This is why, fairly early on, Microsoft placed whiteboards along the corridors on the Redmond campus; for they found that the accidental meetings which took place in hallways were in fact more productive than the scheduled ones which happened in meeting rooms.

To Adam Smith’s: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” We should add: “But don’t expect anyone to like the butcher very much.”

If you want a long-lived brand, avoid strategy altogether — instead have an Ideal (like Nike, Apple) or an executional device (Andrex, The Economist). Anything with a strategy is doomed never to outlive your client. Discuss.

In a single sentence my view is “Planning + Creative = Good. Planning > Creative = Bad.”

To use a phrase popularised in a famous FT article: great brands are often built obliquely. They are generally a by-product of something (ideals, vision, focus) and not a product of anything.

To put a value on the digital world by only tallying the money that changes hands is a little like trying to place a value on sex by simply measuring the amount spent on prostitution.

What it seems to show is that people are overwhelmingly intentionalists, not consequentialists. In other words, once they suspect an individual’s intentions are largely self-interested, it colours how they perceive the outcome. Hence they are far readier to attribute a bad outcome to self-interested behaviours than a beneficial one.

While I think originality is a wonderful thing, and while I’m all for stretching envelopes, pushing boundaries, throwing out rule-books, thinking outside boxes, casting off straitjackets and generally pissing against the wind, I do still believe there is a Platonic archetype for press advertising.

I think if you set out to build a great business, you’ll stand a fair chance of building a great brand.