If This Is A Blog Then What's Christmas?

I don’t know if this the case in your neck of the woods, but where I’m from there are a lot of jobs where you place an initial before C and D.

We have ACDs (Associate Creative Directors), GCDs (Group Creative Directors), ECDs (Executive Creative Directors), the plain old CDs, and the grand poobahs, who are now called CCOs (Chief Creative Officers). We also still have juniors, plain old copywriters and art directors, and senior copywriters and art directors.

I might have missed a few (I have heard tell of the RCD – Regional Creative Director), but if you add in placements (or their equivalent), you have at least nine levels of seniority in the creative department. When I were but a nipper there were only creatives (with an occasional informal use of junior/middleweight/senior) and a CD. Some agencies had Group Heads, but until the early 2000s that was it.

In fact, here’s a handy guide to what your current job title would have been in a 1995 UK agency:

2018                                               1995

Junior Copywriter/Art Director        Copywriter/Art Director

Copywriter/Art Director                   Copywriter/Art Director

Senior Copywriter/Art Director       Copywriter/Art Director

ACD                                                Copywriter/Art Director

CD                                                  Copywriter/Art Director

GCD                                               Copywriter/Art Director

ECD                                               CD

CCO                                               CD

So how did things change, and is the new situation better?

I think the answers to both questions might be related:

1. Promotions are free, and therefore easier to hand out than raises. Even though, in this time of 9 levels, promotions have become less significant, they still give people a nice fuzzy feeling inside and a new level at which to join a new agency. So, in these straitened times, they’ve become a cheap way to make disgruntled people a little happier.
2. I think America has had these layers for longer. With the globalisation of agencies via holding companies, the practices of other countries have spread faster and harder, especially as the US office is often the mothership, imposing its ways on the rest of the world.
3. With the fragmentation of accounts and disciplines, more people are in charge of smaller and more diverse parts of a campaign’s creation. Job titles help to differentiate them, although having four CDs on a job must get quite confusing. Then again, having fifteen copywriters, twelve art directors and three CDs would probably be even worse.
4. People can’t help loving this shit. If you grew up thinking the CD was the cappo di tutti cappi, there’s a going to be a little voice somewhere in the back of your mind telling you that it’s still a big deal to become one, even though it now means you’re basically the equivalent of a 1997 ‘senior copywriter’.

Aside from it all feeling a little silly, I can’t see much of a downside. Enjoy your new titles if they make you happy, and if the dude from the social engagement agency now knows he should respect your authority then that can only smooth things along.

Thanks for reading.

Merry Christmas!

Lots of love,

Bx

NYT Year in Pictures.

60 years of logos:

Amusing ad memes.

Black Thought of The Roots on a mad freestyle session (thanks, A):

Supposedly the best movie posters of 2017.

A year of voice commands from a 5-year-old (thanks, D):

JCB hot dog:

Starlings taking off at 200 fps (thanks, D):

https://vimeo.com/110136128

Here’s a delightful guest post from Father Critmas:

People are always asking me, Father Critmas, how can I be more like you? How can I be the World’s Best Creative Director™. And I always tell them the same thing. “How dare you talk to me.”

The best films of the year?

How rubber bands are made (thanks, T):

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

David Bowie’s top 10 tips:

And Prince’s:

And Tarantino’s:

And David Lynch’s:

And Maya Angelou’s”

Christmas reputation management (thanks, R).

Last night I went to a screening of this wonderful movie:

Due to an interesting quirk of people from the movie business generally going to one particular LA cinema (the Arclight in Hollywood. The sound and picture are always brilliant) they’ve started having Q&A screenings so that Academy voters and their friends can see the stars/directors and ask them about the movie (a couple of weeks ago we went to see Murder on the Orient Express, topped off by an interview with the very affable Kenneth Branagh; Al Gore showed up for the Inconvenient Truth sequel; Margot Robbie, Justin Timberlake and Kate Winslet have also popped by).

So this showing of The Shape of Water ended with an interview with the director, Guillermo Del Toro, and two of the stars: Octavia Spencer and Doug Jones.

(I love GDT. He makes horror films with heart and humour, as well as blockbusters that have more brains than most. And he’s had an interesting life – for example, his dad was kidnapped and James Cameron gave him the money to pay the ransom.)

Here are three things Señor Del Toro said that could be applied to stuff you’re working on:

1. The relationship with an audience is like a game of tennis: you express part of the story, but for that to work, you need the audience’s response, so they hit it back, you reach that expectation and hit it over the net again. But the real trick is not to hit the ball straight at them. You need to give it something interesting and unexpected so they have to stretch a little to make the return. If you see TSOW you’ll notice yourself constantly reappraising the situation and how you’re responding to it. That’s the fun.
2. Along similar lines, you have to give the audience what they’re expecting, but not in the way they’re expecting it. So this film has a beast that’s a hero, a damsel who’s in charge rather than in distress, a leading man who’s an arsehole and a villain who’s a good guy. That helps the ball spin over the net in very satisfying ways.
3. When he was six, GDT saw The Creature from the Black Lagoon but he was disappointed that the creature and the girl didn’t get together. So he spent ages drawing them as a couple, going on bike rides together etc. Cut to 52 years later and he finally made the version of the movie he really wanted to. So never, never give up on your dream, even if it takes 52 years.

Which tech era did you grow up in? (Great charts; thanks, D.)

Privacy or pizza? Pizza.

How matches are made:

How well do you know your Christmas ads? (Thanks, G.)

Pick a country and a decade, then enjoy (thanks, J).

Cray cray video (thanks, J):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=48&v=_jolA2GYwZg

Life on London’s first AIDS ward.

Kubrick’s cameras:

Timelapse construction of The Louvre Abu Dhabi (thanks, D):

Lots of screams replaced with Tom Cruise’s weird scream from The Mummy:

Every story is the same:

Beautiful art made from rubbish (thanks, D).

Great mashups of yesteryear (thanks, T).

Great Jay-Z interview.

The one time of year UK advertising gets a big shot in the arm is Christmas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw1Y-zhQURU

Thanks to Adam and Eve DDB’s stewardship of John Lewis we now have this kind of 2-month British Superbowl, where each of the big retailers squeezes out a couple of minutes of heartwarming loveliness for our collective delectation. As it’s been going for quite a long time now, it’s easy to dismiss certain efforts as ‘not as good as last year’, or ‘not as good as that other client’s’, but I think it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate that the whole shebang actually has the entire country (and some parts of the world) talking about advertising, and that’s a rare thing these days (I even heard Russell Brand mention John Lewis’s Christmas ads on his existential-angst-themed podcast).

Hats off for that, but is there something we can learn from the phenomenon?

Well, here’s an obvious point: pretty much all the talked-about ads are long TV commercials. Sure, they sell the odd toy alongside, or make a concomitant (love that word) donation drive, but none of those extras would exist without the 500lb gorilla: a long, usually expensive, TV ad with a big media spend. That might just nudge us into thinking that TV advertising is both far from dead and still the best way to create famous work.

And you’d have to assume that these ads work, otherwise there wouldn’t be more and more of them, year after year. If John Lewis’s Christmas sales had tanked into the toilet these ads would have done the same.

Another point: good old traditional ad agencies have still got it, as long as they’re trusted to come up with the goods. A&E DDB produces great stuff every year, alongside AMV, Grey and the others. Has an agency with a strange single noun name (Mother aside) come up with the goods? Maybe, but have they matched the big boys in fame and craft? Nope.

And have these ads needed a huge amount of intrusive internet surveillance to be effective? Are they behind the indiscriminate harvesting of our personal details? Is each one laser-targeted at our eyeballs via an in-depth analysis of our every last fart and nose pick? I don’t think so.

So the upshot seems to be: good old fashioned TV ads from good old fashioned agencies still kick ass. Yes, they are the tip of the pyramid as far as ads go, but that’s looking at it backwards: clients could have more tips of more pyramids if they trusted great agencies and their creative departments to produce more great TV advertising during the rest of the year.

And yet all the natter is about programmatic, data and Googlebook.

Sheesh…

There’s a lot of noise these days about ethics, especially as they pertain to the corporate world.

Back in the Noughties, corporations simply functioned as they wished (within the law, or however they could afford to stretch it) but some added an element of Corporate Social Responsibility. Did every corporation that provided these acts of kindness do so out of the goodness of their hearts? Possibly not, after all, there’s no such thing as altruism. But the good deeds were done, so does it matter why?

Maybe, maybe not. There are actually dozens of nuanced arguments on either side. If you want to have a good read of them, check out the CSR Wikipedia page.

But now the conversation had moved on. Pretty much every industry has a perspective on its own ethics, particularly insofar as they relate to climate change, and, latterly, sexual harassment. Are they taking that interest because the public demands it, and it therefore affects the bottom line, or because of some moral aspect that affects the future of the planet?

Generally it’s a mixture of the two, and just like CSR there are vast swathes of grey in between them.

Here are some of the questions that don’t have easy answers:

Many companies have been incorporated with the financial imperative as the most important issue. If they do something that prioritises anything else above the generation of money they can be sued by their shareholders. But what if they were to lose money in the short-term by closing a coal-fired power plant and switching to solar? They might make more money in ten years’ time and beyond, but the immediate losses won’t please shareholders that need to cash out soon, or may not be alive to see the long-term benefits. So does the company risk the litigation to do what is most helpful to its future existence/moral stance, or just go for the money now?

What should the extent or nature of your ethics be? If you’re a person you can be omnivorous, vegetarian, vegan or even fruitarian (only eating fruit that has naturally fallen from trees). Is a vegan ‘better’ than a vegetarian? In terms of resource usage, yes. In moral terms? That’s debatable. In the corporate equivalent you might use your financial resources to treat your staff better by paying them more or giving them more benefits, but what if that compromises your environmental efforts? Such expenditure might mean that you can’t buy energy-saving lightbulbs or insulate your factory. Is one better than the other? That’s an impossible question to answer definitively.

What if there’s a clash between morality and law? Most countries have not codified stringent ethics into legislation. they might provide recycling bins or sign the Paris Accord, but will they treat people of all religions in exactly the same way? Will they ensure a reasonable equality of pay via proper corporate taxation? Will they allow democratic elections on a regular basis? As those of us who follow the news have seen, solid arguments backed by millions can be made on all sides of these questions. And if that’s the case, how will the finer points of subjective corporate morality survive such debates? Clearly it will be impossible to please everyone, so who gets to impose their morality, why and how?

And those are just three questions in an area with thousands. The fact that there isn’t a clear solution makes it obvious that there isn’t such a thing as ethical absolutism, only ethical relativism.

But that shouldn’t lead to paralysis. Within each question is a choice to live up to your own standards. That might mean financial compromises, or a difficult legal fight, but you simply have to decide what you want more: the benefits of the ethical decision, or an easier life in a world that doesn’t work for you (and perhaps millions of others).

Damn, I think I just posed another annoyingly difficult dilemma…