He's done it again. I'd try to add something intelligent about the way that it puts a lot of responsibility on the creative side in the agencies, but as illustrated by previous posts: that's probably where planners should find themselves today.
The best agencies, the agencies that do great, interesting work are basically great because they do whatever the creatives want to do. And because those people are often smart and talented what they want to do is often exactly the right thing. This changes the job of the planner. In most agencies, most of the time (ie places that are average or worse) the job of the planner is to stop the creatives doing something stupid. That's what the typical reductive, instructive creative brief is for. It trys to stop them insulting the audience, misunderstanding the audience and indulgling their creative whims in some pointless manner.
When you're working with really good creatives the task is to harness their creative whims, not constrict them. You have to accept that they're going to do whatever want, especially when they own the agency, but then your task is to make what they want be the right thing to solve the problem.
There are two ways to do this.
Read about ways on Russel Davies' blog.
