I’ve written quite a lot about AI – specifically, how the worrying elements of it are less about the tech and more about the people behind it.
But that doesn’t take away it has incredible applications and possibilities – that is, if companies stop using it simply to optimize their profits by reducing headcount, despite the fact they continually bang on about how ‘their staff are their greatest asset’.
That said, this post isn’t going to head into a rant – don’t get me wrong, it could … but it’s Tuesday and we all could do with a bit of calm.
So with that, look at this …
That’s my beloved Rosie, fast asleep with my beloved Bonnie.
Except Rosie has sadly passed and Bonnie wasn’t even alive when that happened.
And yet, AI helped make it true.
Sure, the image could have also been created with photoshop – but I’m crap with that, whereas this just required me to upload some photos and express my dream and ‘voila’ … something I wish could have happened [even though it wouldn’t, even if they were both alive and well] did.
Kinda.
I love it.
And while I know the image isn’t really real, my emotions are …
It blows my mind how we – as an industry – don’t talk about that very much.
Instead we bang on about efficiencies, technologies, images … manifested in recreating what has gone before in an attempt to show how smart we are, without realizing it really shows we’re a bit stupid.
Yes, AI will change many industries.
Yes, AI will allow many efficiencies.
But it also allows us to make impossible, more accessible.
Not simply in terms of what we can see or do … but also, what we can feel.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Content, Context, Craft, Finance, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Technology
One thing I find increasingly interesting is the focus on speed rather than quality.
Oh no one really talks about it directly, instead they use terms like MVP to make it sound like a much more strategic decision … but the fact of the matter is everyone is in a race and the prize goes to whoever starts first, let alone finishes first.
Nothing is this more true than in the modern era of gold rush, known as ‘AI’.
Everywhere you look there’s a new company that has popped up with claims they are the next big thing … reinforced with a market evaluation in the billions, despite the fact they haven’t made a profit and they haven’t even got a significant user base yet.
But that’s the thing with tech and investment … all the rules that we are told to abide by, go right out the window when there’s the belief you can make a quick fortune on the wave of topicality and hype.
I’ve talked about it before, but the book Disrupted by Dan Lyons is a brilliant expose on the flaws and hypocrisy of both the tech and investment community … both of whom love to present themselves as The Masters Of The Universe, but are more similar to Jocks crossed with Scientologists and sheep.
The reason I say this is because I recently read a brilliant article by the Economist Luis Garicano on what he calls ‘the O ring’. No, he’s not talking about some orgasm inducing sex aid, it is an economic theory with a name inspired by the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster that states it does not matter how sophisticated or advanced any new idea/system/technology may be, it’s only as good as its weakest link.
Often we forget this in the quest for fast fame, wealth, success or competitive advantage … however given every single one of us who has used AI will have encountered a flaw with what it produced for you at some point or other, should we really be blindly running ahead thinking those ‘little issues’ will forever remain ‘little flaws?’.
Again, don’t get me wrong, I think AI is incredible.
I also appreciate it is still new technology so what it can already do is amazing.
But …
As the father of a friend of mine [Hello Judd] once said:
“If you haven’t got the time to do it right at the beginning, when will you?”
Filed under: Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Class System, Colleagues, Community, Complicity, Conformity, Corporate Evil, Corporate Gaslighting, Culture, Delusion, Effectiveness, Equality, Fake Attitude, Honesty, Imposter Syndrome, Individuality, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Meetings, Membership, Perspective, Pollution, Popularity, Prejudice, Process, Professionalism, Relationships, Reputation, Respect, Ridiculous, Service, Social Commentary, Social Divide, Social Media, Standards, Status, Status Anxiety, Strategy, Subliminal Hatred, Succession, Systems, Talent, Teamwork, Technology, Toxic Positivity, Values
This is a long post, because it has been written by a lot of rage. Mine.
So buckle up and read it, because while most of what I spout is utter shite. This is important.
Recently someone I know left the company they had been working at for a few years.
When they announced it on Linkedin, they were flooded with supportive, celebratory messages. As they should be.
But there was one other thing that was common among the comments, and that was people writing “what a good run you had”.
I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, it immediately conveys a company who has a reputation for letting people go … and so ‘what a good run’ really means is that you lasted longer than most. That your achievement was as much about staying in the role as it was about what you did in the role.
And to me, that all feels toxic as fuck.
Not by the people saying it.
Or the person it is being said to.
But the organisation who seemingly doesn’t give a fuck about letting people go.
Of course – like US politicians who ask for ‘thoughts and prayers’ after another mass shooting – their corporate mission statement only talks about their belief in their people …
How they’re trying to build a thriving, collaborative community and culture …
In fact, they say a lot of things except one: ‘when people leave, they will be cushioned by comments saying they ‘had a good run’.
So how do they get away with it?
Cash.
They pay significantly more than market rate and so there’s a steady stream of people who are willing to go work there either because they need a gig, they have fallen for the hype [and not checked it first] or they believe they can be the exception to the rule.
That’s not a judgement on the people, I get it … but it is a judgement on the org.
Especially as – in the big scheme of things – the money they pay comes at a huge cost.
The talent they’ve burned – and burned through – is extraordinary and yet no one, be it past of present employee, says a thing.
On first impression, it can feel like they’ve all agreed to collectively gaslight society, but on closer inspection you soon realise the real reason for that approach is far more due to fear than delusion.
Fear of losing your position.
Fear of never working again.
Fear of inviting more abuse.
One look at Corporate Gaslighting and you see this is not an uncommon – or unjustified – view. What’s even scarier is it is seemingly happening more and more … to the point where I swear some companies think ‘salary’ means they fully own their employees.
OK that’s a ridiculous view … a totally over-exaggerated and overblown view … an over-exaggerated and overblown view that is almost as ridiculous as:
Zero-hour contracts.
No overtime payments.
No training and development.
Expectation you are always ‘on-call’.
Personal social media monitoring.
Yes, I get those ‘work practices’ are still more the exception than the rule … but the fact they are there at all, is madness.
I get companies have to make money.
I get we live in a highly competitive world.
I even appreciate not every person is good for every company.
But come on …
What bothers me more is this is quickly becoming standard work practice.
STANDARD!
It’s like someone read a book on Victorian-era ‘workhouses’ and thought, “That sounds fun”.
And so, they’re trying to create a new set of beliefs for the ‘modern’ workplace.
Culture will not be born from the employees but dictated by the leadership.
Opinions can never be expressed; they must always be silenced.
Growth is not measured by personal development, but corporate conformity.
Success is not defined by personal achievement, but individual survival.
Failure is always – ALWAYS – to be aimed squarely at the shoulders of the employee.
[As an aside, if anyone is visiting Nottingham, they should check out the Workhouse in Southwell and go back to the future]
It’s like an episode of Black Mirror if Black Mirror was a documentary, not satire.
It’s here we’re taking a commercial break, because as much as this post has been about bullshit behavior – at least the people it’s about got paid well. But over the last 6 months, I’ve met many, young, lowly-paid, talented strategists be burned out by the expectations, pressure and demands of their employees.
As we highlighted in our 2024 book, Dream Bigger, too often people of my generation look at the young and say they don’t have the right work ethic … they expect too much … they are lacking in drive and skills … but apart from the fact that’s bullshit, even if it wasn’t, could you blame them given how they’ve seen so many of us invest so much in the promises of ‘hard work’ and then end up with nothing. And at least we had options available to us that could actually help. These poor fuckers don’t have any of that and yet we hold them to even higher expectations.
But that’s different to burnout because burnout is criminal. Actually criminal.
How are companies letting this happen? What are the fucking HR people doing?
What makes it even worse is the 5 people I met all worked at companies who talk big about ‘how their people are their greatest asset’. More like burning asset.
You want to know why we find it hard to attract the young to our industry? Because too many companies treat them like cannon fodder – and then when they’ve been battered, broken or bruised. we turn around and say ‘they couldn’t cut it’. Bastards.
Back in 2021, when we did Dream Small, we highlighted how this was a generation tolerated rather than welcomed. Then a few months later, I wrote how the ‘great resignation’ was actually – for many of the young – the ‘great reset’. But as much as they have pushed for change, this shit is still happening to so many – as demonstrated by the fact I’ve talked to 5 people in the past 6 months who could be great, but have literally been burned and no one seems to give a fuck.
All their bosses do is throw them some compliments or cash, believing it will ‘shut them up’ when what the person actually needs is to be thrown a fucking life raft of compassion, care and change. But what makes this even worse is that when the bosses discover the cash and compliments no longer have any sort of effect – when they have wrung the person out completely – they get rid of them while doing all they can to make sure the individual feels they have done something wrong to shame them for life and to keep them quiet.
It’s horrific and shows nothing has changed in the 4 years since I was featured in The Guardian about this corporate practice of employee shaming. Or the attempt of it.
What are we going to do when we have no one want to come to our industry?
We don’t pay many fairly.
We don’t train them well.
And then we work them to the point of exhaustion.
Seriously, in terms of analogy, there is no better one for this group than Workhouse attendees.
We can try and claim their attitude sucks all we like, but we’re the fuckers who need to take the long hard look in the mirror.
And with that, I end the commercial break and take us back to ‘regular programming’.
The reality is we’re getting to a point where there’s no bigger red flag about an organisation than when employees get congratulated by ‘the run they’ve had’.
Some may be well paid ‘middle management’.
Some may be poorly paid ‘young talent’.
But all of them are out-on-their-ear … surplus to requirements or drained of all life.
Which is why – and I appreciate the privilege I say this with – if you find yourself in a company like the one my mate has just ‘left’, then maybe the best thing you can do for your future health, well-being and career is to ‘run the fuck away from them’.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Technology
It would be Freddie Mercury’s 79th birthday today.
SEVENTY NINE.
But that’s not as amazing as the fact he has been gone 34 years and yet is still a force in modern culture and society.
For all the experts in ‘brand management’, there’s few who could claim to have increased the success and profitability of their brand despite it being ‘off the shelves’ for over 3 decades.
Which leads to the point of this post – and the choice of the photo above.
You see recently I saw this comment by author and video game enthusiast, Joanna Maciejewska.
I have to say I loved it.
I loved the sentiment of what she was saying.
The problem – as we all know – is too many company execs don’t properly respect the commercial value of art, writing or original thinking and so place it in the same bracket as laundry and dishes. Viewing it as something that can be outsourced to whoever can supply it at the lowest cost as the difference in standards is – in their view – negligible.
This is ironic on 2 counts.
1. Many of the companies who adopt this view are the ones who also claim to be ‘premium’.
2. Many of these execs actions, choices and behaviours are as predictable as doing the laundry and dishes.
I should point out – as I have many times in the past – this is not anti-AI.
It’s incredible. I love it and use it in a whole myriad of ways … and let’s be honest, the technology is still in its infancy and so there’s so many more amazing things to come.
However, the reason so many companies are wildly embracing it is because they see it as offering them new ways to optimise their profits rather new ways to liberate their possibilities.
Which is why I am increasingly of the belief AI doesn’t change what companies do, it reveals who they really are.
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.