I’ve never been comfortable with the notion of values but I’ve never quite known why. And then someone here at WMW crystallised it for me. ‘Patience,’ she wrote, ‘is a much under rated value.’ And that’s when it struck me. Patience is a virtue. It is an action we choose to take. A value is something we hold inside us. It is private. A virtue, on the other hand, is public: it is what we do. This simple semantic thought has led me to the grandiose conclusion that it is far better for a company to extol virtues because these can be observed and managed. Values can only be inferred and aren’t susceptible to managing.

Abandon all talk of values, o firms of the world. You have nothing to lose but your posters.

Has there ever been a water cooler moment about people having a chat by the water cooler? Sorry if that’s a bit meta for this time of day. There’s a point hovering just out of sight, I’m almost sure of it.

(Moreover, do people really stand around the water cooler talking about the latest water cooler moment? Me, I’m not at the water cooler long enough to chat about celebrity cellulite or the latest televisual cliffhanger. Glass in place, press the button, fill her up, off I go. Maybe water cooler moments are just another whimsical invention of marketing people. Like the suggestion that any sane woman would feel genuinely humiliated if her whites where noticeably less white than someone else’s whites. Digression ends.)

Back to my original, head-spinning question. Social media is being touted as the latest must have for creating connections with potential consumers or employees.

But it’s essential to remember that social media is never where these relationships with brands start. If people are going to talk about you, you need to give them something to talk about.

Blazingly obvious when you spell it out. But it’s a fact that many seem to overlook in the rush to generate Twitter followers and Facebook fans.

Social media can’t create relationships where none exist; but, used smartly, it can strengthen those you’ve already developed.

It’s not where the buzz starts. It’s where it continues.

I recently read an idea for a new agency model in the comments section of one of the multifarious creative blogs out there. It struck me as sheer brilliance. Here’s how it works.

Basically, you pick a brand (any brand) and start doing advertising on its behalf.

You don’t need their permission, which straight away cuts out the stress and expense of the pitch process. Plus, imagine how cool the work would be if you didn’t have a pesky brief to fulfil, constraining brand guidelines to consider or even anyone else’s opinions corrupting your pristine vision.

You continue doing this free of charge until, inevitably, the brand in question becomes a world-famous category leader. And here’s the clever bit.

You then demand huge sums of money from said brand – otherwise you will STOP what you’re doing.

I’m currently looking to raise the (substantial) capital needed to get this idea up and running. If you’re interested, you know where to find me.

What could possibly go wrong?

Today a client had the brazen cheek to give feedback on an ad I was involved with. I know. I was apoplectic too. The gist of it was, “We love it but could you tone it down a bit for the audience?”

It will surprise no one to hear that this happens a lot when you work at a creative agency.

In fairness, it’s easy to be all brave and edgy when it’s not your £multi-million logo that’s going to be sitting in the corner. Looking all sheepish if you’ve judged it wrong.

But I still think it’s worth a moment to reflect on the assumptions behind that kind of feedback.

It’s basically saying, “Of course, we get it. But they won’t.”

It says, “As an individual, I enjoyed that. It tickled me. But The Audience is not like you or me. They are faceless, humourless drones. They won’t be entertained. They will be furious.”

I should point out at this point that the audience in this case is essentially regular Joes and Janes – not a fervent ascetist cult. And that the ad in question featured neither nudity nor animal cruelty.

I can understand the desire to avoid courting controversy. But often this protective corporate instinct goes into overdrive. It sees scandal everywhere. It turns a simple, human piece of communication into a soulless, homogenised husk.

(The Client Service Manager will doubtless be giggling at the melodrama of all this – it was a pretty minor change. But it’s the principal of the thing!)

Are these changes made because people genuinely think they’re the right thing to do? Or because of some nebulous sense of corporate rectitude looming over their shoulder like Banquo’s ghost?

I dunno. I just write offensive ads.