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.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Brands, Cliches, Collegues, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Corporate Evil, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Distinction, Effectiveness, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Perspective, Planners, Planning, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Research, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Success
It’s been a while since I’ve had an all-out rant, but here we go.
So recently, I saw a quote recently I loved.
It was by Arnold Glasgow, the American businessman and satirist who said:
“Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what little chance you have trying to change others”.
I say this because too many brands – and agencies – think they can.
Worse, they think they can with an ad … an ad that either tells people specifically what to do/what they should do and/or a list of product attributes that they believe will make someone immediately stop whatever it is they have been doing for decades and change tact because they’ve suddenly been ‘enlightened’.
Of course, this is not entirely the fault of agencies and clients.
Too often, it is backed up by some for-profit research group who has said their findings prove – without any possible doubt – this is what people will do and, even more importantly, want to do.
Now this is not an anti-research stance. Or an anti-agency or client diatribe.
The reality is we need some sort of foundation of information to make choices and decisions and research – when done well, like everything in life – is a universally established way to achieve that BUT … and it’s a big but … the definitive and delusional nature of how our industry talks borders on bonkers.
I get we don’t like risk.
I get what we do is bloody expensive.
I get there are big implications on getting things wrong.
But nothing – and I mean nothing – can be guaranteed and yet so much of the business acts like it can be, conveniently choosing to ignore the landfill of failings from organisations who have researched every part of everything they do for in every aspect of their life.
Sure, it can increase the odds of success … like advertising.
Sure, it is better than not doing anything at all … like advertising.
But everyone acting like whatever they are going to do is ‘a dead cert’ is an act of commercial complicity and co-dependency that borders on Comms Stockholm Syndrome.
A long time ago, when I was maybe a bit more of a menace, a media agency told a client – with me in the room – that they could guarantee they’d HIT their sales target if a particular amount was invested.
I asked, “but you don’t know what the idea is yet and surely that has a role in the level of impact and/or investment that needs to be made?” … to which they said their ‘proprietary data’ gave them the commercial insight that helped their clients achieve their goals.
So back at the office – pissed off – I sent them an email saying this was the work.
Obviously, it did not go down well, but then neither did their ‘strategy’ of just throwing money at the wall until they hit the magic number.
Again, I appreciate we all need information to base choices and decisions on, but we’re getting way too generalistic, simplistic and egotistic in our approaches and methodologies – which is why the sooner we remember how hard it is for us to change any part of who we are, the sooner we may start accepting it takes far more than a business goal … a focus group commentary … a marketing methodology or an ad to get people to even consider doing what you want them to do and so maybe – just maybe – it will encourage us all to start playing up to a new standards rather than down to complicit convenience.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath, which is why I finish this rant with a post that I saw recently I also loved – albeit with ‘paraphrased interpretation’.
Thankfully not everyone is like this.
As proven by the fact, they tend to be the ones behind the stuff we all wish we were behind.
Or as my friend said recently, ‘they’re the ones who play to create change, not communicate everything exactly the same’.
Oh, I feel better for that. Thank you for [not] reading, hahaha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Australia, Community, Corporate Evil, Creativity, Culture, Delusion, Education, Egovertising, Food For Thought, Imposter Syndrome, Individuality, Influencers, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mediocrity, Planners, Planners Making A Complete Tit Of Themselves And Bless, Planning, Professionalism, Reputation, Strategy, Sydney, Yahoo
A few weeks ago, I went to Sydney where I had the very real honour of spending a few days mentoring a bunch of talented people who were all relatively new to the industry.
One of the things that I heard from quite a few of them was the pressure they felt to build their reputation as a ‘thought leader’ on platforms like LinkedIn.
After telling them that a good 90% of what you read on there is nothing more than ego landfill [of which I am perfectly placed to make that statement given I’ve been spouting rubbish on the internet for over 20 years] … the reality is the best reputations are built on what you do, not what you say.
But I get it.
When you’re starting out, you’re desperate for professional acceptance and/or validation so you can find yourself blindly following whatever or whoever is currently popular amongst your peers – even more so if you’re based outside of the big cities where so much of the industry focus is concentrated.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there is anything wrong with expressing your thoughts and ideas.
Frankly, it can be a brilliant way to learn, evolve and grow.
Hell, one of the best things about doing this blog for so long is seeing how some of my opinions have changed or been honed through the feedback/commentary/abuse I’ve received from so many people on here.
Of course, it helps that most were/are very smart and talented, but I fully acknowledge their input to my output has had a huge impact on what I do and how I think. But – and it’s a very big but – you only get real value out of expressing your thoughts and ideas if you’re doing it because [1] you want to – rather than feel you have to – and [2] you never adopt a tone of self-righteous, condescending, smugness.
If you do that, you may as well have a blinking neon sign over your head that screams, ‘Delusional, egotistical, blinkered dickhead’.
[I say ‘dickhead’ because, sadly, 95% of these sorts of people are men. White men.]
And yet, despite this, there’s still a hell-of-a-lot of people out there who adopt a tone that suggests they believe everything they do – and I mean EVERYTHING – is ‘unquestionably and undeniably right’ and anyone who dares to have a counter point of view, regardless of their experience, success or knowledge of their industries history, is automatically wrong.
A certain academic is a poster child for this sort of behaviour.
With these people, I always remember something my old man used to say, which was: “if someone needs to let others know how smart they are, they’re not that smart” – or said another way – if you meet someone who wants to be seen as a thought leader, they’re probably not and they probably won’t be.
Which is why the best advice I can give is to say ‘be you and no one else’.
I get the desire to feel like you belong.
I appreciate popularity has seemingly become more important than experience these days.
But if you ever feel pressured into writing on Linkedin because that’s what ‘thought leaders do’, remember this quote from Dennis Thatcher and save your energy for when you do have something to say or explore.
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Age, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Management, Marketing Fail, Relationships, Respect
Growing old is an interesting experience.
A mixture of highs and lows … good and bad … challenging and delightful.
It will happen to us all, but one thing that I have found interesting is how quickly the industry you have worked in – regardless of duration – is happy to leave you behind without barely a second thought.
On one hand, I get it.
+ Time never stops.
+ New people are always coming.
+ Fresh thinking and ideas are being born.
+ And your work only really mattered in that moment. To the people you did it with and for.
But it’s still tough when you realise all you did – all the hours, the effort, the toil, sweat, the successes, the failures – mean nothing to those still in the heart of the industry you work/worked in.
I have experienced this – or at least, I’ve felt it – and it can sting [mainly to your ego, hahaha] but what forced me to write this was a conversation I had recently with a friend of mine.
He doesn’t want me to name him, so let’s just call him Rich.
Rich – along with 2 close colleagues – started a company in the 80’s.
With their name on the door, they experienced huge success almost immediately.
Within a matter of years, they were one of the dominant players in their industry.
Better yet, they were seen as one of the most progressive, creative and innovative companies in their category which led to them attracting all manner of people, clients and press coverage … resulting in them opening more offices around the World.
For 20+ years, they were incredibly successful until one day, he and his partners decided it was time to cash-in.
Not because they weren’t passionate about their business anymore, but because they felt they were not able to run it with the energy they once had and that they felt the business and its employees deserved.
Fortunately for them, they were not only a highly desirable company for purchase, but they had an excellent ‘success management’ structure in place … meaning they were able to leave the place they founded feeling positive and wealthy.
All good then?
Yes … kinda.
You see, within a few years Rich felt the itch and wanted to start another company.
This wouldn’t be in the same field he’d worked in previously, it would be helping people who want to start their own thing.
And guess what, it flopped.
Not because his viewpoint had no value or his prices were too high … but because too few people cared about what he had done.
I should point out his company – with his name on the door – still exists and is still successful, but because he had chosen to step out of the spotlight for a few years, the industry he had worked so passionately and diligently in, stopped thinking his opinion mattered. Or in some cases, didn’t even know who he was or what he’d done. And instead, were hanging on the every word of whoever the new, young, thing in his category was saying and doing.
I should say that when he was telling me this, he was laughing …
Apparently the ‘icing on the cake’ for him was when he met someone at a conference – who worked at the company he founded – and he realized that not only did they not know who he was, it was obvious they didn’t care who had started the company in the first place.
Contrary to what some may think, this is not a rant against younger people in the industry.
Nor is it saying we should revere those who once achieved so much.
The point of this post is to remind people like me – read: my age – that we did exactly the same thing that many of us are experiencing today.
A desire to invent, not repeat.
A focus on what’s happening now, not what happened in the past.
A belief we’re inventing, rather than understand we’re generally just re-creating.
We all did that. Hell, some of us are still doing that.
So while people with experience/history may still have plenty to offer, we have to remember we were also all complicit in what we’re currently going through.
That doesn’t mean it can’t hurt.
Nor does it mean it shouldn’t frustrate.
But it does mean you can’t bitch and complain that others are basically doing the exact same thing you once did to the people before you.
So smile. Encourage. And know one day they will likely also discover the annoying reality that while they can [hopefully] feel proud of what they’ve done, they’re not as original or important as they thought/wished or once were.
Which is possibly the best reminder to focus more on what makes you happy, because at the end of the day, that’s what counts and is remembered the most, if only by ourselves.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Ambition, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Auckland, Brand Suicide, Brands, Cars, China, Communication Strategy, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Egovertising, Environment, Italy, Leadership, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Money, Positioning, Premium, Shanghai, Wieden+Kennedy
On one of my daily walks, I passed this …
For those who don’t know what the car is, it’s a Lotus.
Now once upon a time, this was a car brand whose name was synonymous with power, status, style and flair.
A marque of British engineering excellence.
However, for a whole host of reasons, it has fallen from the highs of being James Bond car of choice [The Spy Who Loved Me], to now being a small player in the Chinese conglomerate, Geely’s, staple of brands.
That said, if anyone is going to help it rise again – it’s them.
The reality is the Chinese car industry is incredible.
Innovative. Progressive. High standards and high quality.
This is not by accident, but design …
The Chinese Government see the car industry – specifically the electric car industry – as not only the pathway to securing China’s next chapter of China’s economic power, but also a way to reinvent how the World see’s China.
That and a powerful way to help address the environmental concerns of the country … which, despite what many Western nations like to say, has been a priority of China for a long time, which helps explain why they have been the biggest investor in green tech for years.
Anyway, all it takes is a notional look at the vast range of brands and models made by Chinese manufacturers and you’ll see how companies like Tesla are nowhere near as innovative as their Chinese competition – acknowledging, Musk’s mob are still innovative.
For example, because BYD makes the batteries that power their cars, it has enabled them to innovate in ways companies who have to buy batteries from other companies cannot hope to compete with … for example their new 5 minute ‘zero to full battery’ that they’ve just announced. Or you could look at Nio who have created a system where someone can drive their car into a change station – located across China – and have their low battery automatically changed for a full one in a matter of minutes.
Add to this that Chinese brands can offer their cars at prices that are often a fraction of the price of their inferior, Western counterparts – thanks to the scale they serve and the way they organize their operations – and the category is far more innovative than certain people would like to admit. [Or at least they could before Trump introduced his insane tariff ‘policy’]
I say all this because when I saw that Lotus – or should I say, Lamborghini Urus wannabe – I couldn’t help but feel that for all the innovation of Chinese car manufacturing, they are making a major mistake with how they are approaching the marketing of this car.
Sure it looks pretty good inside and out.
And sure, Chinese manufactured electric vehicles represent incredible value-for-money – at least in comparison to their Western equivalent counterparts – but I am not sure if painting ‘0% interest’ on the side is the best move for what they are trying to do.
Sure, they have to let people know about it.
Sure, 0% interest is a great selling point, especially in these financially challenging times.
But not only is the car still the equivalent of US$180,000 – which, by anyone’s standards, is a fuck-load of money … driving around with that message on the side basically is saying, “this is a car for people who want to look rich, but aren’t”.
Yes, I know rich people get rich by not spending money so 0% may be initially attractive, but this car isn’t designed for them.
If you’re truly rich, you’ll likely buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari … a brand synonymous for its craft, heritage and performance.
No, this car is aimed at the people who want to look the part without waiting or doing things to actually be the part.
The Andrew Tate brigade … the people who never want to be seen to be making ‘financially responsible’ decisions.
Not because they want to be broke, but because they don’t want to look like they have to worry about the money.
For them, life is all bravado, attitude and overt acts of power …
But what this smacks of is a brand who either doesn’t know who its audience is or doesn’t want to admit who they really are.
We had a similar situation at Wieden when we were working with Alfa Romeo in China.
We got fired when instead of reaffirming who they said their audience was, we told them who they really were.
They didn’t like that at all.
For them, they wanted to be driven by the young, rich and successful who were bursting with flair, style and a glamourous life. So you can imagine how they felt when we told them no one knew who they were and their biggest opportunity was to appeal to the ‘wannabe’s and fakers’ … individuals without the time, money or patience to do the right thing, especially when the illusion of it was available to them at a much lower price.
Of course we weren’t going to overtly position the brand that way, but it did mean our approach was going to attract those who chose to live that way.
Or it would have if they hadn’t dismissed us.
Similar to how the people of China went on to dismiss Alfa Romeo.
Which is a good reminder that in these days of increased competition, the biggest threat isn’t who you face … but the ego you’re constraining yourself by.