The difference between the memo and the current mission statement here is jaw-dropping. The rot is real. I am optimistic that we can now initiate a comprehensive solutionitization of the existing misalignment and execute a strategic realignment to catalyze the facilitation of synergistic, transparent, and human-first principles, communication touchpoints, and pathways, across all operational silos.
Yes have linked some of these in the past, they're wonderful. I think the ad sector (along with other creative fields) in their obsession with novelty have forgotten why it even exists. Instead embracing a goldfish-esque mindset, flirting from trend to rend and divorced from timeless concepts and competencies.
I’ve spent far too many hours in rooms negotiating the construction of these meaningless, useless statements just to dust them off the following year for the same ritual.
For more fun about idiots convincing highly credentialed idiots, the nonsense math effect is fun and depressing. In short, every degree holder save Math, Science, and Technology majors consistently ranked papers with prominent, nonsense math formulas as more credible… including Medicine.
As always, appreciate your "Hot Takes", Adam. Loved Ogilvy's assertion that "People who think well, write well." A bit off topic but reminded me of this Apple Intelligence ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m0MoYKwVTM) which perfectly sums up one of the scariest things about AI — to me anyway. If Ogilvy is correct (and I think he is), that people who think well, write well, then why do we want to create tools that mask bad thinkers (like Warren, in the ad)?
I know that's simplistic and there are, of course, great uses for all kinds of AI but glorifying tools that turn bad writers (aka bad thinkers) into passable writers (passable thinkers) has always struck me as incredibly dangerous. Perhaps that's at the heart of what you are talking about...we've enabled legions of bad writers with well meaning tools which in turn has allowed bad thinking to infest every sector of our lives? And if that Apple ad is any indication things aren't about to get better but much, much worse.
One cause of poor “real life” writing is law school. Liability deflection is job one of legal departments (and ergo corporate speak). Meticulously hedged and inclusive statements have come at the expense of directness. We’re left with passive 5 line multi-clause sentences designed to frustrate rather than inform. Yuk.
It’s a big reason that a straight opinion is such a jarring tonic these days.
Very interesting thought leadership. But are these learnings scalable if we can't empower associates to make disruption via 1:1 naturalspeak a robust core competency without sufficient buy-in? Let's hop on a call and circle back on it.
I have sympathy for wordiness, failing to get to the point and even weasel-speak in first drafts, especially for non-professional writers. My job has often been to help them solve those problems.
That makes the modern-day Ogilvy example all the more disturbing because it appears workshopped to death, largely (although not entirely) by people who deem themselves professional communicators!
The difference between the memo and the current mission statement here is jaw-dropping. The rot is real. I am optimistic that we can now initiate a comprehensive solutionitization of the existing misalignment and execute a strategic realignment to catalyze the facilitation of synergistic, transparent, and human-first principles, communication touchpoints, and pathways, across all operational silos.
lol this is what they will do, unironically
If you haven’t listened to any of the episodes of the Founders podcast about Ogilvy, get to it.
Yes have linked some of these in the past, they're wonderful. I think the ad sector (along with other creative fields) in their obsession with novelty have forgotten why it even exists. Instead embracing a goldfish-esque mindset, flirting from trend to rend and divorced from timeless concepts and competencies.
I’ve spent far too many hours in rooms negotiating the construction of these meaningless, useless statements just to dust them off the following year for the same ritual.
For more fun about idiots convincing highly credentialed idiots, the nonsense math effect is fun and depressing. In short, every degree holder save Math, Science, and Technology majors consistently ranked papers with prominent, nonsense math formulas as more credible… including Medicine.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/nonsense-math-effect/E1098F55C74B3C77E74060428F7759A0
Incredible link, thanks for sharing this is worth a future post for sure
As always, appreciate your "Hot Takes", Adam. Loved Ogilvy's assertion that "People who think well, write well." A bit off topic but reminded me of this Apple Intelligence ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m0MoYKwVTM) which perfectly sums up one of the scariest things about AI — to me anyway. If Ogilvy is correct (and I think he is), that people who think well, write well, then why do we want to create tools that mask bad thinkers (like Warren, in the ad)?
I know that's simplistic and there are, of course, great uses for all kinds of AI but glorifying tools that turn bad writers (aka bad thinkers) into passable writers (passable thinkers) has always struck me as incredibly dangerous. Perhaps that's at the heart of what you are talking about...we've enabled legions of bad writers with well meaning tools which in turn has allowed bad thinking to infest every sector of our lives? And if that Apple ad is any indication things aren't about to get better but much, much worse.
Don’t use a five dollar word when a fifty cent word will do.
Seems the beginnings of the Founder Mode is happening already, with people like Lulu who you mention, Solana, etc
Yes on that side of the media trade, but little movement on the ads side
Solid post!
One cause of poor “real life” writing is law school. Liability deflection is job one of legal departments (and ergo corporate speak). Meticulously hedged and inclusive statements have come at the expense of directness. We’re left with passive 5 line multi-clause sentences designed to frustrate rather than inform. Yuk.
It’s a big reason that a straight opinion is such a jarring tonic these days.
I think “SEO-writing” has also infected clear communication. When you have to write for the algorithm, it’s a good bet that quality declines
Very interesting thought leadership. But are these learnings scalable if we can't empower associates to make disruption via 1:1 naturalspeak a robust core competency without sufficient buy-in? Let's hop on a call and circle back on it.
I have sympathy for wordiness, failing to get to the point and even weasel-speak in first drafts, especially for non-professional writers. My job has often been to help them solve those problems.
That makes the modern-day Ogilvy example all the more disturbing because it appears workshopped to death, largely (although not entirely) by people who deem themselves professional communicators!