STRAT_SCRAPS

Strategists have to be happy with getting to sit down and think about a problem without ever getting rich from their work. But inventors do something that strategists don't. They concept. Creatives concept. Artists concept. Architects, builders, and nearly every other creative task requires a concepting phase.

And you don't get a ton of push back claiming that strategy is a creative act. I could argue either side of that statement, but it's not a controversial take. But we don't concept. What would a conceptual sketch or proof of concept look like for strategy? What's the back of the napkin version?

Whether or not you think Strategy is comparable to invention or art or design – a concept phase would absolutely improve the outcome. But instead we try and just brute force think our way into a final answer from scratch… Ok here is the research. Now let me just do some thinking, make a leap or make a choice, and the answer should appear. That doesn't seem right.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I stand by the thought that strategy thinking should have a concepting phase of the thinking that involves more napkins and less rounds of review that water down the thinking rather than build it out.

Strategy Performs in an Amphitheater

A big challenge with Strategy is that it –more than any other department– performs in an amphitheater rather than a theater. You have to play to many audiences at once, and any time you are facing one direction, your back is to someone else.

This reinforces why I like to think of my freelance practice as "forward facing strategy" – I try to work on projects shoulder to shoulder with people rather than treat clients like an audience member. Together, we deliver something to the audience. And if the audience isn't singular, well, usually those I work with are better equipped to deliver work in an amphitheater than I would be.

Strategists Have Made Their Lives Hard

From STRATSCRAPS 25 (Mar 2021)

I think Strategists have made their lives hard and their value lower by complicating what we do. We want to justify the hours. We want to uncover insights. We want to think creatively, not rationally. But "Say that Volvo trucks have superior stability" is a great creative prompt. Why complicate it?

What Is the Purpose of Strategy?

Read v132 on Substack ↗

The latest Creatives on Strategy responses brought something to light: there is no mutual understanding of why strategy exists. Even accounting for the open response format, there were nearly as many core reasons for our existence as there were responses. And among strategists themselves, there wasn’t much alignment either.

There really is no reason for Strategy to exist. If the role of a Creative Director is to oversee the creative output—an ad—part of that expertise should include effectiveness, selling ideas, insights, inspiration, and participation in testing. Most good CDs I know would make great strategists because they already do that thinking as part of the process.

So we don’t need to be here. Why are we? Because “necessary” and impactful are not the same thing. We are force multipliers. Our responsibility is effectiveness, but our job is anything that helps the work achieve it. We’re here to sharpen the knife.

The Strategist as Jester and Servant

Read v142 on Substack ↗

Only two positions in the “planner archetype” chart feel like they require skill or craft: the joker and the servant. Those are two positions strategy should strive for.

The joker has little to gain by caution and little to lose by candor; they can be the only one who will tell a powerful person they’re wrong. And the servant is absolutely what a strategist is: in service to the creative team and the client, but most of all to the work and the job the work is meant to accomplish.

The two worst things to aspire to are king or prince—the positions least affiliated with the truth and least likely to understand the real world.

I Like the Idea of My Job

Read v74 on Substack ↗

Someone asked if I liked my job. I replied that I like the idea of my job (my career, not any one agency). Jeremy Wade describes his work as phases: decide on a target, do months of research, then go fishing—and when he’s fishing, he’s in charge, because he put in the work ahead of time.

What I want is the chance to truly understand what I’m after—to dissect the problem, and then use that knowledge to go catch some big ass metaphorical fish. The idea of my job is to get to the bottom of a problem, see things in new ways, learn a lot in a little amount of time and then put that knowledge to use. To go hunt down some strategy river monsters.

But instead, it seems that the job has become just the holding of the fishing rod. Most scenarios feel like I’m knee deep in a fast moving river, ignoring the research I’ve done and instead being yelled at from the shore—casual observers debating where we should drop the lure.

The Right Mind vs the Right Mindset

Read v144 on Substack ↗

Most new strategists fall into one of two buckets: the right mind or the right mindset. The right mind: the ability to think on your feet and connect dots into big thoughts—intelligence as finding answers. The right mindset: deep curiosity and a thirst for knowledge—intelligence as asking questions.

As a manager, your job is to figure out where they’re starting and help them build confidence through cultivating how they think already. Learning a whole new mindset is a task for later, once they’ve been in the job for a few years.

You can’t teach someone new information if they are also teaching themselves to think from a whole different starting point.

We Work for the Idea

Read v94 on Substack ↗

I had a great conversation the other day that resulted in a few thoughts. The question of admiration—who do you admire?—is different than “who do you look up to?” or “who do you idolize?” It forces you to look at qualities beyond output or accomplishment.

The more I think about it, most people I admire are my “junior” on paper. And I’ve written before about “who do we work for?” but mostly framed it as client vs brand.

Someone reframed it for me: we work for the idea. It feels like a nice balance between “the client,” “the brand,” and “our own team.”

Strategy Is All Input

Read v188 on Substack ↗

A craft is defined by the craftsperson being in full control of the output. Quality is judged by technical ability and accumulated skill. But Strategy is only as successful as its power to drive action. The best thinking in the world built on decades of experience is worthless if the client doesn't buy it or the creative team doesn't get it. A craft has an output. Strategy is all input.

Strategy Is a Conversation

Read v186 on Substack ↗

Strategy is not a process to be followed, it's a conversation to be had. I found two opposing articles that are both correct in their own way: "Strategy Is A Conversation, Not A Deliverable" and "Strategy is what you do, not what you say." The thing they are both saying is that strategy isn't a box to check.

Strategy is planning your own surprise party without ruining the surprise.

Campaign Creative Universe

In the Star Wars universe, there is never any paper or anything with wheels. Small rules that aren't publicized, but through following these rules the "Star Wars feel" is created. This is probably true of most quality fiction.

What we do isn't fiction. But a campaign can be thought about as a universe. As an industry I don't think we do this enough. We all know the CCI. But what about the CCU? The Campaign Creative Universe—a comms plan and all the rules and laws that come with a cinematic universe in Hollywood.

The Leap from 4Cs to Strategy

I asked an apprentice what types of things in strategy work would be good to cover in a department resource. What was challenging on a recurring basis? "The gap between 4Cs and getting to a strategy statement." We don't talk enough about how big of a leap that can be. Or maybe the 4Cs returns nothing worth basing a strategy on. It's like giving someone a map and telling them to go find a partner. The map might help, but there is so much more to it and at some point you just gotta get out there.

Our Job Is Not to Speak to Fans

Read v191 on Substack ↗

Growth primarily comes from light category buyers. Light category buyers choose to buy things based on physical and mental availability—easy to think of and easy to buy. "Easy to think of" is the job of advertising. This was way too many words to make the simple point that shouldn't need to be made: Our job is not to speak to fans. Our job is to help brands stand out and control the narratives built around them.

Commercial Art

Read v192 on Substack ↗

Early on in the world of advertising, creative advertising was called Commercial Art. I think there needs to be a new branch of Advertising called Commercial Art. This is the only way to save the industry in my mind.

Commercial Art would be a form of advertising where the end output would be more permanent displays (but could certainly be supported by media). The brief would provide the artist or agency with the subject matter and any core imagery. Then, the artist/agency would get to work. Maybe it is a mural, or an installation or a video or post cards or an exhibit. But it would be art built with brand assets. No constant rounds of review. No CTAs. Just art that has a commercial objective—to make people think of the brand or product positively.

Process Evolution

Read v189 on Substack ↗

Here's the part that separates good strategy directors from great ones: you're not just managing the current project, you're improving how projects get managed. Maybe that means suggesting a different review structure. Maybe it's introducing new ways to test ideas early. Maybe it's changing how feedback gets collected and processed.

Strategy directors who only focus on individual projects miss the bigger opportunity. The real impact comes from making the entire creative development process more effective over time. We need to protect from swirl just as much, if not more, than we need to push for change.

Hiring Junior Talent

Read v199 on Substack ↗

When hiring junior talent, you are evaluating for potential over experience. And so much of what you're looking for is usually context dependent and about team fit. But potential can be reduced to a combination of two things:

Deep curiosity. Not the same as what they read or how much they read or what they already know. But the compulsion to want to know more about most things. And the tendency to question inadequate answers. A good measure is asking what they have gone down rabbit holes on recently.

Ability to make something interesting. Have them create a presentation on a topic of their choosing. I have used the literal prompt "choose an ordinary object and make it interesting." If they have these two qualities, hire them.

The Irony of Simplicity

Strategy is about simplicity. But there is an irony in the work that is easy to get caught up in. In pursuit of simplicity, there is almost always a byproduct of complexity.

When you start to focus on something, all the different ways that one thing could come to life suddenly appear. And suddenly, you are left with the complex task of explaining why the one route is better than the rest – when in truth, more often than not any choice is the right choice so long as it is made.

Justifying simplicity can get complex very quick. And the more reasoning you provide, the more rationale, the more opportunities are created for your audience to get lost along the way, get caught up in the weeds or simply disagree.

That's all to say, while it can be tempting to explore all the possible choices, try to start with just stating what the simplest version of something is: When we say __, what we mean is _____.

Most Briefs Are Wrong About Something

Most briefs are wrong about something. Not completely wrong, but wrong enough that good creative work requires course corrections along the way.

If you can't admit this, and deliver a brief anyway, you are doomed to become the hurdle rather than the bridge.

The best strategists understand that creative development is collaborative strategy development. The brief sets the direction, but the work itself reveals what the strategy really needs to be.

This makes a lot of strategists uncomfortable. It requires admitting that you don't have all the answers upfront. It means being okay with strategic evolution instead of strategic certainty.

Writing It Down

Read v196 on Substack ↗ Read v184 on Substack ↗

It is incredible how often just writing down what you're trying to say can help clarify things. If there isn't a bullet point outline of what you're trying to say, I promise it will end up convoluted.

STORIES vs MANUALS

Read v176 on Substack ↗

For the longest time I have very strongly believed that you should never present something written by someone else. And when working with a team, the person presenting the work needs to have final say on any debates about the structure or contents. ### It’s the difference between listening to someone tell a story vs listening to someone read a manual.

But the more meetings I’m in, and the more presentations I give or see, the more I realize the problem isn’t who is presenting. ### The problem is whats being presented.

We really shouldn’t be presenting stories or manuals.

We should be presenting problems and solutions.

Stories have a time and a place, but they rely on the story teller. Manuals have a time and a place. But they are better received as a file for the recipient to read on their own time.

Anyone should be able to present the what and the how. Because it shouldn’t be complex enough to spark debate around how it is presented in the first place.

Nobody Wants to Farm

Read v21 on Substack ↗

Nobody wants to farm, everyone wants to hunt. We owe our entire success as a species to the ability to long term plan and cultivate growth rather than rely on intermittent big wins. But in business, nobody wants to farm anymore. Nobody gives a shit because they all plan on being somewhere else in a few years. Nobody earns the Rolex. This is even true in modern human behavior in general. We should be able to live longer, better, healthier lives, but instead everyone just wants to live harder chasing the big win that nobody can define.

But bringing it back to advertising… I have never once seen a brief about building long term brand value that didn't also have some immediate need for making a splash. This is why PR is killing it. Short term-ism is going to doom us all.

Gut Strategy

Read v21 on Substack ↗

Probably 60-70% of the time I get a brief, I'll have a good sense of the strategic direction within the first day of thinking about it. Or it'll come out via conversation with someone. That sticky, interesting, fertile thought. But I won't have the data to support it.

I call this my gut strategy and I want to start listening to my gut more. Because it inevitably gets watered down and lost in all the things brought forward trying to prove something that is inherently not provable.

We need to do a better job educating clients that good strategy is a decision between two (often equally good) choices. No data will prove THIS is the way to go when you could just as well go another. Let's take the "insight" off the pedestal and replace it with "the choice."

Kill the Reveal

Read v21 on Substack ↗

KILL THE REVEAL. This was sparked by the Win Without Pitching book. But we have an obsession with the reveal. I'm guilty. Kill it. It doesn't help us. We're not magicians. State your point and back it up like a normal person.

Also, stop letting the client diagnose the problem. Would a dentist let you tell them what was wrong? Even if you were right, they are going to take a look and decide for themselves.

Innovation Requires Surplus

Read v44 on Substack ↗

"Human cultural advancement really began when people went from producing enough to survive vs producing a surplus. Producing a surplus gave people time which allowed humans to innovate."

In a lot of ways, innovation is our job in the industry. Coming up with ideas and solutions to problems via lateral thought. But we rarely have the surplus we need in order to have that time. We're like the hunter gatherers of work. Instead of spending all of our energy trying to find enough to put into our bodies, we exist output to output—extracting just enough from our brains to get through the week.

And you wonder why the ads were so good in the 60s and 70s. They had the surplus needed to sit around and smoke weed all day while bullshitting ideas. Just imagine what it would be like today with more than just rich white dudes inputting into the conversation. Would be horrible for the bottom line though.

Brand Building and Parenting

Read v185 on Substack ↗

Brand building is a long term project. Just like parenting. But as a parent—how the hell do you think about preparing your child for adulthood when you genuinely don't know what the next 5-10 years will bring? The range of possible futures is SO BROAD.

10-15 years ago it was "just get a college degree and you'll be able to get a job." Then it was "if you want a good job, get a degree in computer science." Now, kids are being encouraged to go into the trades.

My perspective is kids should do what makes them happy. And honestly, that's probably my advice to brands too. Just have fun. In short, brands should go to art school and safely experiment with drugs.

Playgrounds over Process

In an agency setting, we think a lot about process. But there are some contradictions here. Most would agree that users are non linear. We often tear down the marketing funnel for being inadequate and overly linear in a world of infinite touch points. We think about campaigns as ecosystems rather than sequences.

But we seem incapable of letting go of linear when it comes to internal process.

The question I have in my mind now is "how can the agency 'process' be more of a playground rather than a path? How do we set up parameters rather than sequences?"

Parallel Play and Communication

From STRAT_SCRAPS Episode 117 (Jul 2023)

Kids go through different phases of play as they develop, and there is a stage around the age of 2-3 where they are essentially playing independently, but alongside another kid. I think I'm interested in parallel play because it is the type of play that I enjoy most. But that got me thinking about how adults play.

Parallel play is also interesting because it also makes me think about the ways in which we communicate information – at work or otherwise. You could break communication down into two categories: face to face or shoulder to shoulder.

Face to face conversations are seen as more formal, more intimate and more expected. But there is also that boomer-esque anecdote about how to have hard conversations as a man – at a bar or in a car – or any other time when you are both facing the same direction.

We don't do enough shoulder to shoulder conversation in a work setting. It is always face to face, let me show you what I have, then you let me know what you think. We've designed communication to be competitive. When in most instances, what we need is to be cooperative or receptive.

"What's the purpose of this meeting" is a crucial question to ask, but it's even more important to recognize what type of communication is occurring in the moment and if it's possible for that type of communication to achieve the desired outcome.

Culprits of Chaos

Read v157 on Substack ↗

I've spent so much of my career thinking about why things fall apart. Things fall apart for a million reasons. But things fall apart consistently for one of a few reasons:

People — Sometimes it's just that someone is a bad person and rots a team from the inside. That is rare and has only happened to me 1.5 times in 12 years. Sometimes it is a good person who does all the wrong things for all the right reasons. And sometimes it is just that certain people don't interact well together. Just bc everyone is good at their job, they have to be good at supporting one another as well.

Process — We often think of process as the antidote to chaos. It is not. It can be a bandaid, but more often it is an irritant in a bigger wound.

Incentives/Fears — In my experience, this is the closest thing you have to a crystal ball. If you understand the true motivations and fears of every stakeholder/team member, you can begin to understand where things may start to come apart. Hint: the incentive is never "the work" and the biggest fear is always about the person, not the org. We're all just rats trying to get our own version of the treat without getting zapped.

Momentum — The most common. "Well, nobody knew why we were doing it this way, but everyone else seemed to understand so we kept going till the train derailed." If everyone agrees there is a wall approaching, someone has to be willing to pull the e-brake.

The Meaning of "Process"

Read v157 on Substack ↗

I had the thought "what does 'process' even mean?" Because it could be a mix of any of the following, but it is important to be conscious of which you're talking about:

Procedure: A specific set of steps to achieve a task. Typically detailed and prescribed, often formalized in documentation. Method: A systematic way of doing something. Focuses on the approach or technique. Routine: Regularly followed sequence of actions. Implies habitual or repetitive nature. Workflow: Sequence of processes through which a piece of work passes. Emphasizes the flow of tasks between people or systems. Protocol: Official set of rules governing how tasks should be performed. System: An organized framework of interconnected parts. Broader than a single process. Operation: Execution of a task or function. Practice: Repeated exercise or application of a skill. Implies habitual action, often based on experience rather than formal rules. Sequence: Ordered set of actions. Emphasizes order without necessarily implying formal structure. Technique: Specific way of carrying out a task. Focuses on skill or expertise.

Intentional Unproductivity

Read v157 on Substack ↗

If you aren't unproductive on purpose, you'll be unproductive by accident. And wouldn't you rather be in control of the timing?

Efficiency Is Not the Point

Read v184 on Substack ↗ Read v118 on Substack ↗

Efficiency is not the point. Not with ads. And not with doing the work. I can type faster than I can write, but outlines are more effective when done by hand. Computers are tools of execution. Writing is a tool for thought.

THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN

"When was the last time you were in a creative review that had everyone laughing?" 50% of y’all said more than 3 months ago.

Among those that took the google survey, nearly 40% said its been more than a year since a creative idea made them laugh out loud.

that is a rare “oh shit” data point…

There is so much to unravel here.

But most importantly is why?

Sometimes it is because of…

a single person. some people just suck.1 Maybe they are in the room or maybe they suck the joy from afar. This could be a client, a manager or anyone on the team. Work fun is a communal effort and is far easier when everyone is open to it.

the process. The project based structure of much agency work has resulted in the systemic destruction of enthusiasm. Agencies want so mad to be taken seriously, they stop themselves from having the fun that good work requires. and the hot take

the way we sell ideas in the first place. Concepts are much harder to make fun than executions. They also are most open to interpretation, turning future rounds of review into wrestling matches between difference in expectation.

We spend so much time thinking about the big idea, the joy of the output suffers.

I’m not saying that concepts aren’t important or that we should jump straight into executions. But we should do our best to make decisions based on reactions to the final output rather than the agreeability of the intangible.

Strategy as a Two-Part Rocket

Read v132 on Substack ↗

To get to space, shuttles have two sets of rockets. The first gets the shuttle off the ground. The second propels it out of the atmosphere. This is how Strategy should operate.

Give me a day to digest the brief. Then let’s meet up and discuss. Either in the room or within the next 24 hours, I try to give the team enough to "get off the ground." Then my role is to boost the work however I can—sending articles, quotes and facts as I find them, starting a deck as a working doc, doing interviews or other research to support where things are headed.

The uncomfortable truth is that a large part of our job isn’t creative. It shouldn’t take that much time. In light consideration categories, there are clear tasks to accomplish based on the desired outcome. The most creative part of our job is usually reframing the problem. Not to say this is easy, but it doesn’t need weeks.

Creativity Is in the Execution

Read v62 on Substack ↗

Imagine pitching SuperCuts and presenting the creative concept "Showing well cut hair"—if the ECD didn’t kill it, clients likely would for not having enough edge. But in execution, you could be giving lemurs sick fades and shaving wooly mammoths.. or maybe every hair screams as it is cut. These are all ideas that "show hair being cut." Why not start there, rather than start our creative presentations with some anthem about small business owners who have the confidence to do their own thing because they look good with a fresh cut? Pitch simple. Execute absurd.

Time vs Cracking the Brief

Read v62 on Substack ↗

I think the chances of cracking a brief in the first 48 hours is unlikely because it doesn’t allow time to breathe. Good thinking happens when you binge on information and then try to purge your mind of thinking about it. You might get to something that works, but first thoughts are rarely the strongest.

Additionally, if you can’t crack it in the first 1–2 weeks, you probably won’t. At this point you are overthinking and getting in your own way. The only path to salvation is killing your assumptions, turning off any screens and widening the circle of people you’re talking through it with.

Strategists Solve "Why" / Creatives Solve "How"

Read v62 on Substack ↗

I think you could describe the roles of Strategy and Creative as the same: both our jobs is to solve a problem. Strategists solve "why" problems. Creatives solve "how" problems. What’s interesting is that, outside of a brief, I often catch myself applying "how" thinking to a "why" problem.

When a batch of creative work isn’t great, we think "how could this be better" but the more important question is "why isn’t this working" and "why is this what they thought was right." "Why" problems require you to look at the shape of the problem as a whole. This requires structured, intentional thought.

Sell Creative Like Friends Episodes

Read v63 on Substack ↗

I used to say "creative ideas need a log line." But I was playing myself by talking like a strategist. Talk how people talk, not how another niche industry talks. So instead: sell creative territories like Friends episodes.

The one where… we visualize what the rainbow might taste like. The one where… we position our product as a beach in a bottle. If you can’t write the basic creative concept as a Friends episode title, you probably need to refine.

The Slide Deck Problem

Read v142 on Substack ↗

Slide decks have been a long time subject of ridicule. It’s true that the form of the slide is at odds with true knowledge work. As soon as we start crafting stories rather than diagnosing problems, we’ve strayed from our core purpose. Suddenly we’re selling, not informing.

I love making slides. It reflects my non-linear thinking style and allows me to collect first, sort later. But maybe slides should be for organizing thought, rather than for sharing it.

Remote work has shifted the role of the slide deck. It is now the presentation in full, rather than visual support to the main show—the presenter. Which means who presents the work became less important. That’s not ideal because a good presenter interprets, persuades, and adjusts based on real-time feedback. By sidelining the presenter, we lose that nuance.

More Types of Meetings

Read v144 on Substack ↗

In offices, there are a few types of planned communication: presentations, meetings, and one-on-ones. A presentation generally concludes with approval or direction. One-on-ones are straightforward. But "meeting" has to cover ALL the ground in between. We don’t need more meetings, but maybe we need more types of meetings.

Process Is a Formula, Not an Answer

Read v194 on Substack ↗ Read v2025 on Substack ↗

We often feel that process stifles or dictates the outcome. But the function of a process is the exact opposite. You can either work based on process or outcome. A process is meant to ensure that you don't land in the same place every time. A process is a formula to be applied, while a defined deliverable is solving for the answer you already have.

The Invasive Editorial Mindset

In advertising, you grow a brand by reaching light category buyers—reach, mental availability and prevalence. In editorial, it is opposite. You start with a niche and then go wide within it. Think Cigar Aficionado magazine. People will seek it out.

Ads today are full of insider messaging and coded language. Which is fine. But people will not seek it out. It only works if the audience assumes everyone has seen it. There are exceptions, but broadly we gotta stop approaching ads like editorials.

Meeting Notes vs Open Ears

Read v194 on Substack ↗ Read v2025 on Substack ↗

Creating a template/outline for taking notes specific to the purpose of the meeting is both incredibly powerful and futile. On one hand, you go in with a plan and idea of what you want to get out of the meeting. But in some ways, knowing what you want blinds you to what else is there. Don't be so task oriented that you lose sight of any info that might shift the playing field.

Start with an Existing Ad

We are often better at critiquing and improving than at starting from scratch. What if we briefed teams this way? "Find an ad campaign to use as a starting point, then reconstruct it to fit our objectives. Redress as needed to obscure the original source." I have a hunch the average outcome would be overall stronger than the "from scratch" process.

Against the Word "Insight"

From STRATSCRAPS 25 (Mar 2021)

This one is interesting not because it knocks the insight off the pedestal, but because it exposes the tension between insights and knowledge. Why aren't old already discovered insights collected? Once it has been uncovered, the value doesn't vanish… Julian Cole recently had a tweet about how insights have expiration dates. I don't think I agree. He quoted "millennials value experiences" – but maybe that was just a shitty insight from the get go?

Anyway, I'm for the idea of not saying the word "insight" anymore.

The "Human Truths" Debate

Read v26 on Substack ↗

I'm going to unpack a twitter conversation I was tagged in. I was a little too intimidated to jump in as it unfolded. Plus, twitter is not conducive to nuance or diplomacy.

"There is no such thing as a human truth without cultural context" — I disagree. What about the need to be accepted/belong? A trait hardwired into our brains from hundreds of thousands of years where being kicked out of the group meant death? There will always be current societal/cultural contexts layered on top of that need, but it is still a truth about being a human.

"Some of those promote the sort of shit that has held people back not lifted them up" — Maybe. But does that make them not true? Or not useful? Just because there is a harmful cultural truth, doesn't mean we have to perpetuate it. But you can't ignore it.

America's suicide epidemic has pretty directly been correlated to our deep sense of individualism. We are heroes in our own story – and when we realize we're not as in control as we'd like, it shakes us to the core. No we don't all want to be thrown a parade or wear a cape, but we are all the heroes to our own story… And we want to do well (what "well" means is where that cultural context comes in).

Rubber Ducking for Strategists

Read v50 on Substack ↗

Software engineers have an exercise they do when they are stuck—it's called rubber ducking. You explain the problem to a rubber duck on your desk. Ducks aren't super smart so you have to keep it simple. The result is, more often than not, the act of explaining the problem in simple terms uncovers the solution.

Which is why Strategists so often get the best insights/truths/strategy direction coming out of a casual conversation. Obviously a real person is better than a rubber duck, so start there. But if nobody is available, talk to the duck.

Wastage Is What Makes Advertising Work

Read v50 on Substack ↗

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." Here's the thing—there was more to the quote. He followed up by saying "But I do know that I need both halves for it to work." Wastage is what makes advertising work. But instead of aiming to maximize our impact, we aim to minimize our waste…

Gut Reactions vs Gut Thoughts

Read v43 on Substack ↗

I've always been a big advocate of trusting your gut. However, I think there are two important caveats. Trust gut reactions, not gut thoughts. The difference is a reaction is primal. Gut thoughts are not always sure what they're trying to say yet—and therefore can't be trusted until they are given some time to percolate.

Listening to your gut reactions takes practice and can easily be confused with bias. I don't have advice on how to separate the two. But gut reactions don't override bias.

Recorded vs Recollected History

Read v48 on Substack ↗

I often think about how different it is for kids today to grow up with constant documentation of their lives. Then I came across this quote: "we are at the very beginning of recorded history." I had never thought about it like that. Until very recently, we've been in recollected history. That's wild.

Talk to People Who Know Your Audience

Read v188 on Substack ↗

I used to have a rule to never write a brief about an audience I haven't spent time with. I need to get back to talking to people. I don't know how I let it fall off my set of "must dos" but it did. Covid broke the habit I guess.

I'd actually argue that talking with people who know your audience is more insightful than talking to the audience themselves. We are not very reliable narrators for ourselves. Insight requires distance. Observers notice the things the observed do not.

But What If We're Wrong?

Read v27 on Substack ↗

I had an identity crushing thought the other day. I was listening to a podcast about the philosopher Walter Benjamin. He believed we needed to invent a new philosophy for literary criticism. Basically, he argued that the tools we had built (literary theory, media theory) were no longer applicable to the technology of today. The age of the novel encouraged a society where concentration was a core skill. But in the age of mass media, the core skill is distraction.

I bring this up because a large part of my knowledge as a planner is based around the importance of the fundamentals. Sharp, King, Hegarty, Ehrenberg, Steel etc. My Planner identity is based in firm belief that Branding is important, reach matters, distinction over differentiation, and that wastage is the part of advertising that works.

But what if the tools of the past no longer work? Is the brand era over and the product era taking its place? How much does branding matter when I buy all sorts of shit off Instagram from brands I've never heard of?

For the record, I still think the fundamentals are correct, just need to be viewed in context. Except that there are more variables than ever and rules only work when current variables match the variables of the past.

DTC Is Overhyped

Read v45 on Substack ↗

Hot take: DTC is overhyped. Nike Direct is often cited as an example of DTC success—they made 66% of revenue from direct sales last year. Yet it had a negative result on margins. Unless you have something like AWS to float the boat, distribution without retail partners is really expensive.

But maybe margins aren't the point? Maybe Nike is thinking about it in the long term. Because pulling your product from any store that isn't at least athletic adjacent is definitely a brand reputation move. Direct sales as branding. As investment in image.

My guess is Nike knows what they are doing, but it shouldn't make brand managers everywhere try to do the same. It just depends on if the priority is sales or reputation and image.

Strategy Should Be About Finding, Not Thinking

I got back into fishing at the end of the summer… Right when the best time for fishing was coming to a close. So I've been doing a lot of thinking about fishing without actually doing much fishing.

Sometimes that feels like strategy's position as well. Lot of thinking about what you would do. Strategy shouldn't be about thinking. It should be about finding. Preparing to execute with what you have, not deliberating on the perfect hypothetical. Making sure you have what you need to do the thing.

To bring it back to fishing, strategy is picking lures for the tackle box while the car warms up at 5am. Not sitting in front of a screen asking a computer random questions just to satiate some weird need for more knowledge.

Output Is Declining

That's the thing about advertising though. There isn't supposed to be a "season." And that's why I went into it. To make stuff. I want to put novelty and absurdity into the world. Helping brands get attention was the best way to do that. At least I thought that was the case.

The more people I talk to, the more it seems like the average number of "things produced per year" is getting lower for everyone. And the irony is everyone talking about "content creator led" or whatever. You know how they got a following? By posting a ton of content, repeatedly, for a long time. Content creators we pay to partner with became their own brand through frequency.

Not that the world needs more content. It doesn't. Nor do brands need to do this to succeed. It isn't the only route to growth. Not to mention production is the lowest margin stage of the agency process…. oh.

Collecting vs Consuming

I obviously collect a lot of stuff from the internet (and IRL, my camera roll is a disaster). And I read as much as I can. But I definitely collect more than I consume. Which I think is common?

It got me thinking… Would it be better to consume more than you collect? That would mean your consumption is being led by someone else but yourself. Collecting more than you can read is in some ways a counter to algorithmic media (depending on where you collect from).

Is the ideal then to collect just the same as you read? To me, that would require a throttling of the curiosity that fuels the "open in new tab rabbit hole." So I think collecting too much is good. As long as you do consume some of it.

Be Less Precious