Tom Head

The agency world has 18 months left.

Maybe less.

Sir Martin Sorrell's S4 Capital just reported an 11.4% drop in Q1 sales - a canary in the digital coal mine.

It's not just economic headwinds. It's not just Trump's tariffs.
It's that your clients are quietly bringing work in-house.

With AI tools.

We’ve seen this very publicly over the past few weeks with Dualingo, Shopify and Klarna all taking an AI first approach.

The reality today is:
• A junior with Midjourney can replace multiple £50-£70K designers
• AI can draft campaigns faster than your team (who’s reinventing the wheel every time anyway)
• AI analytics outperform your insights department

Sorrell, ever the optimist at 80, promises things will turn around in H2.
But the trend is clear: brands don't need agencies for tasks they can do themselves with AI.

So what's an agency to do?

1. Be brutally honest about what clients can now do in-house
Don't sell services they can easily replicate with AI.

2. Double down on strategic thinking
AI can't replace genuine business understanding.

3. Use AI in an advanced way
Create demand by using AI tools to deliver more value.

We've been teaching teams how to use AI effectively for 18 months.

The results? They still need agencies - just for different things.

The old model is dying:
Creative concept → Design → Media plan → Traffic → Report

The new model is emerging:
Strategic insight → AI workflow design → Internal capability building → Outcomes

Agencies need to go from fighting this shift to leading it.

Follow me for more on navigating the changes in the agency and job market created by AI.

That awful boss who made your life hell?
They might be the most valuable teacher you've ever had.

Not all career lessons come wrapped in inspiration, some just come from surviving toxic leadership.

We spend thousands on leadership books and courses.
Yet sometimes our greatest education costs nothing but our sanity.

It's the quiet lesson no one talks about at networking events:
Bad bosses build better leaders than good ones ever could.

Sounds mad, doesn't it?

But:
When a toxic leader micromanages your every move...
You learn the power of autonomy and trust.

When they take credit for your work...
You discover the importance of recognition.

When they play favourites and create division...
You understand how vital fairness and unity are.

Most people think career growth is just about doing your job well. But the real skill?
Knowing how to lead yourself when your boss doesn’t.

It's not just about avoiding burnout, it's about preserving your sanity, your standards, and your sense of self.

The sad truth? Some bosses teach you more about who NOT to be than who to become.

But the good news? Every toxic leader you outgrow strengthens your leadership muscle.

I've worked under brilliant leaders and absolute nightmares. Guess which ones shaped my leadership philosophy more?

Not the inspiring ones.
The terrible ones.

Because nothing clarifies your values like watching someone trample all over them.

Three powerful truths about surviving toxic leadership:
1. Your resilience builds with every challenge they create
2. Your empathy deepens with every unfair treatment you receive
3. Your leadership vision sharpens with every mistake they make

✅ Protect your peace
✅ Safeguard your progress
✅ And always remember: just because you're under poor leadership doesn't mean you stop leading yourself.

Have you had a toxic leader who inadvertently taught you valuable lessons?

Share your story below. We're all learning from each other's experiences.

There’s two camps in AI.

Those you think it can solve everything.

And those who think it solves nothing.

The reality, of course, is somewhere in between.

Here’s what you need for success with AI:

1. Clear vision that teams understand
2. Right mindset and behaviours
3. Do not offload critical thinking
4. Use of AI in the right areas
5. Human oversight

Training, alignment and rollout all overlap to create success.

Kids on social media…

Where do you stand?

Deutsche Telekom made this video years ago.

A child (deepfaked to look older) confronts her parents about sharing her life online without consent.

Back then it was a warning about the future.

Now?
It's just normal.

We post:

• Every new achievement.
• Every birthday.
• Every laugh.

I get stuck between thinking this is just evolution of our world and how life changes…and then being really worried by it.

Now with AI we’re in a world where facial recognition, voice cloning and deepfakes are accessible and possible.

So, surely we need a measured approach.

But, for most of us, not being online is never going to be how we operate in life.

So what do you do?
What's your policy on posting about your kids online?

Most people treat their career like something that happens to them.

Wrong.

You are the captain of your ship.
The author of your book.
Or [INSERT HERE] whatever other metaphor you want to use.

You're making active choices every single day.

You either think about them consciously or you react unconsciously.

Staying in that role you've outgrown?
Not speaking up in meetings?
Accepting poor treatment because 'it's just how things are'?

All choices you make.

The passive approach sounds like:

• "I'm stuck here until something changes"
• "My boss will never listen to me anyway"
• "I'll wait for the right opportunity to come along"
• "There's nothing I can do about this"

The active approach looks different:

• You ask for the project you want.
• You have the difficult conversation.
• You set boundaries when they're crossed.
• You apply for roles you're 'not quite ready for'.

Here's what most people miss - inaction is still action.

Every day you don't change something is a day you've chosen the status quo.
That's not victim-blaming. It's reality.

You have more control than you think. Not over everything - but over your next move.

Stop waiting for permission.
Stop hoping things improve on their own.
Stop reading your career like it's already written.

You're holding the pen (or the sword).

What are you actually going to do with it?

Starting over is brave.

But not for the reason you think.

It's not brave because you're facing the unknown.

It's brave because you're finally admitting the probability.

• That job that no longer feels right?
◦ You already know there's an 80% chance it won't improve.

• That relationship draining your energy?
◦ You've known the odds for months.

• That career path you inherited from someone else's dreams?
◦ The probability it'll suddenly fit is basically zero.

The bravery isn't in leaving.

It's in stopping the lie that things might magically change.

We tell ourselves we need courage to start over.
Actually? We need courage to accept the truth.

Your gut already did the maths.
• Every Sunday night dread.
• Every morning you hit snooze twice.
• Every meeting where you mentally check out.

That's the truth knocking.

Starting over isn't about trusting yourself to rewrite the plan.
It's about trusting yourself to finally read what you already know.

The world doesn't celebrate stability.
It celebrates people too scared to calculate their real odds.

New chapters don't erase old ones.
Don’t stay in a chapter with a 90% chance of a bad ending.

What probability are you pretending not to see?

How long till we all watch AI content every week?

And is it just our ego that tells us we’re the only ones who can create?

Meta released Vibes recently - AI-generated short videos.

My first reaction?
Nobody will watch pure AI content all day.

Then I thought is it that different to created content today?

And when does AI-generated content become... just content?

J.K. Rowling used a pen to create Harry Potter.
None of it happened. None of it was real.
But millions read it. Loved it. Were moved by it.

The pen was just a tool.
The imagination was the magic.

So is AI different?
Is it our ego?

The idea that creativity is uniquely human.
That using AI to create is somehow "cheating".

Or will we look back in 10 years and laugh at how precious we were about it?

Great filmmakers use cameras, editors, CGI.
Great musicians use synthesisers, autotune, mixing software.
Great writers use spell-check, thesauruses, editing tools.

Are any of those less "real"?

Maybe the question isn't whether AI creates the content.
Maybe it's whether the content connects.

Whether it entertains.
Whether it makes you think or feel something.

The tool changes.
The human behind it still matters.

A shit creator with AI is still shit.
A brilliant creator with AI is still brilliant.

I think in the not too distant future you will be able to ask AI to create any content specifically for you. A hyper niche hour long podcast on the intersection of multiple areas you are really interested in.

Will this mean we don’t watch or listen to other content forms?
Of course not.

It’s an “and”.

We will watch and listen to AI content, content that has zero AI in it and everything in between.

I actually think we end up valuing the more “pure” forms of content even more.

The pen didn't kill storytelling.
The camera didn't kill art.
The synthesiser didn't kill music.

So, will AI kill creativity?
Or just change who we think of as creative?

What do you reckon - is our resistance to AI content just ego?

♻️ Repost if this made you question your stance.

There’s a lot of talk about empathetic leadership.

About listening.
Being present.
Creating psychological safety.

All of that matters.
A Lot.

But here's what the LinkedIn thought leaders won't tell you:

Good leadership also means:

• Telling someone their work isn't up to standard.
• Making decisions that some people don’t like.
• Holding boundaries when your team wants you to bend.

(The hard stuff that doesn't fit into a motivational post.)

I've seen leaders obsess over being 'empathetic' whilst their team drowns in poor performance and zero accountability.

That's not leadership.
That's avoidance dressed up as kindness.

Real leadership requires both sides of the coin:

1. 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 - 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹
→ Your job isn't consensus. It's direction.
2. 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘆 - 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱
→ Understanding someone's struggle doesn't mean lowering the bar.
3. 𝗕𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 - 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲
→ There's a difference between support and suffocation.
4. 𝗖𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝘀 - 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀
→ Your team needs both. Honest feedback builds more trust than empty praise.
5. 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 - 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁
→ Sometimes serving them means pushing them harder than they think they can go.
6. 𝗢𝘄𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 - 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲
→ Your team needs to see you take accountability, especially for unpopular calls.
7. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 - 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
→ You'll get it wrong. Own it, learn from it, move on.

Leadership isn't one thing.

It's knowing when to put your arm round someone.
And when to push them through discomfort.

It's messy. Exhausting. Thankless.

But when you get it right?

Your team doesn't just perform better.
They become better.

That’s the bit that matters.
That's the bit that makes it worth it.

What's the toughest part of leadership for you?

♻ Share if you're tired of the sanitised version of leadership.

A kindergarten teacher cracked the code on presentations.

And it's better than most consultant frameworks.

Most people fill slides with jargon, bullet points, and complexity.

They think more detail = more credibility.
It doesn't.

Here's what actually works:
The 4MAT framework (Why, What, How, Now or Result)

Why → Why does this matter right now?
"Our competitor is adopting AI and automating the stuff that takes us days."

What → What are the key pieces?
"We need to find the right partner to help us"

How → How does each piece affect them?
”But we can’t lose our critical thinking”

Now → What's the one thing they should do?
"Send G3NR8 an email."

This works because you're answering every objection before they think it:

Why should I care? → You told them.
What's this about? → You explained it.
How does it work? → You showed them.
What do I do? → You gave them one action.

It also maps onto our different personality and learning styles.

Visionary/creative often need the "why" (purpose, meaning, bigger picture) and "how" (possibilities, connections, impact).

Logical and planning types typically want the "what" (structure, facts, framework) and "now" (concrete actions, next steps).

Stop overcomplicating your presentations.
Start teaching like you're talking to a five-year-old.

(Because if a kindergarten teacher worked it out, maybe we should listen.)

What’s your best framework that packs a punch?

♻️ Repost this if you've sat through too many overcomplicated presentations.

How embedded has AI become in our lives?

I use AI for work and life.

The lines blur.

You can tell that looking through my ChatGPT conversations.

When there’s epic chicken next to roman history and linked prompt injection.

And that was a more normal day…

What’s the most random conversations you’ve got in your AI history?

Interfaces as we know them are going to change.

We see the impact of this already in the AI projects we have deployed.

The typical SaaS platform is being used less.

Why?

Because AI is helping with the following:

• Finding the right data and content.
• Preparing information and reports.
• Running the first analysis.

Then teams get involved.

They refine, correct and oversee the actions taken by new AI workflows.

Once they’re happy the final outputs are automatically pushed out to the relevant platforms.

I think we’re not far off a world where teams can spin up their own front ends.

Of course that doesn’t mean every team will be creating briliant user interfaces.

Like all new technology we are still going to need people with taste and an eye for what works.

But, the reliance on websites or more standard user interfaces is going to mean less every day.

The question isn't whether this shift is coming.

It's whether you're adapting fast enough.

Follow me for more inconvenient truths about the future of work.

More articles are now written by AI than humans.

But it didn’t have the effect that people thought it would.

Actual AI-generated content now outnumbers human writing online.

• ChatGPT launched in 2022.
• Two years later was the tipping point - AI articles surpassed human articles.
• But, AI content plateaued at 50% around the middle of last year.

Why?

Because Google doesn't rank it.

So, that might mean half the internet's new articles are essentially digital landfill.

Created by machines.
Read by no one.
Invisible to search engines.

But possibly used to train future AI models…which is another conversation altogether.

However, MIT studies show AI content often beats human writing in quality tests.
Yet it performs terribly where it matters - actual visibility.

We're not measuring AI-assisted content (where humans edit AI drafts).
That number? Must be double what we're seeing.

Side note: Which is exactly what this post is, first draft done by AI then pretty much every line edited by me.

Now if you do post AI content you might be asking:
“Is it easy to detect?”

The answer is a resounding YES.
The detection accuracy for ChatGPT content was 99.4%. (SurferSEO's algorithm)

But I’m not sure this is the crisis everyone thinks it is.
Real value still rises. Quality still wins.

That's what breaks through the noise.

AI can replicate structure and generate words.
But, it can't generate wisdom and nuance and real variation (straight from the tools).

The 65,000 articles analysed tell a simple story:

Volume is easy. Value is hard.

What's your take and how do you use AI in your writing process?

Ideas are like a***holes.

Everyone's got them.

But, most people stop there.

You know the drill…

You're walking the dog, stuck in traffic, or having a shower.
And it hits you.

The next big thing.
The perfect solution.
The idea that'll change everything.

You write it down, feel clever and HAVE to tell someone.

That’s as far as most people get.

Why?

Because that’s the easy bit.

Taking an idea from that into something useable in the world is much harder.

So what do you do if you actually want to test an idea out?

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗲
Cut your brilliant concept down to one simple thing people actually need.

𝗦𝗲𝘁 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗽𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲
Give yourself 2 weeks, not 2 months. Pressure creates clarity.

𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
A landing page. A quick survey. Something real people can touch.

𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸
Show 5 people who'll tell you the truth (not your best mate).

𝗟𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆
Perfect is the enemy of done, and done beats perfect every single time.

The harsh reality?

Your ideas aren't as unique as you think they are.
Someone else is probably building yours right now.
While you're still "planning."

Execution isn't glamorous.

It's messy, frustrating, and full of problems you didn't anticipate.

But it's the only thing that separates you from everyone else with a "brilliant idea."

What's one idea you've been sitting on for too long?

♻️ Share this if you've got a notebook full of unused genius.