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, Attitude & Aptitude, Creativity, Culture, Gaming, Humanity, Technology
A while back I was walking past a bus-stop near the office and saw this:
I don’t know why but I found it a bit sad.
The dismissal of a staple piece of 70’s life … even though the fact it was carefully placed on the nondescript bin, suggested the last owner hoped someone would pick it up to use in their home, because otherwise why not just break it in two so it could fit inside the bin?
But of course these days we have technology to play these games with.
Hell, I remember when the first ‘computer chess sets’ came out and it seemed like we were jumping a 1000 years in the future.
Playing chess against a computer?! What the actual fuck.
But for all the online games … for all the AI friendships and advice … games with people in the same room hits differently.
It may be able to be replicated by tech, but it never quite has the same finesse.
It’s why I still love the quote of Nora Ephron who – when describing things she’ll miss when she dies – said:
“Dinner with friends in a city none of you live in”.
From the first time I heard that, it captured my imagination and emotion … and having been lucky enough to experience that many times over the years, she’s right. Which is why as much as I love tech – and boy, do I fucking love it – it’s always ends up being a slightly lesser experience than playing with humans … because while the end goal may be the same, it’s the beautiful and unexpected shit that goes on in the interactions between start and finish that makes it a moment, rather than simply a fast-track to the end.
The problem with the tech bros is they’ve convinced us life is about optimization when really it’s about rabbit holes.
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, Anniversary, Attitude & Aptitude, Birthday, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creativity, Culture
Bloody hell, it’s the 1st September. Already.
This year has gone so quickly, which takes me back to this post I wrote about ‘the speed our kids grow up‘ and I am close to begrudging September before it’s even begun.
But hey, it’s Monday and no one needs more shit to deal with than that, so instead I’m going to swiftly move on before we all reach for the kitchen drawer and look for the sharpest knife.
Or maybe that’s just me.
So this post is about birthday cards.
No … it’s not April Fools, it really is.
I swear there have only been 2 sorts of birthday cards ever created: The sincere ones and the ‘sarcastic’ ones.
The former is an expression of how much someone means to you and the best wishes you have for their special day. The latter basically takes the piss about how fucking old you are.
That’s it.
A tried and tested formula through the ages.
Which is why I was pretty surprised when I saw this:
Sure, it’s funny.
Sure, it’s original.
But it’s also something else …
Validation.
Validation for the members of society who are saying the economy is bad while too many politicians try to claim it isn’t.
It may seem a small thing, but it’s also big … because the only reason the card industry would step away from their tried and tested birthday formula is when they see a big enough commercial reason to do it.
And it appears that the harshness of the economy is – apparently – a big enough reason.
So while I wouldn’t base all my argument on this fact, sometimes its the circumstantial evidence that is the most damning.
__________________________________________________________________________________
One last thing:
Today is my 18th wedding anniversary and I GUARANTEE my wife has – consciously or subconsciously – forgotten about it.
So … as she never reads this blog, I will show her this post to prove I remembered and she didn’t, allowing me to ‘lord it’ over her in a rare moment of triumph and glee.
Oh who am I kidding, but it’s worth a try … it can’t be any more stupid than when we decided to have a ‘Diet Coke’ fountain at our wedding that turned into one giant, bubble of stupidity – as captured in the photo below, with my wonderful Mum peering over, ready to capture the idiocy with her camera.
Happy anniversary Jill. At least its important enough for one of us to remember ; )