Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Career, Comment, Creativity, Culture, Dad, Fulfillment, Linkedin, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Perspective, Planners, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Success, Talent
Every new year, people tend to re-evaluate their plans and ambitions.
What they’re doing.
What they want to do.
How they can achieve it.
How they can stop doing what they don’t want to do.
So given it’s still – just – the first month of 2025, I thought I’d try and help by offering some advice that may or may not be of use to anyone evaluating where they are or where they’re going in their career.
I appreciate this sort of thing can often come across as patronising or condescending as hell, so the way I’m approaching it is to simply give the 4 pieces of advice – out of all the advice I’ve received over the years, whether I asked for it out or not, haha – that I have genuinely found valuable, useful and usable.
1. Be known for being really, really good in up-to 3 specific areas of your job.
That could be the work you create. That could be for the new business you win. That could be for how you can deal with problem clients. In many ways, it doesn’t matter … you just need to build your reputation around some specific things rather than try to be known for everything.
2. Make sure you do things of significance in your current role rather than always having to refer to something you did in the past.
By that I mean don’t think you can sit on your laurels because you achieved something of note at one point in your career. Reputation – at least one with contemporary value and momentum – is forged by repetition rather than singularity.
3. If you want to earn money, focus on being good at one or more of the 3 ‘R’s’.
While it would be nice to think you move up the career and salary ladder by performing well in your job, the reality is companies place disproportionate value on 3 things.
Relevance: your reputation is in areas that are enjoying a period of commercial topicality.
Relationships: you have close connections with people in positions of commercial significance or importance.
Responsibility: you are willing to deal with complex or sensitive issues. Or said another way, you are OK with letting people go.
[Note: As someone who has experienced this from both sides, there are ways to let people go that are far more humane than many approach it. At the heart of that is focusing on transparency and sensitivity … so study how to do it, it makes a difference for the person it relates to. Still won’t be good, but it can be a whole lot less bad]
4. If you wait for perfect, you will wait forever.
This is ultimately about being proactive. Making good things happen rather than hoping they will. That does not mean cheating, manipulating or acting in stupid ways … it’s about using your impatience and/or frustration to actively learn, evolve and engage with those who can help you move forward. Said another way, it’s about taking responsibility for what you want to have happen rather than complain something didn’t – which helps explains why I’ve always adopted the attitude that if you’re open to everything, anything can happen. And I’ve been lucky enough to prove that approach works. Again and again.
That’s it.
4 simple pieces of advice that – along with ‘learn from winners, not players’ – have had more influence over how I have approached my career than almost everything else put together.
Whether you find that valuable is dependent on your context and whether you think I have had a career of value … but for a bloke from Nottingham who didn’t go to university and didn’t do very well in his school exams, I think I am doing OK.
[Note, present tense, not past – ha]
The best thing about this advice is that I was given it early enough in my career that I could embrace it and adopt it in my choices and behaviours. But even better than that, I was given it by someone who had truly achieved in theirs.
I should point out they didn’t say it with arrogance or bravado.
They also didn’t say it with an attitude that it would be easy to achieve.
They said it because – for some reason – they believed in me and wanted the best for me.
And while it offers no guarantee for success – and still requires large dollops of luck along the way – it has served me well.
While I’m firmly of the belief that the best advice for your own development is to learn from your our own successes, failures and fucked-up choices, I pass these points on because I’m fed up of reading certain individuals [some who have achieved certain degrees of success, by whatever criteria you wish to allocate to them, and some who have most definitely not] suggest the best way to experience career growth is through the blind adoption of their ‘for-profit’ tools, products, services and training … which begs the question, whose career development are those people really focused on?
As my old man used to say, knowledge may be power … but adherence is conceding control.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Attitude & Aptitude, Brands, British, Comment, Communication Strategy, Creative Development, Creativity, Distinction, Family, Fast Food, Innovation, Luxury, Marketing, Marketing Fail, Mum & Dad, My Childhood
When I think of the ads I saw when I was growing up, there are so many for categories I just don’t see – or don’t see much – any more.
Cream Cakes.
Carpet Stores.
Digital Watches.
Stranger Danger Campaigns.
Maybe they’re still happening and I don’t know it because I don’t watch much TV … but given I work in the industry and I don’t hear about them – let alone see them – it does feel they are campaigns of a bygone age.
But of all these category of ads, one that is burned into my mind is Smash.
Smash was a mashed potato brand.
It came in a packet and by adding boiling water and stiring vigourously, you’d get masses of creamy mash.
The original ‘fast food’.
This approach to food prep was space-age technology back in the day … which is why the ads featured alien robots who were so impressed with the technological advancement that Smash represented, they chose not to invade Earth because they felt they couldn’t compete with our innovation, despite the fact the humans they had been secretly watching were – to put it lightly – thick as shit, given their traditional choice for mashing spuds.
I know. I know … sounds bonkers doesn’t it, so have a look at this early ad to see what I mean:
OK, so it was bonkers.
But as you can tell, it was all most definitely tongue in cheek, however – as demonstrated by the fact I am writing about them decades later – the alien robots soon became iconic in British society.
Still are in fact. At least for people of a certain age.
But despite this – and despite being 54 years of age – I’ve never eaten Smash.
Not knowingly, at least.
Not because I don’t like it or don’t like the idea of it … but because my parents never allowed it in the house.
Just to be clear, it wasn’t because they were against such manufactured ‘convenience’ food – we used to eat Angel Delight for fucks sake – but because compared to boiling some spuds and mashing them, it was too expensive.
I say all this because recently I walked past a Prada store and saw this.
Now I am sure they didn’t intend to create the ‘luxury version’ of the Smash alien robots, but they’ve created the luxury version of the Smash alien robots!!!
And while this decision could open a lot of conversations about a lot of different subjects – from the changing definition of luxury, the influence of nostalgia, generational creativity and the overall decline in the quest for originality – the biggest thing it did for me was prove my parents were right in believing SMASH is an expensive indulgence for people who want to short-cut their way to satisfaction rather than earning it.
Or something like that. Probably without the judgement on the character, motivations and aspirations of those who would bung it on their evening meal plate.
Still would give my left arm to eat some.
Which is why Prada would probably be disappointed to learn that their ‘robots’ have made hungrier to eat SMASH mashed potato than to buy and wear their clothes. Or worse … anyone seen wearing a Prada coat can be called a ‘Jacket Potato’.
In terms of branding disasters, that has to be up there with these classic [bull]shitshows.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Content, Context, Corporate Evil, Culture, Honesty, Individuality, Innovation, Internet, Marketing, Technology
AI.
The technology that – dependent on who you ask – is going to enhance our life or optimize us out of it.
A way to access and apply all the world’s knowledge to our needs and on our terms.
Except if it relates to:
+ Brian Hood
+ Jonathan Turley
+ Jonathan Zittrain
+ David Faber
+ David Mayer
+ Guido Scorza
Who are they?
That’s the big question … because basically, if you go into ChatGPT and ask about any of those names, it will say, “Unable to produce a response”.
Or said another way, it has been programmed to censor giving any response to those names.
Why?
Well, while there’s all manner of theories behind it, no one really knows … but it’s a pretty good reminder that for all the freedom technology lets us experience, the business model behind the innovation of it, is often based on empowering and enabling someone to have control.
Of the category.
Of the market.
Of us.
I get this all sounds very conspiracy theory and the fact is it could just be the greatest marketing easter egg since the revelation of who KFC follows on Twitter/X … however having only heard about it last month, it has reiterated my belief that before we blame the tech, we need to be questioning the integrity of the people behind it.
Because when they give us something for free, it seems they don’t just want to make us the product … but their puppet.
Christ, week 2 of this blog and I’ve not just turned into a tin-hat wearing lunatic, I’ve conveniently forgotten I am the tech/gadget groupie that lets them get away with all this shit.
Thank god there’s only 11.5 months to go before this year is over, haha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Ambition, Attitude & Aptitude, Audacious, Audio Visual, Brand, Brilliant Marketing Ideas In History, Collaboration, Content, Context, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Design, Distinction, Emotion, Environment, Fans, Film, Imagination, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Metallica, Miley, Money, Music, Perspective, Planning, Provocative, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Rick Rubin
So we got through the first week of this blog in 2025.
Congratulations … we all survived and no one died. I think.
That said, the subject matters of the posts have been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster with things such as anger, frustration and loss. So with that in mind, I thought I’d end the week on a more positive tone.
Kinda.
One thing I have always actively rallied against is stringent strategic processes.
That doesn’t mean I don’t care about rigor or standards – obviously I do – however I don’t think that is demonstrated by blindly following a set process that has pre-determined what is or isn’t of value.
There’s 3 main reasons for this.
1. It automatically narrows and filters what can be used.
2. It ignores differing contexts, situations and categories.
3. You are actively stopping the chance for happy accidents and/or better answers.
It’s one of the main reasons I love working with artists, because at the end of the day – they are the creative – so for them, they determine success by what they FEEL is better rather than what the process tells them it is.
Nothing brought this home more to me than a scene in the documentary about the making of Do They Know It’s Christmas back in 1984.
Bob Geldof and Midge Ure had got together to write a song that they hoped would raise money for the starving in Africa. The single – launched in December ’84 – featured many of the up and coming posters of the era, ‘bullied’ into turning up by the irrepressible Geldof.
Over the space of a chaotic 24 hours, singers … duo … bands … all traipsed into SARM studios to record a song that had just been written and no one knew. Amazingly, there were few egos, with everyone focused on what they had to do, but it’s here that we see a brilliant example of letting the process play second fiddle to perfection’.
George Michael was at the mic and told how to sing his line.
He did it, but while sounding good, he felt it did not reflect the power he wanted to put into it.
So he suggested changing the intonation and sang it.
And he was right, it did sound better …
In fact, it became an iconic moment in the song.
But it might not have been if he was working with people obsessed with following the process than valuing what the process is supposed to deliver.
Fortunately, George was being produced by 2 other singers – and the incredible Trevor Horn, who owned SARM – who recognized that what they had suggested was no where near as good as what he had delivered. And so while it had an impact on how the following lines of the song were structured, they embraced it because ultimately, they knew it was better.
Have a look at this:
[As an aside, you should watch this fascinating interview where Geldof explains how self-awareness about his career meant he was uniquely positioned to identify the need and opportunity for the Band Aid single]
Now you may think this is obvious and I shouldn’t be making a big deal out of it.
And you’re right, it is … except we live in an age where too many companies focus more on the systems, processes and marketing practices than what they produce.
If you think I’m talking rubbish, ask yourself this.
Is there more conversation, debate and value placed on the process being put forward or the work delvered?
I would hasten a guess it’s the former.
It blows my mind.
As I said, process is important – but often its developed without any consideration to what it needs to create or change … blindly believing that if the process is ‘right’, then whatever comes out the other end must be too.
Which – as history and marketing has continued to prove – is bollocks.
Almost as bollocks as people sticking with whatever is made – even though they know it’s not as good as it could be – because ultimately they can point to ‘a process’ and outsource any responsibility of output to that.
How fucking cowardly.
But musicians don’t do that.
Musicians play for the song. Always.
Which is why they’re open to possibilities because the goal isn’t control, it’s expression.
Here are two other examples of it …
First Rick Rubin with his suggestion to Jay-Z on how to start 99 Problems
And Eddie van Halen, rearranging Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ so the solo sounded better:
Let’s be clear here, Jay-Z is hardly a shrinking violet. Same for Jackson. And yet they were open to their guests making a suggestion because they [1] knew it was coming from a good place and [2] it was better.
How often does that happen in our line of work?
How often does someone with ZERO experience in a particular discipline tell someone with a track record how to do their job. How to make something better?
It’s why I laugh when people like Mark Ritson comment on what is/isn’t good creativity.
Don’t get me wrong, he knows a huge amount about marketing practice … he offers real value in developing important marketing 101 rules and behaviours, but he knows fuck all about creativity or innovation.
And I wouldn’t care a less if he didn’t bang on like he was God.
As I said, he is very smart and can make a huge difference to certain sorts of companies. But – despite what he likes to think – not all companies. And the reason why I will always value someone like Rubin more than Ritson is that Rubin plays for the work, not for his own ego.
Open to someone being better. Or smarter. Or just making a better idea.
Not because they don’t care about the process, but because they care more about what it’s supposed to deliver.
Musicians often get dismissed as ramshackle and chaotic.
But if you look at some of the approaches adopted by artists such as Bjork, Metallica, Miley, Travis Scott, ABBA, Radiohead, Dolly Parton, The Black Keys, Rihanna, Marillion, Kendrick Lamare, Prince, Queen, Def Leppard, Pharrell and a whole host more – covering everything from crowdsourcing, business models, brand extensions, distribution management, brand assets, copyright investment, differentiation and distinction, gaming, brand experience and overall innovation in communication to name but a few – you will see they have pioneered more business and communication approaches and practice than almost any of the brands and gurus out there. Or at least done it before most of them.
Part of that is because they’re driven by their need to express themselves with total authenticity. Part of that is because they’re very aware of the context they’re entering – rather than blindly thinking what worked before will automatically work again. And part of that is because the process stops when things outside the process offer something better.
Which is why if you want to increase the odds of making something truly special happen … think like a musician, not a marketing practitioner.
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.