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: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Authenticity, Brand, Brand Suicide, Comment, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Distinction, Diversity, England, London, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Reputation, Resonance
One of the things I have loved about living in so many countries is that I’ve been able to see and experience different ways of living.
I don’t just mean from an economic perspective, but in terms of what a country or city values and how it expresses and encourages that through its architecture, planning, facilities and people.
However, over the decades – as economies have grown – more and more of the individual spirit and character of cities has been replaced with identikit skylines, resulting not just in everything looking familiar, but feeling it as well.
Now I appreciate for some, this is a great thing … the creation and demonstration of social progress and achievement. However when everything increasingly ends up looking, feeling and acting the same – regardless of geography – not only is the magic of discovery being traded for the convenience of familiarity, the soul and history of every individual city is being erased and whitewashed over.
I say this because recently, as I was walking around Auckland, I saw this:
The bit that got me most was that first line …
‘All these upgrades are turning our city grey’.
And they’re right.
Don’t get me wrong, Auckland is a beautiful city and a great place to live … but what is being classified as ‘improvements’ is ironically having the exact opposite effect.
The colour, character and contrasts of Auckland are being wiped out … traded out … and moved out … slowly turning the entire City into a comfortable and convenient prison cell. Except instead of this cell keeping people from getting out, it stops people from wanting to come in. Not because there aren’t things to do, but because they are the exact same things, with the exact same people as everyone else is experiencing.
It’s part of the reason I loved the London Underground on Friday evenings.
Because despite it being packed. Despite it being hot. Despite people not really making eye contact, let alone talking to you … it was like a brilliant zoo. Full of different animals hanging out in each others environments.
People going to the theatre.
People going home from work.
People going out for a big night.
People going to do a night shift.
People going on a first date.
People going for a last meal.
Locals … out-of-towners … tourists.
God I loved it … I loved the variety, the weirdness, the characters and chancers.
Or said another way, the pieces that not only give a place its soul and identity.
But also its individuality.
Brands … specifically those who outsource who they are to a ‘for profit’ marketing practice process, should take careful note. There’s a lot of you. Even though it’s increasingly difficult to tell you from one another given you all look, act and feel the exact same.
Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Comment, Context, Creativity, Culture, Design, Differentiation, Imagination, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Retail
One thing I’ve always hated about my discipline was how so many liked to talk about curiosity like we are the only people to embrace it.
Not just in advertising, but across all humanity.
That said, curiosity has seemingly taken a backseat in terms of aspiration …
These days it seems we our desperate to feel/suggest we are the smartest people in the room.
That we can solve any problem given to us – regardless of category, culture or context.
As my old man used to say, ‘people who are desperate to let everyone know how smart they are, aren’t that smart’ … and right now, it feels like we’re drowning in those people.
I’m not saying they’re not clever, but they’re not as smart as they like to think they are.
Believing that because they’re good at one thing, they’re good at everything.
Researchers who think they know how to create great creativity … despite never creating anything. Strategists who think they know what people want … despite never spending any time with people. Creatives who think they can make any business successful … despite never running a business. Sure, I’m exaggerating the point to make the point [especially as there are a few people in each of the examples, who are the exception] but you get the idea …
You see it everywhere, especially on Linkedin.
That doesn’t mean they don’t have valid opinions.
That doesn’t mean their experience doesn’t have value.
But putting aside the people who literally have never achieved anything of note yet speak like they’re God … the moment you think only you have the answer and everyone else is wrong and ‘doesn’t get it’ then that’s when you’re become the beast you were meant to slay.
The reason for this rant is that I saw something recently that is so devilishly brilliant, it serves as a good reminder that just because we are paid to do a specific role in the marketing space, doesn’t mean we have the monopoly on good ideas.
This was it …
Evil? Yep.
Bad parenting? Possibly.
Smart thinking? Absolutely.
Of course, I’ve talked a lot about Chinese ingenuity over the years.
For a culture that often describes itself as practical rather than creative, it’s one of the most creative places I’ve ever lived.
Not just by the typical definitions, but in terms of business, food, innovation and motivation …
Sure, there are many examples where the approach taken is more about exploitation than liberation – which is true all over the world – anyone who has lived there for any period of time will know that far from being ‘behind Western standards’, in many ways they’re far ahead.
And while there are many things that have contributed to its momentum, its belief in ‘cumulative progress rather than the wait for perfect’ is a big part of it.
Back in 2007, I wrote about ‘unplanning‘.
In essence, it was about putting the rigor into ensuring you are removing all the unnecessary bullshit around an issue to identify the heart of the problem that needs solving.
The reason it was called unplanned, is because the solution – while creative as fuck – also felt obvious as hell, even though it only was able to be that because you’d trimmed off all the fluff and fat that often causes distraction and deviation.
Given we are surrounded by models, systems, pundits and egos all proclaiming to have the ultimate answer to every problem known to man – despite the fact many have never done anything of note and brands, creativity and the ad industry are losing their value, relevance and impact at an alarming rate – maybe the best thing we could do for our collective future is to stop looking inwards and start looking out, because there we are reminded creativity starts with how you think and see the world, not which property process you follow.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Brand, Brand Suicide, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Cannes, Collaboration, Comment, Confidence, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Devious Strategy, Differentiation, Distinction, Emotion, Fast Food, Food, IMU, Innovation, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Packaging, Paula, Planners, Provocative, Qantas, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Smell
Over the years, I’ve written a lot about collabs.
The good.
The bad.
The ridiculous.
But recently there has been one that has somehow achieved all three. AT ONCE.
That’s right, the glorious, overpowering flavor of Pickled Onion Monster Munch and Heinz mayo.
It’s the combination no one asked for … no one expected and no one imagined could work.
And it doesn’t, and yet it does.
It’s possible the unhealthiest and most unpleasant thing you could ever put in your mouth and yet – if you’re like me – and love Monster Munch, it’s something you could not possibly resist from trying.
Hell, when we moved to London back in 2018, it was literally the first ‘British’ food item I got Otis to try – literally the morning after we arrived – and the fact he liked them [at least he did, then] made me burst with so much pride, I could overlook his development of an American accent. Just. Check it out below..
But here’s the thing, similar to when the Absolut Disco Ball packaging made me buy alcohol, despite having not drunk anything since I was FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, this collab made me go to absolute lengths to get it into my hands.
You see you couldn’t buy it in NZ so I had to adopt different means.
I wrote to Heinz.
I joined their ‘fan club/DTC’ service.
I explored supermarkets in both America and Australia.
I contacted courier services about getting it and delivering it to me.
In the end, a plea on social media was answered by the incredible thoughtful Jestyn on Twitter/X … who not only got it for me, but sent it to me as well.
And while I would not get it again … the fact is I was not only more excited about it than 99% of brands out there, but I went to greater lengths to get my hands on it than I would for 99% of brands despite the fact I knew it was overtly bad for you and I’m Mr Healthy these days so I was perfectly aware that I’d only ever taste it once.
While there are many possible lessons we could learn from the creation of this, albeit, novelty product – be if fandom, communities or unexpected relevance – the real lesson is to follow, and then protect, the excitement.
The stuff that captures the imagination.
The stuff that changes the conversation.
The stuff that keeps people on their toes.
The stuff everyone keeps referring back to, even when logic tells them not to.
Because as Paula, Martin and I explained at our Strategy Is Constipated, Imagination Is The Laxative talk at Cannes back in 2023 … the greatest strategy doesn’t start from a place of logic, it finds the point of most excitement and works back from there.
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 …