Campaign

Excellent points, well made, Rory. Expecting non-media professionals to produce a 30s ad in a couple of days is nonsense. And it's amazing how everyone watching thinks they can do it better. When it comes to marketing, the 'Ronseal' approach always seems to be the best bet for Sir Alan. And it was quite clear he appointed Raif as team captain to 'flush' out his arty-farty, airy-fairy side.

I was guessing this was behind the restraint - look what happened to St Lukes. But still your appearance was far too short. Everyone was watching here and was able to supply me with all the missing info. I had forgotten everything other than Atishu.

Thanks. One extra note - on the bizarre casting of Sian Lloyd. I think the Beeb had a small list of people on stand-by to be cast in the commercials, including a few celebrities. The idea of including Ms Lloyd was to give the teams an opportunity of using the tissues in a tearful, scorned-woman storyline, as she was famous for having been recently ditched by Lembit Opik. Sian's casting as a mother surprised us all: I suppose it is possible Raef simply fancied his chances with her on the assumption that she has some kind of sexual thing for men with really silly names.

Regarding point 1 - who was the client? Didn't you brief the teams, Rory? In that case, perhaps that was the source of confusion - Raef/Raif simply felt arty-farty was the best way to appeal to an 'ad agency'. If that's the case, he can't have been watching Mad Men.

You're dead right in point (5): the co-operation with your enemy is not only unfair to contestants: it's a complete mis-representation of everything business is really about. Considering that most young people's view of business is being formed by The Apprentice and Dragon's Den, it's scary to see that kind of behaviour replicated by real graduates. (Outside management consultancies where feral cannibalism has always been the norm anyway.)

Seems to me we've ended up with a country pretty much shaped by the notions espoused and promoted by such as Dragon's Den or the Apprentice, then lapped up and served on by most media... who claim they don't actually approve, but pretty much do act like this too. From rigged judging to enhanced truths, fake reality is shaping actuality. Working a treat pretty much across the board, eh? All complicit must be so proud.

I wonder how long they interview them on their own for, in order to get those daft and idiotic soundbites that make them look so stupid and arrogant. People watch that and then think that's HOW they should behave. It's actually a distortion of reality.

Here are my thoughts: http://www.brandrepublic.com/blogs/showpost/099934c6-3bf7-4aca-bbdb-39e7db665791/

Looking forward to seeing the episode (downloading on iPlayer now). Interesting comments Rory but this is one media buyer who spent this morning persuading a client (succesfully) to break their habit of producing a 30 and to go with a 60 and 40 cutdown! But then I am a media-buyer with a DR persuasion so probably wouldn't dispute your generlisation too much!

Mel - I reckon it takes them, oh, about 30 seconds to generate said soundbites. As you say, it's a self-fullfilling prophecy - next series it'll be even easier to get someone to say something like: "I can talk to prince and pauper alike"

Am listening to Steve Wright and Sarah Ferguson interview Raif right now on Radio 2!

And, what gems has he come up with this time?

"We were terrified about agreeing to appear in the programme: the BBC have a track-record of making advertising people look like idiots though malicious editing. In this case, however, the programme was being made by an independent production company. They were immensely likeable and appreciative." Rory, I think you're being a tad harsh on pinko anti-ad Auntie. If this had been a fly-on-the-wall doc about an advertising agency (made by the BBC, Talkback Thames or anyone else) we would have turned it down flat. As the person who had to persuade Gary (Leih) to do this, I have to say it wasn't a concern for me because the programme was never going to be about us. It was about the candidates - we were the facilitators. We weren't allowed to provide any creative input or intervene in any way, we were only there to help them plait the rope; if they chose to hang themselves with it, that was up to them. Gilly, the director, said to me after completing the final cut of the show a few weeks ago that the candidates looked like such plonkers that we were only ever going to look good. And I don't think we came out of it badly at all. Plus, it was great fun to do and has got the agency really buzzing. Mission accomplished! I do agree with you about the director and her crew - they were absolutely delightful to work with.

@Phillip - not very interesting although I read today he's willing to get his kit off on stage if someone gives him a part in a West End show!

I think Kevin and co deserve massive kudos for running the show, while also persuading a very reluctant Gary and me to go along with it. And the production crew (from Talkback) were lovely. My scepticism about the Beeb was occasioned by a documentary still being shown on TV every year or so (now mostly on The Business Channel) where a group of us from a variety of agencies we're made to look like a bunch of tits in a pitch to Psion for "a mobile phone". A Psion mobile? I'm coming to that.... We ourselves barely appeared except for a few head-shots, but the two clients afterwards were filmed saying they didn't much like us in their generally snide and bitchy way. Yet five minutes into our meeting we told them (as they should already have known) we had the Motorola account worldwide, and so could not advertise their ruddy Psion mobile handset, which meant we had not much more to discuss - and so their on-screen abuse of us was largely for dramatic effect as we couldn't have worked with them anyway. The programme makers had claimed the programme was being made for the Open University, which was why we readily agreed to appear. It appeared on BBC2 in prime time. Worse still, the client put eight agencies through this.... only for a new, third client to appear at the final series of presentations - someone entirely univolved in any prior briefing - who threw a spanner in the process competely, utterly wrongfooting the remaining agencies. They never made a decision yo appoint an agency (I think someone got some project work) and the product never appeared. A year or so later the brand ceased to exist. Yet the film largely treated the agencies as silly and the clients as mostly blameless. They were, frankly, a couple of time-wasting tyre-kickers. Thankfully this won't be reappearing on our screens for much longer as the technology makes the phone seem comically dated. All the same, I still bear a grudge. Not really for me, but for the seven other agencies who wasted a total of possibly £800,000 in an entirely wasted pursuit of a fatuous and ultimately non-existent client.

Alan briefed them: we just gave a pep-talk, Philip. But they were expecting us to be their initial audience, not Alan. His presence was a surprise: possibly occasioned by the fact that, living in Chigwell, he finds Canary Wharf really handy to get to.

Fair enough and, to be honest, it's a moot point. You all seemed to agree on the winner, so it didn't work - whoever Raef & co thought they needed to impress. Sir Alan and his chosen ad agency have much more in common in their views on advertising than we might initially have thought.

It must have been fascinating to get an inside perspective, after last nights slightly shocking boardroom results it was very revealing how much goes on that we don't see!