Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Consultants, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Politics, Professionalism, Respect
I saw the below image recently and it got me thinking about how it is a perfect representation of how most – but not all – ‘multi-agency’ relationships really work.
As I said, it’s not always the case, but it increasingly feels ‘the norm’, often influenced by a procurement process that places more importance on ‘who will do the most for the least’ rather than who is best equipped to lead.
Just for the record, I’m all for collaboration.
Done properly, it is a powerful way to achieve incredible things in collapsed time.
However to stand a chance of achieving this needs a lot of careful thought and pre-planning.
For a start, you need to ensure the people in the room all have similar standards, experience and seniority or you end up only being as good as the least experienced person in attendance.
Or the loudest voice.
Too often there is a view that all you have to do is shove different organisations inside a room and tell them to get on with it.
And while companies do want the best for their clients … they all have their own agendas, definitions, remuneration structures and egos and to expect that to all be put aside because you want them to work together is naive.
It’s why curation, transparency and clarity on the ultimate goal are vital in enabling a strong outcome … but the problem is too often, collaboration is used because of timing pressures rather than seizing opportunity, which is why so much of what comes out of it feels like the worst of ‘committee thinking’.
When it works, everyone wins.
When it doesn’t, everyone – at best – stands still.
Of course, with companies increasingly turning to AI to ‘optimise’ every element of their business, the future of collaboration will be through bots rather than people. And while that may be music-to-the-ears of leaders who view employees as an frustrating expense … the result of this will be even more ‘lowest-common-denominator thinking’ because in the World of AI, everything is a summary of something else – whereas with well-run human collaboration, it doesn’t conform to where we’ve been, it builds to where we can go.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Career, Communication Strategy, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Egovertising, Influencers, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Point Of View, Popularity, Process, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Success
I’ve been lucky enough to work with some of the most talented advertising people in the whole business. Not in terms of popularity. Not in terms of ‘thought leadership’. But in terms of making the work. Consistently.
Not luck.
Not one-offs.
Not dependent on a particular client.
They’ve made work that has changed minds, categories and possibilities through their vision, talent and creativity.
And while they are all individuals, with their own perspectives and viewpoints – there is one thing that is pretty consistent across all of them.
They’re good people who are immensely talented rather than people who aspire to work in advertising. Or more specifically, live what they think is ‘the advertising lifestyle’.
And what the fuck do I mean by that?
Well, there’s many ways I could explain it but instead, let me show you something that a mate of mine sent me recently.
Now, before I go on, I should point out I don’t know this person and I don’t know if they’re just executing a brilliant pisstake of how some in the industry act. And if it is, then bravo – they’ve nailed the Andrew Tate of advertising schtick that some on Linkedin like to spout, perfectly.
However, if it’s not – and I worry, it may not be – then this kind of shit sums up everything wrong with our industry. All about attitude and fame than actually making stuff that is famous.
Now I appreciate this person may be young and felt this is how they were supposed to act – especially as those ’24 hours with …’ features tend to be a total exercise in ego and bravado. And it’s for that reason, I chose to remove all reference to who wrote it because let’s be honest, we’re all entitled to make huge mistakes.
However, as I have recently come across a bunch of people in the industry who I suspect would write something exactly like this – and be proud as fuck for it – I think this is the point where I remind everyone in the industry that the people we should be looking up to are not those with the name … the title … the pay packet … the popularity … but the ones who have actually made the fucking work.
Not by proxy.
Not by association.
But with their fingerprints.
And if that’s too much to ask, then let’s at least celebrate people like Sangsoo Chong, who wrote the best ’24 hours with …’ I’ve ever read. Not because it takes the piss … not because it’s glamorous and glitzy but because it’s the most brutally raw and honest description of how a lot of this business really works.
Sadly, what you are about to read, doesn’t capture any of that.
Hell, it doesn’t even capture anything to do with great ideas.
But then it shouldn’t really surprise me when too much of the industry seems to value ‘hot takes’ more than making cool work.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Conformity, Culture, Customer Service, Effectiveness, Experience, Fake Attitude, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail
NPS – which stands for Net Promoter Score – is a way for companies to evaluate how their customers view them.
The higher the score, the more satisfied they are with the company. Or so they say …
Because while I appreciate there will be a lot of evidence to back up this equation, I find it fascinating that the way they do it is by adding a layer between brand and customer.
More than that, it dimensionalises ‘satisfaction’ into a numerical value … meaning humanity, nuance and individuality is washed over. Now I appreciate when you’re dealing with potentially ‘millions’ of people, it would be almost impossible to achieve this with more texture and intimacy, however I can’t help but feel this methodology also suits the C-Suite in companies because it allows them to be incubated from having to deal with customer issues and simply point to an outsourced number to justify how well they are doing.
Add to the fact that when asked to evaluate a company, most people will just choose a random number – simply because the service they experienced was transactionally efficient rather than something more meaningful or memorable – and the whole NPS score should be taken far more as a guide than a fact.
Of course, we live in a time where everyone sells everything with the confidence of unquestionable authority … which is why I saw two things recently that reminded me what good customer service is, without having t refer to a number between 0 and 10.
First was this:
A young boy was at a baseball game [Philadelphia Phillies] and his father was able to retrieve a ball that had been hit into the stands to give to him. Almost immediately, another fan came up and claimed it was theirs [it wasn’t] and basically intimidated the father into giving it them. Someone in the team saw this and immediately made amends … first sending them a bag of ‘team goodies’ while they were still in the stands, and then following it up by inviting him – and his Dad – to meet the players and receive a signed baseball bat from one of the stars.
It probably cost the team $100 max, but the emotional value was way, way more than that … which was also only increased by the speed of their action.
No processes to go through.
No layers of approval to obtain.
Quick, decisive action from the whole team – rather than just one department.
You can read about it by following these links.
First the incident.
Then the first follow up.
Then the meeting of the team.
Then the positive internet reaction.
The other is much closer to home and involves a courier company I wrote too.
I had got an email saying an item had been delivered to my house. Except it hadn’t.
I wrote to them to tell them that and almost immediately, they responded and told me they’d checked and could confirm delivery. Crucially they were able to tell me what was sent and I realized they were right and had confused their original notification for another product I was waiting for.
I wrote back to apologize and explain they were right and then – again, almost immediately – they sent me this.
Now I appreciate there may be an element of ‘lost in translation’ in this reply … but ‘we wish you a happy life’ is delightful. Even more so given it was my fucking mistake. But the real power of it is that as ridiculously over-the-top as it is … it’s also undeniably human. Not some contrived, often repeated set of words that have been carefully designed to ensure the company does not convey an inch of accountability in any interaction.
That’s customer service.
Everything else feels more like being in-service to the company legal department or C-Suite ego.
So while I appreciate we have to have systems and processes in place to deliver a level of consistency … when they take the precedence over ensuring customers comes out of any situation feeling at least seen or heard, then it’s no wonder we’re seeing more and more companies hiding behind NPS scores rather than listening, interacting and enabling their teams to deal with the needs of their customers, rather than the egos of their C-Suite.
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: 2026, A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audio Visual, Authenticity, Bands, Cannes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Community, Complicity, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Differentiation, Diversity, Effectiveness, Egovertising, Emotion, Empathy, Entertainment, Friendship, Influencers, Interviews, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Point Of View, Relationships, Relevance, Resonance
Following on from Wednesday’s post …
One of the great pleasures that walking has given me is listening to podcasts.
To be honest, prior to walking I never really enjoyed them.
Sure, part of that was because the podcasts available in the early days were – generally – fucking terrible, but more than that … I just have always enjoyed the act of reading.
Still do.
But the beauty of a podcast is it lets me take my mind off the pain/boredom of walking and instead, let’s me lose myself in the joy of the story. And because I have an addictive personality, it means I rarely stop walking until I’ve heard the end of whatever the hell I’m listening too. Podcasts have literally ensured I’ve walked hundreds of kilometers further than I would otherwise have walked.
However for me to really love a podcast, it needs to be about true stories.
Don’t really care what – or who – the subject is about, it just has to be real.
Interestingly, the companies/individuals who do them best – or at least in terms of what I find ‘best’ – are the ones who have always told stories. Who know the craft of it. Who appreciate the importance of space and pace. Who see is as an expression of who they are, rather than simply the business they’re in.
Which is why I have recently been enjoying Rockonteurs with Gary Kemp and Guy Pearce.
Rockonteurs is a music podcast, hosted by ex-Spandau Ballet guitarist Gary Kemp and session bassist, Guy Pratt. Each episode hears them listening to different icons from the music industry. Not just in terms of artists and performers … but producers, promoters, songwriters and managers.
Now obviously I love music and a lot of the people they interview are individuals from my era … but that’s not why I like it or why you should listen to it.
The thing that stands out most of all is that regardless of decade, genre, country-of-origin, level of success … there is a camaraderie, respect and overall interest in what each person has done and how they approached it that is severely lacking in our industry today.
Right now, in our industry, it feels like everyone is desperate to be seen as ‘the ultimate one’.
The person with all the answers.
The person with all the knowledge.
The person who defines how everything should be done.
There’s not much humbleness in our industry these days – and what there is, comes across as contrived-as-fuck.
That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be proud of what they believe or what they’ve done … but it does mean they shouldn’t speak with a condescending tone or a desire to belittle or destroy anyone who thinks differently to them.
But it’s happening all the time.
Sure, some of that is amplified by the Linkedin algorithm – not to mention the conference industry – that rewards this sort of bullshit … but everywhere you look you see and hear people making some pretty outrageous, self-serving, blinkered claims.
What makes it worse is that in many cases, the things they feel OK with publicly judging/criticising/labelling are things they’ve never actually made/done themselves … though my personal fave is when you hear them repackage well established approaches/rules/campaigns and then try to claim they have ‘invented’ something new.
Even more bizarre is how this behavior is as prevalent with ‘senior leaders’ as it is with people just starting out … who you can at least understand are trying to stand out from a crowd of sameness.
Just last year, I listened to a very, very well-known and successful leader tell a global audience they had identified ‘the secret to success’ … without once acknowledging everything they said was [1] literally information that was decades old, [2] it is how good agencies have always operated.
Now I appreciate they have millions of dollars of reasons why they have to speak with the authoritative tone of God, but that doesn’t make them right – regardless how smart they may be – but what makes it sad is they have no willingness or openness to acknowledge there are other ways, even if they prefer/believe in theirs most.
And maybe that’s why I really enjoy the Rockonteurs podcast … because there’s none of that.
OK, I appreciate all the guests who appear have achieved a certain level of success, so there’s less to prove. I also accept many of the guests are looking back on their career – rather than ahead – so there is less of a commercial demand being placed on them to ‘win people over’. And finally, I completely understand all the guests have a direct connection to one – or both – of the hosts, so they’re talking to a friendly audience.
[Though I have to say the hosts aren’t great – sometimes bordering on annoying – as they often interrupt their guests in a desperate bid to either show public association with them or remind them that they too were once famous. It’s a bit yuck to be honest.]
But that aside, for an industry that still overflows with fragile egos … the one thing that came through once I’d listened to a few of the interviews – especially the first season – was how united they all were in terms of what they value/d … even though most of them all had radically different styles, views and interpretations of what that is and how to get there.
Underpinning this was that regardless on the level of success each guest achieved, they had been successful.
Maybe in terms of popularity.
Maybe in terms of a single song/album/concert.
Maybe in terms of their influence in a particular genre/fan of music.
Maybe in terms of simply having a career, despite never having a breakthrough hit.
But they had pulled something off against the odds and for that, there was something to hear, something to learn and something to respect.
That doesn’t mean they are not competitive.
That doesn’t mean they like everything each other does/did.
But it does mean they appreciate how hard it takes to make something you feel proud of – even if you don’t like it or understand it – and maybe, just maybe, if our industry adopted this stance a bit more, we’d not only be a nicer place to work, we might end up being a place that makes a lot more interesting work.
Because as I’ve said before [or should I say, what Ferdinand Porsche said before]: It’s better to mean everything to someone than be anything to everyone.
Check out Rockonteurs wherever you get your podcast.
I promise, whatever music you’re into.
Whatever era you’re from or adore.
There’ll be something you’ll like. And learn.
________________________________________________________________________
Please note:
There’s a public holiday here on Monday – I know, I know – so see you on Tuesday.
You lucky, lucky people – hahaha.