Thank God America's media is unbiased!!!

As a follow up to my last post about American media's obsession with all things medical, I happened to watch NBC's "World News" once more last night.

Again it kicked of with a feature on cancer, this one pointing out that mammograms are not very good at discovering early stages of breast cancer. It is now recommended that women should have an MRI every six months. But, this being the land of "NonSocialized Medicine." These cost $2,000 each, and are not covered by any insurance plans.

They also forgot to mention that just about every MRI machine in the US is made by General Electric... Which happens to be the parent company of NBC.

I wonder if that might have anything to do with all the coverage they've been giving to cancer lately?... Nahh... That's just my nasty suspicious mind. You know corporate America would never do anything as venal as that!

Tonight's "World News" brought to you by "The Hemorrhoid People!"

I’ve just watched the NBC 6 PM evening “World News.” In spite of the growth of cable and satellite alternatives, a great proportion of the US public still gets its news from the three networks. And, if you’ve ever wondered why the majority of the US population has little knowledge, or interest, in the rest of the world, you only have to watch one of these “World News” broadcasts to find out.

The opening sequence spent eight minutes on breast cancer; there was five minutes on poisoned pet food, two minutes on the 15 British sailors being held in Iran. Two minutes on Iraq dealing with the 120 people killed there in the last 24 hours. A three minute interview with Sheryl Crow the singer about… Breast cancer… And ten minutes of incredibly bad ads, with most of these being for pharmaceutical and other medical products.

Apart from the fact that “World” news actually occupied three minutes of the half hour, I am convinced that the news media’s obsession with all things medical derives from the fact that drug and medical is now the single biggest category of advertising in the US. Without it, broadcast, print and many big agencies would be in deep crap.

The funny part is that the US has the dubious distinction of having the most expensive health care in the world, whilst having the poorest record of any civilized nation. And as I read a few weeks ago, American pharmaceutical companies are now applying massive pressure in the UK for the government to approve drug advertising there… All I can say is God help you if that happens.  

I'll have a pint of that Budweiser "Rice Juice," Ta!

I had to laugh when I read in today’s BrandRepublic that the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is lining up a beer brand to fill the final tier-one domestic partnership category for London 2012.

So why am I laughing… Because, so-called “Industry sources” are saying that Budweiser will probably get the nod as the official beer of London 2012. Doesn’t anybody remember the near riots in Germany when “Bud” was named as the “Official beer of The World Cup?”

Not only was it the only beer available in stadiums, people wearing gear with competing brand logos were required to strip off and dump their clothes in dustbins! As one German put it… “You can’t drink this crap… It’s only fit for washing your car!” Plus, as it’s made from rice (doesn’t that make it Saki?) It didn’t meet the legal definition for beer in Germany.

Where there's LIFE... There's no longer hope!

There was something kind of sad today with the news that one of the great American periodicals will soon cease to exist in a printed format. LIFE Magazine, the venerable publication which has a storied history that also reflects the changing economics of print over the years… The big, glossy magazine came out weekly from 1936 to 1972, then was reincarnated as an occasional special issue, then as a monthly, and finally as a skinny newspaper supplement to accompany Sunday editions of local papers across the US.

In retrospect, that last move doesn't look particularly smart. "We hitched our star to an industry that's not growing," said managing editor Robert Shapiro. He’s dead right there, apart from the big metropolitan papers in New York, Chicago, LA etc., most newspapers in the US are in serious trouble.

The end for LIFE will happen with the final print supplement on April 20, but the LIFE brand will live on the Web in the form of a free archive of the magazine's renowned photos. On a site to be launched later this year, LIFE will post some 10 million images by such masters as Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White and Gordon Parks, 97 percent of which have never been seen by the public. The goal, editors said, is to make the site "the preeminent destination to view the most important photography of our time, both archival and contemporary." I’m not quite sure how they’ll make money at it, but I wish them luck. 

How many real consumers actually generate CGC?

Have you ever considered that the only people more full of bullshit than politicians, are people in advertising? As a demonstration of this, consider the hoopla concerning the CGC spots that ran in the recent “Super Bowl.”

Doritos ran three spots, all CGC (although in reality all the “Consumers” happened to head up minor film production outfits, or were marketing people at various other companies.) According to Jason McDonell, Director of Marketing for Doritos, “Executives know that the brand's target consumers - those between the ages of 16 and 24 - embrace self-expression, independence, "belongingness," creativity and creative control, and relevance!”

 To be honest with you, I have no idea what that means… It’s what I call “MarketingSpeak.” In other word’s, total crap that has no relationship to any world outside of the Power-Point saturated meeting rooms of Corporate America (Although I’m sure, the same applies to Corporate Britannica.)

Mr. McDonell then goes on to claim that “These attributes helped the company devise the successful campaign, which attracted 2 million clicks on the contest microsite, which pulled 750,000 users, and 2 million total video views. The contest ultimately racked up one billion impressions, equal to $36 million in paid media.” Hey Jason baby, that’s great.

And how many bags of those foul tasting chips made out of recycled beer mats did it actually sell?  

We don't have anything on this week... Let's have an agency review!

With the news today that Porsche has put its $25 million account in review I am once again reminded of how dumb this whole review process is. Not that I’m suggesting we go back to the days when it was against IPA rules for members to pitch each others accounts. Until KMP hit that one on the head and went after everything in site, doing some bloody good work in the process… Anyone long enough in the tooth to remember the wonderful “You can take a White Horse anywhere” campaign?

Anyway, three things amuse me about account reviews. First: More and more clients are using “Agency Search Consultants.” To me this is a sad reflection on the abilities of the clients marketing and advertising people. Surely they keep up with what’s going on in their business, and if one of their functions is to monitor which agencies are doing the most effective work, why do they need a third party to tell them that?

Second: The incumbent nearly always re-pitches for the account (usually at great expense) even though incumbents rarely hold on to the business.

Thirdly: The client always says this is not a reflection on the current agency or the quality of its work. The Porsche client even had the nerve to say the review was simply “process driven!” Well, whatever that means, I still have to ask the obvious question… Then why are you having a review?  

It's the rich wot gets the gravy!

I’ve been following the thread of comments on Alan Munro’s blog about the worth of corporate sponsorship of sporting events… “And now, a word from our sponsors.” I’m with Alan here in questioning the value of such activities. I sincerely doubt anyone can come up with numbers justifying the outrageous amounts of money blown on these activities.

Let me hasten to quality that… I mean the effect this profligacy may have on consumers. As far as the Company Chairman/CEO/MD getting to play a round of golf with Tiger Woods once a year because they pay him tens of millions of the shareholders money to be featured in their pathetic ads for consulting services (Accenture), I’m sure these corporate hogs consider it money well spent. They may even hoist one with Tiger at the nineteenth hole in celebration.

My best example of this was when Carly Fiorina began her ill-fated career as CEO of Hewlett Packard a few years ago, she immediately pulled the $200,000 a year the company was using to sponsor one of the world’s premier bike races for women, deeming it a waste of resources, in spite of the fact that as it was held in the state of Idaho, home to HP’s Printer Division, it generated tremendous amounts of goodwill.

She then invested $12 million a year in the Williams Formula 1 team, which got HP the privilege of having a decal on the car, along with the other fifty sponsors. Oh, it also got her lots of trips to Grand Prix’s in exotic locations, where she could drink vintage Champaign and hang out with all the other CEO’s… Again, at the shareholders expense. So, I guess for a very small, very select group, corporate sponsorship does make sense.

Steve Jobs to run for president as revenge on Obama?

No doubt most of you on that side of the pond have already seen the mash-up web ad for Barack Obama that's been kicking around on YouTube for the last week or so. Up to today, it's pulled well over more than one and a half million views.

Using footage of 'Rid's 1984 Super Bowl spot, I have to wonder if notoriously fickle Steve Jobs is pleased or pissed. Maybe the fact that whoever did it CGI'd an iPod on the hammer throwing girl might please him, ‘til he gets to the end of the spot and see’s how they’ve bastardized the Apple logo. I've seen Steve kill people for less!

I wish I had a dollar for every client that asked me for a '1984' Spot. Then I tell them that at the time it was the most expensive commercial ever made. Initially the Apple board hated it and tried to sell the air time.

Fred Goldberg, President of Chiat SF did four focus groups to prove that it was a great spot. Every person in every group hated it. And finally, it only ran ONCE. Which is one of the reasons why it remains so famous. That usually shuts them up.

Hats off to my old mate Steve Hayden, and of course Rid, for the original concept. And on a final note… Do you know any client you’ve ever worked with who after making the worlds most expensive commercial would have the balls to run it just once?

Julie Roehm... An object lesson and a warning about stupidity in the advertising business!

Readers of one of my other blogs, AdScam, will know that I have been following The continuing, and somewhat hilarious, Julie Roehm/Sean Womack/Wal-Mart legal hassle, when she was booting out from Wal-Mart after nine months, along with the agency she maneuvered in there, Draft/FCB, after five day. But today’s disclosures in the New York Times make the Sir Martin Sorrell trial look like small potatoes. Emails from Julie to Sean, intercepted by Sean’s wife are full of choice bits like… “I think about us together all the time. Little moments like watching your face when you kiss me.” Ouch!!!

There’s also information that Draft FCB officials had paid for more than $2,000 in meals for Ms. Roehm and Mr. Womack. On one night alone in August 2006, the company said, the ad agency spent $1,100 on dinner and drinks for the pair — $700 at LuxBar in Chicago, then $440 on drinks at the Peninsula Hotel. This was while the agency review process was going on! And Wal-Mart is notorious for not allowing employees to accept even a cup of coffee from a vendor, let alone a $1,100 dinner.

 It just goes to prove two things… Never think that anything you put in an email is safe… And above all else, people in advertising think they are not only a step removed from the realities of life, which they prove daily by producing unrealistic work, but beyond that, they considered themselves… Fireproof… In other words they suffered form an increasingly common ailment… “Hubris.”

With the incredible content of their emails, and their openly aggressive pitch for employment with the agency they intended to recommend to Wal-Mart, the people paying their salaries, one has to wonder at the naivety, not to mention bone-headed stupidity of these people. Wal-Mart is now suing them for ALL their legal costs. Not only will these people never work in marketing or advertising again (unless they can find someone even more stupid than they are to employ them.) They will spend the rest of their days paying off the costs of this moronic mess they have got themselves into. Serves them right!

Is the advertising business apples, oranges, or sausages? The perfect focus group question!

While speaking at the PSFK Conference in New York last week, a young lady asked me if I'd seen many changes in the business, as I had obviously been in it for a long time (The clue may have been my claret cratered, Rumpole like features).

I was about to say "Oh, lots," but then I paused to think about it, and was forced to admit… "Actually, just one!" And when she asked what that was, I replied, "New Media." Because when you think about it, most of what we do hasn't changed at all. And it's still one of the most screwed up, paranoid businesses around. Not that I'm knocking it, having hammered many corporate Titanium credit cards into oblivion over the years, thanks to my chosen profession.

In the course of doing research for my next book "The Ubiquitous Persuaders, " which is a fifty year update on Vance Packard's classic "The Hidden Persuaders," I've arrived at the conclusion that when it comes to advertising there's really no difference between apples and oranges, the end result is nearly always an orange. I could have said it's like making sausages, but the visual wouldn't have been as pretty. (Thanks to my old mate, John Turner for the orange shot) So, what's my point? Simply that having been in the business longer than most of you have been "tooling around" behind the bicycle shed, I must own up to being one of those old farts who think everything produced umpteen years ago was brilliant. Yeah, I know 90% of it was crap… But, guess what? It isn't really that much different from today, 'cos crap happens every day in the ad biz, irrespective of what year it is. And even though most stuff today looks great, with multi-million dollar budgets and CGI coming out of your eyeballs, as Gertrude Stein once said… "There's no there, there!"

Every time I see an "Award Winning" Axe spot, I think back to when I was "The Agency Fireman" at Dorland's in the seventies, doing amongst other things, all the Old Spice stuff. An account that ran on "The 3 B's Principle," Boats – Birds – Boobs. Total rubbish! But I got to shoot everything in the South of France and run up bar bills at the Negresco the size of a small African nation's GDP. And the pathetic thing is, to this day, the message hasn't changed… Splash this on, get laid! At least in those days we didn't have the effrontery to enter crap like that in the Cannes Fest.

The major changes, as I said when I started this rant, has been in media in general and new media in particular. When Packard wrote his book you could reach 80% of America via three TV channels and three magazines. Today, no matter how much money you spend, you can't efficiently reach 80% of the national audience (I'm sure it's the same in the UK) because it's so fragmented. And in some respects, unless you have a unique product which appeals to everyone, why would you want to? Now thanks to New Media, you can identify and target exactly the audience you want. But once you've done that, you still have to communicate with them; you still have to make them interested in what you have to say.

My two favourite quotes are both from famous dead ad guys… "The consumer isn't a moron… She's your wife." David Ogilvy. "People don't read advertising; they read what they're interested in." Howard Gossage. In my humble opinion, both of these should be branded on the forehead of everyone who works in advertising, and those who forget them should have their extremities chopped off until they remember them.

So why do we still resort to "Splash this on… Get laid" and "Drink this… Get pissed?" Why do we still have mums in TV spots who in spite of the baby doing a load in its nappies and the dog throwing up on her best rug, are always cheerful because she's "rewarded herself" with a cup of "Wizzo" tea. Why do airline spots always show people in First Class? Why are car ads always shot on wet roads, but the cars are sparkling. Why does most of the advertising we inflict on people bear no relationship to the reality of their lives?

I guess the point I am trying to make is that while the ways we now have at our disposal to reach and influence our audience are increasing and becoming more sophisticated in execution, the content of what we're saying, hasn't really changed at all. In fact, looking back at the work of DDB and others who instigated the "Creative Revolution" of the sixties, I'd say that in many ways, we have regressed.

We are trapped in a business that pays a great deal more than collecting garbage, even though at times we may be forced to produce garbage. And, if we're lucky, we travel the world and stay in four star hotels while emptying the mini-bar and calling room service for transvestite massage artists (I hasten to add, this is not based on personal experience!!!) And yes, we may occasionally produce something our grandchildren will not be ashamed to acknowledge. But what we do is more often than not of little importance and is never going to hang on the walls of the Louvre.

It doesn't matter if you spend a fortune on high-priced talent; shoot with the most expensive director in the Universe, CGI the crap out of it… Or go viral, or guerrilla, or stealth, or whatever. If the content sucks, the advertising sucks.

So, sit down, pour yourself a drink and watch the 1967 VW "Snow Plough" spot a hundred times. Then for something home grown, pour yourself another drink and watch the Hamlet "Photo Booth" spot 'til you stop wetting yourself.

Wal-Mart... Bad stuff... Really cheap!

Readers of my other blogs, AdScam and Adhurl, will be aware that I have had a long running commentary concerning the events preceding and after the worlds fastest account gain and loss. Namely the acquisition of Wall-Mart by FCB/Draft, only to lose it five days later over all kinds of accusations of jiggery pokery between the agency and Julie Roehm, Wal-Mart’s “Change Artist,” who’s major change was being out of a job barely nine months after she started it.  

Anyway, the point of this diatribe is that I hadn’t been in a Wal-Mart for years, until today. The reasons for this are numerous; suffice it to say that I think their labor policies are outrageous, but even more important… They are so big and full of crap, it’s depressing to walk around a place as big as Terminal 3 at Heathrow, and not find anything you would have in your house.  

OK, so I’m going to backtrack here. After a big on-line search, the only place that carried a TV of exactly the right size I was looking for was Wal-Mart, so I went there and bought it. It seems to look and work fine, and it was outrageously cheap. I know that the people who made it in “Ding-Dong” province or wherever, got paid a bowl of rice, and I’m going to be ashamed every time I turn it on. But damn, they were the only place I could find that had exactly what I wanted.  

But I promise never to go there again. Besides which, it’s full of very ugly people.   

Sanjaya Malakar... Quite possibly America's worst singer!

Being an AdHo in the ad biz, I have to keep a bleary eye on what passes for “Pop Culture” Not because I think there’s anything of any lasting value in it… That’s why it’s called “Pop” and to be honest with you, as Colonel Bloodnoch would have said… There’s too damn much of it about these days. 

But because it can sometimes have an effect on what you’re trying to do for clients who might be advertising to all those spotty teenagers who lap this stuff up, you have to pay it a bit of attention. That’s why I find it amusing to look at all the current fuss over “American Idol.” (Which as you all know is a rip-off of an equally bloody awful British program.) At least I can be thankful we don’t have “Big Brother over here.  

Anyway, at the moment there’s a big brouhaha in the States about one particular contestant, Sanjaya Malakar Apparently, he really sucks, but through a combination of Howard Stern, tween girls speed dialing votes, and Simon Cowell kicking the crap out of him, he could end up winning the thing. Which all goes to prove… I have absolutely no idea what, other than you can’t overestimate, or predict the American audience!

Who cares if the client's a ratbag. Can we do good work?

I must say, I’m rather pleased at the news today that criminal charges against four members of the board of Hewlett Packard have been “resolved,” whatever that means. Not because I feel sorry for the people, ‘cos in my opinion 80% of senior management in the US are scumbags. As for the UK… You tell me! But it’s probably well up there.  

Anyway, the point of this rant is that in my opinion HP does some of the best technology advertising around. And that’s a combination of having the best agency in America, Goodby Silverstein, and the best in house marketing talent, particularly, Garry Elliot, who I used to work with at Ogilvy (A bit of sucking up never hurt anyone.) Another thing that helped was that in the early days of the relationship Carly Fiorina was the CEO, and was smart enough to recognize good advertising. She screwed everything else up, pissing off all the employees and driving the stock price into the ground while she flew around the world in an executive jet giving speeches.  

But what the hell… All we care about is the advertising. Right? And when she left after reducing the value of the company by over a third, they gave her a $45 million golden parachute. Which brings us full circle to my point about senior management being scumbags… But I wouldn’t mind being one.

Maybe Al Gore wants a BAFTA to go with his Oscar!

So you lucky people are now able to watch the wonders of “Current TV,” on Sky and Virgin. This is the channel launched in the US nearly two years ago and described by its Chairman, Al Gore as "television for the Internet generation!" Which as today’s spotty youth seems to prefer watching TV on the Internet rather than on TV, might seem a bit of a contradiction. Every study made in the last few years shows that young people are watching less and less TV. And when you look at most of the stuff out there on both sides of the pond, I’m not surprised.

The thing about Current TV is that it relies on user-generated content for a third of its schedule, which Gore expects to be the same in the UK. Unlike a lot of the stuff on YouTube and other video sites, it doesn’t encourage whacky content. If you get the same TV format over there as is current in the US, you’ll see a screen that looks more like a computer monitor than a traditional TV. Lots of windows and streaming feeds, young trendy presenters earnestly trying to look earnest while being trendy. Heavy emphasis on the environment and good works overlaid with celebrity gossip and music clips.

But the major rule is to avoid boring its acne encrusted audience with anything that could possibly last long enough to lose their interest. In fact, in the US pre-launch manifesto it guaranteed that no segment would run longer than three minutes. I think that has changed somewhat, but it still seems to be avoiding acknowledging that the audience may be blessed with a few brains.

A lot of content on the TV station can be found elsewhere. Even the Google hourly update of top searches is available on half a dozen conglomerate feeds. The jury is still out in the US on if it’s going to make it, but I take my hat off to Gore and his investors for believing in it enough to take it to the UK

The Economist sucks up to Shelly. Is this a "Poisoned Dwarf" plot?

I had to laugh when reading a recent issue of “The Economist,” which, having worked on the account, I can tell you it should be referred to as a “Newspaper.” Never as a Magazine. Anyway, there was a piece on Shelley Lazarus, the Ober- Fuehrer-ess, of O&M. Who has, without question done well over the last fifty years or so to move up from Tea Lady to Chairman.  

But in the usual demonstration of the main stream media’s total ignorance of the inner workings of the ad biz, it describes how she single handedly came up with various campaigns, including the much publicized Dove “Real Beauty” one featuring ladies in big knickers and bras.  

Reminds me of the old Doris Day movie (Think it was “Pillow Talk”) where Doris, apart from being shot through Vaseline smeared lenses, was the account exec, and also wrote the copy, did the layouts and even shot the photo’s. I’ve had a few clients like that, but never an agency chairman. Although I’m sure if the “Poisoned Dwarf” decided to set up a studio in his basement lair, he’d probably do very well.  

And when you consider every Art Director in the WPP Empire would have to feed him work if they wanted to stay off the dole, it all makes sense. Wonder if The Economist is looking for an Advertising correspondent?