Justice beyond politics...

Yesterday I watched the absolutely brilliant Michael Sandel documentary Justice:A Citizen's Guide on BBC iPlayer (thank goodness for proxy servers!)

Sandel's main gist, revealed through interviews with other academics & philosophers and regular people, was that our way of thinking has become dominated by two ideals.

First, that of Kant's Categorical Imperative, the idea that some moral rules should be absolute and the underlying justification for human rights.

Second, and even more powerfully, that of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, the idea that we should be aiming to maximise our collective pool of happiness.

Drawing on the philosophy of Aristotle, Sandel makes the proposal that these two ways of thinking are missing something vital, an idea of what the 'good life' should be, a target for us to aim towards.

His theory really resonates with the conversation I've been having with myself about idealism vs pragmatism.

Kant is pure abstract idealism, removed from the messiness of everyday life and lacking in real emotion or usefulness for that reason. It just doesn't hold up in real life.

Utilitarianism on the other hand, is pure pragmatism and seems to suck any higher purpose out of life. It reduces us to short-term thinking and misguided notions of what is really valuable in the long run. It also focuses our thinking sharply on individual needs at the expense of collective interests. It has helped create the kind of politics that aims to appease rather than inspire.

As we wake up to the fact that this kind of individualism is not only destructive but also misguided, we need to re-orient our society to become one that can accomodate ideals and a willingness to talk about the kind of world we want to live in but also takes account of the messy nature of reality and of our way of thinking. We need our moral ideals to be based more on empathy than on abstracted reason.

Of course, Sandel isn't the only one talking about this. The Tory rhetoric about the big society plays to the idea of a more involved citizenship in which we all play a part in shaping the world. The rhetoric though is undermined by cuts that are disproportionately affecting the poor. Without moves towards a more equitable distribution of income then talk about a more involved citizenship and us 'all being in this together' will ring hollow.

Perhaps then it is Sandel's grass-root citizen-ship groups that offer our best hope. But whilst these are admirable and will undoubtedly lead to more positive outcomes, I don't believe they are enough alone.

The pragmatic mode of thinking in politics can't be isolated from the concurrent growth of business and corporations. The notion of the consumer has penetrated political thinking and shaped the way the political parties approach the electorate. Often they seemed to have borrowed the worst tactics, playing to underlying wants and desires rather than offering a compelling vision of what we really should be doing.

Business too needs to start offering a genuine vision of what the 'good life' should be and letting this guide what they do. There are some positive signs that this beginning to happen but, as in politics, it needs to extend beyond mere rhetoric, and be an authentic guide to action, even to the extent of corporations beginning to take a more active role in political lobbying if necessary.

Finally, the program just reinforced for me what a wonderful thing the BBC is for airing this kind of programme. Over my lifetime, I have seen their content gradually dumbed-down, in the name of competing with commercial stations which have often churned out lowest common denominator crap. But with the introduction of digital and BBC4, they're back to producing television that really does have the potential to educate.

As the zeitgeist begins to switch, their mission to 'To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain' feels more relevant than ever.

Rethinking Freud

Like all of us, Freud’s views were shaped by his time. For Freud, the horrors of the First World War left him with the point of view that man was fundamentally brutal and egoistic. Society was a restraining force, holding man’s worst impulses at bay in the interests of the group.

It’s from this that all Freud’s talk about repression comes from. If people were to act in the way that they really wanted, then life would be hell. We’d all be raping and assaulting each other.

This view has been at the root of much modern thinking. And it’s pretty sad when you think about it. It tends to suggest that our darker feelings - that we do undoubtedly have – are our true selves. We just hold back on them for the sake of the others.

Happily then, this view seems increasingly at odds with the evidence.

Contrary to the Freudian view, babies are drawn to their mother not just as a source of food but because they have an even more powerful drive towards human closeness.

As we grow older, it is our sense of connection to others that is the basis of sound mental health and wellbeing, especially the connections that we experience as a child. We seem biologically equipped to relate to other in a way that isn’t rational but much more emotional. We can literally feel other people’s feelings, as their behaviour fires the ‘mirror neurons’ in our own brains.

In the same way that Freud was influenced by what was happening around him, so are we all. Freud’s influential theories – that humans are fundamentally bad, repressing their true nature for the sake of society – will have been self-reinforcing, internalized by the generations that grew up with them and, to some extent, shaping their beliefs and even behaviour.

Hopefully then, as the new view of humans as pre-disposed towards empathy gains currency, it too will be self-reinforcing, creating a virtuous circle in which people are willing to believe that others can act out of desires that are not fundamentally self-interested but have to do with developing stronger relationships that, in the end, benefit us all.

This post was inspired by my current read – ‘The Empathic Civilisation’ – by Jeremy Rifkin – highly recommended!

Universal Techno

Brilliant 90s French documentary on the roots of Techno featuring interviews with Derrick May, Mad Mike, LFO, Warp records and footage from Sonar 96.

Most of the interviews are in English but for the other you might want to have a French dictionary handy...

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

It's striking how the real pioneers were motivated by making music for it's own sake, with no real hope of finding any success.

The Internet has undoubtedly been a good thing for music, empowering artists to bypass the major record labels, make the kind of records they want and find an audience.

But at the same time, by connecting musicians to a potential global audience, it's also made them more savvy.

Perhaps there's been a certain creative innocence - music made without (realistic) dreams of success - lost in the process?

Insides vs Outsides

Self-esteem.

We all suffer from a lack of it sometimes. And I've noticed that when I do, it usually stems from having been sitting in front of a computer screen, plugged into the lives and thoughts of everybody else out there.

Although we call it self-esteem, it actually seems to have a lot more about how we feel about everybody else than how we feel about ourselves.

Or rather, it has to do with how we feel in relationship to others. Which are after all the only way that we really do exist.

The very notion of self-esteem serves to lay the blame squarely at our feet. I'm not good enough. Or rather, I'm not good enough to feel good about myself"

Typical of a society that places so much emphasis on the individual, self-bounded and distinct from others. But not so helpful from an emotional point of view.

Because the best way to change our self-esteem, is probably not to think about changing ourselves but to think about changing the way that we relate to others.

Technology has made it easier than ever for us to form social connections. But it's also disembodied the way that we relate, reducing it to pictures or words on a screen and removing any depth of emotion or empathy.

We socialise whilst sitting alone, stuck in our own feelings, taking in the lives of others as they choose to project them.

Unlike a real face-to-face connection, this way of relating is one sided. It's our very real feelings, complete with vulnerabilities and emotional needs vs everybody else's holiday photos and witty status updates. Our insides vs everybody else's outsides.

No wonder it's bad for our self-esteem.

PS - the insides vs outsides thing I picked up from a brilliant Oliver Burkeman talk from the RSA about how we can all become (slightly) happier. Definitely worth a listen!

The New Capitalist Manifesto

Like it or not, we live in a world in which business wields enormous power. Corporations long ago super-ceded government as the dominant force in Western society.

Which is worrying because business is at its heart motivated by one thing: making a profit for its shareholders. As far as they can within the laws, the argument goes, they are required to do so, regardless of the wider consequences.

Even more worrying, thinking within business has become increasingly short-term, as the ability of shareholders to move their money to where the immediate profits are has increased, a trend bolstered by short-term incentives for executives within the corporations.

As we wake up to the fact that we’re living on a finite world with an economy that demands constant growth and that in developed nations our sense of fulfilment relative to ‘progress’ long since reached a plateau, this way of thinking seems increasingly unsustainable.

Business as usual is no longer an option. But the commercial world runs so much to the core of our way of living that it needs to be part of the solution. We desperately need a new business model. And Umair Haque, whose inspiring blog posts I have followed for some time, in his new book, The New Capitalist Manifesto, offers an inspiring vision of what that might look like.

Haque’s first great insight is in framing the problem. We’ve moved from a world that resembles a ‘game reserve’ to one that we now know is much more like an ‘ark’. It is small and crowded, with finite space and finite resources. That shift requires a dramatically different approach to how we think about our role and responsibilities.

Within this framework Haque then redefines what we need to think of as ‘value’. At the moment, we are too often creating ‘thin’ value - financial profit with no eye on the real social or environmental costs. In order to build long-term prosperity, we need to be creating ‘thick’ value:

“profits whose benefits accrue sustainably, authentically, and meaningfully to people, communities, society, the natural world, and future generations.”

The idea of ‘hidden costs’ or ‘externalities is nothing new – whether it be the health costs associated with the profits generated by fast food companies or the carbon costs of the profits generated by oil firms. But what makes Haque’s explanation so inspiring is the way he moves the conversation on from talking about ‘costs’ to talking about ‘value’.

This new perspective moves the goalposts. We are no longer talking about a problem to be solved but an opportunity to head towards.

Underpinning his vision, Haque highlights a set of companies that his analysis has identified are already, imperfectly and in different ways, trying to create more authentic value – from Google to Grameen, Nike to Walmart – and at the same time outperforming their competition.

Whilst none of the examples are perfect – and I would argue are not always creating so much more ‘thick’ value than their competitors in some important respects – they do show that successful, forward-thinking companies are increasingly beginning to think about value in a different way, to both their own advantage and that of society in general, painting a picture of a world in which business increasingly competes on the basis of creating real value that genuinely improves people lives.

Above and beyond the business case, Haque’s vision is one of ideals, as he himself explicitly states:

“Here’s the deeper, perhaps more fundamental belief underpinning them: think bigger. Change the world for the better.”

There’s obviously a long way to go before we live in a world where companies are truly competing on the basis of contributing to a wider societal prosperity. But at the core of the book’s argument is a strong and compelling case for business taking a longer-term view, pre-empting shifting consumer demand and government regulation.

Politics itself is notable for its absence here. This is obviously not Haque’s expertise and part of the book’s strength is in its single-minded intention to be a call to arms for business. But I can’t help wondering if there is something deeper at play too – namely the near sacrosanct modern-day division between business and politics.

Because without the political will to shape the regulatory and financial framework under which corporations operate, then I fear that business will never fully develop the new ‘institutional cornerstones’ that Haque envisions. And when even the conditions on which Haque predicates ‘thick’ value are themselves political hot potatoes (try telling some people their SUVs and Big Macs are actually worthless!) the case for the walls between economics and politics start to seem like a barrier in themselves.

As the clock ticks, and leading business figures reportedly talk in private about how they would like to change more quickly than they feel they feel able to, the need for them to create ‘thick’ value but also champion the need for it – via political lobbying if needs be – has never been greater.

The case for the right brain

An absolutely brilliant talk from Ian McGilchrist at the RSA, a brief introduction to his book The Master and the Emissary...



Touches on so many things that I have been feeling over the last few years and have strugged to put into words. Probably because they're an expression of my right brain!

It's these same feelings that have in part inspired me to write this blog and that I feel are at the root of much of my disillusionment with the way the modern world - and the corporate world in particular - works. So much creativity and positivity held back by lifeless bureaucracy, counter-productive 'processes' and a need for certainty.

The most interesting thing about McGilchrists thinking is his intellectual background and the balanced approach that this gives him:

"Nobody could be more passionate than myself about language, about reason, it's just that I'm even more passionate about the right hemisphere and the need to return what that knows to a broader context.

It's inspiring to hear a serious scientist starting to make the case for looking beyond rationality although, as he says, he still feels he is putting his neck on the line by doing so.

Heartening then that he isn't actually the first scientific thinker to make this point. McGilchrist ends his talk with this beautiful quote from that well known proponent of staring out of windows as a way to inspiration, Einstein:

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We've created a society that honours the servant, but has forgotten the gift."

Open your eyes...

Revolutionary wisdom from Immortal Techniques...



I heard this song a few months and it's stuck with me since. Some part of me feels that it's a little extreme but so much of what he says rings true.

And as someone says in the comments, it gives me goosebumps.

I don't believe that revolution is the way forward, but then I'm a privileged first-world middle-class white male.

But I do believe that we need voices like this. And if anybody can vouch for authenticity then it's Immortal Technique - who self-released his own albums and used the profits from his latest to travel to Afghanistan and set up an orphanage!

But the irony is, that if a mainstream label had the chance then they would snap him up in an instant, just like the song says.

They would be happy to eat up his revolutionary talk. And in that one transaction, his authenticity would be gone.

People want to act and not buy ethically

Sticking to the subject of optimism, I want to write a post that I've had in mind since I first started this blog...

Research into what motivates people to buy the things that they do makes for pretty depressing results. I know this from first-hand experience but it's a picture that's also now emerging more widely.

For example, according to the Journal of Marketing in September 2010: 40% of consumers say they are willing to purchase green products but only 4% of consumers actually do when given the choice.

So all the claims that people have been making about buying more ethical or greener products have turned out to be exactly that. Just claims. Good intentions, high ideals, trumped at the check out by more pragmatic motivations.

And before I start sounding holier than thou, I definitely include myself in this. I've tried buying ethically, I've tried to only buy what I need, I've tried to buy everything second hand. Some of these behaviours have stuck, some have partially stuck. But after occasional bursts of idealism I always fall back to a pragmatic default, driven by more immediate concerns: price, convenience, quality, acquiring nice new shiny stuff.

It's not that people don't care about the issues. They do generally want to feel that they're doing their bit. But it's bloody hard to buy ethically all the time!

And our shopping habits feel like such a small part compared to other aspects of our life. Like work, where we seem to spend more and more of our waking hours.

Some of the marketing people we talked to seemed surprised when we told them this. They thought our research was painting a negative picture. But their optimism was more reflective of their own desires than those of everyday people.

People working in marketing - like other people - want to feel that they are doing their bit to help. They want to feel good about the work that they are doing. They want to lead the brands they are working with in a more ethical direction. Deep down they probably don't feel too great about creating more adverts to just sell more stuff.

But at the moment, they sometimes seem to feel that they can only push their company in a more ethical direction if it directly appeals to their target consumer. If it is going to sell more stuff. So they're sometimes quite happy to assume that this is the case.

But people don't really care what brands are doing. By and large, they don't really feel that it's their responsibility. It's something that brands and corporations should be doing anyway.

Marketers, like everybody else, want to feel that they're doing valuable work. It's work where we spend most of our time and it's at work where we feel we can really make a difference. It's also at work that we can potentially get the most personal value out of feeling that we're making a difference, as drudgery transforms into a genuine cause to get behind.

Instead of looking to their customers to give the go-ahead for more ethical behaviour, companies should be taking the lead. Because these intrinsic motivations will attract and get the best out of their employees. And this will eventually lead to a better product, more loyal customers and yes, even better marketing.

The positives of negativity

There's been a lot said about the the way that comment sections on the internet often brings out the worst in people. Freed from social constraints and real human contact, people tend to give free reign to their baser emotions. They say nasty things that they would never say if they were looking another person in the face.

And you don't need to look far for evidence of this. If you want absolute proof then just head over to 4chan and spend 10 minutes browsing through some of the threads there. But just remember that it's not possible to 'unsee' stuff. You've been warned.

For more SFW but no less iron-clad evidence, look at just about any thread on Guardian CiF, supposedly the home of progressive values. Whilst there are undoubtedly many measured voices amongst the commenters, a personal insult or snide comment is never far away.

George Monbiot has written an interesting piece about 'astroturfing': the practice of organised groups -maybe in the pay of those in power who wish to protect their interests - orchestrating comments on the Internet to make a political or corporate point. No doubt this is a real concern. Never has it been truer than today that it's unwise to believe everything that you read. But it's not the point that I want to make...

At the risk of sounding negative myself, I want to talk about the counter-trend towards positivity. Because whilst the anonymity of the Internet has led some to lose compassion, it's open-ness has also led to a sense of fawning positivity amongst others.

It's a truism that 'It's not what you know, it's who you know'. But in the era of 'social networking' it's become easier than ever to make connections with 'strangers'. And the most obvious way to make connections is to be nice and complimentary to other people. To praise their work.

Looking at the use of Twitter in particular, this connecting seems to have turned into collecting for some as people work to attract followers and build their 'share of voice' as if 'It's not who you know, it's how many people you know'. And again here, being negative isn't likely to win you many friends. Or, in that case, influence.

Now, I don't mean to praise negativity for the sake of it. Too often, negativity can kill an idea before it has had time to really flower. And positivity can help bring the out the best of it.

But at the same time, too much positivity can also kill creativity by refusing to look for different angles or challenge the status quo. It can lead to a narrowing of debate - as in the famous 'echo chamber' that is too often the blogosphere.

When I was working in market research I sometimes got the same feeling when we were reporting findings back to clients about the way people were living. How were people's lifestyles changing? What were the big trends? What effect was technology having on their lives?

We tended to focus on the positive aspects of these changes because this was what it felt like the marketers we were speaking to wanted to hear. They wanted to tap into and accentuate the positive aspects of people's lives. They wanted to make them feel good. This was where the leverage was.

They didn't really want to hear about the negative.

But it strikes me now that in taking this perspective, you're going to miss the bigger picture. For me, the really inspiring voices of today are those that are challenging the status quo, that are going against the grain. And the really big innovations are going to come from those that address the negative aspects of our lives and not just keep on trying to accentuate the positives.

It's an attitude summed up perfectly by Honda in the words of an unusually inspiring piece of television advertising: "Hate something, change something, make something better".

Let's hope that really is their attitude and not just another piece of slick marketing...

Just be yourselves...

I realised a couple of days ago that I've been having an argument in my own head recently about the right approach to life. Whether to be idealistic or pragmatic?

On one side it feels like their isn't enough idealism in the world today. Politics is motivated by winning the next election and doing whatever it takes to get so. Business is all about selling as much as possible to maximise shareholder value regardless of the costs. Thinking is short-term, guided by immediate gains and not long-term vision.

On the other hand, that's the world we're living in. You may have the most high-minded ideals but what good are they if you can't win an election or make a living. We all want to get ahead in the world.

I came across this interesting piece on George Monbiot's blog (a true idealist if ever there was one!) about how extrinsic values have come to dominate our age. And what he says feels right. And it does feel like we should be trying to redress the balance and shift our society towards one that places a greater value on intrinsic values.

But on a personal level it's much more difficult to abstract. Part of me is shit-scared that if we don't then there won't be much of a future for any of us. But another part of me just wants to live my life and not have to worry about the bigger picture.

Being idealistic is hard in a society that has short shrift with ideals.

Another theme of our time could be the maxim to 'just be yourself'. I heard this parroted out over and over again as I was growing up. In pop songs, on TV, in the media. And it always instilled a deep sense of insecurity in me, a worry that 'myself' wasn't good enough. Or even more worrying, that I didn't know who myself was.

But I now realise that this is just trite pop psychology. Buddhist thought has always denied the existence of a self, insisting that we're just a bundle of competing drives and desires, a view now backed up by modern-neuroscience (like so much of Buddhist thinking and practice).

Much better advice might be to 'just be yourselves, or at least try to navigate a path through life with an understanding of your competing needs and desires'.

Not quite as catchy and certainly not as as simple but, for me at least, a more accurate description of the human condition and what I intend to do.

So with that thought it's no longer an argument I'm having in my head but a good-natured debate and one that I intend to carry on having.

The 'blog name' post...

Marketing at it's worst. Bill Hicks says it better than I ever could...



Judging by the views and comments on this video most viewers out there agree. But believe it or not, most people I've met whilst working in marketing aren't evil people. Increasingly though, they do seem to feel that what they're doing is, well... not evil but not a force for good either.

They recognise better than most the extent to which marketing is serving to advance consumerism. And they realise that this isn't sustainable. With many this doesn't sit easily.

But Bill's advice is a little too extreme. And even changing career isn't easy when you've got years of experience behind you and a life to support. So there is an increasing number of marketeers trying to re-shape marketing from the inside.

There are plenty of blogs out there from conscious marketers. I've also witnessed this in conversations with marketing and ad people I've worked with.

But I also know it because it was the way that I felt when I was (indirectly) working in marketing. In the end I was looking for any way in which I could hope to make a positive difference because these were the only moments that I really got a sense of satisfaction from my work.

Thus the title of the blog - Marketing Will Eat Itself.

Incidentally it's also a variation on the name of my favourite band when I was an 11 year old boy. Thanks God for Youtube because this CD is long long long lost...

The Century of the Self II

Have just watched the third and fourth episodes of this brilliantly insightful and though-provoking documentary series





The second half of the film examines the rise of the 'individual' as an essentially political movement and it's co-opting by business as a way to market products to enable us to feel like individuals. It goes on to chart the rise of the same phenomenon in politics, with politicians focussing on individual wants and needs as a means to win elections.

Whilst this has obviously been an effective way to win elections, I would guess that it is also at the route of my generation's disillusionment with the political process. As Derek Draper say in an interview towards the end of the programme "politics and leadership are about engaging the public in rational debate about what is best" not catering to their unfiltered and unrealistic wants and needs.

The real tragedy is that Tony Blair et al probably believed that this was the right thing to do by the people in country, place the power directly in the hands of people. But of course, people don't have proper understanding of the context behind the decisions that need to be made. They 'want' lower taxes and they 'want' better public services. That doesn't mean it's possible or that politicians should be offering it.

In many ways this is the same problem that I saw with much commercial research. Without the context how can consumers possible tell you what to do? And in the long-term, what they are looking for is leadership and not just blind fulfillment of their immediate desires?

That may get you short-term success but it won't build long-term sustainability or real innovation

The Century of the Self

I've spent the last couple of hours watching the first half of the BBC documentary 'The Century of the Self' on Google video





The series charts the influence of psycho-analysis on the role of politics in business in the West. The first program centers of Freud's nephew - Edward Bernays - the founder of modern PR. He is presented as the first person to really link the power of persuasion to people's unconscious desires. It examines the shift after the first world war from a nation of citizens to a nation of consumers and the role that consumerism was hoped to play in taming the irrationality of the masses and creating a safe society.

What seems so strange to me now is the thought that being people's irrationality was somehow something to fear, although I guess the backdrop of the second world war and instability in Europe is what gave lie to this idea.

The second program continues where the first left off by exploring in more depth the link formed between business and psycho-analysis. It looks at how business took on board the lessons of appealing to unconscious desires to sell products via the Ernest Dichter's Institute for Motivational Research and the focus group. It talks about how psycho-analysis and the consumerism it was affording was seen as a way of empowering society by meeting people's needs and strengthening the ego.

I can't believe that as someone working in qual market research that I've not seen this before, although I'm not sure how well it would work as a motivational tool.

At the end of the programme, it looks at the rise of dissenting voices arguing that the control exerted on people by these techniques in the name of society is actually damaging and that we should be looking more at society as the source of violence and discord.

For example Arthur Miller: "There's a preconception that suffering is somehow a mistake... possibly the greatest truths we know have come out of people's suffering"

Or Martin Luther King: "There are some things in our society to which I'm proud to be maladjusted"

Watching has got me thinking about a debate I've been having in my head about whether people can really be trusted to want the right thing from businesses, from politics? Whether some degree of paternalism is desirable or even necessary in today's world?

According to the documentary there was a similar debate going on between Edward Bernays - who believed that people couldn't be trusted to know what they wanted - and Roosevelt/Gallup - who believed that people could.

The question brought up by this film is if, after nearly a century of mass-consumerism, we are still dealing with the same 'self' that we were back then? How deeply has a consumerist way of thinking penetrated our mindsets? And shaped the options for action available to us?

Guerilla Marketing?

I just quickly grabbed the video in my last post to give an example of Theo Jansen's work. What I didn't realise at the time - having not watched the video through to the end - was that the video was 'brought to us' by BMW.

So given that this is exactly the kind of subject that I want to write about on this blog, how should I feel about this?

Well part of me does feel that it devalues the work. It is no longer of value on it's own. It has been co-opted to serve the purposes of BMW. This does detract from my feeling about Theo Jansen and the work on display.

I'm obviously not alone in thinking this way. On the YouTube page for the video the highest rated comment (by far) is 'This looked awesome until the BMW logo popped up.'

Another representative comment of this point of view:

'this guerilla marketing thing makes me puke sometimes...

would love to see a documentary about that guy..

o wait it's not available in my country because sony banned it.. puke again..'

On the other hand, if BMW want to spend their marketing money bringing something amazing like this to people's attention then it is surely an improvement on more banal advertising?

And there is a certain fit with the product, another view represented in the comments:

'I'm not blind...lol. My view of it is that Theo was an Engineer gone artist. He is really both - and BMW is an Engineering company, and an amazing one at that - makes perfect sense to me that they are backing his artwork.

Saying a car is a kinetic sculpture isn't really splitting hairs. What BMW engineers accomplish IS art, and cars are metal sculptures - kinetic ones at that.'

I think I would feel less uncomfortable if the association were more upfront. At the end of the day, this minute or so long film just feels like a traditional advert. Everything that Theo says is taken in good spirit. He is talking about art and engineering. Noble pursuits. He has created something beautiful.

Then at the end of the film, we realise that it was all trickery. He wasn't actually talking about his creations at all, he was talking about BMW. They are the ones who we should care are marrying engineering and art.

Which in the end leaves it all feeling underhand and inauthentic. An attempt to borrow cool with little substance.

The pragmatist in me is telling me that corporations are going to play an increasingly role in the arts and we should be happy with that. But something stronger in me feels that this is perhaps looking in the right direction of what marketing needs to become but is really just more of the same.

If you're going to bring us a cool film about what somebody else is doing, then do it properly and don't co-opt the meaning fr yourself. By all means use a logo but put it at the start, like a film company would.

Or make a film about what you're actually doing.

Or genuinely collaborate and make a film about that.

But be transparent and don't try to blur the boundaries because it just ends up feeling fake.

My New Year resolution...

I watched a lot of TV over the start of this New Year in Japan. Most of it utter crap. But one thing I saw stuck in my mind...

It was a programme about a designer called Theo Jansen who creates what he calls 'kinetic sculptures': utterly amazing machines that seem almost alive and remind me of some of Miyazaki's creations in Spirited Away...



One thing he said chimed with me. Talking about creation he said something along the lines of '9 out of 10 things that you make will be rubbish but it's the 1 in 10 things that make trying worthwhile'

So my New Year resolution to myself is to try and create something here. Maybe 'create' is too grand a word. But I want to begin recording some of my thoughts, about business, marketing and advertising and how they can be better. About Market Research and whether it can find a more positive role. About my other interests, mindfulness, body awareness and screen culture. About interesting books I read or articles I come across.

My intention is not to think too much about what I write. Or rather, not to let being uncertain stop me from writing. So let me make this disclaimer now - what I write here is my view at the time of writing but it is almost definitely not right and I may no longer agree with it.

So everything I am going to write here is work in progress. But by recording something I hope to move my thinking forward and hopefully create something at some time that I can be proud of. Even if just for the effort that has gone into it.