The talent paradox...

"It’s our people who make the company, and what we do, extraordinary” (unnamed CEO)

A full confession - I’ve always cared a lot about social mobility.

So, it seems, do the industries I’ve worked in to date, where people are the product. The difference makers.

And yet, pathways into industry remain opaque, and arguably even more challenging for those not from more privileged backgrounds.

I felt moved to write something on the topic of talent because of two recent articles/videos I saw.

The first let me know that my old University, the University of Exeter , is amongst the most expensive places to do a degree in the country. Not only does it charge full fees for undergraduates, living there as a student is increasingly very very expensive, even out of halls: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67206767

Breaking those costs down - back in 2002-2005, I paid ￡3,300 course fees a year (it's now ￡9,250), and my catered halls cost about ￡100 a week/￡3,200 a year (it's now ￡6,851). Renting was more like ￡55-60 a week (obviously, uncatered), whereas on average, it's more like ￡164 a week now (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/26/university-students-england-50p-a-week-after-rent ).

It's a lot more expensive to go to University now - costs are between double to treble what they were twenty years ago. Unless you're very independently wealthy, you'll have to work throughout University (in contrast, I worked during the holidays, and was able to make ends meet during term-time).

In essence, it's harder to get a breadth of talent; Universities are increasingly the preserve of the wealthy (or the very indebted).

The second thing I read about talent was an article by APG London (the body for creative strategy in the UK) who published a survey about what skills strategists think they'll need in the future: https://www.apg.org.uk/single-post/apg-strategy-skills-survey-2023-the-results

In essence, strategists think they'll need everything!

It's discussed here from about 12m 6s, where the current APG chair, Michael Lee, unpacks the findings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn1Y3WTHUhE&list=PLNBdIP33wJ3rZLkH1iR_Xjy0TznS1Ii_3&index=1&t=1s

Now, in the video, Michael and Neil Perkin get into the thorny topic of talent, and what VCCP, Michael's agency, have done to make the industry more accessible. The agency has opened a micro agency in Stoke - one of the most deprived parts of the country - and have aimed to demystify the industry. A very laudable aim, and one which is beginning to pay dividends.

And yet...I find it all somewhat frustrating.

We're having the same discussions about talent we had when I got into the business, back in 2006/7. People are handwringing about talent, and how best to get it. Arguably, it's even more acute now, because - as per the first point, those who can afford to get into advertising likely are from extreme privilege. I imagine the same is true for the Arts in general (it's why Arts Emergency exists, after all).

Who can afford it?

Well, let's continue our little journey into the creative industry.

Say you clear the hurdle of a degree, having worked throughout to pay your way. You'd likely have a ￡27k student loan bill (mine was about ￡9-10k), which is now charged at a higher rate of interest.

Still, you get a good degree, and you want to work in advertising, PR or the creative industries. Chances are, you need to get some work experience. You won't be getting into your chosen workplace without that. And, assuming you've been busy working throughout your time at University, there's a fair chance you've not really had time to do any work experience in your chosen field.

You need to go somewhere (a big city) and work for an agency for not a lot. I worked at home to afford to pay to stay in a YHA youth hostel (increasingly, those are more expensive, or don't exist), given agencies just about paid enough to eat - I think it was a couple of hundred quid for me a week.

There is a chink of light, there, though - more agencies have signed up to a Living Wage Pledge, so you'd be able to survive, but it'd be a lot harder to find somewhere to stay.

This, interestingly, is never ever discussed when talking about the barriers of getting in - the rapid rise in overheads (you couldn't stay in Central London for a couple of hundred quid like I did then!). Certain agencies have begun to respond - most notably, 高诚公关 London offer a comped flat if you get into their graduate scheme - but again, it's isolated activity.

These factors dry up demand; in contrast, when I got into Saatchi & Saatchi's Summer Scholarship in 2006, there were 4000/5000 applicants for a few places. I doubt there'd be even half as many now.

It's not enough to say 'comms has an awareness problem'; people aren't idiots; they won't take their massive minds and massive debt into an industry if there's no facility for them to get and stay in.

In short, if white collar industries and their businesses are serious about getting the best talent (beyond paying more), their governing industry bodies must be alive and act upon - both sector awareness and talent retention.

A final thought. Say you have someone who's done those two steps. Who isn't from a Home County or any kind of wealthy background. They still might not choose to get into your industry. They'll know the destination but won't have a map to get there, and that can be functional or mental.

I have skin in the game here; myself, Sam Ismail, Anton Reyniers and Alex Jena founded a blog called AdGrads (https://adgrads.blogspot.com/ ) a long time ago because we felt that advertising and comms were something of a closed shop.

AdGrads was a blog that offered somewhat unvarnished advice about graduate schemes - and it was very, very needed at the time. Happily, most agencies are much better at explaining how to get in, and there are lots more sources of advice than when we all tried to get in.

However, it was also set up partly in opposition to the snobbery - which still exists - in professional services. To take one isolated example, I remember being roundly mocked when I didn't know how to use chopsticks, or teased about my lack of knowledge as to where best to ski. This is still present. Bluntly, if you get a lot of rich people's children making up your workforce, you get group-think. To hire truly representative, diverse comms / consultants of the future, you need a broad church.

Industry bodies and their businesses must do a lot more to stop talent conversations becoming circuitous and ultimately fruitless. In my mind, there's three key steps I'd have each one take, applicable whether the industry's consultancy, advertising or publishing:

1) Promote what the industry is a lot, lot earlier. Ideally, at the start of secondary school. You need to arm those careers advisors, those people who still think advertising is about Mad Men, or PR is Ab Fab.

2) Introduce a pathway to employment that doesn't require a degree. Partner with Academies / create Zoom-based courses that ensure the talent has fewer barriers to getting in.

3) Introduce a social mobility quota. It needn't be huge, but it would ensure candidates weren't just from Oxford or Cambridge (or Repton, Eton and Harrow).

These steps would hopefully help stop many industries becoming hobbies for rich people's children.

(TLDR; I come from a very middle class background, and I certainly couldn't get into my current or former industry nowadays!)