If This Is A Blog Then What's Christmas?

Does my list have eight ads, or nine? To tell you the truth, in all this confusion I’ve forgotten myself. But being this is a 44-advertising blog, and could blow your head clean off… Hang on… Clean? Is this a Tide ad?

Ever since Lee Clow, Steve Jobs and Apple invented the ‘Superbowl Ad’ in 1983, there’s been intense interest in the commercials that run during America’s biggest TV occasion. It’s where the big clients pay the big budgets to look big in front of the biggest audience.

But in recent years it’s been a bit desperate. Apparently there always has to be a ‘winner’, but it feels a little like the Superbowl advertisers have been going through the motions, with nothing really taking the occasion by the scruff of the neck.

Until 2018.

Yes, only a massive advertiser like P&G could have the resources to pull it off, but look at the crazy shit they bought: an ad that mercilessly skewers the clichés of advertising genres and tropes (many of them used by P&G); an ad that bleeds into ads for other brands; and an ad that pulls the rug out from under you again and again and again.

And the spots are funny. Properly, funniest-ad-of-the-year funny. The team, client and agency didn’t just rest on the cushion of a great, expensive idea; the rammed home excellence in execution, in one spot after another.

So, for dropping a grenade of pure, culture-shifting brilliance into the biggest advertising occasion of the year, it’s one of my favourite ads of the decade, and it’s a Tide ad

Way back in 2015 I was briefing a few teams on iPad. Some of the work was due to run on preroll, so I brought up the fact that we all hate that media space with a passion, smashing the ‘Skip Ad’ button like an epileptic woodpecker until the offending crap leaves our screens.

I had no idea what the solution might look like, but to me it seemed essential that the first few seconds should grab the viewer’s attention with enough power to divert them from the ‘Skip’ button.

During the development process the perfect answer arrived, but it wasn’t from one of my teams; it was from The Martin Agency on behalf of their insurance client, Geico. (To be honest, the whole Geico campaign is probably worth a ‘best of the decade’ mention. It’s consistently some of the best stuff that runs properly on TV over here.):

I concede that they didn’t manage to maintain the level of humour through all three executions (funny how hard it is to do that. From the outside it looks like it would be easy to come up with another 10/10 hilarious one of these, but like Economist lines, further classics are much harder to come by than it might appear. In fact, kudos to the team for coming up with a campaign idea that seems like it would be easy to continue) but the reason I love these so much is partly the ads themselves, but to a greater extent it’s the genius of turning something so hated into something so loved.

99.9999% of preroll is both dreadful and loathed. If I gave you the brief to make it so loved and memorable that you would look forward to it, laugh out loud at it and share it, I think you might consider that to be a tall order. But that’s what Team Unskippable did. And not only was it all those good things, the spots were fully branded and actually worked really well:

Geico Senior Marketing Director Amy Furman said the ads have clocked more than 14 million views, and clearly got people to check out Geico. “The campaign ran during some record-level mobile and online quote time frames, and I think that can be attributed back to the campaign,” she said. Moreover, “there was a huge amount of sharing, not the kind we always get when repurposing our TV ads.”

So that’s why they earn their spot on this list: they’re clever, funny, effective and original, but they were also able to turn a blast of diarrhea into vintage Krug, a feat I have yet to see emulated.

I know the chorus to the Dumb Ways To Die song.

So do my kids.

So do millions of people who are never going to be hit by a train in Melbourne.

How many ads have their own Wikipedia entry?

How many ads feature sick deaths, yet still appeal to kids?

How many ads feature a song written by the copywriter, that charted in three countries?

How many ads have won the most Lions at Cannes? One, obviously.

How many ads have been banned in Russia for inciting suicide AND spawned three video games?

How many ads have inspired 85 parodies?

How many ads have reduced ‘near-miss’ train accidents by 30%?

How many ads have given us a range of toys and pajamas?

How many ads gave us a song that was used in the 45th episode of the seventh season of the Chinese dating show ‘If You Are The One’ during a contestant’s introduction video?

How many ads have shaped culture like Dumb Ways To Die?

The best thing I can say about W&K’s relaunch of KFC is that I simply cannot believe any of it actually happened. And by ‘any of it’, I mean one insane new twist to the campaign after another.

It makes the ideas of ‘brand consistency’ and ‘matching luggage’ look utterly ridiculous. Of course, it has brand consistency in spades, but not the kind of execution-to-execution similarity most mealy-mouthed marketers mean. It doesn’t give a fuck about the typeface or whether there’s a piece of punctuation in the same place each time. Instead it insists that each execution brings the crazy, the cool, the likeable, the conversation-worthy, the original, the distinctive, the noticeable, the envy-inducing and the sheer fucking brilliant.

If you’re not jealous of this work, a) you don’t have a pulse, and b) you have no idea what makes advertising great and how hard it is to do. This is integrated work taken to another level, by an agency on top form. And it wasn’t just indulgent wankery: a decade of declining sales turned into four years of growth.

Congrats to all involved.

Some of the greatness can be viewed here, but these images should give you an idea of the breadth and depth of the work:

As we approach the 2020s it must surely be time to take an arbitrary look at my favourite ads of the last decade.

Just to clarify: these are not the ‘best’ ads, or the work that ‘moved the industry forward’. They are simply my faves: subjective, personal, based on nothing more than admiration and affection. Did they work? I think so, but I’m not digging around for the stats. Life’s just a touch too short.

I’ll be counting down from 8 to 1 because they are in order of ITIABTWC Merit. Number 8 is my 8th favourite; number 1 is my number 1. I could have said that they’re in no particular order, but fuck that noise. If I’m going to stick my neck out and say that these are the winners, then I’m going to jump right in and give the real countdown.

Why only eight? Well, I just went through the crackers of the decade and could only find eight that still leave me in awe. Of course, there were many other excellent ideas and some of them might have been worth some kind of inclusion, but here’s the problem: advertising awards have become so corrupted over the last couple of decades that I no longer trust case studies. A ‘50% increase in sales’ can mean going from 4 sales to 6. ’20 million media impressions’ is unverifiable and usually some wanked-off addition of the number of followers of the Tweeters and Instagrammers who said anything about the ad. But as we all know, a lot of followers are bots or bought, so I’m just not going to play that game. Was the campaign big simply because it showed up in lots of social media spaces? No idea. You can now buy that kind of exposure (in fact, you have to), so how do I know how many people actually cared about renaming hurricanes after climate change-denying senators? And beyond that, people might have talked about it an awful lot, but does that mean behaviour changed? Again, we can only take the words of the case study makers for that, and – psssst – they’re kind of biased.

So I went for the biggies. Sorry if you did a really good radio ad in New Zealand. I have no idea if your ‘thing’ was a thing, so I’m not going to include it on this list. My chosen ones are big work for big brands, and unless I’m very much mistaken, they all ran properly at large scale. None was the ‘award’ version (again, I’m open to corrections there).

I’ve also left out an entire genre that regular readers will know I hate: the ‘for good’ stunt. You won’t see any Fearless Girls or Like A Girls here. I’ve spent far too long writing about why I think they’re bad for the industry and bad for the public. Really, they can just fuck off. I plan to do a ‘Worst Ads of the Decade’ post at some point. It’ll be full of dreadful crap of that ilk.

Another category that won’t be appearing on this list is ‘work done for questionable companies’. Yes, I understand that the general definition of ‘questionable’ can be expanded to most corporations, so I’ll be using my own somewhat subjective thumbs up/down on that front. The most glaring absentee will be Nike. I appreciate Nothing Beats A Londoner, Write The Future and Colin Kaepernick, but I hate what Nike does, so I don’t want to champion anything that promotes it. Great ads for shitty things are not great ads.

So (contentious company alert!), let’s have a look at my eighth favourite:

These ran just before the 2016 US Presidential Election, positioning Twitter, quite rightly, as the place where the important issues were being discussed.

But look what the client bought: a simple hashtag, art directed skillfully into excellent images that captured in one powerful swoop the way in which Twitter and current affairs intersect. No line. Just a little logo to sign off the work

It has the kind of confidence that can only exist as a product of authenticity. This is no stretch: the brand and the platform always connect perfectly to push each other to greater heights of significance.

You might not agree with the way in which Twitter stokes division or bends its rules to allow certain people to incite hatred, and that’s OK. I find its thumb lies far more lightly on the scale than certain other media.

So here we have a campaign of strength, simplicity, originality, authenticity and thought-provoking depth.

A worthy number 8.

What could possibly have beaten it?

Has life improved since the arrival of the internet? Yes, no and maybe.

At first glance it appears that instantaneous access to most of the world’s information, art, music, film etc. has surely been a boon to our lives. As has the ability to instantly connect with anyone in the world at little or no financial cost. Then there’s the freedom we now have to set up businesses, and wider groups devoted to our hobbies and interests. We can crowdsource petitions, money and other kinds of support at a moment’s notice. And we can spread and update important news literally every second of every day.

And yet…

The above means people have their work stolen or used without permission all the time. It’s been well documented that the superficial connections of social media have actually driven many of us further away from each other, and entrenched us more firmly in the opinions we already hold. Businesses have been crushed by massive behemoths such as Amazon, and there are far fewer new companies and much less innovation than there used to be (name a world-changing invention from the last 5-10 years…). The news is clearly much easier to fake, and therefore harder to trust, leaving us unsure of what’s really happening and why.

Of course there’s far more to it than those two short films and paragraphs, but what about whether the internet has been good for advertising?

Let’s first consider the creative process and how it’s changed. (Pardon the generalisations I’m about to make; I’m going to take a broad midpoint for the purposes of illustration.)

In 1995 a creative team would work like this: a brief comes in and they chat about it, or chat about something else before getting back round to the job in hand. Or they go for a walk, or a drink, or a game of pool. Then they might flick through one of a few dozen books in their office, or see a film, or play a few directors’ reels. At some point during this process an idea would hopefully appear in one of their minds, and it would then be expressed to be assessed, rejected or improved by the other one. Then they would draw it up using pens and paper, or write a script, and present it to their boss, sometimes with reference material, but usually not. If successful, the sketches would then be presented to the account team so that they could get the gist of the concept and present it on to the client, who would then commission it to be made, or reject it for amendments/death. The team would then find a photographer/illustrator/director/typographer or other creative person to help them realise the idea, perhaps with a bit of reference, but not much. Then the ad would get made, usually without much scrutiny from the client, who would eventually see the final thing they paid for and, hopefully, like it enough to run it somewhere.

Now things are different: the brief arrives, and the team may well still do the ‘chat, drink, pool’ thing, but there’s a good chance that they’ll soon turn to the internet and its endless resource of ‘inspiration’. Everyone has their favourites, from the infinite rabbit holes of YouTube to the design-leaning sites such as It’s Nice That, or Creative Review, so the headphones go on, the fingers slide across the trackpad, and the silence and personal disconnection begins.

Eventually one of the team will tap the other on the shoulder. After the startled reaction, off come the headphones and the discussion of ideas begins. This culminates in one member of the team (the 2019 version of ‘art director’) putting together a layout that looks almost finished, using images from some favourite photo sites and a quick bit of typography, or the addition of a typed script. There might also be a ripomatic, or at least a link to some Vimeo reference. This will then be shown to the ACD/CD/GCD/ECD or CCO, who can judge it as something close to a finished piece, with far less space for interpretation or imagination. The client will then see it and take it literally as an ad intended to run, and ask why the lady has to have a green sweater. If approved it will then be given to the photographer/director/designer, who will then make a more polished version of something kind of like the layout.

Which is better? The 1995 people using only a small frame of external reference and a marker pen, or the 2019 people with every image ever created and the computing power of 1000 space shuttles?

Clearly the former. Forcing yourself to think, and make connections from the furthest reaches of your memory, will lead to places other people haven’t yet visited. I know this will also happen when you spend an afternoon on YouTube, but feeding your brain with that much ready made stuff makes it lazy. Showing people a thing like the thing you want limits the contribution they will believe they are allowed to make. Showing a client something that looks 90% like an ad reduces their expectations, and if the finished article isn’t a lot like that almost-perfect layout they’re more likely to be disappointed than when it doesn’t look a 1995 marker pen sketch.

But that’s just one aspect of how the internet has worsened advertising. Far bigger, and far more detrimental, has been the arrival, rise and current domination of digital advertising.

I remember back in the early/mid 2000s, when it seemed as if the digital landscape was going to become an endless vista of new ways in which to deliver messages. Agencies flocked to set up ‘offices’ in Second Life; BMW Films and Subservient Chicken showed us how free, expansive and goddamned creative the online world could be; and for a minute or two many of us thought that this was going to be the bravest and newest of worlds; a universe-sized toy box where our greatest dreams would be realised on a daily basis.

Then something else happened. It would take me far too long to explain in detail, but can I simply point you in the direction of Bob Hoffman, the Ad Contrarian, who has spent a good decade puncturing the bullshit, and pointing out the many pitfalls, of online advertising? From data scraping and microtargeting to colossal fraud and huge amounts of waste, the interaction of advertising and the internet has led to some dreadful consequences. Our industry has fueled much of anything you hate about being online, and it hasn’t even resulted in better, more effective advertising.

But this is a somewhat creative blog, so I’m going to concentrate on that part of the process.

Digital advertising prioritises data, information and precision targeting over engagement, entertainment and memorability. Have a read of this excellent post by Martin Weigel, Head of Planning at W&K Amsterdam, and you’ll be led through a forensic explanation of why and how ads have become more boring, annoying and unlikeable. They are entirely made for the left side of your brain, ignoring the right side because the only priority is hitting endless measurements of reach without a thought for memorability or enjoyment.

And this is where advertising is continuing to head. Search and social are gobbling up increasing proportions of adspend, along with every other ad-funded website, from the New York Times to Pornhub. So this is what our foreseeable future looks like, and if you work in an agency, trying to add something positive to people’s lives with your creativity, your briefs and budgets are steadily dwindling to the kind of levels that make success far more the exception than the rule.

There are millions of ads all over the internet, with the number increasing at an increasing rate every single day. But when did you last see a good one? When did you last see a ‘not bad’ one? What percentage of internet-based advertising is anything other than dreary, simplistic, ugly and/or annoying? Even the targeting, for which we have given up so much, is poor. I receive ads for all sorts of things I’m not interested in, from ladies’ shoes to gigs for bands I’ve never listened to. Maybe there’s some algorithm somewhere that says I’ll respond to that kind of thing, but if so, it’s shite.

And you might have noticed that the BMW Films and Subservient Chickens seem to have dried up. The former appeared nearly twenty years ago, and the latter in 2005. The last fifteen years have been an arid desert of creativity, even when it comes to the kind of show-pony creativity Cannes encourages us to laud. There’s nothing making you happy, inspired, entertained, joyful or enthralled. And as a percentage of ‘millions’, ‘fuck-all’ is a pretty dismal strike rate.

If you’re an advertising creative you’ve almost certainly worked on a brief for an ad destined to appear somewhere on the internet. Have you shown that work to your mum? Have you explained it to a cab driver? Have you smiled in satisfaction as a talk show host repeated your online endline? I’m willing to be a pound or two that the answer is overwhelmingly ‘no’.

So the creative process has been compromised, the opportunities for excellence are decreasing every day, and the ads that do appear are crap, and enable lots of awful consequences.

In the words of AOL, as far as creative advertising goes, the internet is a bad thing.

Zadie Smith on transatlantic fashion.

Yachts are for cunts, basically (thanks, A).

Prince archives.

Someone has uploaded all the old Argos catalogues, and they’re amazing.

Urban Tetris (thanks, J).

Brilliant Japanese Halloween costumes (thanks, J).

This whole series is going to be based on the incontrovertible truth that ads aren’t as good as they used to be. You might not agree with this. If so, watch the best ads of twenty years ago, then the best ads of today.

I assume you now agree.

If memory serves, back in those days there was no such thing as a formal treatment from a director. You’d just look through some umatics to check out someone who might be good for the job, maybe narrow the list to two or three, then meet them for a chat.

That chat was something of a two-way street, where the creative team would feel out the director and vice versa. Afterwards you’d all have a good idea of whether or not you’d want to work together, so you’d award the job, hope the director liked you as much as you liked him or her, and go and make a commercial message on behalf of a person or corporation..

Some time in the early 2000s the treatment was added to the process.

Treatments, or some sort of expanded version of the director’s vision laid out on pages, or as a Keynote presentation, existed before then, but they weren’t essential. Some directors used them to work out their process, then shared some or all of it with the creative team. Others just went to the pub and scribbled their ‘vision’ on the back of some beer mats.

I believe the first instance of using a treatment to win a job was the big-ass document Tarsem produced to convince BBH to allow him to direct this:

Although that was made in 1992, Tarsem’s extra effort might inadvertently have kicked off an arms race from which there has yet to be a retreat: if Director A offers a big document of photographic references, name-drops of classic DoPs, a page or three of arse-kissing (‘First, I just want to say how much I love this script, yadda yadda yadda‘), and the occasional use of film jargon, such as ‘anamorphic lenses’, then Director B is going to look lazy and uninterested unless they do the same.

A treatment is (supposedly) an indication of intent, but it’s also (supposedly) a demonstration of how much the director wants to do the job, conveying the extent to which they will be inclined to put in extra hours on the set, or call in post-house favours to perfect the CGI, just for you. Most people like having their egos stroked, so it also serves that purpose.

(I think this is the moment to point out that many treatments are not actually written by the director. Instead, the production company employs treatment writers who specialise in making such things look real purty, writing them with evocative élan and sourcing some great images from books about Nan Goldin or Corinne Day. Sometimes they do this with the director, in order to more accurately reflect that all-important vision, but sometimes they just get a recording of the initial meeting and kind of parrot it back to the agency. It might also be worth mentioning that – gasp! – the finished result doesn’t always correlate entirely with the promises in the treatment.)

And now it is de rigueur; an ‘essential’ part of the process, as worthy of a calendar entry as the shoot itself.

But if the ads are now worse than they were in the pre-treatment days (and they most certainly are), why do we now insist on ‘treatment o’clock’, as I heard one CD refer to it?

I know correlation doesn’t mean causation, but perhaps the rise of this extra prep has contributed to the fall in standards. It’s possible that the extra time spent on these documents is time that might otherwise have been spent on more useful endeavours. These could be anything from visiting more locations, meeting more potential DoPs, or having a bath where more and better ideas might arrive.

It might also be the case that committing to much more stuff up front reduces the space for magic to happen on the shoot. Most productions throw up new circumstances that might be incorporated into the ad, but if you’ve already nailed down the finished article (or more of it) the opportunities for spontaneous greatness are reduced.

Third, and I think most important, the treatment is an implicit reduction of trust. It says ‘I know you said some good stuff in the meeting, and we got on like a house on fire, but I need still more indications that you’re not going to fuck this up’. This is never made obvious, but both parties know it’s there, just as they know there’s a good chance the director didn’t write the treatment. Then we all sweep this weirdness under the carpet and pretend everything is above board and no one lied to anyone.

I get that in the past ads sometimes ended up in bad places that you weren’t expecting, and that perhaps a treatment would have prevented that. But perhaps it wouldn’t. Treatments by their nature offer a kind of perfection that is unlikely to be reached, making disappointment a more distinct possibility.

I certainly know of directors who would prefer not to spend the time and money creating a treatment for an ad that fails to win them the job. Just like in Highlander, there can be only one, so two or three treatments are going to be a big waste of resources, adding to the annoyance of failing to get the job. Margins are already tighter than two coats of paint, so adding in an extra (rough estimate) 10% cost to every script (including the waste of the losing treatments on other jobs) is something of a kick in the teeth. They’re essentially a director’s pitch, and all pitches are something of a shot in varying degrees of darkness.

And I think we can be sure that, as with pitches, the ‘best’ doesn’t always win. Jobs get awarded for many other reasons, so a brilliant treatment, expensively produced, might lose out to a more focused budget or a client’s whim.

So maybe we should return to the old days, when a chat and a handshake, with all their attendant implications of connection and trust, were enough to kick off some of the greatest ads of all time.

Or we could just keep adding extra pointless bollocks to the process of making ads, even though it’s clearly no guarantee of better work.

I wonder which would be the better choice…

***** SPECIAL BONUS *****

I asked a production company founder for his POV on this subject.

His response was much more interesting than my post…

I think “the Client” has a role to play in all of this.  ‘Back then’ – as you say – it was a question of sifting through some tapes and doing some meetings.  As an account man I would go to the Client and say ‘this is your script, and this (shoving the u-mat into the machine) is the bloke (always a bloke back then) who’s going to direct it’.  Okay.  Not always quite that straight-forward.  But the Client rarely needed to be ‘sold’ the Director – unless it was someone (a) without a reel (see your note on Tarsem) or (b) someone really, really expensive.  The Client simply bought into the ‘mystery’ of production.  More on that in a minute….

You are right.  Tarsem lit the fuse.  But why did it take 8 years between his three hour pitch to Larry & Rooney and ‘the early 2000s’ to become A Thing?  Partly because Tarsem HAD to pitch that hard.  He had two things on his reel – an REM promo and some MTV idents.  That was it.  He was up against Mike Seresin (old-school brilliance) and Steve Lowe (hotter than hot wunderkind).  So he HAD to pull a rabbit out of the hat.  I was at Garretts (‘Ministry of Film’), Blink and Stark in the ‘90s.  Not a treatment in sight.  So Tarsem’s treatment was a false dawn.  The big guys simply didn’t have to work that hard to get a gig.  The agency didn’t press them.  And the client didn’t know any better.  Vaughan & Anthea were pretty revolutionary with their filmed ‘conversation’ which was sent across to the agency.  But words?  Few and far between.  And pictures?  How are we even going to do that in a pre-computer, pre-www age anyway?

Actually – looking back – I think the pressure came from other places.  TV – where ‘Sizzles’ ruled the roost – had some influence.  Brett Forracker (where is he now I wonder?) had the backing of 4Creative and did some cracking treatments.  And some of the more computer-savvy directors – who knew how to combine words and pictures (‘Wow!  What even IS that?!’ ‘Um – it’s called a Word Doc’) led the way.  And then – of course – the curve was exponential.

What started as a competitive edge that helped the Prod Co win business became the albatross around its neck.  Agencies couldn’t award a job without seeing a treatment (the bigger, the bolder, the better).  And then of course the Client (who had remained pretty oblivious to all this up until now) was dragged in.  Agencies started using director’s treatments to help sell in scripts.  And then we heard that one agency was researching treatments to see which one found most favour.  Yikes!

So the whole deal was ramped up.  And out-sourced.  RSA begat a slew of in-house ‘visual researchers’ who traded on their experience and took it into the freelance market.  Then people realised that it wasn’t enough for the Director to explain what it was he wanted to do with a script.  Blow me – he had to entertain whilst he did it!  A few gags, a heart-warming intro – some writing craft.  The birth of treatment ‘writers’.   And the whole cottage industry exploded.

Treatments got more and more lavish.  And theatre was employed (Ringan’s ‘Sainsbury WW1 Christmas ad’ was delivered to AMV in a battered despatches briefcase straight from the Western Front in 1914 – or so it appeared…).  And guess what – we heard comments like ‘well the meeting was hopeless…but the treatment was stunning, so we gave him / her the job’…..Well what a surprise.

So now Clients wouldn’t even look at a Director unless there was a treatment.  And wouldn’t chose between directors (‘we recommend this guy (or girl…now), but either of these other two could do a good job…’) unless they can compare treatments.

And of course the more people see them – the more the words and images stick.  So when the finished film turns up – and there’s no shot of the sad looking boy on a bike in the rain (“But I LOVED that image!”) it’s a bit of a let down for some.

As you rightly say – it become prescriptive.  We’re going to tell you what we’re going to shoot – and how we’re going to shoot it – before we’ve visited the location, built the set, cast the talent etc etc etc.  Would Nick Kamen’s image (or anyone like him?) have appeared in a treatment for Laundrette?  Doubt it.  And would the Client have bought that image? (he was definitely a swarthy, ‘bad’ boy vs the WASPish clean-cut American image the Client was expecting).  Doubt it.  So Nick might never have been called to the Casting Session. Etc etc.  

Again – as you rightly say – film-making is like chemistry.  The end results might surprise and delight.  But there’s a degree of risk.  It might all go tits up.  And no one wants (or can afford that).  So the treatment is a sense-check.  A Risk Assessment.  A due-diligence process that tells everyone they’ve made the right decision.  If it goes wrong now, no one can accuse us of not being responsible in the process.

Could Directors be doing other stuff?  Not sure I agree with that – the time is being spent pitching on the job and that (hopefully) will pay dividends if and when the director wins the job (thinking about sets, cast etc).  But are they too long?  Almost always – a Facebook treatment went in last year at over 200 pages….  Are they too expensive?  Almost always – but who’s going to turn up in a Cortina when the other guy’s in a Merc?  And do they stand scrutiny?  Well let’s put it this way – I’ve yet to hear of agencies having a ‘creative wash-up’ after the job.  Sure – there’s a ‘financial wash-up’ to see where the money went.  But a post-match analysis to compare what they were promised vs what was delivered?  Nah.  Nobody wants to do that….
If I ruled the world two things would happen.

1.  Clients should pay the pitching but losing Prod Cos.  Nothing evil – £1000 each would do.  But if the Client demands to see the treatment then the ‘pitch’ should be a line in the budget – unless of course the Client says they’re happy to award without sight of a treatment (never gong to happen of course).  
2.  Agencies should be prescriptive about the length of treatments.  ‘5 pages and that’s it – you can send in a sixth but we won’t read it’.  And why not do this?  The most depressing thing to watch is ECDs on your shoot reading treatments for their next shoot on shitty phones on your set – swiping page after page after page.  What a waste of everyone’s time and effort.

I’ll leave you with two stories.  Neither of which are about treatments.  Both of which are about trust.  And both – weirdly – involve VW.  Tony Kaye did the PPM for God Bless The Child.  When it came to the ‘Director’s input’ in the meeting Tony bent over in his chair and put his head in his hands “I p-p-promise” he whispered “to d-d-deliver you the b-b-b-best VW commercial you’ve ever h-h-h-had”.  And that was it. Didn’t do too bad a job, did he?

And I read on Dave Dye’s blog that Frank Budgen – when it can to the ‘Locations’ part of a VW PPM opened a file in front of him, took some images out ad held them close to his chest.  He looked at each one in what was a silent room, put them back in the file and said quietly ‘“yep – I’m happy with those”.  Brilliant.

Life was a bit more fun when there was a bit less certainty and a bit more trust in the process I think….

What made the bloop and bleep noise in the days of dial-up internet.

The most dangerous amusement park in America.

14 great ads, as recalled by their creatives.

De Niro and Pacino

Twitter thread where an Oscar-winning screenwriter explains how to become one (advice applies to lots of other stuff).

The Roo York Times.

Movie accent critique: