ITIAPTWC Episode 67 – Tim Lindsay
So I was watching this video the other day:
…and I found myself in violent agreement with everything Tim Lindsay was saying.
There are lots of questions advertising has to ask itself right now. The industry is in a state of disrepair: financially straitened, endlessly splintered and trying to find its place at a time of climate crisis, pandemic and global political upheaval.
So I got in touch with Tim and suggested we drill down into those topics, especially from his position as Chairman of D&AD (apologies for referring to him as CEO during the chat) – the pre-eminent body of advertising creativity. Are these creative topics? Financial? Business? You could even ask whether or not they are within advertising’s remit at all.
So we chatted about all of that, and I didn’t even ask about whether there should be a printed annual, or how Chinese jurors judge English advertising copy (and vice versa). Frankly, there are bigger things to discuss…
Here’s the iTunes link, the Soundcloud link and the direct play button:
Dear Ben,
That was very revealing, thank you.
However, it’s not always wise to go public with a discussion between people in “violent agreement”. For it can create a mini echo chamber that further deafens the participants to opinions which don’t chime with their own.
Tim’s tin ear was revealed when he said of “Can’t Sell, Won’t Sell”, “The book that he’s written, I don’t know why he’s done it”.
He ventured this, even though you’d already pointed out “There’s a lot of Steve Harrison’s perspective out there”.
Given Tim’s incomprehension, it appears that either he can’t entertain or is simply not exposed to such a perspective.
In either case, you might advise him to drop any of these people a line (I’m sure he’s familiar with most of them): Paul Feldwick, Bo Hellberg, Jon Steel, Vikki Ross, Richard Huntington, Dave Trott, Paul Burke, George Tannenbaum, Patrick Collister, Guy Barnet, Marc Lewis, Dave Dye, Mark Denton or Mark Ritson.
All are keen for the industry to read the book.
There’s another danger in having these exercises in confirmation bias. You tend not to challenge the falsehoods you tell each other.
For example, Tim’s description (and dismissal) of my argument as “binary”.
As in the SCA debate he maintained that I am giving the industry a hard choice between either pursuing commercial purpose or social purpose. That the two are mutually exclusive – and I am totally against the latter.
This is untrue. As you’ll see on page 16 of “Can’t Sell, Won’t Sell”, I support the argument “for the kind of time-honoured Quaker business ethics that we now call corporate social responsibility”.
On page 64, I say “disregard those cynics who like to rhyme ‘woke with broke'” and point out “There are two very distinct and lucrative markets for those brands that address ethical issues and social, environmental and cultural problems.” I then dedicate the next chapter to that market.
On pages 83-85, I give examples of excellent, successful campaigns that have a social purpose.
And finally, to labour the point, during my presentation to the students during the SCA debate I explained:
“Social Purpose – good and bad
Now in ten minutes you’re going to hear from Tim that you should be selling a Social Purpose – that your work must be solving society’s problems.
And, in some cases, this is possible.
When the social purpose is aligned with the product, the positioning, the proposition and the people you are selling to – purpose-driven strategies can work.
There are many examples. SCA student Shepherd Chidenga, (is he here?), wrote to me with his favorite example, Nike. And that’s great.
All brand building is about differentiation and if you can credibly differentiate because of practices that add value to society, fine.
“But the brands that do that are outnumbered many times over by those that are grabbing at the fig leaf of virtue as cover for their commercial operations.
As Unlever’s CEO Alan Jope called it, “Woke Wash”. It’s a gimmick. And most brands will dump that gimmick when the next fad comes along.The truth is, to use Unlever’s own rule of thumb, Social Purpose is appropriate to maybe 8% of the briefs that you will be given during your time here at SCA – and I imagine that Marc will be very disappointed in you if your book doesn’t reflect this.Why? Because Social Purpose will not be an appropriate or credible proposition for those brands.”
In the interest of the open discussion that the industry needs, Tim should acknowledge his misleading critique of my argument.
It would also help if he addressed my point that an exaggerated emphasis upon ill-conceived social purpose Marcomms strategies is a dangerous distraction for an industry that is facing the IPA’s “crisis of creative effectiveness”.
And that this is doubly so given the UK’s feeble economic rebound compared to that in the US and Eurozone countries. As the Office of National Statistics pointed out last week, hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk because “of a lack of recovery in household consumption compared to other countries.”
It would be good for UK advertising if D&AD openly discussed such issues because, in these troubled times, our industry needs PC i.e. polite consensus.
Alas, at the moment the entrenched, binary view is Tim’s.
It is he who insists there is a “right and wrong side of history”, and that we must choose his side now.
In equally divisive language, Tim talks of “the coalition of the willing” and “people like us” and “all the good people.”
Indeed, just count the number of times in your discussion that he makes moral value judgements about “the right thing to do”.
His whole conversation is riddled with Manichaen polarities with positive references to those who agree with him about “the right kind of behaviour” and negative references to those who don’t.
There is no middle ground. Hence, as I say, the incomprehension with which he views my book – and the opinions of the thousands of people who understand my POV.
Indeed, as he told you, when it comes to my POV and those who share it. “I don’t really care about that anymore.”
There’s a dangerous zealotry at play here. Especially when the zealot starts exempting himself from the ethical standards of the broader community.
For example, isn’t it quite amazing that Tim, the Chairman of D&AD, says he’s OK giving Pencils to social purpose work that “undoubtedly is a scam”?
When the ends justify the means, we’re on dangerous ground.
But not only that, Tim also believes that “green wash and woke wash is actually a step in the right direction”. This despite the fact that Alan Jope, CEO of Tim’s favourite company, Unilever saying: “Woke-washing is beginning to infect our industry. It’s polluting purpose. It’s putting in peril the very thing which offers us the opportunity to help tackle many of the world’s issues. What’s more, it threatens to further destroy trust in our industry, when it’s already in short supply.”
How the Chairman of advertising’s most respected institution can endorse practises that “threatens to further destroy trust in our industry, when it’s already in short supply” beggars belief.
But Tim will brook no opposition and, as he says, is “very keen to keep pushing this agenda forward.”
And woe betide those who disagree
As you’ll see if you look at his Twitter feed, when confronted with an alternative POV you can forget nuanced views. Nasty vitriol is often the response.
I trust I’ll be spared that! But I’d also ask that you both read/re-read “Can’t Sell, Won’t Sell” and consider its argument before making it the subject of another duet.
Cheers,
Steve
Hi Steve.
I have ordered your book and will have a read when it arrives.
Cheers!
Ben
Interesting. I’ve listened to the podcast. I’ve read Steve’s book. I’ve worked with Tim at Lowe, Publicis & The Gate. Disagreement is a positive thing. Consensus worries me.
I thought Steve’s book eloquently expressed a huge discomfort that I have felt with the advertising industry over the past decade. “Can’t Sell, Won’t Sell” is a great counterpoint but Steve also agrees that the ‘truth’ is usually in the shades of grey, so trying to polarise this debate doesn’t help. Embrace differences of opinion, don’t dismiss them.
Let’s be clear – this is not about the need to land important global messages (no debate from me there) – it’s just that Advertising Executives, or the brands they represent, don’t have the right to credibly preach them. Why? Because only 17% of people TRUST them (according to Ipsos MRBI): https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-06/veracity_index_2020.pdf
The best we can do is support people who are more TRUSTED to deliver these important messages. Advertising can be on ‘the right sight of history’ without the egotistical need to be seen to be as leading the crusade. Work with governments to make change happen. The greatest things happen when no one minds who takes the credit…or the awards.