Drowning in Strategy Resources & Struggling to Assess Quality

In my study, "Crafting Tomorrow's Strategy," many respondents highlighted the challenge of having an abundance of resources but struggling to differentiate between valuable signals and irrelevant noise. We live in a post-truth era, where facts are mixed with fiction. In the creative industry, this blend can easily fuel new ideas, perspectives, and approaches that are neither data-driven nor rooted in any results-oriented practices. In the LinkedIn strategy bubble, many supposedly new ideas gain traction and sound promising, but in reality, they often have little relevance to actual marketing challenges or fail to introduce anything truly innovative to our work. Often, old ideas are rebranded and combined with a trend, leading to big buzzwords. Someone then creates a course or develops a business offering, positioning themselves as an expert.

According to one respondent's observation that 80-90% of senior-level professionals on both the agency and client sides still exhibit a junior-level of knowledge, the issue likely lies not in the abundance of resources but in the choice of primary information sources that individuals follow to broaden their understanding. It may also reflect a lack of need within that specific environment to seek out more knowledge. If existing knowledge wasn’t sufficient to complete their work, people would naturally seek out ways to develop themselves in a structured way. And word, structured, in this context, carries a lot of weight.

Most people no longer learn in a systematic manner, but rather by chaotically downloading PDFs from the internet, which end up stored in folders, supposedly to bring clarity on a given topic—but they rarely do. As a result, our learning process lacks structure, oversight, and ultimately, the critical thinking needed to evaluate the knowledge we've acquired.

Of course, we can also discuss the long-standing issue that most strategy teams or departments do not invest in educating and training their colleagues internally. As a result, individuals must seek out information on their own, often outside of their organization. The quality of this information is not monitored, and each trainer teaches based on their own understanding, which may not align with the specific functions or priorities of a given agency. For example, if an agency is focused on the TBWA Disruption approach, an individual's self-devised model or methodology might be interesting to know, but it may not be practically helpful for a junior to apply in their day-to-day work—it could even add to their confusion.

Additionally, if we don't put new knowledge into practice, we tend to forget it. The brain has a limited capacity for retaining information, and it automatically discards what it deems unimportant to avoid overwhelming us. Many courses and online content aimed at education are often dry, consisting mostly of text or videos with a few case studies. However, they often lack a practical component where the learner can apply what they've learned, present their work to a mentor, and receive feedback. Most importantly, they miss the consistency needed over time for new knowledge to be properly integrated into practice. In the end, these courses are like fast food—focused on providing a fleeting feel-good moment of earning a certificate to brag about on LinkedIn for a day, only to be forgotten soon after.

Now, we arrive at a more significant issue: many of us continue to use linear planning models that reflect top-down communication, where brands communicate in one direction to a passive, faceless audience. What do I mean by this? Based on my research conducted in 2023 on brand and creative strategy models, strategists identified several of the most commonly used models in their daily work: the Planning Cycle by Stephen King, the Disruption model by Jean Marie Dru, and the GWTB model by Martyn Straw (BBDO), along with their watered-down versions promoted by individuals lacking a deep understanding of the models' essence and principles of use. All these popular models, along with several others, follow a standardized three-step principle: 1) Situation Analysis - Where are we and why? 2) Vision - Where do we want to be? 3) Strategy - How will we get there? Consequently, they all rely on one-way thinking, where the brand communicates top-down to the audience, rather than including a feedback loop from the audience in the process.

However, with the rise of new communication tools, the landscape has shifted. As Henry Jenkins discusses in his book Convergence Culture , communication has moved from a top-down format to a synergy between brands and their audiences. Consumers are no longer passive receivers of information; they have become media outlets themselves, creating content for their own audiences and engaging in conversations about brands and their messaging.

The problem is that many brands are unwilling to adapt to this shift in power dynamics and meet their audience at eye level. They prefer to remain distant and ignore their audience. This reluctance to engage is likely to backfire in the coming years, leading to a decline in audience interest. This was a common sentiment in survey responses, where many noted that clients are either resistant to change or are adapting very, very slowly. However, if we look at the statistics on the lifespan of modern companies, we see that it has decreased over the years to about 12-14 years. This means that if we do not keep up with the times, we become uninteresting to people and their changing needs.

To wrap up my thoughts on a positive note, I'd say that the overall atmosphere is still positive. Our field is evolving, and we're exploring new directions, struggling to figure out how to integrate our legacy and its associated values into modern communication strategies. Society is changing faster than many brands are willing to acknowledge. That's why we need to focus more on how we ourselves adapt to changes and evolve, so that we don't end up clinging to outdated approaches.

Returning to the main issue of confusion around resources—this problem will always exist, and in fact, it’s been around for a long time. It’s just that now we see it more clearly because everything is online. Even 20 years ago, authors from different parts of the world had varied perspectives on brand building and advertising. We work in a creative industry where everyone earns a living as best they can. As a result, there are different understandings of processes and methods. As long as there are clients willing to buy into these unproven ideas and stories, people will continue to make a living from them.

What I would highly suggest is to practice critical thinking more in this post-truth era. Invest in solid theory books on business fundamentals, modern marketing, branding, and communication, and you’ll be on the right track. You’ll grasp what truly matters and be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.?

And finally, you need to take responsibility for your own development and be interested in growing in the right direction—analyzing and critically assessing information. When you’re unsure about something, use a triangulation approach: examine a topic from at least three different perspectives and evaluate the common elements and differences. We all construct reality based on our knowledge and experiences, so criticizing another author's opinion is unnecessary. Focus more on how you can sharpen your own.

Best of luck to you!

Share your reflection on the situation here: https://forms.gle/JG7kDrGgg7tkwZVk7

Reference:

*"How established companies can master disruptive innovation like startups? Achieving innovation excellence and disruptive ability" by Peter Kristof (ResearchGate)