Illustrated maths (thanks, T).

Cats=works of art (thanks, T2).

Food logos redesigned to show their calories (thanks, J).

In the Euros, please support Wangland (thanks, X).

More Euros: the Onion Oracle (thanks, A&O):

In my USA cross-country trip I have mostly been listening to RHLSTP. So much good stuff:

I was listening to some podcast the other day where a famous person (can’t recall who) pointed out that no one teaches you how to be famous. The way she put it was that other famous people don’t just turn up at your door one day and give you the manual; you have to work out every aspect of it yourself. Everyone is different, so every situation is different and no single set of rules can apply to everything.

Which made me think about how advertising creatives learn their craft.

Let’s assume you went to college first. Watford, St Martins, Ad Center and the other ones all give you some level of education which you then take on and hopefully use to get a job in an agency.

Then what?

Then it’s up to you. In my personal experience there are four main sources of further education:

1. Other, better creatives. Maybe they’re in your agency, maybe they work elsewhere but you hear snippets about how they go about their thing. I was lucky enough to work in the same department as many of the copywriters from The Copy Book, but it also took a willingness to learn from them. Being able to show my copy to Mary Wear, Nigel Roberts, Tim Riley, Peter Souter and, of course, David Abbott was an immense privilege. Maybe your department isn’t quite as star-packed. If not, perhaps it’d be worth moving to somewhere that is.
2. Other, better people in general. I had a staff meeting recently where we each had to bring along an inspirational book, which would then be given to someone else at the meeting. I chose the Hamiltome because Lin-Manuel Miranda has smashed through so many doors that were bolted shut, and if you’re going to be any good at anything you’ll have to do the same. But there are thousands of examples to choose from. For a more original perspective it might be a good idea to look outside your own field.
3. Books. I know people say you shouldn’t try to learn from old award books because the work in them is already a year or two old, but I still think you can gain a lot by looking at the rhythms and cadences that often show up in good copy (no idea about art direction, sorry). As far as concepts go, I always preferred the pop promos section to the advertising pages; the work seemed fresher and further away from the beaten track. There are also overall guidebooks, such as Hey Whipple, Squeeze This!, that certainly won’t do you any harm.
4. Everything in the whole world. Surprising one, this: literally anything can help you make your work better. Whether it’s good ads that make you jealous, shit ads that boost your confidence, a certain colour of green jelly, the clothing of Steven Seagal, a trip to Gravesend, a trip to Guadalajara, cattle, teeth, treehouses, jam, a rectal prolapse, a duck, a duck down duvet, the logo on your hoover… You get the picture. Clearly, the more you stuff into your brain, the more chances you’ll have of making some kind of conceptual connection.

Have you learned a bunch of excellent shiz from an unexpected place? Have you bothered to continue your education? Does this all sound too much like school, which gives you the shivers because school was really horrible, especially when Darren Witherspoon pulled down your pants in front of the football team, earning you the nickname ‘peanut’?

Confessions of a stock photography model (thanks, W).

What would happen if humans disappeared?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy7Q6wazD_E&feature=share

In-depth analysis of the rapping and rhyming in Hamilton.

Creativity is like breathing.

Showrunners of dark dramas (inc. Louis CK) explain their craft.

Your brain is not a computer.

The nine best Fantasy Football Phoenixes From The Flames.

The gun bed:

Brexitbelly (thanks, J).

What everyone earns on a $200m movie (thanks, J):

Click, hold then move your mouse (thanks, S).

I think this might work well with headphones and a spliff (thanks, S):

Hi there,

My friend and former colleague Tom Hares is starting a company called Buzzbikes.

Basically, it puts ads on bikes that are then seen around town as they are ridden and parked.

The riders get a free bike made by Mini Cooper, in exchange for which they have to make sure the bike is out and about a certain number of days each month.

It’s already backed by some very smart people, and you too can invest here from as little £10.

And you can find out more/apply for a bike here.

Tom is a top bloke, and the idea does seem like one of those ‘why didn’t I think of that’ ones, so do have a look (full disclosure: I’ve looked very hard into investing but I’d have to pay tax on any profits in both the US and UK, so it doesn’t work for me, but if I were based in the UK I would definitely give it a go).

Cheers!

Ben

PS: Hegs is a fan…

https://vimeo.com/169811800

Dear occasional commenter and longtime reader Anonymouse,

Could you clear something up for me about your most recent comment…

Fuck average people. 

Awards shows aren’t for them.

Was that intended to be a joke? I thought it was, but others have interpreted it differently (that doesn’t invalidate Dave’s blog, by the way; it’s still 100% pertinent and relevant).

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulder of giants” – Isaac Newton.

Simple, isn’t it? People do stuff so when the people who come after them do the same kind of stuff they can learn from the original efforts and improve the end results.

But it doesn’t happen as often as you might think: nobody has improved on the guitar playing of Jimi Hendrix; movies are far worse then they were in the 70s; no one has managed to balance readability and literary excellence beyond that of Charles Dickens; no artist has captured the depths of humanity better than Da Vinci, Michelangelo or Raphael; and, of course, ads are nowhere near as good/liked/impactful as they were a decade ago.

Why?

After all, we have all the knowledge of those who went before us; the least we can do is get to their level. Then, with the added benefits of improved technology, greater tools and a more civilised world (better medicine, longer life expectancy, lower likelihood of going to war etc.), we ought to surpass any previous efforts. But we clearly don’t, so here are some possible reasons why:

1. The people who did the amazing thing first will always be held up for their greatness because of the added element of pioneering a new path. Many people can play like Hendrix but the ability to blaze an entirely new trail in an art form is not something that happens by standing on someone else’s shoulders. True greatness comes from originality, so the people who merely reiterate will never be perceived as giants to the same extent as the trailblazers. I think that Wolf Hall could sit up there with great 19th Century literature, but the fact that it has appeared 150 years after Dickens somewhat diminishes the perceived quality.
2. Great creative minds explore new areas that may not have previously existed. So a person who might be able to further the art of the movie could now be inventing Snapchat or the Tesla or (more likely) writing Breaking Bad, The Wire or The Sopranos. TV is far better than it used to be and movies are far worse. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the two situations might be related. You could make the argument that TV writers such as Matthew Weiner and David Simon stood on the shoulders of the giant David Milch or the giant David Chase. (Why so many great Davids? No idea). But that meant that they did not stand on the shoulders of Francis Ford Coppola or Martin Scorsese.
3. Circumstances can make it harder to improve things. Let’s take the ad industry: a brain drain to other creative jobs; smaller budgets; smaller real wages; the rise of new media, which is inherently less immediately impressive (try explaining an experiential takeover of a town square vs showing a 60-second TV ad); the rise of the global corporation and the pan-global ad, which has to appeal to far too many people at once; the overall malaise caused by all of the above… These factors have contributed to the general reduction of quality in advertising to such an extent that the likelihood of a spunky youngster coming in and setting the industry alight is much smaller. The shoulders are not just the artwork of before; they are the situations in which those shoulders do or do not exist. A contextual pull for Hendrix’s music (the rise of the Beatles, Stones, Clapton, Floyd etc.) helped to make it happen. Ditto the onrush of great 70s movies that railed against the lies and paranoia of Nixon-era USA.
4. Distraction. Is it a coincidence that the last decade has seen worse movies, music and advertising at the same time as the rise of Facebook, Twitter and a million other online tidbits? I speak from experience when I say that the lure of the internet makes it really hard to stay focussed on your creative endeavour, and I’m not the only one. The tyranny of choice can seep into most of your life, strangling your ability to find a thing you want to do and stick to it. Where will this end? How many of us have the discipline to disregard something so tempting and concentrate on the hard yards of creating greatness?
5. It’s been done. So many art forms have reached such a level of excellence that the idea of taking one on and improving it can seem intimidating to many people. For every brave fool who thinks he/she can better Mozart there are a million others who decline the opportunity to even attempt such a thing. And the road narrows, so that each subsequent generation has to wade through an ever-increasing mountain of brilliant work. Seems like a bit of ball-ache, so let’s just have another evening of Netflix and chill, yeah?

Are you trying to be the next Dylan/Monet/Hitchcock? If so, do you feel helped or cowed by the previous excellence? And if you’re not bothering, is it because of one of the reasons above, or something else?

Hyper Reality (thanks, C):

Violent medieval rabbits (thanks, J).

Spielberg’s commencement speech:

Amazing smoke rings:

Are we all characters in a simulated video game?

I would like to preface this post by making it very clear that these are simply the arbitrary opinions of one 42-year-old bloke, and not to be taken seriously.

TV first. Only two pencil winners. Here’s one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj4MzMK6F9k

Thought this was decent but surely not one of the best ads of the year. Nicely shot, but a maximum 40-second idea strung out for a minute. Good twist, but is it great? Nope. 8/10

This was the other TV winner:

Another good-not-great one. The ad is a fun, entertaining watch, and feels jauntily original, but is the payoff 100% satisfying? I’d say 82%, so I’m going to give it another 8/10.

Press ads:

Apparently this is a bigger idea where Burger King’s competitors (not McDonald’s, who declined to participate) were asked to collaborate on a burger for World Peace Day. So is this the press ad from that? It doesn’t really work on its own, so is it a part of some mixed media thing (it also received a Pencil for Integrated and Innovative Media)? No idea. Anyway, it really only works if McDonald’s is involved and you know what it’s about, so as a standalone press ad I’ll give it a slightly confused 7/10.

Writing in advertising went to these radio ads for Dove. Radio is always a bit of an odd category – if you look down the years you’ll find variable quality among the winners. But I think these are very well written and produced, and the reveal at the end is powerful. I’ll give these a 9/10.

The other writing winner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8k2ZtzpMns

Fucking brilliant. 10/10

Outdoor. Bit of an odd category, this one. Doesn’t seem to be about posters so much as stuff like this (this is the TV ad for a beer brand that uses its waste products to make car fuel):

Very good idea, and the carried it through well. Leaving my ‘Outdoor’ reservations aside, I’d give this a 10/10. Here’s the full explanation.

Then there’s this one. Another stunty thing, but at least it’s on a poster site. Not quite as impressive as the beer thing but still very good. 9/10.

Radio: these ads from KFC are very good work for a tricky sector in an unpredictable category. 9/10. And a lovely bit of writing and VO in these for Doom insecticide – 9.5/10.

Film Crafts: this won for Use of Music and Direction. Both very good, but I also liked the editing (but not the pay-off) – 9/10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh9jAD1ofm4

Gold pencils: as far as I can tell, this one is for some people who make sticky tape. They hung loads of it from the ceiling in an exhibition hall. To give you an idea of how jealous I am of this idea, take ‘fuck-all’, divide it by infinity and stick it up the arse of a passing fly. 3/10.

This one, however is a full-on 15/10 idea:

Having the idea is amazing; making it happen is amazing x 1,543,835. (Small quibble: the above Vimeo link appeared in November 2014, making it eligible for last year’s D&AD. I wonder why it was entered this year.)

Did you agree with the above? Are there other ads you’d like to highlight? Are you wondering why I didn’t cover direct and mobile and all that jazz? (Answer: life is just a few seconds too short). Have a look at all the winners here and give as many shits as you can muster.

Class A marketing: drug dealers show us how it’s done (thanks, N).

When Dylan sounded like Snoop.

Odd Sarah Silverman short (thanks, D):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_ipPtnMsCc

A blast from the past: Kriss Akabusi Sex Stories.

A small plug for the guys who design and maintain my sites (this site designed by Paul Belford).

A guide to using the tube.

Neat data viz on how wealth inequality happened (thanks, D).

Lots of great Serpico stuff.

Great pics of the early years of hip hop (thanks, R).

I was listening to this football podcast the other day. It’s an interesting analysis of why Jose Mourinho’s appointment as the new manager of Man United makes a certain kind of sense that may not be immediately apparent to the majority of football fans.

(For those of you who aren’t into football, allow me to give you a quick background to this situation: cast-iron, 24-carat thundercunt, Jose Mourinho has been a ridiculously successful manager, winning league titles wherever he goes, and occasionally the Champions League, too. He’s also been a toxic mess, sacked three times for being shit after he was good, and for creating schisms and hatred amongst his players, then leaving the clubs in quite a mess. By now everyone knows what they get from appointing him: a desperately insecure man who has to make every situation about himself, while throwing scoolground-level barbs at other players and managers. He also creates teams that occasionally play very good football, but more often simply spoil things for the other team, creating fucking boring games that are played by some of the most skilful players in the world.)

Anyway, the podcast suggests that actually managing a football club (not just the team, but the entire enterprise) to trophy-winning success is a very difficult thing to do. What is much easier is to spend a ridiculous amount of money on ‘star’ players and managers to keep people watching all over the world. Maybe Man U will win things with Mourinho; maybe they won’t, but it doesn’t actually matter because the aim of Man U’s Executive Vice-Chairman is to make money off the ‘brand’. If Man U stay ‘big’ then they can leverage sponsorship and other commercial deals to ensure that the cash flows in, no matter what happens on the pitch. They’ll probably spend another £100m-£200m this year, taking player spending in the last few years to over £400m. But if that nets them £800m in deals, it’s all good.

The men who took over Manchester United several years ago are the Glazer family, who actually leveraged the money they needed to buy the club against the club itself, leaving it in colossal debt, which they’ve been paying off ever since. But apparently that doesn’t matter because it hasn’t affected team spending, and the Glazers appear to be cool with doubling down on that stance by making it ALL about the money. Football has been big business for a couple of decades now, but this situation is simply growing beyond anyone’s imagination.

So Man U are playing a different game: use the football to bring in the money, which is the opposite of the previous practice of bringing in money to support the football. And this is all a longwinded way of saying that people may not be playing the game you think they are. Does BBH’s transition to a ‘Sports Management’ agency that doesn’t seem to give a toss about TV ads a new way of playing a different game that has nothing to do with great work? Does Martin Sorrell give the first toss about how good his companies’ ads are if they’re making loads of cash in other ways? (Last year I spookily asked if WPP was following the model of a football club, kind of the flipside to this post.)

In these days of huge amounts of cash and power sloshing around in channels of subterfuge it’s hard to know exactly why trusted institutions are behaving in unexpected ways, but it really just comes down to that quote from All The President’s Men: follow the money.