top of page

The wheels on the ad agency bus go

Zoom Zoom Zoom

Rory Sutherland is a quite brilliant man. Never actually met him, but way back in the mists of time, as a journalist on Campaign magazine, I was the beneficiary of several telephone briefings, not least when he was an evangelist for a faddish new discipline called Behavioural Economics.

IMG_5419_neo_edited_edited.png

11 May 2021

I mention this Behavioural Economics episode not as a fragment of self-indulgent context (not entirely at any rate) but in order to confess to a long history of twinges of regret whenever I read Rory.

   His evangelical campaign, more than a decade ago, marked, as far as I was aware, his fully-fledged emergence as an ad industry sage and seer, a man able not only to peer deep within the soul of Mankind, but one gifted, in an era of perplexing technological change, with an ability to scry its direction of travel.

   And at some point a little way down the line, as his calling as a clairvoyant became ever more front and centre, I think I made mildly disobliging remarks about him in a piece about advertising’s sooth-sayers.

   The problem with futurologists (and Rory was one among many in the decade following the dotcom crash), I said, was that you could hardly have faith in their ability to predict the future when they weren’t even very good at making sense of the recent past.

   There was also, I believe, a juvenile running joke about crystal balls.

   It was mean-minded – and my greatest struggle as a writer has always been resisting the temptation to ditch generosity of spirit in a headlong dash to get off a few good ones.

   Because I suppose I already suspected then what I know (and am able to acknowledge fully) now – that the power and the glory of futurologists lies not in their infallible powers of prophesy but in their ability to make us reflect. They give us permission. Permission, perhaps, to think the previously unthinkable. I suppose what I’m saying is that they are, in some senses, Motley Fools and Court Jesters.

   To take issue with them, to quibble over detail, is sort of to miss the whole point – and that, surely, is the writer’s greatest fear of all.

   Thus the aforementioned twinge every time I read him. And I am a huge fan, for instance, of his column in the Spectator. He’s one of a handful of writers I look out for.

   So I’m sorry to say that, having, in reality, clearly learned absolutely nothing, I’m about to go quibbling again.

   Across the last year or so, Rory has been particularly compelling on the whole subject of Zoom (other video conferencing brands are available), not just in an advertising industry context but as a fundamental driver of change in cultural and economic life.

   You know, as in the end of the road for the office. And thus the end of the road for the city too. The biggest Paradigm Shift for Civilisation since the patents expired on both the wheel and fire.

RorySutherland_SpectatorScreengrab_edite
RorySutherland.jpg

Rory Sutherland: Spectator columnist, sooth-sayer, evangelist, Zoomer

haager05_denimFilter_edited.jpg

He’s hardly alone in this – though he is particular adept at explaining the psychological drivers here, the whys as opposed to just the wherefores. And it is a compelling vision. For millennia, humankind has had conflicted and ambiguous feelings towards the city. I personally can quite easily live without London. I fell out of love with it years ago. I too want the Paradigm Shift proposition to come true.

   And yet I suspect that it just won’t. The trouble is that everyone who uses Zoom regularly has come to realise that, though we have made the best of a bad situation (and well done us) for many months now, it just isn’t working. (By everyone, I obviously mean everyone I talk to, which I realise isn’t exactly a huge sample size… but I’ve also become aware of lots of people saying this in articles and on social media.)

   And, oh the bitter irony, it’s a problem that seems to be particularly acute in Rory’s neck of the woods, the advertising agency sector. I’d go further – and argue that, for the industry’s self-styled officer class, this is an accident waiting to happen.

   As a direct consequence of the fact that the ad industry’s output is so flimsy and inconsequential, the sector’s currency (indeed, its working capital) is 95%+ esprit de corps.

   And yet despite this, though it’s an industry absolutely riddled with charmers, its senior practitioners tend to...

   Tend to...

   Oh my. Almost got carried away there. My original intention, at this point in proceedings, was to rehearse a hoary old theme of mine (that leadership in our industry is, for a whole smorgasbord of historical and structural reasons, shockingly poor) and braid this with evidence, directly and indirectly anecdotal, that Zoom meetings have been dragging management even farther into disrepute.

   But I'm not going to do that now. The outcome would, I suspect, be sour and laboured.

   So I'm actually going to cut along sharply and state, as if already proved, that Zoom quite simply strips the people whose main managerial assets are charm and charisma of their charm and charisma.

haager05_denimFilter.jpg

I’ve always been fascinated by the group dynamics of business meetings – and how it is that some people have a happy knack of engineering productive outcomes. Now I’m horribly hooked on how easy it is for the wheels to come off. To what extent is my experience replicated, locally, nationally, globally?

   I'm equally fascinated by Rory’s air of certainty in all of this. It makes me wonder if he’s any good on Zoom. Or if he believes the meetings he takes part in are a success. I’d love, one way or another, to be a fly on that particular digital wall.

   So, yes, Rory, I can well believe that the big hitters in the big hitting agencies may well believe that we’ll never go back to our pre-Covid pre-Zoom ways. But my suspicion is that the big hitters will, as a consequence, when things start opening up again, take a pasting from agencies staffed with face-to-facers. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon. The day (hedging my bets here like all good futurologists should) after tomorrow.

   In his latest Spectator column (I've linked to it via the screengrab) he argues that we shouldn’t really have needed a pandemic to convert physical meetings into virtual ones. Last month, he was stating that those of us who voice scepticism about the virtues of video conferencing are just small-minded.

   Well, as the satirical writer Ronald Firbank was wont to say when confronted with a particularly challenging flight of fancy… I wonder.

Postscript, early June 2021: Judging by a lengthy extract published recently in the Guardian, the central theme of this book by FT writer Gillian Tett chimes with the basic point I'm trying to make above. Interestingly, though,

she seems to focus on trading, diagnostics and knowledge-sharing. I'd like to think that my corporate Gestalt argument has far wider implications. But what do I know - I haven't actually read the book yet. I'm by no means sure I ever will.

GillianTett.jpg

"Once employers understand the impact that COVID-19 is having on their people, they can act. We recom-mend five strategies that can reduce the fear factor for employees..."

A typically vapid report from consultancy firm Ernst & Young, originally published back in August 2020, though it arguably dodges the central question, was widely quoted in articles throughout the rest of 2020 and 2021. Nice work if you can get it.

EY_employment_study.jpg

"More than two-thirds of CMOs are concerned that less time in the office with colleagues will negatively impact creativity, according to new research..."

Yup. Yet these self-same CMOs, according to this November 2021 Marketing Week article, seem sanguine about it actually happening anyway.

CMOs_wfh_creativity.jpg

When this Richard Littlejohn think-piece appeared on the Mail Online website in November 2021, it triggered a predictably vile tsunami on social media. It's undoubtedly a tribal thing - and I suspect the feelings of utter loathing are mutual.

The annoying thing for his detractors, though, is that there are several good points here, well made.

LittlejohnOnWFH.jpg

And another thing: Sorry I can't render this one more elegantly: the print story as scanned here didn't appear on the Telegraph website. Which is a shame because I reckon it's an important marker.

   All the survey evidence I came across in 2020 and 2021, from the likes of YouGov, suggested that, whatever the pros and cons of WFH in terms of whether it was actually working or not, the bottom line was that the workforce itself was happy, in fact more than happy, with the new normal.

   And indeed it wasn't difficult to find social media threads (like the Littlejohn one referenced above) seemingly reinforcing this. An unsettling (for me) state of affairs: because, as I've indicated in the body of my main article, this notion was entirely contrary to the piecemeal anecdotal impression I'd been building up since the tail end of 2020... but what did I know? Perhaps I was living in a peculiar sort of bubble.

    I started, though, to feel increasingly, last year, that this debate was becoming highly politicised; and that those who were arguing, ever more militantly and stridently, that the office was dead and was never coming back and that the world had better damned well get used to it... well, these were just the sorts of people who believe that "Late Capitalism" is a thing.

   Who knows? But this Telegraph story helps reset the balance, tending as it does to suggest that there's a disconnect between what people say they want... and the course they end up pursuing.

   The bottom line, though, I've said it before and I'll say it again and again until the cows come home, is that working from home isn't really working at all.

WFH_teleg_octavius_edited.jpg

POSTSCRIPT TO THE POSTSCRIPTS, July 2025, apropos of absolutely bloody nothing. Or (dramatic pause, turn to side-on close-up camera) is it? For wfh zealots like our Rory, Arthur C Clarke is the most venerable of the Prophets of their Old Testament.

   And here he is in 1964, prophesying.

   If you have a curious mind, you'll note his caveat, his "if".

   I'm willing to bet, though, that a good majority, especially in the communications industries, won't hear it at all.

   Anyway. The thing I find most astonishing (and this absolutely speaks to character, I know it) is his Quantocks backwoodsman's burr.

A FEW JULY DAYS LATER and a promo for this is injected into my YouTube Shorts feed.

   It's absolutely on the money. But then that's hardly the issue these days.
   Because, 2025, for the Enterprise Economy, on-the-money-ness barely matters now. This has just become a comfortable ditch (one might argue) in which to die.
   (And I wish they'd had more time to talk about lanyards...)

"Four in 10 Gen Z employees want to work in the office... because they feel lonely at home..."

  MailOnline story header on 25 August 2025 about a Bupa survey that received coverage not just in the Mail but across a number of outlets. (It was ignored, perhaps predictably, who knows, by Leftist platforms. See my "Late Capitalism" aside, above.)

   Anyway. Link here.  

bottom of page