If This Is A Blog Then What's Christmas?

No pressure!

How often do you hear that phrase? For me it’s about once a day, but three times wouldn’t be odd. As I understand it, this is now what we say when someone has been given a task which involves a lot of ‘pressure’ or high stakes dependent on its successful completion. But where the hell did it come from? I understand neologisms appear all the time (‘ideate’ is one that particularly makes me want to shoot puppies in the head), but this isn’t a new word; it’s an old pair of words that seems to combine within a couple of specific circumstances: first, it can only be used in situations where pressure is being applied, then you require the presence of someone who feels the need to defuse the addition of pressure in a jocular fashion (the expectation is that a laugh or smile will follow the delivery of the words). But why that phrase and why now? Is it anything to do with an increased prevalence in pressure, or is it simply a way to get a cheap and easy laugh, or a feeling of connection?

Caveat

To be fair, ‘caveat’ has been on the table for a while, but I’d argue its use has increased a great deal in the last ten years. For those of you who aren’t 100% sure, it means ‘a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations’. In that sense it’s a perfect label for client feedback that sounds so much more civilised than ‘warning’ or ‘demand’; it’s just a sweet little caveat, and that makes it sound like a tiny woodland mammal instead of the delivery of napalm to your most cherished idea that it actually is. No idea why it gained its new status but I don’t go a working week without hearing it at least thrice.

Narrative

Are we in a new era of storytelling? Of course not, but narratives (or stories) seem to be much more common these days. I often hear it not just in the context of a tale, but as a generally accepted version of what’s gone on, eg: ‘you can’t say that player broke his leg; it doesn’t fit the narrative’. So not just a story but an ongoing version of events that one doesn’t deviate from. I don’t remember hearing it much before a few years ago because it was pretty superfluous against the robust and usual story. But now that it has its different meaning it’s gained a new lease of life (still sounds a bit wanky, though).

Any that you’ve noticed?

Now you can’t move for supermen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NKvN7U5RXQ

Judging by the above evidence this trope can produce some pretty fine work, but where will it end?

The most recent example gives us a clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8niTv9I3eCk

The less witty and original beginning of the descent down the lav. Oh dear.

Cannes is great (thanks, D):

Prince sings Starfish and Coffee on The Muppets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Iti4Td-2Oc&feature=youtu.be

Common household items that could kill you if you’re a fucking moron (thanks, T).

A huge amount of addictive fun (thanks, J).

Terrible ad placements (thanks, J).

Painting with Nigel Farage (thanks, J).

Amazing Star Wars scenes made from a single sheet of paper (thanks, G).

Shit my leg off, this is terrifying.

David Bowie’s dentures (thanks, T).

Here’s an interesting memo from David Ogilvy.

I’m guilty of all of those except 1, 3, 5 and 12 (and I was never Creative Head in New York).

I’m not sure why he’d say intolerance of mediocrity is a weakness. Sounds a bit like saying ‘I’m a perfectionist’ is a weakness: for lots of reasons it’s a massive strength. It becomes a weakness when you’re not prepared to see past mediocrity to the person behind it and try to turn mediocrity into excellence. After all, we all go through a period of mediocrity before we come geniuses. If no one’s there to help us on the journey then no improvements will be made.

Then again, I like to think I’m intolerant of mediocre movies, food, music etc. But I express that intolerance by avoiding a repetition of the experience (if possible). When it comes to mediocre staff… well, you hired them (usually), so it’s your responsibility to make them better. Most people have potential in them.

I never enjoyed firing anyone, but realised it was part of the job. I tend to look at my job as doing the nice bits for free and being paid to do the less nice bits.

I’m very happy to fly. Good to get some peace and quiet.

And my boredom threshold is quite high because I find the vast majority of what happens on Earth to be absolutely fascinating.

My other weaknesses include my left knee and the more-occasional-than-I’d-like Reese’s Nutrageous.

What are yours?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtyZMVhBkVk#t=82

An interesting aspect of the advertising creative’s lot is their team chemistry.

The overwhelming majority of copywriters and art directors work as a duo, so beyond their own individual abilities they have to try to create a successful working combination. That throws up a multiplicity of questions and circumstances, all of which can have a massive bearing on the output that ensues:

Is this possible partner Mr./Mrs. Right or just Mr./Mrs. Right Now? You have to have a partner, so you have to go for someone, but what if the perfect Yin is not available for your Yang? You have to compromise, but to what extent?

How do you find that partner? If you go to some kind of advertising college you have a couple of advantages: you’re discovering the skill and the business from the same starting point; but you also have a larger number of people to choose from, so there’s a better chance of finding your Romeo/Juliette.

What if you don’t appreciate what your other half gives you? I’ve long believed that it can be very helpful to have a team composed of a shit-hot creative and a shit-hot PR-ish person, someone who will schmooze the best briefs out of the CD and help sell the resulting work down the line, protecting it from possible damage along the way. But in the early days the PR half’s benefits may not be immediately apparent, and even later, might you resent them for being less ‘creative’?

What if circumstances lead to a change of teams later in a career? Your partner might get disillusioned enough to leave the industry; they might have to follow their boy/girlfriend to a new country; they might get fired; your CD might want to shake things up; another creative in the department might chat up your partner in the agency bar, and over a few months persuade them to leave you. Whatever happens, you then have to find another partner in your agency, or, if you are then considered to be surplus to requirements, you have to go out into the big wide world and find another partner. Are the partnerless options a bit crap? Why is a divorced person divorced? Are they damaged goods or were they just mismatched in the first place? Lots of fine creatives kissed a few frogs before finding their prince, or at least made the best of a situation that was not quite perfect.

What if your combination is just off? Two plus two can end up equalling all sorts of things if you get it right/wrong. When Tom got together with Walt it was a match made in advertising heaven. The same went for Mark Denton and Chris Palmer, Dave Dye and Sean Doyle, John Hegarty and Barbara Nokes, Richard Flintham and Andy MacLeod etc. etc. What if Walt, Chris, Sean, Barbara and Richard had been working elsewhere? What if they had never existed? Would the work of Tom, Mark, Dave, John and Richard have been better or worse? What if Dye had teamed up with MacLeod? What if Denton had joined Nokes? We’ll never know (unless they decide to go for those pairings now), but the possibilities are intriguing.

I think the very good creatives can make many partnerships work. If you go through old award books you’ll find some of them winning prizes in different combinations. But the question remains: what if Lennon had met Dylan instead of McCartney, or Neil Young had found himself somehow working alongside Pete Waterman. What works of genius have we missed? What terrible pairings has fate allowed us to avoid?

Quantum physics suggests the answers lie somewhere in the universe, but it also suggests we are all random compositions of energy that render our human forms laughably pointless.

Pay your money, take your choice.

Sign painters: keepers of the craft:

An oral history of Mad Men (thanks, W).

How do cheeseburgers age? In the case of McDonald’s not very much:

Everything is better with googly eyes.

Share your fucking story (thanks, V).

Good One Direction spoof:

Pulitzer nominated comics.

And some other amazing comics (thanks, T).

Beautiful food colour gradients (thanks, J).

The great combovers of Asia (thanks, J).

Yes. That’s the joke (thanks, D).

This is very funny (thanks, T).

Cam writes:

Hi Ben,

Here’s a poster currently ‘gracing’ the London Underground:

‘Men have status. Boys are busy updating theirs’?

Seriously?

In 2015?

1.3bn people use Facebook. Is Schweppes really suggesting that it’s more mature not be one of the, say, 500m ‘boys’ who update their statuses? It’s not as if it’s 2007 and Facebook is a niche thing used by little kids. EVERYONE is on Facebook; that means a lot people update their status at some point or another; that means lots of ‘men’ are among those people (including Lee Goulding, who is by far the most manly fella I know).

I’d also question calling out ‘status’ as something to aspire to, like it’s 1987 and we’re all clamouring to be Gordon Gekko. Even if we can get past the outdated bling-craving that feels so 2005, I don’t think 35p worth of tonic water is the best way to denote status, at least not when there’s a Nebuchadnezzar of Cristal to be had.

And it’s fucking Schweppes. Here’s some news for the Dr. Pepper Snapple group who own the esteemed drinks mixer brand: a G’n’T ain’t the most masculine of drinks. I’m a big fan, but it doesn’t separate me from the boys like a straight shot of rye or a pint of bitter might.

One last thing: the model looks like an utter bell.

But it’s not just the guys who are getting it in the neck. Here’s another poster causing controversy on the Tube:

So far over 55,000 people have signed a petition asking for its removal on the grounds that…

‘Perhaps not everyone’s priority is having a ‘beach body’ (by the way, what is that?), and making somebody feel guilty for not prioritising it by questioning their personal choices is a step too far. A body’s function is far more intricate and important than looking ‘beach ready’, so in fact it is Protein World who have confused their priorities, if anyone.’ 

And many women have been taking their distaste into their own hands:

Personally, I don’t see why this has annoyed people so much more than any other ads that ‘make women feel guilty’ (by the way, only you can make yourself feel guilty. Remember that, kids!). I guess it’s a bit more explicit than the other images of idealised women that have featured in ads for decades, but I think the posters that make women feel unattractive/inadequate in a subtler way are more dangerous because there is no open dialogue about the damage they do:

I also think that all this furore will have put Protein World’s Weight Loss collection at the top of any insecure girl’s shopping list. ‘Women’ (whatever that actually means) can object all they want, but this anger isn’t going to undo hundreds of years of aesthetic fascism, and the ladies who are still under its powerful thumb will still want to be ‘Beach Body Ready’.

So, two good reasons why I’m delighted not to be in London right now.

And good luck with that General Election, everyone! From where I’m standing it doesn’t look anything like a giant fucking mess!

Here are three stats that often pop into my life that don’t explain exactly what they’re suggesting they do:

1. Rotten Tomatoes ratings: I used to think that a high RT rating was a pretty-much-guaranteed indication of a film’s quality, but then something happened. John Wick got 85% (I think it was over 90% at one point). I wasn’t the only one to be puzzled by this, but my explanation is slightly different. RT bases its score on whether a movie has had a positive or negative review, so a 6/10 review has a much value as a 10/10 and a 0/10 is the same as 4/10 (roughly speaking). So a great/shit movie that polarises (eg Inherent Vice – 71%) would get a lower mark than a so-so movie that doesn’t (Furious 7 – 82%). Is Furious 7 a better movie than Inherent Vice? Yes, if you’re an 8-year-old boy. Overall RT will point you in the right direction, but tread carefully.

2. The second one is also to do with movies. Cinemascore asks people who have just seen a movie to rate it on the school scale of A, B, C etc. As you can see, it’s pretty hard to get below a B, which is kind of odd considering how many awful movies there are out there. For example, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 gets an amazing 0% on Rotten Tomatoes but a reasonable B- on Cinemascore. Clearly the reason for this is that people who have just seen a film are the ones who wanted to see it in the first place. The legions of people with double- and triple-digit IQs who stayed away from PBMC2 weren’t forced to go and see it so that their opinions could give a fairer score. That means only the people who thought they might like it in the first place were asked and, surprisingly, they were broadly in favour.

3. The last one is about football, although I have a feeling it applies elsewhere. When newspapers report that a team has had two wins in ten games or three defeats in their last seventeen they also mean that the team has gone through three wins in eleven games or four defeats in eighteen. They’ve taken a point they want to make (this team is shit/good) and found the most illustrative fact to back it up. Obviously if they’ve lost three in nine that doesn’t sound as good as three in seventeen, so they go to the outer limit of the number of defeats, which means the next game that they decided not to include must have been a non-defeat. Obviously this doesn’t necessarily change the overall impression of the team’s form, but it is an interesting example of ‘not the whole truth’.

It seems I’m not the only one in this mood.