If This Is A Blog Then What's Christmas?

I recently read a statistic that the average number of apps downloaded by Americans last year was zero. Can that really be true? Now that we’ve gone through all the ‘drinkable pints’, fart noise generators and Angry Birds I suppose the momentum has slowed somewhat.

But that doesn’t mean it should stop!

My chums at the UK Creative Circle have launched an official app ahead of next week’s Creative Circle Ball. Here’s the blurb…

Keeping you up to date with everything in the run up to the biggest social gathering in the UK’s creative calendar, the handy app enables you to view all the shortlisted, award-winning entries, with the ability to save your favourites into a separate folder.

A whole host of other features have been included to help you navigate the night, including the table plan, guest list, contacts, event agenda and information, and information on all of the night’s sponsors.

There will also be a social feed encouraging guests to post their own photos and statuses from what is promising to be a memorable evening.

Jeremy Green, CEO of Creative Circle, comments: “This really is an exciting development for the Creative Circle and one that should bring out creative community a little bit closer together. The ability to save your favourite work to your phone means you have it on hand for reference at any occasion and you’ll also be able to message other app users – so hopefully plenty of congratulations can be passed around when the winners are announced.”

The app, available to both Apple and Android users, is available on the app store now.

Surely that’s far more tempting than Angry Birds: Ratchet and Clank or Temple Run: 12 Years A Slave…?

A couple of comments on last week’s post probed the revelation that I don’t watch ads on TV.

Butterbean said: ‘Serious question: Do you think you need to watch TV ads anymore to work in advertising?’

Then Mr. Gash said: I think you should Ben. And ask Prod Co people how they feel when confronted with a team who’ve written a tv script….. but admit to not watching any tv.

I can’t be sure – but I’m guessing that Fords (as an example) are designed by people who drive. 

Do Apple check their that their staff actually use the device they’re designing?

Fair points.

I then remembered that I actually watch quite a few TV ads, just not at home. When I’m in the gym I often watch TV (news channels and Seinfeld repeats, usually) and end up ploughing through the many commercials that accompany the programmes. Here are a few recent examples:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVUBTfr7eo0

Not that bad, really. But I also get a few of these (check the legals):

So I’m not sure how they slipped my mind, but as I usually end up in the gym during the morning or lunchtime I never see primetime ads, and very rarely see Apple ads in their natural habitat. Is that a problem? I don’t think so. The above are a pretty representative sample of the spots I see, and I think they give me a pretty good context for the commercial TV scene in general.

But what if I never watched commercial TV? Would my work suffer? If I go with Mr. Gash’s analogies then perhaps I should, but here are a few points that might stir the pot a little:

1. I never listened to commercial radio after about 1992. That didn’t stop me writing a couple of hundred radio ads, including some that made their way into the D&AD annual. Could I just recall how radio ads worked, allowing me to produce similar things years later? Or, beyond that, did my lack of immersion in commercial radio actually help me to make more original spots? I never found myself trying to replicate what was currently out there, and that might have helped me.
2. Are Fords designed by people who drive? Are Apple products designed by people who use them? Almost certainly, but then a large percentage of people drive and use an iPhone, so that’s a tricky question. Do you need to eat at McDonald’s to make one of their milkshakes? Do you need to wear dresses to design them? Should all barbers have amazing haircuts? I’ve often read of top chefs who rarely eat the kind of things they make because after cooking that stuff all day they prefer to eat something simple.
3. Do we have to be deeply immersed in digital advertising to create it? That’s a little harder because it tends to come to you, and if you prove to be out of the advertisers’ reach you might not see the work (I’ve mentioned before that I was an Apple fan and dedicated runner, but the first time I saw Nike Plus was in award books). I see a lot of annoying banners but very few of the ARGs and experiential stunts that tend to pick up prizes in these categories. Can I come up with a digital ad despite a lack of opportunities to experience them as a punter? I’d have thought so, so why would the same principle not apply to TV ads?
4. Much of my work involves producing advertising that works in different countries, but am I sufficiently familiar with the ad breaks in Jakarta, Seoul or Mumbai? Not really, but then I’d need the whole context of why Indian ads are more colourful/emotional/effusive etc., otherwise I wouldn’t really understand why the ads are the way they are. I’d also need the history of the country to make sure I get all the references, and that’s probably impossible. Instead I rely on the eyes and ears of our international staff, who are well versed in such things, but I still know what a good ad is, and I understand the brand I work for, so I can contribute.
5. I think most of the good ads we see come to us via industry websites and award shows. Is that like the Ford workers constantly test driving Ferraris, even though they’ll never have the need or budget to make one? Or perhaps they’ll learn something from checking the gearbox that they can apply to their own engineering. Then again, many creative luminaries say that the last place you should look for inspiration is award books, which are already out of date and feature work that has already been done. You could watch TV ads all day, but if it leaves you trying to replicate the latest John Lewis style, has it helped or hindered?

At the end of the day I think TV ads are much the same as they were 20-30 years ago. They may have differed in style, but they broadly follow a similar format, so I’d have thought that a great 1990 creative emerging from a coma in 2016 could probably come up with something good, but perhaps shot by Daniel Wolfe instead of Tarsem. So do you need to stay up-to-date with the current state of the art? Or will that do more harm than good when it comes to originality?

What about you? Do you watch much/any commercial TV, and do you think it improves your ability to do your job?

My friend David just put together these nice films about deaf dancers and their deaf dance teacher…

I do like an interesting doc, and these fall into that category. The brand doesn’t get in the way, but it feels appropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHLbBgbd-5w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN9nsdcAeYQ

How to talk at TED (thanks, S):

Joe’s barbecue and foot massage (thanks, J):

Stanley Kubrick answers a question (thanks, T).

Funny parenting tweets (thanks, T).

Germans dubbing a porno (thanks, J2):

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

Incredible trick (thanks, J2):

Game of Thrones latte art (thanks, T2):

I was just reading this article from a US advertising site. It says that characters in ‘funny’ ads tend to react in unrealistic ways, and suggests a bit more humanity of character would help.

It doesn’t do much for me, I’m afraid. I mean, The Man Your Man Can Smell Like is plenty funny without being even vaguely realistic. Same goes for The Most Interesting Man In The World.

Actually, I’m only linking to it because it made me think about humour in advertising. I don’t see many TV ads in the real world of America, and I have even less of an idea about the funny ads of other countries, but I seem to remember more ads being funnier in the past. Maybe I was more easily pleased, or just younger, but I can’t recall many ads of recent years really making me laugh.

Humour has always seemed to me to be a great way to elicit a positive reaction and make an ad memorable. This is because laughter is communication; a way of telling people you like something. So when it happens in a room of people it can give a more immediate impression that something is liked. Try watching that Ikea ad where the woman falls out of bed:

Everyone in the room might like it, but you’ll only know if you have a chat about it afterwards.

Whereas this will bring obvious and immediate approbation wherever it appears:

Now, I’m sure you can tell by the flip-phone that the above ad is a bit old. Is that indicative of anything? Not sure. It might just be my memory, but I’m sure there were more laugh-out-loud thigh-slappers 10-15 years ago (and beyond) than there are these days (please feel free to correct me with suggestions in the comments).

If I’m right, is there a reason for that? I could quickly leap to the oft-mentioned-on-this-blog brain drain that means advertising has less talent coursing through its creative departments. Writing and producing shit-hot yuck-based advertising is very hard, so if the people doing it aren’t tip-top (golly, my hyphen key is getting quite a workout today) then nor will the jokes be.

It might also be something to do with the directors. In those days Danny Kleinman, Kuntz and Maguire, Brian Buckley and Fredrik Bond, would be guaranteed to turn your 7/10 script into a 9/10 laff-fest. But aside from Mr. Kuntz, I’m not sure those people are producing funny ads anymore.

There might be another reason: fashion. These days ads seem to be heading in the direction of the tugging of the heart strings that John Lewis has popularised, or the corporate guilt trip of Like A Girl/Dove etc. And maybe it’s easier to make those ads. Once the point has been made you can tell the story with a less craft: let the mawkish acoustic version of the famous pop song do the heavy lifting, or make the most of the tears of the sad people who realise how insecure they’ve been (yes, I know the very best of these are immensely well-crafted, but the imitators are less so). By way of proof, here’s a not-very-funny list of last year’s best ads.

Are ads less funny now? Is my memory piss-poor? Do my reasons hold water? And, most importantly, do you care?

Bill Hicks’s ‘It’s just a ride’ in comic form (thanks, T).

Dude poos in London’s best toilets before his bum is sewn shut (thanks, T2).

The largest-ever analysis of gender in screenplays is more interesting than it sounds (thanks, D).

Kid’s books that are wrong.

Scorsese on framing shots and opening credits:

What’s the story behind your password? (Thanks, R&S.)

Tripmunks: all four Chipmunks movies played simultaneously at half speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7ApMCZKwY

The Doors x Steptoe and Son (thanks, D):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_o1jQkFD3I

If you delve into the success stories of anyone who has made it, the emphasis will tend to be on the twists and turns of good fortune, or the ideas that seemingly exploded from nowhere to propel the lucky genius to his or her greatness.

And that’s entirely understandable: those parts of the story provide the juiciness and fireworks that make us raise our eyebrows in wonder and admiration. The thunderbolt moment when certain lines in Hey Jude popped into Paul McCartney’s mind, making no sense until John reassured him of their greatness, are fascinating:

But the days and days when Paul (might have) walked around with shit lyrics swirling around his head, or the hours and hours where he (possibly) fretted over the melody for ‘Nah nah nah na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, Heeeeey Juuuude!’? Boring! Other than perhaps an indication of how long the period between 2/10 shite and 10/10 genius lasted, people will rarely give you an idea of the work and persistence that goes into great creations.

And I think that’s damaging.

When we want to be inspired by great artists, and we read about the one-off moments of chance, the act of creation seems more remote. How can we engineer such thunderclaps of genius? They seem to just appear to the great ones, and if we’re not among the chosen recipients we have to accept our lot and be lesser creative people. And what of those incredible coincidences of fortune that led to the chat with the lady who accidentally said the line that became the great title of the book that sold it to the big publisher etc. etc.? You can’t make those things happen to you, so why bother trying?

Well, (and people generally don’t want to hear this, hence its absence from these tales of brilliance), it’s the long, sometimes boring work that leads to the the great luck or the unexpected visits of the muse. Paul wrote music all the fucking time, for years and years and years. He did those 10,000 hours in Hamburg with the lads. So when, eventually, the lines and melodies for Hey Jude appeared, it wasn’t a result of lying around stoned (well, partly); it was the consequence of the boring old work.

But the great thing is that the boring old work is an option available to literally all of us. You don’t have to be a special person, touched by God, to be a Beatle, or Picasso, or the person three offices down who keeps winning more awards than you. You just have to put the hours in, and if you’re so inclined, an improved set of circumstances will be yours.

The great golfer Gary Player said ‘the more I practice, the luckier I get’. Sorry if that’s boring, but at least it’s possible.

(PS: if you want to see how interesting the story of the ‘work can be, check out Dave Dye’s recent account of the effort it takes to make good work better.)

How is Japan even real? (Thanks, D.):

Hand art illusions:

Muppets doing So Watcha Want? (Thanks, J):

Coppola and De Palma Have a conversation about The Conversation (thanks, T).

Buzzfeed got people high then showed them a sloth (thanks, T).

Get yourself some cash money clipz (thanks, J2).

Ghosts of architecture past (thanks, D).

British words all Americans must learn (thanks, D).

Scorsese! De Niro! Foster! Schrader! Oral history of Taxi Driver (thanks, A).

Great TED talk on procrastination (thanks, F):

Working differently at W+K London

Continue reading here.

Overall the message is: we’re cool with you working less at W&K London and we’re proving this by asking people not to email each other between 7pm and 8am; we’re only having meetings between 10 and 4; if you work weekends or evenings you can claim the time back.

The main reason is to give employees’ brains the rest they need in order to be able to function at their optimum level. Y’know: devices now mean that we’re always on, so reducing the way they can swamp you with email etc. is a good thing.

Great idea. Not sure I agree with this bit so much, though:

As pointed out in Campaign, we do get called Weekend+Kennedy sometimes. Just as ‘72 and Sunny’ get called ‘72 and Sunday’ and BBH get called GBH. But there’s a reason these agencies, and others like them, have decent creative output. It’s because we work long and hard to get to the best work we can.

‘Decent’ creative output? Interesting adjective. These agencies have acquired a reputation for having long working hours because that’s one of the methods by which they believe they can create ‘decent’ ads. Has that really been worth it? (By the way, just to be clear, I’m not saying that these three places alone are producing work that is generally of a ‘decent’ standard, nor that they don’t have long histories of creating truly outstanding ads. They have been great in the past and their current output is probably of the same standard as it has always been, relative to the other agencies; it’s just that the general level has been getting worse for years and that means that what used to be 10/10 is sometimes closer to 8 or 7.

If ‘the best work we can (do)’ is ‘decent’ then working ‘long and hard’ to achieve it suggests that all sorts of things might be wrong. Sure, it could be the constant connectivity of recent years, but maybe, just maybe, there are other reasons behind the post–Gorilla malaise in which advertising still appears to find itself. Let me think… ummm… The talent drain? The reduction in budgets? The reduction in relative salaries? The ever-shortening deadlines? The sending of money and talent in the direction of ‘big data’ and ads that follow you around the internet all the bloody time? Agencies making the industry look like it’s full depressing liars by creating non-existent work in order to win awards?

I think W&K should be applauded for giving this a go, but I hope due consideration will also be given to advertising’s other difficulties, otherwise all the peace and quiet in the world is not going to change much.

Punk band collectors cards (thanks, T).

Churchill’s booze sicknote (thanks, L).

Google’s very hard interview questions.

The Seinfeld theme as a surprisingly decent track (thanks, H).

The AMAZING Thousand Hands of Guan Yin (thanks, L):

The 20 best Tarantino scenes (thanks, J).