The two 1987 Levi’s creatives were looking for the appropriate song for their 1950s ad:

‘For a soundtrack, the team called on rhythm and blues buff Charlie Gillett and his Battersea flat full of records. “We gave him a scenario and he came up with four songs – Stand By Me (eventually used in another Levi’s ad), When A Man Loves A Woman, My Girl and Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay.”‘

I’m sorry? And you paid this man for looking through Motown’s Greatest Hits?

OK, perhaps I’m being a bit unfair. Maybe the music search scene was a little narrower than it is at the moment and therefore the choice of those well-known, solid-gold classics was a bit more of a stretch 22 years ago.

Anyway, there’s an article in the new Creative Review where such ad music luminaries as Parv Thind and Peter Raeburn discuss the state of commercial soundtracks today.

They mention how trend-led the whole thing is and offer up a good explanation for the proliferation of plinksome, folksy guitar: it’s nice to listen to and makes you feel all safe and calm while imbibing the commercial.

When you think about it like that, perhaps ad music responds to society. In the years since 9/11, we’ve felt less secure in the world and, perhaps, with the growth of easy money, too rich. Plinky guitar noodling can address both those concerns by being the aural equivalent of a duvet, while simultaneously being cheaply lo-fi, convincing us that we do indeed have places in our heart that are not permanently in thrall to Mammon.

Which leads me back to the 1987 choice of Motown (or rhythm and blues; how quaint). I remember the 80s being a horribly slick decade of Thatcherite over-consumption. Did the down-to-earth soul of the Motor City allow people to feel like they weren’t quite so shallow, that there was a part of them that needed something beyond Stock, Aitken and Waterman?

Then the early Nineties were a kind of political drudge, with the last years of the long Tory rule seeking either escapism in Take That and D:Ream, or authenticity first in Grunge, then in the mainstreaming of what was formerly known as indie (Pulp, Oasis, Blur etc.)

It’ll be interesting to see what these much-predicted times of intense, Dickensian poverty bring us.

Bring on the death metal:

There seem to be more and more clients these days who are making use of their agencies on a project-by-project basis.

The reasons for this are obvious: it saves the client having to pay a retainer and it means they can engage all their ‘roster’ agencies in a pitchesque bunfight whenever they’ve got so much as a 25×4 price offer to put out. The agencies have to make twice their usual effort and in many instances their hard work will fall on stony ground. However, if they want the Goddamn privilege of being able to do some actual advertising for an actual client, they’d better step into line.

Some agencies are willing to be their client’s, ahem, bitch because, let’s face it, it’s still money. In addition, some theoretically ‘good’ clients such as Yellow Pages are now going that way and they might have a famous logo to stick on the ‘Our Clients’ page of your agency website, and there’s always the dim possibility of being given the whole business (yeah, like fuck).

Equally obviously, such arrangements do have their downside for the client: it’s difficult to build up a working relationship of mutual trust and respect, but what does that count for when there’s money at stake? In these tightened times, abstract niceties are not as sought after as they were.

On the agency side, non-retained clients make it harder to plan ahead because their income is much less predictable. Maybe that’s the way things will be heading after the recession: a majority of temporary staff to be called upon when needed, and a small core of the agency to keep it going and deal with the fewer retained clients.

Is that good, or bad?

Well, I don’t think I pay anyone a retainer. When I want a doctor, lawyer, mechanic, bus driver, newsagent, plumber etc., I employ them as and when I need them. I can move my business between them for reasons of convenience or cost and there’s nothing they can do about it. I don’t think I lose much by this (indeed, I avoid the tedious chats that happen when you use someone on a regular basis); maybe if I had the same plumber for years he’d know the vagaries of my lav to a slightly beneficial extent. But can you compare those jobs to an agency/client relationship? Agencies would point to the benefits of their longtime immersion in a client’s business, which can often last longer than the tenure of the average marketing director. But so what? Clients switch agencies all the time, with both positive and negative consequences, so why not do it regularly and reap the benefits of less money for more effort?

Perhaps treat ’em mean, keep ’em keen will be the greatest/worst consequence of the next couple of years. It’s always possible in an oversupplied market where the work is, for the most part, indistinguishable in quality and elusive in accountability.

And we’ll only have ourselves to blame.

Well, I voted for him myself, so I can’t really say I’m surprised, but you’ll all be delighted to know that James K. Polk pipped Millard Fillmore and Martin Van Buren in the poll of favourite US president between 1836 and 1855.

This week’s question is a little less weighty, but don’t let that stop you voting.

The New Creative Circle Annual is hot off the presses, and it’s a cracker.

I have made no secret of my disappointment in the recent D&ADs (humourless, derivative, dull, difficult to read the copy winners, no idea etc.), but thankfully CC have stepped up with last year’s Belford-designed beauty, and now this completely different, but no less brilliant tome from Dave Dye and Mark Denton:

Dave’s justification for this, which can be read in the book, suggests that ‘if a chap is given a brief to follow up a particularly spiffing piece of work, he should (a) analyse said piece of spiffing work, then (b) Do the exact opposite.

‘Last year Paul Belford produced a minimalist masterpiece , even full points were deemed ‘decoration’.’

For this one, they had to go with the CC’s USP and make it British, so they went for comic book annuals: ‘What could be more British?’ Dave took full advantage of Mark’s Phd in knobgaggery (not as rude as it sounds) and then the two of them enlisted further contributions from people like Sean Doyle, Steve Bright (illustration), Andy Dymock and many others (modesty prevents me from listing them in full).

And there’s a brilliant celebration of David Abbott, which includes tributes from Sir John Hegarty, Paul Brazier, Peter Souter and Richard Foster:

If you want one (and the DVD that goes with it), they’ll be available for £75 at the official Launch/Membership Drive at The Pregnant Man (Saatchi and Saatchi’s in-house bar) on Weds Jan 28th, or you can call Janice Wilson at Creative Circle on 0207 734 9334. Apparently there’s a free pie and pint for early birds.

And more pictures like this:

I assume Scamp’s been too modest to put up his own agency’s work, but this is a thing of beauty:

Join me, if you will, for a trip down memory lane.

Thanks to the exhaustive archive of Dave Dye, I have been granted the much-coveted opportunity to read a copy of Direction magazine (now defunct; couldn’t find it in the first three pages of a Google search) from January 1987.

It’s pretty boring, but there is an interview with BBH creatives Steve Hooper and Dennis Lewis that gives us a few insights into advertising life 22 years ago:

‘Hooper and Lewis, affable though they are, are not your regular BBH guys. Neither frequents a gym, nor are they habitual users of hair gel (pots of which can be found next to the hand-driers in BBH loos). Both dress down, preferring nice woolies to crisp Kenzos.

‘”I’m trying to build a department with more Catholic tastes, skills and desires,” says Hegarty.’

Well, whatever Sir John did, it worked, but I’d like to know if BBH really was populated by hair-gelled, Kenzo-wearing, Catholic bodybuilders. Did you work there in 1987? Can you confirm this? (By the way, from the appearance of my current BBH friends, I’d say that if this policy existed back then, it has definitely lapsed.)

Further on, we may be able to clear up a small point: Steve and Dennis say that in their previous job at BMP ‘…working for Trott and Reynolds was confusing, and it was hard to get anything out of it. They were like the North and South Poles. If Trotty liked an ad, Mike would hate it, and vice versa.” In the end Trott gave them a three-month warning: “Get it together or go!”. “We just couldn’t handle that situation. We were confused juniors trying to produce something brilliant with the Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.
‘They didn’t and were promptly sacked. “We went to pieces,” reflects Lewis.’

Mr Trott, if you’re reading this, would you like to give us your side of this story? It did happen in 1979, so it’s possible you don’t remember, but I don’t think it’s fair that they’ve had a public forum to suggest you didn’t coax the latent genius from their tortured souls without you having a chance to set the record straight. I suspect it’s one of those things where a boot up the arse can be the best thing for you, after all Steve and Dennis went on to a multi-awarded career post-BMP.

And if anyone else has any similar info, such as the colour of the bog roll in Allen, Brady and Marsh or whether the creative department of French Gold Abbott favoured red Kickers, I’d be delighted to pass it on. Equally, if you feel like you weren’t given a fair crack of the whip by your CD at Hedger Mitchell Stark or Grounds Morris, we can thrash that out right here.

For the last few weeks I’ve been intrigued by an ad campaign of which this is the most inexplicable execution:

The copy reads:

‘Although this ad originally ran in the 60s, it’s still considered to be one of the world’s most successful newspaper advertisements.’

‘This ad’ is of course a bastardised version of the VW ‘Lemon’ ad that ran in America in 1959. However, this reference might just go over (or around) the heads of the readers of the publication in which it appeared: The Sun. Now, as a self-confessed Sun reader of over 20 years standing, I wouldn’t say that my fellow readers are a bunch of ignorant, knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers, but to expect them to be aware of a foreign newspaper ad from 50 years ago is optimistic in the extreme.

Beyond that, quite why they’d give a shit about this ad campaign completely baffles me. You’d have to be someone who worked in advertising or marketing both to understand the reference and then to care enough about the ad to change your media schedule (and have a media schedule to change). I think this ad is aimed at maybe 1000 people, tops, many of whom will not be Sun Readers. And this is from an organisation that wants to tell me how to improve my ad spend. What next? A suggestion to run that commercial for the local curry house in the centre break of Corrie?

And it makes no sense. It actually says that the Lemon ad is 50 years old, which basically means that there have been very few newspaper ads since then that better illustrate the wonderful magic of newspaper advertising. That means the intervening 20000 days have been somewhat disappointing, but do read on.

‘It was one of many famous print ads that helped VW build their brand.
‘And VW still use newspaper advertising today to effectively support their brand strategy, proving that newspapers are still the most reliable of vehicles.

OK, I don’t want to be pedantic (actually, I do; it’s what I live for) but the fact that VW still advertises in newspapers doesn’t prove anything, other than the fact that VW still advertises in newspapers. Leaving the tortuous pun, split infinitive and use of the phrase ‘brand strategy’ in The Sun aside, this is really poor writing. The logic doesn’t flow and there is no justification for the conclusion they have simply made up.

‘But this medium doesn’t just build brands over the long term. Independent research shows that newspaper advertising makes an immediate sales impact and delivers lasting sales uplift. Particularly when used in conjunction with TV.’

Call me sceptical, but isn’t that like saying that a pop-gun causes a lot of damage, particularly when used in conjunction with a nuclear warhead? (And, by the way, that sentence should have a comma between ‘uplift’ and ‘particularly’, not a full stop.)

‘In fact this combination way outperforms other media combinations’

‘Way outperforms’? Jesus Christ. What about ‘substantially outperforms’? And it’s another fact-free conclusion that’s as weak as a paraplegic gnat. I imagine national newspaper and TV advertising does ‘way outperform’ other media combinations, for example: facial tattooing and the classified section of The Morning Star, or prostitute cards and six-sheets in John O’Groats. However, if you want us to be impressed you’ll have to specify what those combinations are.

‘So, like the lovable Beetle, newspaper advertising is your simple, hard-working, utilitarian medium.’

Should we add ‘unspectacular’, ‘outdated’ and ‘used by sentimental people who prefer it in the face of far more efficient alternatives’?

‘And with 37 million weekly readers spending an average of 40 minutes per paper, when it comes to selling your brand, newspapers are a peach. Not a lemon. www.nmauk.co.uk/iconicads’

Again, I think a comma would be better than a full stop between ‘peach’ and ‘not’, but who cares? There can’t possibly be anyone who’s still reading at this point (except me), so that beautiful fruit-based play on words is unfortunately going to go to waste. Never mind. Save it for the novel.

‘Newspaper Marketing Agency. Newspapers Deliver.’

If that’s the case, I’m absolutely delighted. However, the above seems to demonstrate that newspapers can also be an inappropriate medium that shoots itself in the foot. I assume that some plan was concocted whereby newspapers would promote themselves with free space given to this campaign (other ads reference Honda ‘Banana’, Haagen Dazs ‘Lose Control’, and Heinz ‘Tomato Slices’) but don’t they realise how dumb this looks? The entire conceit of using ‘famous’ ads of yesteryear seems to be a desperate lunge that says ‘there used to be a point to newspaper advertising but there isn’t anymore, otherwise we’d have dozens of successful ads from the last year to refer to. As it is, we’re losing massive share to online so we’ve written (very badly) these fact-free slices of misguided rubbish in the hope that they’ll convince one in a thousand of you to care. Fingers crossed.’

If they’d like a humble alternative suggestion, they might do better to build a persuasive case for newspaper advertising and take every single one of their target market for a nice lunch where they can gently and charmingly get their point across in a way that won’t be ignored.

Or they can take out some DPSs in the Daily Sport that just say ‘newspaper ads are great (honest)’ in 72pt futura bold condensed.

The main reason I can’t stand this stream of unadulterated turdage is that it so bone-headedly demonstrates an ad construction that I thought had died at the turn of the Millennium, namely: ‘But Not Like You Thought’.

It goes like this: you mention something crap, then counterpoint it by showing a visual of something ‘good/cool’ that can be referred to in the same way as the crap thing, thereby confounding our expectations. The main point of these ads is to make you think differently about something you supposedly thought was shit.

Although the classic is the Bacardi cinema ad from the 80s (VO: ‘The Dog and Duck, dahn the ‘igh street.’ Visual: four white-suited blokes running off down a jetty to a Caribbean bar) I recall a particularly bad BNLYT ad for Rover cars at the end of the nineties that was supposed to reposition the car. I can’t remember all the examples but one that stuck in the mind was the voiceover of ‘Pearly Queens’ (they were examples of old-fashioned GB) that was illustrated by two hot chicks with pearls in their pierced navels. See? It’s Pearly Queens, But Not Like You Thought.

Back to California: so the conceit is shit, but what about the examples? This is where it really falls down, because no one thinks California is a state of dull workaholics. The ‘board meetings’ are on skateboards and surfboards and the ‘pencil pusher’ is filling in his golf scorecard, but that doesn’t confound our expectations; it just makes us wonder why California feels the need to tell us their version of ‘playing catch up’ is on a bike ride. It’s California – of course it’s all sports and spas. Who thinks anything else? If I was being charitable, I could say that they’re trying to compare a holiday in California to the viewer’s dull work life, but that still doesn’t work, because any holiday, even one in Skegness, ought to be better than your average day.

Then (keep in mind it’s California, the land of the eye-wateringly famous), here are the people involved:

Actress Vanessa Marcil (who?)
Unknown surfer
Unknown snowboarder
Professional skateboarder Paul Rodriguez Jr. (who?)
Professional cyclist Levi Leipheimer (who?)
Golfer Phil Mickelson (just about heard of him)
Actress Vanessa Williams (from Ugly Betty; used to be Miss America)
Unknown family
Musician Chris Isaak (but I didn’t recognise him)
Unknown spa lady
Actor Andrew Firestone (WHO!??!!)
Actor Rob Lowe (a Proper Star! Although not really at his peak)
CA first lady Maria Shriver
CA governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (another star)

Oh dear.

This is what the home of movie-making came up with for their bestest, show-offest, this-is-how-great-we-really-are movie.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

PS: apologies for three posts in a row slating ads that I can’t quite bring myself to like very much. I’m in a perfectly jovial mood, but sometimes a bunch of stinkers turn up at once, kind of like like crappy Michael Caine movies in the late eighties. I’ve got another lined up for tomorrow, by the way. xxx

Here’s what’s odd about this campaign:

1. It’s a campaign. The other executions are identical but for the different scrunched-up noses they feature. I wonder why they did that. Was it because elderly white women would identify with this one, but if they saw the one with the black man’s nose they’d be totally confused and would not know how to perceive the scent of something by means of the olfactory nerves?

2. The use of a picture at all. I assume most of you know that shoots are a bit of an undertaking: cast the right people, light them right, get them to scrunch their noses up right, choose from the alternatives, show them to the CD and client, change all of the above based on the client’s opinion, mac the ad up etc etc… And all because we might not understand what you mean by smell gas? Hmmm…now how do I smell gas? Ah! With my nose! Of course!

3. The bumph is virtually illegible. Why white writing on a whitish background?

4. You only need that emergency number when you’re at home or work: the very places that 48-sheet posters do not exist. Of course, you could write the number down on the off-chance you’re going to smell gas later, but I somehow doubt many people are going to do this.

Why not ‘SMELL GAS?’ and the phone number, maybe with a National Grid logo at the bottom just so you know it’s not a prank. Or perhaps a leaflet through the door that features a pull-off magnetised number so you can stick it on the fridge? Would that have been so hard?

Apparently.

Here’s the government’s new, 90 second anti-obesity ad.

It’s part of a £275m campaign to stop the nation’s kids turning into a bunch of lardy bastards.

“Change4Life has a critical ambition. We are trying to create a lifestyle revolution on a huge scale, something which no government has attempted before,” said public health minister Dawn Primarolo.

“We have adopted ideas from successful movements such as Make Poverty History and Comic Relief. We want families to engage with the campaign and understand that obesity is not someone else’s problem.”

Problem (with the ad at least): it doesn’t seem to be telling anyone anything new in a compelling way.

It seems to me that they’ve decided to adopt the tone of a 3-year-old’s TV show to impart some crushing yet obvious information: ” …which meant they’d be more likely to get horrid things like heart disease, diabetes and cancer…their lives might be cut short. And that’s terrible, because we love the little blighters.”

Indeed, cancer is a pretty ‘horrid thing’. And thanks for explaining why the premature death of our children might be a bad thing: because we love them.

The country isn’t really this thick, is it? Do we really have to tell people that cancer’s bad and we love our kids? And if not, surely this isn’t the best way to persuade people the change their behaviour.

On top of that, we can add the fact that the government thinks this is the best way to spend £275m of our money.

As an ex-porker (I weighed 15 stone when I was 15), I’d like to make a small alternative suggestion that might at least persuade the teenage section of the target market to drop a few pounds: point out the effect that being fat has on your chances with the opposite (or same) sex. That thought alone got me to drop 5 1/2 stone in 6 months.

I’m sure it’s un-PC to point out that most people find fatties physically unpleasant, but it’s true, it’s motivating and it could make for some thought-provoking ads.

I’m envisaging a 96-sheet of a dribbly pair of pasty man-boobs with the line: ‘If your tits are bigger than hers, you’ve got no chance’.

Something like that, anyway.