The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]


You’re Not Fooling Us …


Just before Christmas, I was asked to help a company understand what they were doing to stop attracting talent.

While I must admit I found this request a bit bizarre – especially as they have a huge HR division – I knew it would be fun.

The good news for them is they do a lot of things right.

However there were a few things that were fucking them up and one of the biggest was their inability to understand why any employee may be cynical to their actions and claims.

As I said to them, their surprise indicates either naivety, arrogance or utter privilege.

Probably a bit of all three.

Of course this situation is not unique to them, I wrote about it here … however there was one point that really shocked them and it was their unlimited vacation days policy.

Now don’t get me wrong, I know when they instigated this a few years ago, it was for all the right reasons.

As a company, their original vacation policy was not the best and this was an attempt to put things right.

However, like many good intentions, the implications of that were either not considered or disregarded.

Because unlimited vacation is not an act of corporate generosity.

They may say it is.

They may have wanted it to be.

But right now, in most places offering it, it’s anything but.

Unlimited vacations benefit companies far more than employees.

There, I’ve said it.

There’s many reasons for this.

First is no one actually means ‘unlimited time off’.

If they did, you could take a year off and still get paid.

We all know that wouldn’t happen, just like we know if a company thinks we are taking too much time off – they’ll question if the role is still needed.

So the first issue is there’s no such thing as unlimited days … it just sounds good, especially when accompanied with some contrived public statement claiming to ‘our staff are our our greatest asset’.

Then there’s the fact that too many companies still think vacation days are a gift not a right.

So it doesn’t matter how many days you can take off in theory … if they don’t want you to have them, you’re buggered.

But what is the really devious thing about unlimited leave is employees end up being their own worst enemy.

You see when you’re told you can have any amount of days off, the value of taking them gets diluted. Of course you still want them, but you become more open with when you take them.

The urgency just isn’t there so we end up being more focused on ‘what is coming up’ versus ‘when will I go’ … and before you know it, we have taken even less vacation days than the times we had a limited number of fixed days.

Now you could argue this is our own fault – and it is – but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest this is a common, negative occurrence of unlimited leave … and yet even armed with this information, many companies stick with it.

And this is why so many employees don’t trust the companies they work for.

Because unlimited leave has a number of great commercial benefits for the company.

The first, as I just wrote, is the amount of people who take LESS time off rather than more.

The second is vacation times no longer have a commercial value attached to them.

If there is no limit to the number of days you take, there is no need to carry an value of them on your balance sheet.

No value on the balance sheet means no payout when you leave the company.

No value on the balance sheet means no payout if you are made redundant.

No value on the balance sheet boosts the value of the balance sheet – helping companies achieve greater profit without having to lift a finger, while being able to smile at their employees and claim ‘your wellbeing is our priority’.

And if you need more proof of this, then you just have to look at how many companies messed with their employees vacation days over COVID, trying to force them to use them up … even though they couldn’t go anywhere. While the good organisations were doing it for mental health reasons, a bunch were doing it because they didn’t want to carry that amount of ‘value’ into next years liabilities and then still had the nerve to dictate when – and how long – it could be used for.

Look I get it, money matters – especially in a pandemic – but it doesn’t feel right when you are bullied into doing something on someone else’s terms rather than your own … especially when it revolves around something that is your right to decide.

Now I am not suggesting this is why unlimited days were created.

Nor am I saying all companies who offer it, do it for bad reasons.

But what was originally claimed as empowering employees to have more time out of work has resulted in the absolute opposite.

There are alternatives.

Maybe the best is a minimum leave policy … where you HAVE TO take a certain amount of time off each year.

But even this has issues, given there are people who rely on the ‘value’ of their vacation days as a way to save [and if a company is paying you so little you need to use your holidays as savings, then there are bigger issues with that company] … but what is clear is companies can’t do something for good reasons and then stick their head in the sand when problems reveal themselves.

I know that’s the way many companies operate these days – exemplified by Boris Johnson and his inept government – but it is hardly surprising there is so much skepticism from employees when they see policies change without consultation and then enforced in a way where all the rhetoric of it being ‘a better way’ proves not to be.

Now of course companies don’t want to piss off their employees. Many try really hard to make them feel valued and secure. And I genuinely don’t believe any company sets out to be bad.

But distrust occurs when decisions are made – often without warning – that feel more for corporate PR than employee value.

Unlimited vacation days is a perfect example of this because whatever way you look at it, it’s simply not true.

If you want to build trust, practice honesty.

No hype. No populism. No contrived rhetoric. Honesty.

Listen to your people.
Communicate with your people.
Consult your ideas with your people.
And finally, do things with transparency, openness and a willingness to change if it doesn’t turn out as you hoped.

It’s not hard – especially that’s how you build all relationships – but it is seemingly rare.



Attitude Drives Output …

Once upon a time, Nottingham Forest had a manager called Sean O’Driscoll.

He was an excellent manager. Someone who understood the game and got his teams to play attractive football.

Everything was going well until our then owner – the insane Fawaz – decided to fire him, despite us being at the top end of the table and having just beaten Leeds 4-2.

The reason I mention this is that I recently read an interview with him about how Forest are playing now and in it, he says something that really impacted me.

This is the piece:

The bit that really hit me was when he said:

“Bournemouth expect to win, Forest hope to win”

He’s right. But his point is far bigger than being just about football teams.

A lot of people mistake confidence with arrogance.

I get it’s a fine line, but there is a big difference between the two.

One of the things I found really interesting when I was at Wieden was how many people viewed us as arrogant.

People who often had no experience of working with us in any way.

OK, so there was the odd one or two like that – probably me [hahahaha] – but the reality is/was, it’s a pretty humble place … filled with good, talented humans who love creativity.

But here’s the thing.

When we went into meetings, we generally expected to win.

Not because we thought we were better than everyone else, but because the work we put forward was always what we truly believed was the right thing to do.

We didn’t let politics get in the way.

We didn’t let egos get in the way.

We didn’t weigh the work down with things that sounded good but ultimately just got in the way.

The only thing that mattered was allowing creativity to solve the problem in the most interesting, intriguing and culturally provocative way possible.

Some people found that hard to deal with.

They found our confidence in the work confronting.

But the thing was, it wasn’t because we were big heads, it was because everything we presented was something we had sweated and pushed. Every detail was in there for a reason. That didn’t mean we weren’t open to discussion. Or opinion. It’s just we wanted it to be a discussion, not a dictation … because to throw something out just because someone didn’t like it or misunderstood it meant we were dealing in politics not creativity and that’s not something we subscribed to.

Some misunderstood this.

They interpreted the belief we had in what we were presenting as arrogance.

But arrogance is when you expect to win without putting in the effort.

And that was never the case with Wieden – or countless other places of repute.

The reason I like that O’Driscoll quote so much is he shone a light on the difference between belief and hope.

Hope is when you have worked hard.

Belief is when you have worked hard based on a philosophy.

Not a purpose, a philosophy.

Something that is more than effort or direction, but a distinctive way to play. A style you believes gets better results. A philosophy everyone believes in and is committed to. A standard you all want to reach to show respect to where you are.

If some people mistake that for arrogance, then so be it.

Because the work born from those who play a certain way to win, is far better than those who hope they don’t lose.

Thanks Mr O’Driscoll.



If You’re Not Fighting Against Racism, You’re Complicit To Racism …

So I know we’re only in day 2 of this blogs 2021 life … but I gave you a couple of weeks of peace to ease into the year and wrote an exceptional bad post – even by my low standards – to prepare you for the onslaught so I feel I’ve been very respectful.

Talking of respectful, here’s an example of people doing the absolute opposite of it.

OK, this happened last year – the year where everything was shit – but it still blows my mind this shit is still being spouted.

What’s worse is when I first saw it – and tweeted about it – a person I vaguely know stood up for it.

Went on about how it’s hard to hire people of colour people there’s not many out there.

That he – as a small business owner – had to go for the best person who is easiest to get because he can’t spend time searching.

Bizarrely, this was his attempt to show he wasn’t racist – because “he saw no colour, just wanted talent”.

Of course he saw no colour, he was just hiring white people.

But then this is not a new excuse spouted by people being racist – whether conscious or not.

Putting aside the fact people who ‘see no colour’ are basically admitting they define and judge others by their own standards or expectations, which – by the nature of corporate hierarchy – are white standards. And putting aside the fact that maybe their attitude to want ‘easy’ stops any person of colour applying because they think they stand no chance of being given a shot. The reality is this abdication of guilt, blame throwing and deliberate ignorance are classic signs of racism.

Talent is everywhere.

Open the door and you will see them.

If you claim you don’t, it’s either because you’re not looking or they know you won’t let them succeed.

Adland is so guilty of this.

A few months ago – when Black Lives Matter was on the front pages of the World’s newspapers – the industry was screaming about how they wanted to make a difference.

Create huge change.

Well, adland … where’s the fuck is it?

Where’s the leadership changes?
Where’s the over-indexing of people of colour being hired?
Where’s the shifts in pay and promotion structures to create fundamental change?

Recently I wrote a tweet:

“Given adland has stopped being vocal about the need to be better with D&I practices, have we solved it?”

One of the people who responded told me how many agencies had actively changed their policies.

How committed they were to changing things.

And while that was nice to hear, the problem is the person who said this was white.

White people do not get to say if things are changing.

White people do not get to say if things are working.

White people do not get to place the burden of responsibility on others.

The only people who can say things are changing – or working – are people of colour.

That we fail to see this shows how far we have to go.

And the really worrying thing is people of colour may just give up on us.

They may take their talent and just go work in totally different industries.

One that sets them up for success.

Values their authenticity not their complicity.

Respects their talent and remunerates them fairly for it.

I wouldn’t blame them for it.

In some ways, I just wish they all got together and started their own company.

My god how amazing would that be.

It would also be the one thing that almost guarantees change would happen in adland.

Because while agencies may have good intentions, they suck at making things happen.

It seems most of the time the attitude is ‘how do we get all the benefits without the effort?’

If the situation was truly as bleak as they – and bank CEO’s – seem to think, why aren’t they investing in development of talent and operational change to liberate this incredible talent pool? Why do they get to just ‘bemoan’ the lack of talent rather than actually do something to change that situation.

I believe there’s two reasons.

1. They don’t want the hassle – professionally or economically.
2. They know there’s talent out there, they just don’t want to hire it.

Please note I’m not saying investment in education and infrastructure change would be wrong.

We know that people of colour are continually disadvantaged by a system designed by white people, for white people.

By changing that, we would see the potential of millions literally being realised … people who could and would make a difference. Not just for other people of colour, but all people … because while they should be prejudiced to those who have held them back for centuries, they’re not.

We can only dream of being that decent.

But it’s important to note that only embracing that view dismisses the huge number of people of colour who have defied every obstacle placed in their way to be ready to make a difference.

I don’t mean are ready ‘to be trained’ to make a difference, I mean are ready to make a difference.

People already doing amazing things – creatively and commercially.

Who have worked twice as hard to get half the benefits.

Expressing their talent in ways that go far beyond just making ads, but literally adding and creating culture rather than – as many of us white people do – take from it.

If the industry is serious about change, then the best thing we can do is stop spouting shit like ‘we see no colour’ and do the opposite … because one of the best ways to change this situation is to actually start seeing it.

Openning our eyes to the talent that is on our doorstep. In our offices. In our communities.

Because while those who choose to deny their existence may like to think they’re making a statement of fact.

Or expressing some sort of superior standard.

We know the the truth is they’re admitting they don’t look because they don’t care.

Fuck each and everyone of them.



Dear Daily Mail, Can You Please Leave The Hilariously Stupid Stories To Viz …

The Daily Mail.

God, how I hate it.

Pedlars of hate, half-truths and prejudice, while all the time claiming they are a ‘family newspaper’ that practices the highest standards of journalism.

For anyone who may be in doubt of how bollocks that is, I suggest you do one of four things.

1. Read a single edition of their rubbish.

2. Read about some of their biggest lies, that they tried to claim were true.

3. Read how they – and others – value convenience over journalism.

4. Read the rest of this post.

OK, I know I’ve written a lot about my hatred of the Daily Mail but just recently, it appears their arrogance of getting away with any old bullshit is reaching new heights.

I absolutely appreciate how hard it must be to fill a newspaper every day.

I can’t imagine the pressure they must be under given they always start from zero.

But I still don’t get how they can consider themselves a serious journalistic force when they post stories – on their front page – like these …

… and …

I mean, come on.

This is what they consider news?

A ‘find the obvious soldiers’ game and a ‘grey is the colour of chavs’ article?

Seriously, the wonderfully ridiculous adult comic Viz is more mature than that and they once ran a piece that said cat food manufacturers should be launching a ‘cat arse’ flavour, rather than chicken or fish or duck.

Look, I get in a war situation the enemy may find it difficult to spot a couple of SAS soldiers dressed in white from a distance when it’s snowing. But on a close up picture where they literally tell you there’s SAS soldiers dressed in white … well, it is even easier than those shitty hook-a-duck games you get at dodgy fairs around the country.

And as for positioning people who paint THEIR OWN HOME grey as enemies of British culture, well surely they’ve just hit peak Daily Mail condescending judgement?

What next, an ‘expose’ on how people’s choice of curtains, flowers or sunglasses are ruining Britain?

Christ, it’s grey.

It’s not like that person who built a fibreglass shark on their roof.

Or pained their house with red stripes, specifically to fuck-off the neighbours.

Or placed the Freddie Mercury statue from the Dominion Theatre roof in their garden.

The way the Daily Mail are going on, you’d imagine they were the national newspaper of the communist party.

If the colour of a house makes them – and their readers – so angry, it makes me want to hire a team to find the home addresses of all the editorial staff at The Mail and their readers and have them go round and paint their buildings different shades of grey and pink.

Instead, I’ll just be happy that my house is partially grey and that will deeply offend anyone associated with The Daily Mail.

And to think I didn’t believe I could love my house even more …



The Collab. A Better Twist Than The Sixth Sense Ending …

Recently we’ve been seeing a lot of collabs between brands and artists.

I don’t mean bullshit influencer social content, but proper collaboration in terms of product creation … albeit that it often ends up being just ‘logo swapping’.

Of course that is still marketing, but it’s a bit more effort than a celebrity just fronting a TV or print campaign.

Or is it?

You see, while the people at the brand all think they’re going to become cool and rich by associating with someone influential with millions of fans, the reality is somewhat difference.

Maybe once upon a time that was always the case … and when it’s done right it can absolutely still be the case … but for a lot of the bullshit collabs we’re seeing being pimped out by certain brands [you all know the ones, especially the tech bros desperately trying to look like they’re part of youth culture even though all they are is a fucking ‘productivity tool”], they don’t understand the artist and their fans have a very different view of the ‘partnership’.

To them, the association is not an act of endorsement.

Nor does it make the brand partner cool.

And it absolutely won’t define their loyalty.

The reality is the association is nothing more than a ‘get rich quick’ scheme for the artist and their fans love them for it.

Unlike previous generations, they don’t see it as an act of selling out.

In fact it couldn’t be more opposite because they see it as an act of awesome.

Taking millions off a brand for a moment in their day.

Something that will be forgotten as soon as it’s done.

A novelty for the fans to buy but not to keep buying.

Basically, playing the corporations at their own game but they end up the real winner.

That’s success right there.

Not that most brands understand that.

Most of them still think they’re playing the artist. That money means they can get whatever they want out of them. Why wouldn’t they, brands have been using, abusing and stealing from artists for decades.

But it’s very different now.

Years ago, I was working with a very famous brand who did a collab with a very cool, up and coming rapper.

The brand were beside themselves because they thought this association was going to change their fortune forever.

On set, the artist was a bit of a nightmare – not saying or doing anything the brand wanted them to do – in fact they even used their social channels to tell their fans they weren’t doing this because they loved the brand, but because they were getting big money.

Unsurprisingly, the brand team were not very happy about that, but they reasoned that the association would still be worth it for them in terms of awareness and sales.

And maybe it was … but the real winner was the artist because their fans thought what they’d done was even more cool.

Talking shit about the very people who had hired them and still getting paid millions upon millions for a few hours work.

That’s power.

That’s influence

That’s a life goal we should all have.

So while collabs can be cool when done for the right reasons and the right ways, many brands need to understand that while – at best – they may have a boost to their short-term profits, the cool doesn’t actually rub off on them. In fact, if anything, their desperate desire to look cool to millions has just made them the laughing stock to the very millions they wanted to appeal too.

Because while they think they’re hustling the artist, the artist and their fans are hustling them.

Welcome to the new definition of power.