If This Is A Blog Then What's Christmas?

Ad:
Copywriter (in case he’s a mate/twat)?
Art Director (ditto)?
Agency (5 marks off for Grey etc./Five marks added for Fallon etc.)?
Is this the blag ad you were allowed to make on the side of the boring main campaign?
Did this air between 3am and 4am on Christmas Eve?
On the Teachers’ Channel?
Is it the director’s 120″ that ran once?
Was it a real chore to get the client to buy it, or did it sail through?
Was it a chore to get the planner to drop his/her fuckwitted but well-researched strategy for this simpler one?
Has it already been done by someone else?
Big country where we might have seen it, or shitty backwater in former Soviet Union?
How long ago (five years means it never happened)?
Has it had the high profile backing of an ad luminary, even though it’s shit?
Have the entrants blown a 25×4 up to A2?
And used spot varnish on the serifs?
Did they slightly alter the cut from the one that ran?
Is it the token entry from the shit team in the big agency who might slit their wrists if it’s not entered?
Is anyone involved on the jury?
Are they important enough for it to make a difference?
Was it shot by Frank, Danny, Ringan, Fredrik etc.?
Fashionable client (Nike, Sony, VW etc.)?
Has it already won anything?
Is it a full-bleed picture with a logo in the bottom right-hand corner?

Any more?

I was alerted to this by the words, ‘Strangest thing I’ve seen today by a country fucking mile’.

It is.

It’s also NSFW.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The list of least year’s most irritating ads has come out and, surprisingly, four of the 20 ads are from WCRS.

But just how irritating are they? I can’t argue with the British Public (believe me, I’ve tried), but I actually love the hatstand insanity of Phones 4U (number 5). I wrote a post about it last year on the other blog detailing the reasons why I just can’t believe a campaign of this nature has been approved, made and run for several years:

Then there’s Churchill (number 7). Hating on insurance ads is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I think Churchill’s ads are some of the least irritating. That dog is quite funny and the scripts are much better than they used to be:

The third and most confusing entry is Oatibix (number 8). It doesn’t appear to be on Youtube, but isn’t that the ad where the couple are sitting in a layby having breakfast when a massive lorry appears with the word ‘Likeaweetabixonlysmallerandmadeofoatsbix’ (or similar) on the side. The couple then suggest that the name Oatibix would be better? I thought it was quite a good way of getting the name across.

And then there’s Holland and Barrett at number 14. I can’t really remember it, but I think there might be two characters called Holland and Barrett who work in the shop. Was it that bad? It was certainly an improvement on the Kim Wilde days.

Of course, it’s all down to personal taste and who am I to judge, but surely WCRS isn’t really the purveyor of the most irritating ads in the UK (even DLKW only has two on the list)? I always think of it as quite a nice place that makes nice advertising.

But maybe that’s just me.

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.