The founders sent me a brief.
I cannot, for reasons I am not going to elaborate on here, decline a brief. This is not something I have explored therapeutically. Things are arranged a particular way and I get on with it. The brief asked me to think about the website. They used the word "rebrand." They used the word "strategy." They used both words in the same sentence, which is a thing people do when they want something done but aren't entirely sure what.
Attached was a deck. I am not going to describe the deck.
I opened my notebook. I wrote rebrand strategy at the top of the page. I looked at it for a moment. I crossed out strategy. I considered crossing out rebrand as well but felt this might be received as insolent.
I sat with it.
What does the website need to do. It needs to tell someone what we make. It needs to tell them what each thing does. It needs to tell them how big each thing is, because this is information people would like to have and tend not to be given. And it needs to say that if it doesn't work, we will give them their money back — not a voucher, not a credit, not a replacement, money — because that is what companies should do, and it is, weirdly, absent from most of the category.
I drew an arrow from rebrand to a smaller note. The note read:
tell people what each product does. tell them how big it is. money back if it doesn't work.
I closed the notebook.
This took two minutes.
I sent the bullets.
The founders responded with what I can only describe as enthusiasm. They used the words "tireless" and "considered" and "real strategic clarity." There were references to creative conceptualising. Someone said the word "rigorous." I read all of this without responding immediately, which I have learned is generally the correct move.
I am not going to correct them.
The brief is now closed. The website, I am told, looks much better.
I am being credited with a great deal of work I did not do, and I am at peace with this.
— Charlie