Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Career, Colleagues, Comment, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Football, Fulfillment, Leadership, Management, Nottingham Forest, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance
One of the things I’ve always believed is that the role of a boss is to ensure that when their people leave – and they always will – they are going to a job that they didn’t previously think was possible for them.
A role where it is as much about who they are as what they do.
A position based on what they’ve made not just what they’ve written.
An opportunity created because they want to hire them rather than there’s a hire needing to be filled.
OK, there is one other scenario that makes me happy and that’s when someone leaves for love, family or to explore a personal passion … however in terms of ‘direct’ career moves, I feel I’ve done my job for my team when they leave for what I call, ‘a bigger life’.
Has this always happened?
No. No it hasn’t … however I am extremely proud that in the main, it has.
I should point out here I am in no way trying to take credit for my old colleagues success. The reality is they did it all by themselves … my only role was to ensure I created the conditions, environment and standards that let their talent and ambitions be expressed, pushed and celebrated.
This last bit is important because while the industry sometimes feels it rewards popularity more than experience, a career is built on what you do, not what you say.
Or said another way: What you’re willing to put in, not just what you want to take out.
Let me be clear, I am not suggesting you have to work to the extreme in terms of hours or workload.
Apart from that being completely counter-productive to enabling you to be the best you can be, who – apart from Tom in Succession – wants a career based on ‘being able to take more shit than someone else’?
That doesn’t mean you don’t have to graft – you do – but as I’ve written in the past, graft is very different to working to the bone or engaging in that other evil beast, hustle culture.
So what do I mean by graft?
Well, there are many interpretations, but for me – this quote by Nottingham Forest’s Taiwo Awoniyi, kind of captures it best.
The significant part is this: “I think I can make you who you want to be as a player. But it is your decision to come?”
Your decision to come.
YOUR decision to come.
The acknowledgement that to move forward, you have to choose to do it.
No shortcuts. No handouts. No guarantees. Yet you still have to show up.
But what I also love about that line is the bit that comes before ‘your decision to come’.
Because in just 14 words, the coach has told Taiwo they:
1. Believe in his ability but won’t make false promises.
2. Are focused on Taiwo’s ambitions and aspiration are, not theirs.
3. Will commit their energy to the pursuit of helping Taiwo achieve his goal/s.
Shared responsibility.
Shared commitment.
Shared effort.
In essence, he removed all the pressure being just on the player by saying to them, that they’re in this journey, together.
What this means is Taiwo knows the focus is on where he wants to be, not just what someone wants him to do.
That his graft will not be in vain.
That there’s a productivity to all he puts in.
And that success won’t simply be measured by what his boss achieves, but what his boss helps him achieve.
But, to have all that, the expectation is he demonstrates it through his actions and behaviours each day.
It won’t be easy.
It definitely isn’t a given.
But if you choose to take this chance – not just theoretically, but with everything you’ve got – then they will commit to helping you get where you hope you can be.
And maybe even beyond that.
Sadly I don’t know if that same attitude is embraced by our industry much these days. Of course it’s there with some people, but it’s unlikely to be the norm.
And why do I say that?
Because we’re seeing less and less training in companies these days … and what there is, is often outsourced to a ‘for profit’ individual/company who often are only doing it for self-serving reasons. And what this is resulting in is less independent thought and/or good people leaving the industry.
This kills me, because I love this industry.
Sure, it can drive me nuts but at its best, it’s something truly special.
Special work.
Special people.
Special possibilities.
It has also given me a life that – in all honesty – I never imagined was possible, however I had some bosses through the years who were like Taiwo’s and for that I am eternally grateful to them. [Just so you know, I also had some utter pricks, but I’m even grateful to them because they showed me who I will never want to be]
This post has gone on for far too long which is why I’ll leave anyone who has got this far with a gift.
If you want to know if you’re working for a company that really cares about your growth or cares more about their own, ask your CFO this simple question:
“What percentage of the companies budget is dedicated to staff training”.
Trust me, their answer will tell you all you need to know.
You’re welcome.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Apathy, Attitude & Aptitude, Cars, Cliches, Comment, Complicity, Confidence, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Effectiveness, Innovation, Insight, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, New Product Mentalness, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Research, Resonance, Strategy, Success, Technology
One of the things I find hilarious about a lot of strategists, agencies and companies is how they talk about their openness towards innovation, but do all they can to maintain the status quo.
Oh, they’ll claim they give things a chance, it’s just their version of doing that is to immediately compare/judge any new approach against ways of working that have literally had decades to evolve and iron out any quirks … and so, generally, it is always going to end up being the unfairest of unfair fights.
However sometimes dismissal is not even about a lack of effectiveness.
Many times, it’s driven more by personal ego … where rejection occurs because a particular individual fears that any new methodology may result in them losing power and control and because of that, they’re openly hostile [and subjective] to anything being presented for consideration.
So what happens is the industry invents terminology that allows them to feel they’re being innovative but actually it’s all about conformity.
It’s why we hear the word ‘transformation’ banded about so much.
Oh when you hear that you think of acceleration … revolution … category redefinition … but what does it tend to really mean?
That’s right … it’s companies who have been left behind by years of ignorance/arrogance/complacently who finally realise they need to get their shit together so spend a fuckton of cash simply to be where everyone else has already been. The irony with this approach is that despite making such a big deal of their ‘transformation’, they still end up behind their competition because while they’ve been trying to play catch up, everyone else has been moving forward. Again.
But just as much as fearing innovation is harmful to your growth and potential, so is blindly accepting whatever new thing is available to you.
Far too often we’ve seen some companies embrace the new, shiny thing for the simple reason they want to be associated with the new, shiny thing.
Worse, they embrace it and then talk about it like it’s the finished article only to quietly move things aside when [1] they realise it may be shiny, but it’s not worthy or [2] there’s a newer, shinier thing that they need to be seen aligning themselves with.
Sadly adland is one of the worst at this. But so are the tech industries. And basically everyone on Linkedin, hahaha.
New is wonderful. It needs embracing, celebrating and championing. But most of all it needs patience and objectivity.
Patience for the idea to evolve, develop and see where it can go or goes.
Objectivity for you to be able to assess without bias, whether you’re dealing with hype or hope … allowing you the clarity to know if you have to protect it or kill it.
The last thing to remember is that sometimes, the thing an idea needs to work is ‘good timing’.
When I was younger, I never believed it when people [read: girlfriends, haha] said it was ‘bad timing’.
I thought it was just their way of getting out of seeing me.
And maybe it was … however as I got older, I’ve realized timing is a thing. Often an intangible, unexplainable, unmovable thing.
It may be driven by coincidence. It may be driven by circumstance. It may be driven by attitudinal shifts. But there are countless examples of ideas that were made or died because of timing, regardless of who was behind it, how much they spent on it or their history in doing it.
One of my favorite examples is the Toyota Prius.
The general view is Toyota launched the car in response to societies increased awareness of the car being a threat to the environment.
It may be true, after all the concept of the electric car had been around well before Toyota launched the Prius, albeit with continual failure.
[As an aside, there’s a documentary entitled ‘Who Killed The Electric Car’ that is well worth a watch]
However, I was told the development of the Prius had nothing to do with environmental concerns and was a byproduct of Toyota experimenting with their engineering capabilities. By pure chance, they developed a viable electric car at a time where society was changing/evolving … both in terms of environmental awareness but also economic situation. In essence, Prius was a happy accident of timing rather than forward planning.
As with most things, history has a million different authors … but given the Prius was so far ahead of other car manufacturers – and very different to Toyota’s traditional approach to car manufacturing – it feels there may be legitimacy as to how and why it succeeded and it had very little to do with being culturally aware.
Whatever the answer, the issue of ‘new’ is a complex one.
Too many people dismiss it.
Too many people fawn over it.
All I know is we should value it and respect it.
That doesn’t mean you can’t challenge or question, but in a world where everyone wants to give their hot take in the blink-of-an-eye, the smart people give ‘new’ the time to surprise and evolve as well as remember that on the occasions something doesn’t work out, they acknowledge it may not be the idea, but the times.
And times are always changing.
Just ask the horse. Or Ed Klein.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Cliches, Clothes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Context, Craft, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Delusion, Distinction, Equality, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, London, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a post about naming strategies.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this before.
A lot of times before.
The processes.
The considerations.
The complications.
… but mainly it’s been about how certain branding consultancies charge an absolute fortune to come up with some utter nonsensical bullshit that they back up with 1000’s of pages of self-serving pseudo-science bullshit and still end up creating something pants. Kind of like the explanation of the Pepsi rebrand from 15 years ago. Or most Linkedin ‘guru’ pontification.
But the other side of this is when people choose to put no effort in whatsoever.
Hiding their recommendation behind terms such as ‘colloquial context’ or ‘cultural vernacular’.
Don’t get me wrong, there are times where a stripped back approach can be powerful.
A way to connect to society by taking their cultural references and contexts head-on.
Hell, cynic used to embrace an approach that we literally called, ‘unplanned‘.
However, while this was about removing any element of pomposity, it still had to elevate how people saw or connected to what we did. Any fool can churn out lowest common denominator stuff … but it takes a certain amount of skill and flair to develop something that not only connects and engages the masses, but does it in a way where the value of the product/brand is increased and improved to all.
We used to call this ‘massperation’ … which still makes me feel sick even today, hahahaha.
I say all this to justify something I saw recently.
Or should I say something Otis saw recently.
You see down the road from us there’s a house being built.
It’s in full-on construction mode and as it is on the way to Otis’ school, he passes it every day.
Anyway, one day he came and told me he’d seen the building site loo and was shocked with its name.
It was this:
That’s right, it’s called the ‘Shitbox’.
To be honest, I’m not sure if Otis should have been more surprised at the name or the fact it proudly states it’s a ‘high viz’ toilet box.
HIGH FUCKING VIZ!
Is the toilet going to be walking along the street late at night? Do builders have such bad eyesight they can’t find a 6 foot high toilet without it being painted bright orange? Are construction workers such bad drivers they need to be warned of where the portaloos are so as not to hit them?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Anyway, I digress.
The point is that while calling the portaloo a ‘shitbox’ may make sense … I can’t help but feel it is also playing into the builder cliche. Sure, cliches happen because they represent a common behavior or attitude that is played out over a sustained period of time … but often this is only a ‘perceived’ behavior or attitude [usually promoted by an individual or organisation who have found a way to monetise the acceptance of this view] that victimizes anyone who does not live upto the cliche.
I appreciate you may think I’ve gone full-on woke … but apart from the fact I don’t think considering others is a bad thing, I see this behaviour over and over again.
Hell, even Jaguar – with their ‘interesting’ rebrand did it by revealing their new concept cars in pink and blue.
PINK AND FUCKING BLUE.
They made such a big deal about how they ‘delete ordinary’, ‘break moulds’ and ‘copy nothing’ and then they actively, loudly and proudly reinforce the most basic of gender stereotypes. On the World fucking stage!
I totally appreciate you can go over-the-top with this stuff – especially given this whole post was inspired by a building site portaloo. I also get people may think I am suggesting we should name products/brands with words that offer no defining characteristic to avoid any potential stereotype. But neither of those are what I’m trying to say.
All I am attempting to point out is that words matter. And while I fully appreciate naming is a difficult task, I find it fascinating companies spend millions on ‘solutions’ that tend to fall into either pompous, basic or made-up.
Or said another way, names that define, limit or pander rather than celebrate those who use them and the reasons they do.
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: 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.