for all.
As I have written many times, the issue is rarely with the tech, but the people behind it.
Not just in terms of their motivations, but their frames-of-reference.
In many cases, they’re spoilt, little boys all desperate to be seen as the next Edison, Tesla or Newton … conveniently forgetting that Tesla, Edison and Newton were driven by a desire to expand and enable human possibilities rather than neuter it.
Of course, what accelerates this attitude and adoption is a sharemarket that blindly rewards any organsation that spouts those two little letters in all they do … which helps explain why I am seeing the letters ‘AI’ being thrown about in the same way WeWork tried to convince everyone they were a tech company rather than an office leasing company.
Just recently I watched an ad for an air conditioning unit that said it used AI to work out what temperature they needed to be.
Errrrm, excuse me … but hasn’t that option been around for donkey’s years.
Same with the car brand that claimed they used AI to ensure the car would perfectly match the driving conditions.
Give me a fucking break.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes all over again … except people aren’t buying the bullshit so easily because on top of the snake-oil so many companies are trying to push, the reality is many people are losing their jobs and livelihoods and so see AI more as the enemy than the enabler.
It doesn’t have to be this way because used right … AI can/could liberate and democratize society in ways previously considered impossible.
But to do that requires people who want everyone to win, not just themselves … and that’s why we don’t have a generation of Tesla’s, Edison’s and Newton’s, but Musk’s, Zuck’s and Trump’s.
I’ll say this for AI though …
For all its incredible uses, its real power is its ability to reveal the real motivation behind the companies who embrace it and that’s something no amount of mission statement, purpose campaign or focus group will ever be able to hide.
Filed under: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, AI, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Billionaire, Brand, Brand Suicide, Business, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Complicity, Confidence, Conformity, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Delusion, Details, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Experience, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Professionalism, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Strategy, Success, Tactics, Technology
A few weeks ago, Jack Dorsey – ex-Twitter and now Block – laid off 40% of their staff.
They say this was not because they were doing badly, but because it allowed them – thanks to AI – to be even better positioned to take advantage of future opportunities.
He also said that he suspects most organisations will follow suit in the near future.
He’s not wrong … for many, reducing headcount is the ultimate commercial dream. Which got me thinking …
What will happen when every company is ‘AI’ led/driven/managed and there’s no more employees who can be ‘restructured’ to satisfy the C-Suite and/or share market?
How will companies exist when the people they once sold to, no longer have an income to keep buying their goods? How will companies compete when they all follow the same AI-led protocols, all learned from the same aggregated models and practices? How will companies build value when they’ve turned everything into a commodity? How will companies exist with ‘access per user’ business models, when AI removes the need for users? How will companies justify their price premium when they keep promoting their use of AI lets them do things for less? How will companies build trust and loyalty when everyone knows they’re being outsourced and managed by an algorithm?
One possibility is employees will suddenly be back in vogue … allowing companies to talk about how their products and/or services are now much more personal, hand crafted, and/or curated than their AI competitors. The other is – as many tech bros have suggested – we enter a world of ‘universal credit’ … except no one talks about where that money will come from and who will control the amount of money given to people.
Given there’ll be a lot less money available to be raised from taxes – as there won’t be enough people earning money from jobs – and the wealthy have an incredible ability to avoid governments taxing them appropriately, are we going to be reliant on the ‘generosity’ of the tech companies and should we feel good about that given they value power and control over a healthy society?
However none of this is AI’s fault. We’re now in a world where the obsession for short term results and/or PR headlines means everything is tactics, not much about strategy.
AI is incredible – as is its possibilities and potential – which is why when companies make a big song and dance about how they’re using it to ‘fast track’ growth and efficiencies [read: efficiencies] I can’t help but think it reveals far more about their narrow and limited thinking than the technologies.
What makes it even crazier is how the share market rewards companies for dismantling their operational structure and knowledge …
Oh I get it if you look at it in a vacuum, but not only is this behaviour often a short-term reaction – designed to boost share price at a time where bonuses or evaluations are due to take place … but why are these so called shit-hot analysts not questioning the leadership who put their company in the position of having so many alleged ‘excessive’ staff in the first place.
Because they don’t really care about anything other than the illusion of radical action.
Actions that allow them to say to themselves, ‘we were right’.
Remember Citibank back in 2008?
Forget condemning the leadership who encouraged their people to engage in a level of economic recklessness that contributed to the global financial crisis, and instead, congratulate them for firing 72,000 employees in the name of ‘efficiency management’.
As I said, I am not blaming AI for this, nor am I saying Jack Dorsey is the poster child for this attitude in management. At least in Jack’s case, he is in tech and recognises his own self interest in what he’s doing/publicising. That doesn’t make what he’s doing any better, but it at least explains his actions with more clarity than a lot of companies who have jumped into AI without seemingly realizing [or choosing to be deliberately ignorant] to the longer term implications they’re creating their own company, category and individual role.
Of course not all company leaders are like this – or doing this with AI – and I obviously appreciate it’s a competitive world out there … but to see them viewing efficiency and speed as the only levers that matter [and that is what AI is for] is pretty tragic. Add to that, many seem to have forgotten this technology is still in its relative infancy, so are basically buying into the ‘dream’ of what AI can do – as being heavily pushed by its creators/investors … which helps companies justify their heavy adoption of it, even though many of the C-Suite in those companies don’t have a clue what it is or how it works but just see the financial rewards of pretending they do … and we’re facing the very real prospect of organisations discounting or ignoring the ‘small stuff’, even though that’s what will determine if the ‘finish line’ is positive or destructive. [For more info on this, see my post about the ‘O Ring’]
As a friend of mine said, “it’s like buying a jet to do the school run”.
Mind you he also said, “beware of people selling promises they’ll never be accountable for, but will always benefit from”.
Unsurprisingly, he’s a lawyer.
In a technology firm. Haha.