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, Bands, Brand, Cannes, Colleagues, Contribution, Creativity, Culture, Diversity, Emotion, Leadership, Legend, London, Management, Metallica, Music, Relevance, Resonance, Respect
There’s a lot talked about the ‘ad community’ but so much is lip-service.
Not all of course … but a lot.
Acts or statements designed to look like generosity while really being done to elevate an individual/organisations position, standing or commercial success from likeminded audiences.
But then, as much as I love the industry, I also hate so much of what we do.
Robbing the meaning of words to upsell what we do.
Like ‘brave’.
Or ‘revolutionary’.
Or – as I said – ‘community’.
It’s why this story of Metallica serves as a reminder of what community really means.
Looking broad, not narrow.
Allowing privilege to open doors, not close them.
Going out your way for those who share the same values as you, even if not the same tastes.
[Albeit, EDM is the metal of dance music]
It wasn’t easy, but that’s kind of the point of what community is … a commitment to the inconvenient so that others can succeed.
That’s quite different to getting pissed with each other at the Gutter Bar.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Career, Collaboration, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Empathy, Grifting, Metallica, Perspective, Resonance, Respect
This is a photo of Metallica’s road crew for their current 72 Seasons tour. I say that, but it doesn’t include the entire team who makes it happen … which totals around 500 people.
Five Hundred!
To allow 4 guys to play their songs to people around the World.
From stage riggers to wardrobe people to caterers to production crew to personal roadies to management to the 92 truck drivers.
Then there’s the people who are part of the tour but not on the tour …
From logistics people to fanclub project managers to lawyers to each and every one of the bands families.
It’s a lot.
Now the reality is the band are not just aware of this, but are deeply grateful and protective of everyone who is part of this … but the point of this post is not only does our industry love to place the spotlight on individuals – crediting them and them alone for whatever product, project or theory that is being celebrated – but too many of those individuals like to project the view that is entirely justified and as someone who has been in this industry longer than dinosaurs, the amount of times I’ve genuinely seen that, can be counted on one hand.
Don’t get me wrong, I have the ego of Bono.
And I appreciate everyone loves being told they’re good at what they do.
But there’s a difference between being celebrated and taking all the credit. And there’s a fuckload of people who – at least on social media – are happy to take all the credit.
Presenting themselves as some sort of comms Jesus.
Look, I’m not saying what they do isn’t good.
And I’m not saying what they do doesn’t have value.
However I am saying that in 99.9% of cases, they didn’t do it all on their own.
[Even though there’s more than a few you could possibly have that argument with, especially those who’ve never made work to back up their self-proclaimed genius or judgement]
Sure, maybe some of the help they received was people simply creating the conditions for them to be able to do whatever it is they do … but by the same token, ‘creating the conditions’ is exactly what those 200 people in the photo above do, and the band are very grateful they for that because otherwise no one would get to experience what is possible. Including James, Kirk, Lars and Robert.
My reason for writing this is because, as I said a few months back, too many people entering this industry are being subjected to a perspective that is inadvertently robbing them of what they could achieve if they didn’t fall into the ‘thought-leadership shortcut trap’.
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t express their opinions and ideas.
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be ambitious in their aspirations and goals.
But it does mean they shouldn’t think working with others is a sign of failure … because not only is that a recipe for disaster, it’s also why the industry is becoming less and less of a community and more and more an ego battlefield.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, today is the 1st anniversary of our dear Rosie passing.
On one hand it feels longer than that, on the other only it feels just a few weeks.
Despite being small, she’ll always have a big place in my heart and life and I’ll be thinking of her and ‘her ways’ even more today.
Miss you Rosie.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Cars, Creativity, Culture, Emotion, Empathy, Resonance, Respect
Once upon a time, I got called ‘too emotional’ by a senior member of an agency I worked for.
It came about because we had just witnessed a client of ours, basically destroy 2 years of work we’d done – even though he had been on the journey with us all the way, including a huge offsite meeting 2 weeks prior with all his reports. But when we were presenting to his boss – and he was very vocal about some issues he had with our work – we watched our client basically turn on us to protect themselves.
That’s when my ‘too emotional’ side decided to came out and play because in front of everyone, I said:
“I find the response very confusing given you were all behind it when we went through it a fortnight ago”.
Cue evil stares, and a mass of pointed fingers and excuses.
Or said another way, a huge clusterfuck of awkwardness permeated the air.
Now of course I knew my comment wasn’t going to go down well … but neither was their attitude and behaviour.
They’d been part of this work.
They’d been advocates of it.
And yet the moment it required them to step up and defend it, they stepped away …
While we did end up losing that account, it wasn’t because of that moment. It probably didn’t help … but other things happened that resulted in us parting ways. And all being happy/relieved for the fact.
That said, I was kind-of nervous for what was going to happen to me post-meeting.
I didn’t give a fuck the client was upset – frankly, they’d done it to themselves – however I was a bit concerned about what was going to happen to me with my bosses.
Which leads to the ‘too emotional’ comment.
Amazingly, the senior member of the agency wasn’t mad at what I’d done – in fact I think he was quite proud I stood up for the work and the agency – however they were not too impressed in how I’d done it.
On one level I understand and was grateful they had been able to separate how I did it, with why I did it … however, saying it had happened because I was ‘too emotional’ was a shit way to refer to it.
OK, so they were the sort of person who considered eating a packet of crisps too loudly as an act of hysteria … but what they inadvertently were telling me was that regardless of situation, I should be emotionless in my response. Or as the Brits say it, ‘maintain a stiff upper lip’ come rain or shine.
Now this person was good to me and still is, and we’ve talked about it over the years … but it bothers me that ’emotion’ is still viewed as a negative in business. That giving a fuck is an act of weakness.
Well what about the people who obviously don’t care about doing the right thing?
Who don’t care about respecting the people who have put their blood, sweat and tears into trying to do something to benefit everyone … brilliantly?
Why are those people not challenged or questioned about their lack of emotion … about their lack of will or fight … about their inability to respect and value the person who cares deeply about what they are doing?
I get there are good and bad ways to express yourself, but it is kinda bullshit that any expression of emotion is often viewed as someone lacking control when it is actually someone showing they give a shit.
Of course, the people who are often the recipient of this sort of comment are women … a way for certain men to try and assert control of a situation by undermining the other persons validity or professionalism. Hell, even Hillary Clinton experienced this.
My view has always been that as long as it’s not personal … as long as it relates to the issue … as long as it is objective rather than subjective … as long as it is expressed with respect rather than red-mist recklessness, emotion is not a weapon but a gift. A way to unite, connect, engage, drive and define ideas, possibilities and concepts.
Emotion is never a weakness, it’s a power and I’d rather deal with someone who cares enough to show it than a fucking robot.
As Andrew McCarthy said in the utterly terrible 1992 movie, Only You …
“If you want boringly consistent, go marry a beige Volvo”.
Seems there’s a lot of car fuckers in business these days.
OK. I feel much better now. Thank you.