Lucy Jameson, Natalie Graeme, Nils Leonard of Uncommon
What Direction Are You Going?
"FEARLESS CREATIVE LEADERSHIP" PODCAST - TRANSCRIPT
Episode 266: Lucy Jameson, Natalie Graeme, Nils Leonard
Here's a question. Which direction are you going?
I'm Charles Day. I believe that leadership offers us the greatest opportunity of our lives, to make a difference. I'm asked to help leaders discover what they're capable of, and then to maximize their impact. Welcome to the intersection of strategy and humanity.
Before we get to this week's conversation, I've got a couple of thoughts on leadership that I want to share. I don't talk specifically about partisan politics on this podcast. I'm interested in exploring how different people lead and why, what makes them successful, and what allows them to have impact on the people and the world around them. As I say in the intro, I believe that leadership offers us the greatest opportunity to make a difference.
Against that context, I can't let this week go by without observation. On Sunday afternoon at two o'clock Eastern, whatever your view of politics, the world changed.
It changed because one person decided to lead by choosing not to. To be clear, he didn't have to withdraw as his party's nominee. For all the noise and all the pressure, he could have chosen to go ahead. We can all speculate about the outcome, but I think that misses the leadership lesson, that living through this particular moment offers us.
From my perspective and my experience, the best leaders, the leaders we talk about and write about years after they've gone, are focused first on the future. What kind of world, or corner of the block, do they want to live in, and do they want to leave behind for others? And that matters to them more than their own place in it. Which is why their place in it lasts forever.
And now to this episode's guests. Nils Leonard, one of the co-founders of Uncommon, the award-winning global creative studio, has been a regular guest on this show since I started Fearless over seven years ago. In all of that time, I've wondered about his partnership with his two co-founders, Natalie Graeme and Lucy Jameson. Why did they decide to go into business together? How does the partnership work and what might get in the way?
And what makes the Uncommon partnership particularly worth understanding, is the incredible consistency between what they said mattered to them when they started, and how they show up today.
They know what will power them to the future, which Nils believes makes them different from much of the industry, as AI arrives.
“It's asking everybody a question, which is, what are you really doing? You sell low cost content that could be made by a machine now, you are screwed. That's the truth of it. So what are you really selling? What are you really about? You know, all these creative people that are here in Cannes, I would argue they don't make money selling creativity. And so that's the thing, I think that's the question it's asking. I think it's thrilling.” - Nils Leonard
They know how they want to separate themselves from their competitors. As Lucy Jameson describes:
“I think we all looked at most agency brands and went they're not brands. We want to create a brand, not a kind of professional services service thing. We wanted to create our own brand. And if you own a brand, you need to have real clarity about what it stands for and you can't deviate from that.” - Lucy Jameson
And they know which direction they're headed, as Natalie Graeme explains:
“When we did start Uncommon, we were faced with, here's this incredible client. Why don't we take that? Because they're offering us a ton of cash. But it was absolutely the wrong thing to do as a founding client of Uncommon. We were able to look at each other and, without really having to question it, it was instant decision. No, that would take us back to where we didn't want to go.” - Natalie Graeme
Leadership is about defining the future and then motivating people to join you on the journey. And along the way, from time to time, you have to remind yourself of the past you've left behind, and why you're not going back.
All of us this week have lived through a moment that, perhaps unlike any other in our lifetime, will show us the consequences of leadership. Having partners you trust and respect on that journey makes it much more likely you'll succeed. This conversation on a wet, rainy Thursday morning at an outdoor restaurant in Cannes, shows why the Uncommon partnership has worked so successfully so far, and raises some questions about how it will need to evolve to guide the company's next stage of evolution.
Here are the founders of Uncommon: Natalie Graeme, Lucy Jameson, and Nils Leonard.
Charles:
Nils. Welcome back. Lucy, Natalie, thank you so much for coming on the show for the first time. A wet, raining Cannes seems, I don’t know, maybe it's just the perfect environment in which to do this. Let me start with you Lucy. How did the three of you meet?
Lucy Jameson:
So I went to Grey in 2012, and Nils was the Creative Director there. I went just before big agencies in the UK merged, Adam and Eve and DDB. And to be honest, I think I first met Nils, it was the day after their office party.
Nils Leonard:
Why would you ask this question?
Lucy Jameson:
And he was still drunk and he had really dodgy eye makeup on and I wasn't entirely sure whether to go, yes, this is my person, or no, never.
Natalie Graeme:
I love the fact it was a question.
Charles:
And what drew you past the hesitancy?
Lucy Jameson:
I was looking to find my team that I wanted to work with, because I'd been in an environment where the senior leadership team didn't get along, and you never did good work like that. And it was a bit of a gamble, but I figured why not?
Charles:
So you were that intentional about it? I mean you were deliberately looking for people that I want to work with.
Lucy Jameson:
Yes. Oh yeah. That was my one criteria for leaving the agency I'd been at was I want to find the people I want to work with. And then, yeah, I didn't at that point have a, oh, I know we want to do a startup, but I just knew that was the thing that makes the difference between making good work or not, having fun or not, and doing something good or not.
Charles:
Natalie, what about you? How did you connect?
Natalie Graeme:
To be honest, it was kind of similar. I was trying to find a home that wasn't independent agencies. I had already been at independent agencies a lot up until that point, and I just felt like there was something I didn't know about how the game was played elsewhere. So I was just curious to see what that world was like. But also, I think when you are, when you own something and I always worked into founders, you learn an awful lot about what they're building, and I always thought I wanted to build my own. But you sometimes hit your head on the ceiling a bit. So I just thought it would be nice to go and explore somewhere that was probably a bit more international and a bit wider. So yeah, I met Nils in a similar sort of environment, I think he had a few glasses of wine—
Nils Leonard:
Oh my God. Why did you didn't even tell me you were asking these questions, dude. I feel like—
Natalie Graeme:
Yeah—
Nils Leonard:
Sorry. We're just getting coffees.
Natalie Graeme:
Two cappuccinos, s'il vous plaît.
Nils Leonard:
Do you make some sense after those? Thank you. Do you have any water?
Natalie Graeme:
The tea? Yes. Thank you.
Nils Leonard:
Hello? S'il vous plaît. Okay, then four. Four, then four. Yeah, four. Merci.
Lucy Jameson:
For me, sparkling, please.
Natalie Graeme:
Have any cold milk?
Nils Leonard:
Merci.
Natalie Graeme:
Yeah, cold. Cold milk.
Charles:
I should leave all this in right? Because—
Nils Leonard:
Yeah, I think so. Just listening to us mumble through a f*cking terrible order. Yeah.
Natalie Graeme:
In half French, half English.
Lucy Jameson:
Two cappuccinos for me.
Nils Leonard:
Yeah, two caps, Jameson.
Charles:
So you're learning things about your partners this morning, you didn't know before, is that right?
Nils Leonard:
No, I’m just realizing your question was a massive stitch up now, making me sound like I'm some sort of Jack Sparrow constantly drunk with eye makeup on, running around.
Charles:
There's no, I don't see any eye makeup this morning. Everything else fits.
Lucy Jameson:
He’s grown out of that, maybe.
Nils Leonard:
That's great. Fair enough.
Charles:
Were you as conscious as Lucy that you were looking for a certain kind of people?
Natalie Graeme:
Yeah, I definitely think so, because I tried to start something about five years earlier and ultimately, to Lucy's point, it is all about finding the people that you can do that with. And it wasn't quite right and it was the right thing to not go ahead with that at the time. But, and I loved Mother, which I was before and wanted to try and find somewhere where it felt like my crew. So yeah, I was, it was great to be at Grey for as long as we were together, and we worked in various different, combinations myself with Nils initially, and then Lucy and I obviously got to know each other quite a bit better as well, particularly when she was made CEO. And I think that leadership team was really good at that time. It was a really positive, diverse crew. And I think hopefully we took quite a lot of that learning and that way of working into what we then built in Uncommon. But, you know, I think it's fair to say we're all very different people, and you get to learn that in that sort of leadership, and that it does take all sorts. And it's a positive that we're not all the same. But that takes work as a relationship. And we've been lucky to know each other for what, like, 12 years now? Yeah, I think it must be?
Lucy Jameson:
Yeah.
Natalie Graeme:
Which is actually longer.
Lucy Jameson:
No goodness, it is 12. I joined in 2012, because it was the Olympics week that I joined Grey. So I will always remember that. You don't usually remember when you move agencies, but I remember that.
Charles:
And what did you see in these two that you wanted to connect to?
Nils Leonard:
Well, I mean they're both brilliant, aren't they? I'll tell you what I would like to talk about. You made me think of. I think that Grey, when I went there, I went to work with David Patton and Neil Horton and the one thing about the management team at Grey is it always fostered a bit of, kind of f*ck the rest of the world. And it sort of built crews, you know? And I think as that changed, we were looking for a, you know, brilliant strategic lead. After Neil left, the sentiment was still there, which was, we're not just trying to run a company, we're trying to start this thing that that is borderline ours. There's a lot of ownership, a lot of being frank, screw the rest of the network, it's about this crew. And that was really thrilling. So when we were looking for people, we took it a bit more personally.
You know, I wasn't looking for a, any old strategist or, I was looking for people that were f*cking amazing, you know, that understood we were trying to do something different and Nat and Lisa got that in space, so I think they were looking for the same thing. So that's the main thing, I think. But they're both obviously amazing in their own right. I mean it's like, since it's a done deal, isn't it? When you meet great people, you just know that. I think the sentiment behind it all was the thing, you know, it's trying to build this team.
Charles:
Lucy, let me ask you this question and Nat, I'll ask you the same question in a second. Do you think this would've worked if you hadn't had the time of Grey together to sort of work it out? Could you have started Uncommon, without having had Grey behind you?
Lucy Jameson:
I think it would've been very difficult. And it would've been a lot slower and a lot riskier. Because by that point, you know, we'd worked together for five years. You knew what you were good at, what you weren't good at. We kind of could finish each other's sentences. And that makes you very fast, which is important in our game. And when we left, we had to leave behind big salaries. We didn't work for a year. We had some legal issues, and you had no assurance that at the end of that year you were all still going to be up for doing it. Because you can't write it down. You can't put it on paper. You can't make those agreements. And I don't think I'd have ever taken that risk on people I'd not worked with before. Because that's a lot. You're giving up a year's salary with a lot of uncertainty and no surety. So, I don't think we'd have done that.
Nils Leonard:
When you start a company, and I, no one talks about this, you have to talk about your health, your partner, your family. You have to talk about stuff, you know, because you're putting it all on the line. And I don't think you can do that with a stranger. We'd fallen out at Grey, we'd yelled at each other, we'd done all the stuff that you need to do to know it's all going to be all right, to your point about faith. And some of the sh*t we went through in that year was like, it was crazy really, to be honest. Yeah, I just, I don’t know, I've come with the belief that I don't believe anybody can start a company with someone they don't know. I don’t know how you meet a stranger and say to them, okay, I'm going to put my whole life in your hands. How can you do that? So I don’t know, I would always argue that it was critical that we'd work together.
Natalie Graeme:
Yeah. And I think the, also the realizations that the frustrations that we were all feeling about the industry and what we wanted to do differently were real. Because I think it's easy to just talk a lot of bullsh*t about actually, you know, I'm a bit, I'm a bit frustrated about this, I'm a bit frustrated about that. But actually to know that we'd all been in those scenarios, and that we genuinely were willing to make such a large leap to be able to answer that, not really knowing what the answers. We knew where we didn't want to go again and we'd been there together. That was incredibly helpful. Because at the moments where, when we did start Uncommon, we were faced with, here's this incredible client, why don't we take that? Because they're offering us a ton of cash. But it was absolutely the wrong thing to do as a founding client of Uncommon.
We were able to look at each other and, without really having to question it, it was instant decision. No, that would take us back to where we didn't want to go. And we're all really clear on that. And I think that's the bit that's harder once you've started is, aside from leaping off the cliff, as Lucy was explaining, which I completely agree with. Actually, once you're in it in that first 18 months, but also even now seven years on, how do you make sure that you are all clear about what it won't be as much as what you want it to be? And I think those frustrations and what we were trying to avoid are still really clear to us. It's a big foundation of it.
Charles:
I think that, and I've said this to Nils on a previous episode, I think that Uncommon was started with more clarity or as much clarity about what you were trying to create as any company that I've ever seen. And I think what stands out for me, and it stood out - we've been talking to each other for, I think, seven years or something that? I mean, I think you were one of the earlier guests on the podcast. So, something like six and a half years—
Nils Leonard:
You're a glutton for punishment.
Charles:
I am a glutton for punishment. (Laugh) But, I think one of the things that stood out to me consistently, we talked about this on on another episode was the consistency with which you've applied the standards, the values, the ideals, the goals, the ambition level. Do you recognize that yourselves? Are you conscious of that consistency, the through line that has been created and established that you hold onto, and do you talk about that?
Lucy Jameson:
Yeah, I mean absolutely two things. I think we all looked at most agency brands and when they're not brands. We wanted to create a brand, not a kind of professional services service thing. We wanted to create our own brand. And if you own a brand, you need to have real clarity about what it stands for, and you can't deviate from that. So the same lessons should apply in our business, but very few people actually do that, which is mildly terrifying. So I think that was really clear to us. And then I think we've always sort of recognized the power of no. That as soon as we dilute things, the whole thing starts to fall apart. So being confident enough to say no, that client's not right; no, that's not our values; no, that work's not good enough; and really follow through on that, is really difficult. But yeah, fundamental.
Charles:
How often do you have to remind each other of your values, your standards?
Natalie Graeme:
I think right now as we are expanding, we're doing it quite a lot more, because actually whilst codifying it is a crappy way of describing it, being able to actually capture what it is to sit across the table from not just the three of us but now the 270 people we have, and what defines that as an Uncommon type of relationship, how do we help them understand how to go further, faster, for all of us, that's been a real moment of being able to do that in different geographies, in different capabilities. And it's exciting, because it actually allows you to go, right, well, what are the core principles? And actually make sure we still hold them quite lightly because we still want to be surprised and interested in going into different spaces we hadn't really conceived originally. So I think there are some real core principles to it. But as Lucy said, a lot of that is the power of know and where knowing where we won't go, that really helps define that as you get bigger.
Charles:
You're spending less time together and more time apart as the company expands. How is the relationship evolving? What are you conscious that you have to do now, formally or in a structured way for the future? Rather than what you’ve been able to organically in the past.
Lucy Jameson:
We're still quite in, I mean, we still talk all the time.
Natalie Graeme:
We've always had a founders meeting every Wednesday that we've had since we started, right? And I think some of those ways of working and coming together were born out of our time together at Grey. But also knowing that we're all quite different. So we were all off running, doing different things, but if we didn't have that moment to come together, one person could have gone off quite far before coming together and checking in with each other. So I think we quite naturally do it, right? Either a meeting or just generally on WhatsApp or—
Nils Leonard:
You asked how often we remind each other with values. I think every day. I think we do it every day. I think we do it in every chat. I don't think we even mean to now, but I think it's not consciously. I don't wake up and go, I'm going to tell Lucy on that list. But I think every conversation we do, as we start opening our mouths, we start putting back in the things that mean something to us. Honestly, I really do. And I think all the interactions, the other thing I've noticed about us three is, people talk a lot about overhearing or overseeing our interactions. You know, Lucy and I regularly fall out about work, argue about stuff, and people, when they first see it, they're like, f*cking hell—
Lucy Jameson:
Mom and dad are arguing!
Nils Leonard:
Is it all right? And I actually think it's incredibly healthy, because it shows them, A, it's like a look how much they care, but B, look at the articulation with which they're having this out and the questions they're asking each other. And those are all you've got of your values, you know. It's not like some mirage how we make work. It's not some fog. It's like super clear. So I think those things are really important when you can think about them. I think that's the biggest thing about us. Another thing I'd say, just to your last point is, we're all still on everything. You know there, there isn't this sort of, oh, the business is doing all right now, let's step back and be some sort of gaffers that float around. Like, literally on everything I'm kerning tight, Natalie's in the numbers tweaking, like $1 here, $1 there. Lucy's, like, wrangling a bridge. It's ridiculous. And I guess if you want to be excellent, you just can't step away from the tools, you know, I don't buy that.
Charles:
Is that scalable? Can you take this company where you want to go with that level of intensity as a partnership?
Natalie Graeme:
Yeah. Seems to be working.
Nils Leonard:
I was about say, I mean, it's not doing bad now. I mean, it changes, but the principles remain the same. You know, which is if somebody comes to you, of course you're not across absolutely every execution, but you spot something, you see something, you're in a, you know, you are adding value in the shortest possible amount of time. The other thing I'd say is we've got really good that, we don't even talk about that, but I think what would've taken us an hour in a review year one is probably a more—
Lucy Jameson:
We could look at each other and go, oh, that bit's not… And I think also we have, I mean, we've got a lot of people who've been with us for the journey, and so after kind of five, six years they've definitely absorbed by osmosis anything else, the way we do things, and what we value, too. And most of them joined because they were fed up with the industry and they wanted to do something different, and they wanted to try. So it's not hard in that sense. You hire great people who share your values, and you do have to let some of it go. But then it's the case of figuring out where you make those interventions. And I guess we'd all, you know, before we'd done Uncommon, we'd all run big global businesses. So that helped. I think a lot of founders who do startups have not seen that as well as the startup thing. So I think we knew some of the pitfalls. But yeah, everyone is always amazed that, you know, he will be art directing something the night before a pitch. I'll be rewriting something, you know, Nat will be on the financial proposal. I mean, it is literally, people kind of are really surprised by that level.
Charles:
There is a natural limit to that kind of dynamic though, right? The more offices and more people. You can't maintain that.
Lucy Jameson:
No, but you can role model that, for the other people. So that, you know, because that's interesting when we've got a really senior leadership team in the US, our observation on the US is that senior people very regularly get very senior, and do step away from the doing. Our senior leadership team in the US are not. They are as involved as we are. But I think they've had to kind of go, oh wow, you expect me to do that? Yes.
Natalie Graeme:
Whereas our leadership team in the UK, they absolutely know that. They already know that. And so, that level of attention to detail is, that is how we show up best in the world. And so I think, as we said, role modeling, and saying, this is what we care about, yes, I personally can't be doing that. Nils can't personally doing that on every bit of work. But it says that's how good comes about, and so that's what you should be looking to do as well. It's not micromanaging, it's about craft and care.
Charles:
Your point about having people who've worked here for a long time and who understand you and the company and they themselves now are the DNA of that. That's a very powerful fuel supply for expanding a business. Because they become the ambassadors, they become the standard there as you get bigger. Given that you've got that as a resource, and I don’t have to tell you, it's hard to maintain that kind of loyalty in an industry like this. It doesn't happen very often. We've all experienced that. I don't mean this question to sound prosaic, but how big do you want to get, and what's the extent of the ambition?
Natalie Graeme:
Not to just be in the ad industry.
Lucy Jameson:
Yeah.
Natalie Graeme:
So, I think even the framing, we have deliberately set out to play with since the start. That's why we're called a studio. And it is my hope, is that the talent we can attract that we're lucky enough to work with, don't see themselves in that industry or solely in that industry either. Like, we love advertising and hopefully we're doing some definite poking at how that can be at its best. But having talent are interested in taking our point of view on the world and applying it in different spaces, whether it's architecture, or feature films, just going into different spaces is, that's the bit I think we are really excited about building versus just building an army to deliver more and more advertising.
Nils Leonard:
Lucy said she wanted her head on a massive screen talking to thousands of drones.
Lucy Jameson:
(Laugh) No I did not. But what I would say is we are not allergic to scale. Because actually, you can make the biggest difference at scale. So we always have that idea. When we set out we wanted to do things like get the brief for an Olympics or I don't know, a city or big thing. And we always kind of wanted to try our hands at that. And to do that, you do need scale. But we don't want to get bigger just for the sake of numbers and growth and, you know, there will be a ceiling to, I think, the number of clients in any market who see the world the way we do. And when we hit that, we'll kind of go and go, right, okay, well, let's try New York or Stockholm. Or let's try our design practice that's now building out into experiential and events. And we are looking at, you know, as Nat says, built environment and architecture. Where does brands sit in that? So I think we are not allergic to scale, so long as we are learning and trying new things and we are keeping true to our values.
Nils Leonard:
I think it's a very British sentiment that scale is this compromise you make. You know, it's like creativity or scale. I just, and the more we worked and looked at the stuff we loved in the world, most of it not from our industry, the more we were like that's absolute bullsh*t. You do need certain amounts of scale. Lucy has this great chart that we've used a few times, which is, you know, and we do like to try and solve problems with our work and all the above, but you know, we get approached by massive brands and they're like, oh, we saw Britain Get Talking and we saw whatever, how can we do that? And we're always like, well, the bigger the brand, the bigger the problem you can take on. If you have global scale, the One/Second/Suit for H&M, it was a great pivot of their scale. You know, and so we look to that. When we started we said naively, we want to be on the receiving end of the most important and influential briefs of our time. And that's what we meant by the Olympic torch or other things. And I think we have to be in the right rooms to do that, you know. So that, I wouldn't say it's size of company, it's size of brief.
Charles:
What does scale look like today compared to a year ago? A year ago I think we would all have sat around and says scale requires physical presence, it requires more people, right? Conversation has obviously changed dramatically in the last four months is going to change even more dramatically. The human beings are bad at understanding exponential growth of anything. I think, my sense from the industry this week is that's very true here. People are thinking about it intellectually, maybe a little bit emotionally, but not really very practically, for the most part. How does the building of a company like this change as AI becomes a bigger and bigger factor?
Lucy Jameson:
Oh, such a big one, isn't it? I mean, yeah, we can already see we are able to build stuff faster and more easily, and you don't, you know, you can use Midjourney to create a kind of deck rather than having somebody hand draw scamps. You know, I can see it in that, rather than getting a junior planner to do a load of background research, I can ask a, you know, an AI tool to do that. So, you can already see quite a lot of that, and that is only going to, I think, you know, exponentially grow. But what I don't think AI yet can do is reimagine what a brand or business could be. And that's where I think you will always need really brilliant creative lateral thinkers who've got experience. And so, I don't think that's going to change. You may not need as many people to then create everything off the back of it, but that skill is invaluable, and that I don't think AI is going to be able to do for a very long time, if ever. I don’t know if that answers it, but that's how I think we see it. And that's, at our best, what we do. Reimagine where a brand and a business could go.
Natalie Graeme:
We always talk about working with clients at a moment of change. And I think it, to Lucy's point, at that change, you really do need to think quite laterally and create something completely fresh. And we're kind of banging the house on creativity being the opportunity in a world where AI can only get you so far, and basically repackage up thinking that's already been happening. So I think being able to make those leaps is where we get excited. And those sorts of briefs are the ones that we are stirring at. And then, and actually, then it isn't just about showing up as advertising. It could be, how do we energize the employees? It could be experiences. I think being able to then also not be boxed in by what the answer is, also allows you to have a far wider, more scaled mindset. And I, that's the kind of rails we've built the company on. I guess the truth will out.
Lucy Jameson:
Somebody done in the UK, somebody sucked in all the pizza ads that have ever been made, and used AI to recreate a pizza ad. And then they ran it through System One ad testing, which is one of the ad testing things in the UK. No great surprises. What came out was, it was exactly the average of every pizza ad in terms of how it performed in impact. So you go, well, go figure. That is what AI can do at the moment. I think that's all AI will be able to do for about the next decade. I don't think it'll be that quick to make those exponential leaps. So if you want be a company who's more than average, you're going to need human input.
Nils Leonard:
I’ve been talking about AI before, you and I have for ages. So I repeat any of that guff. Something else that's made me think though, which is super interesting is, say you are AI for a moment of staggering genius. Okay? And you said, I want to leap out of this category and do something completely different. And then it pumped something out, right? You've still then got to go see a CEO and say, hey, I'd love you to spend 10 million quid on this moment of staggering genius. And at that point he can't look someone in the eye and go, is this going to f*cking work? Or what's your rationale? The hairs on his arms aren't going to stick up because it's a piece of f*cking paper or a printout from a… And so, at that point he's going to go, well, no thanks. Half the trick with our work isn't just coming up with the idea. McQueen used to say the collection's half the job. Half the job is then going, okay, we've got this thing, we know it's good in here. How am I going to articulate this and bring everyone with us and make this massive leap? I don't see AI wrapping its arms around the CEO going, f*cking come with me and do this.
Charles:
If Elon Musk gets his robots built, it could.
Nils Leonard:
Yeah, maybe. (Laugh) I think it'll just put you in a headlock and say, we're doing this. It's kind of different.
Charles:
I mean that's the fear, right? And that's the possibility. And I think what's fascinating about this moment is none of us know the answer to any of these questions. I mean, Nils, you were so articulate the last time we talked, about what AI isn't, and I took a piece of that, stuck it into Instagram and it's been listened to and watched thousands of times. Because it clearly resonates. The way you articulate it clearly resonates. I sat in the auditorium here yesterday and listened to Elon Musk say exactly the opposite. It will be creative, it will be original. It has the capacity to move me.
This is a very bad example, and I probably, I think I made it on an earlier podcast about this series, but I needed to find a new piece of music for the podcast actually. And I went and looked for new music AI and found this site, and suddenly discovered, oh, able to write songs. So because I am who I am, write a song about my dog, Sam and Gracie. Generate the lyrics and have it sound this kind of genre. It's my favorite song. I have it on my phone, like, when I'm walking, I'm like, I'm just going to play 30 seconds of that. And it still has limitations, you can't hold the composition and the arrangement and adjust the— You can rewrite the lyrics, it'll give you another version, but it'll get there, I think.
Nils Leonard:
I could [inaudible] talking about your dogs. And you’d love it. You love your dogs.
Charles:
I do love my dogs, so there's a low threshold. I accept, there's a low threshold for emotion, right? But it made me emotional.
Lucy Jameson:
My view is yes, at some point, it may get there, but I don't think it's going to be for quite. Everyone always does that, they overestimate the speed at which things are going to happen and then underestimate the magnitude. That's true of every technology. When the.com revolution happened, that was the same thing. We're all saying, it's going to change the face of shopping. It did change the face of shopping, but at least a decade later than we thought it was going to. I think that's going to be true of AI. So I think that's one important thing. And then, I think a lot of it is going to be random, the creative leaps it makes.
Natalie Graeme:
And I think the best work often is a little bit lumpy, for want of a better word, on a Cannes Thursday. I think often it doesn't quite make sense, and AI will only currently give you something that makes sense. So those leaps that Lucy's talking about, yes, it might be able to mimic emotion, but can it get there in a way that you never saw coming? And can it, can it just feel messy? And I think actually our industry needs to remember that actually a bit of chaos and messiness is, that's the R&D of creativity, right? That's why we come to places like Cannes and try and meet people from wider parts of the industries, music, fashion, whatever. And I just feel like, it won't have that serendipitous nature that allows us to feel excited about being human. And ultimately, I think that's what's exciting about creativity, is when it reminds you what it is to be human. So that might be your song and that allowing you to, you’re the one that created that memory in the first place and put it into the song that then created, it spat it back out, right? So I think—
Nils Leonard:
It's an amazing conversation though. Yeah, right? It is what we do. Like when was the last time the whole industry was so f*cking scared, it really reexamined what it was was selling, what it was doing with its time. Lucy's probably right in 10 years, it probably will do all this stuff, but right now the thing we're missing is the conversation. It's asking everybody a question, is what are you really doing? You sell low cost content that could be made by a machine now, you are screwed. That's the truth of it. So what are you really selling? What are you really about? You know, all these creative people that are here in Cannes, I would argue they don't make money selling creativity. And so that's the thing, I think that's the question it's asking. I think it's thrilling. You know, it's time to get your swords out, sharpen them up. It's like—
Lucy Jameson:
I think we see it as an advantage, frankly, for us.
Natalie Graeme:
It is. And for our talent, like spend your, like how do they spend their time? We're an industry that currently for one of the better proxy, sells people's time. Let's make sure that is spent far more valuably, far more intentionally. And to Nils point, you know, yes, hopefully that means we're going to spend more time with our clients building trusted relationships that then allow us to rifle through those opportunities and options. We might be served by AI, but ultimately be human-to-human that makes that leap. And that's the, hopefully, the fun bit.
Charles:
Yeah, I mean, I think I will be stunned if the industry hasn't been radically, reconstructed within three years, and maybe a lot less than that. I think, I may have said this in another episode, but I'm pretty sure that there are companies here who we would look at as being successful today who are already out of business and they don't know it. Right?
Lucy Jameson:
Don't disagree with that.
Charles:
And I suspect we will find out, we can compare notes in two or three years, 10 years. I think it'll be a lot faster than 10 years. Yeah. And there are companies, yours being one of them, for whom creativity is what you sell, in all the ways that you've articulated that. And that, I think, is a competitive advantage because you've actually built your business around that. I suspect Wieden + Kennedy is the same, right? Because they have never let creativity be anything other than the heart of what they do. WPP, I think, are interesting because they've spent $250 million to create capabilities that I think give them a significant competitive advantage, at least from where I sit. And so, that'll be interesting to watch how that happens. I interviewed David Rolfe this morning about the future of production, right? What's that going to look like? And I think it's those kinds of areas that are going to go first, because it's most obvious, right? Production of media seems obvious, and AI eats data for breakfast. Media is data.
Lucy Jameson:
Totally agree.
Nils Leonard:
You’ve got to at least say it.
Natalie Graeme:
No, I’m not going to say it.
Charles:
The expression on her face was enough. We get it. Totally. Yeah, I mean, I overheard a CMO this week saying, we're just going to build our own media capability. Why would they not do that? So, I think Nils, you're right, is what I'm trying to say, is that, not only is there an opportunity, but there is an inevitability about the fact that the entry will be restructured. And that to your point, I've said this, as well, this is the worst business model in the world. Being paid for creative thinking by the hour is the worst. So maybe fin— or no, I don't think even maybe, finally that's going to change, in some cases it already is changing. And the more progressive brands, the ones who really value independent perspective, they're going to be willing to pay for that, because they recognize, Nils, you've made the point in the past, that they want to be great. They want to create human connection. So we all agree on, I think, all of that.
I'm curious because you guys have a really interesting perspective, perhaps unique, on the human condition. I think it's built into the way that you built the business, and your perspective on the kind of company you want to have and the kind of business you want to do. One thing that I'm, I heard this on a podcast three or four months ago, that AI is quickly going to get to the place where it will be able to generate personality or at least the affectation of personality. And that kids today, and probably fairly old kids, are going to have multiple AI friends. And those friends will appear more loving, more caring, more empathetic, more understanding, more insightful. It learns unbelievably fast, about what you want to hear and how you want to hear it, right? And that's addictive. We all know that. This is fundamental on the human level. I'm curious to get each of your perspectives about, if we all agreed that's going to happen, how will that change a human, the human perspective of ours? What is creative, what is meaningful? What is exciting and interesting?
Lucy Jameson:
Oh, it's a biggie.
Nils Leonard:
You know The Matrix when they design the world for humans first and the robots f*ck it up because they make it perfect and the humans don't like it, you know? And they say something like, oh, and all the humans started dying, and then they redesigned the world with woe and struggle and challenge. Your question's diff— I think your question under your question is, what's a friend? And they're never what you want them to be. You know, when you really think about what a friend is, they're not just the easy part of your life. Nothing. It doesn't go smooth. Often you clash, or they're the person that asks you the difficult question or they're the one that slightly wound you up and then you love them. Like, and I think that, yeah, of course there'll be a great addition to human life where if you want some robot to tell you that you're lovely, it'll tell you're lovely. That's not a friend.
And I think we're going to seek more ferociously those things. I think we're going to, I think we're going to need it like we've never needed it, man. Because the whole f*cking world will be trying to be something and then they'll just be humans. And the question behind your whole thing about, companies are just buildings full of people, aren't they? It's all, they are. And you're going to pay money to work with some people because they bring themselves to it. Complexity, tragedy, fun, mischief, all of that excellent stuff. That's what makes a great friend. And so best of luck with that, like, you know.
Lucy Jameson:
But you can already see it playing out. I mean, it is like a Philip K. Dick kind of… it really is. But you can see it playing out, in that lots of kids are spending five hours a day on screens. And that is because it's easy, it's fun, it's stimulating, and it's not difficult. But they're still having to interact with their parents, who are making them get off the screens, with their kids at school, and all of that. And I think that is the real thing. Yes, there'll be people who will always retreat into that. But I'd argue taking drugs has been a retreat into, there will always be a sector of people who are vulnerable to that being the thing that they spend all their time doing. But I don't think it necessarily takes that long for you to realize as a person that the ups and downs are, you know, they're higher and they're lower.
They work together. The bitterness, the sweetness. You have to have both of those. And I think that is why humans will be really important. And I see that in our work, as well. We don't run away from the ups and downs in our work. It's not all upbeat happy. We sort of respect the fact that you need to have that, you need to tell the sort of tragedy and the love story, and all of that. And I think, you know, clients who get that and respect that work, is so much more powerful when it operates on a kind of friction, solves a problem, but it speaks to both sides. Because it's refreshing. There isn't that much of it. So I think to Nils’ point, we will run towards other staff that actually reflects that, rather than giving us the sort of superficial artificial sweeteners.
Nils Leonard:
I've just got one thing just before you, like, Noel Gallagher was talking about stuff. And if AI is basically a median of everything around it, right? If it sucks stuff up and plays it back, what version of that friend is that going to be, right? To your point, it's going to be the average friend, Noel Gallagher was wanging on, and he said, the world didn't ask for The Sex Pistols. The world didn't ask for Jimi Hendrix. The world didn't ask for those things. They appeared and they forced themselves upon the world with all their power, all their creativity and whatever. And then the world just responds. And I think that's the one fundamental difference. As people, as companies will ever, there are some people who are going to wake up and just do something. And that AI is never going to f*cking do that.
Natalie Graeme:
But equally, if we want to take a really nihilistic view of it all and say, okay, well AI's going to take our jobs. It's going to take our friends, it's going to mean that we're just sat there looking at a screen or you know, cuddling a robot, as I've heard that's what we're going to do. Ultimately, if it's doing all that, what are we going to do with our time? I mean, should we just give up? And just like, we should just end it now, quite frankly.
Lucy Jameson:
It’s Friday at Cannes and we're all going to end it now.
Natalie Graeme:
Exactly. We just end it now. But like, sod the ad industry and creative industry. But like, what are we going to do with our time if it's taking all of that from our lives? And I would argue that, ultimately yes, we might have this initial high, to Lucy's point, where we try it out and we realize it's maybe not all it clued up to be, but we then gravitate towards hanging out with people, right? What's life for? And that's it, ultimately it then goes full circle that you get something from those human interactions you just don't get elsewhere. We gravitate towards other people, hence where we started this chat about the three of us coming together. I think finding your people, as Lucy said, finding the people that you want to spend time with, that's what it all about.
Nils Leonard (43:19):
Do you know, you said before, it's like we're manifesting all this, you know. Like all the movies in our past, right? Look at all the movies. And everyone talks about that with a sense of doom. Like, oh my God, we're living Terminator or we're living The Matrix.
Lucy Jameson:
Distopian.
Nils Leonard:
Right? But in all those movies, the humans win. So if we're manifesting our future, it'll be all right. (Laugh)
Charles:
So, to put context on that, Elon Musk who's not, he's not the arbiter of anything said yesterday, 20% chance it's all over, it takes us out. 80% chance it creates a life of complete abundance and total work. Now, to your point, work will be optional. And he said, if all that comes to pass, the biggest challenge will be a crisis of meaning. Why? Why do, why do we exist? Because anything I do, AI in that situation, will be able to do better. We're living through the most interesting time in history. I think this is not a conversation we could have had or would've had four months ago, in any way, shape or form. So the speed of that, the speed of changing our thinking, even our contemplation. So as you look at the future today, what are you optimistic for?
Nils Leonard:
All of it. I think it's f*cking amazing. We've never talked so much about creativity and what it really means. We've never talked about its value so highly in this industry. We've had a lucky bounce in that the company we started was built on it. I'm like, say, mopping my brow. We didn't start a low cost content bilge pipe. I think it's a really beautiful time. I also think you're seeing clients, you're seeing brands, you're seeing everyone go, there's still a massive need for that. It's just not what it used to be, which is this big integrated mess. I think it's become rarer. And I'm also thrilled because I'm an optimist, by this conversation about AI. I don't want the most perfectly built knife built by a robot. I want the weird one built by a Japanese guy that took me four days to track down. I just do. So I feel really good about it all, but I'm going to order a Bloody Mary now. (Laugh)
Lucy Jameson:
Yeah. I mean I do think you have to be an optimist when you start a company. You have to have that spirit. Of course we can do it. So you are probably speaking to the wrong three people. Because I think we will all go, this is powerful and good. And frankly, amidst change, there is always opportunity. And that makes it fun, because the old rules don't necessarily apply. And that's exciting and interesting and challenging. And so, I like it because it's just, like, not boring, honestly. I mean it's as simple as that. Every single ever personality test, I've done, most people have three traits, separate traits. I always have one trait three times. And that is, I like learning new things. So for me it's like, yay, I'm getting to learn new stuff that I never did in the last, you know, nearly 30 years in the industry. So I am very happy about it.
Natalie Graeme:
And I, look, I love the fact that I'm sat next to Lucy Jameson who loves to learn new things, because I think the idea about the creative industries is that we like to find a way. We're curious. And so yeah, if AI presents problems, I think I back ourselves. We're all going to figure it out. All come in different waves. And I, you know, I don't think the industry will look the same next year or in five years, to your point earlier. But I think, if we've got the mindset that Lucy had, and we're optimists about it, I think humanity will win.
Charles:
I don’t know why I wouldn't just leave it there, actually. I really, I want to thank all three of you for coming on the show. It is rare, I’m always interested in finding partnerships that are as substantive and as connected as yours. And it's rare to find that. And I, it also, as I said earlier, is rare to find companies that are built with this kind of intention, this kind of consistency of intention and clarity. And I think, regardless of where you guys go from here, which I think we all agree will be different than any of us think it is, what you've already established, I think, is a reference point for lots of people in the creative industries and outside. So thank you for taking the time today and thank you for joining me on the show.
Nils Leonard:
Thanks, Charles.
Natalie Graeme:
Thank you.
Lucy Jameson:
Thank you for having us.
—————
If you’d like to know more about the podcast, or about our leadership practice, go to fearlesscreativeleadership.com, where you’ll find the audio and transcript of every episode, and more information about our work with some of the world’s most creative and innovative businesses.
Don’t forget to share Fearless with your friends and colleagues, and to leave a rating and review.
Frances Harlow is the show’s Executive Producer. Josh Suhy is our Editor. Sarah Pardoe is the show’s Producer.
Thanks for listening.
