Here’s a cheery special for the holiday season – an epitaph competition

I learned from the BBC yesterday that an improbable organisation called The National Archive of Memorial Inscriptions are trying to capture the most memorable epitaphs on England’s 6m gravestones before the climate obliterates them. Time, I thought, to see what epitaphs you all feel would be appropriate for the great and good in adlandJust to warm you up, here’s a gem from a 19^th century gravestone in Bideford, North Devon: Here lies Mary SextonWho pleased many menAnd never vexed oneWhich is more than can be said for the one under the next stone Latin texts used to be all the rage, for instance: Sic transit gloria mundi – which isn’t a text from the receptionist using duff transport as an excuse for failing to make it back from the weekend. In Cannis sempre erat would work for many creative directors. Wonderbra FCUKque creavit for someone in particular. Maybe Frequenter ponebat  Ben et Garry for a headhunter.  Now it’s your turn. It’s not morbid to think of epitaphs in advance for all those stars out there. You don’t have to use dog latin. English would be fine. To quote from TS Eliot, Low on whom assurance sits, as a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire would work for Sir Frank with just an ‘e’ added. I promise a special prize for the best effort. Use the ‘Have your say’ box below. 

Double standards: open season at the BBC vs tough rules for advertisers

Listening to BBC Director General Mark Thompson’s hair shirt speech yesterday, it occurred to me that there’s a rich irony out there. While advertisers and agencies take a rigorous regime for granted, our public service broadcaster has been playing fast and loose with the truth.

In our quest for politicians and the public to take our business seriously and give it the respect it deserves, I think the BBC’s disastrous fall from grace gives us useful ammunition. We mustn’t let up on A4A (Action for Ads) – even for one week in the holiday season. It is vital that the AA, IPA, ISBA and all leading advertisers and agencies keep up the pressure. We have extremely high standards under the watchful eyes of Ofcom, ASA and BACC. The proof of the pudding is in the public perception that if an ad makes a claim for the efficacy of a product, that claim is likely to be believed: “they wouldn’t be allowed to say that if it wasn’t true”.

Going back to the BBC, DG Thompson needs to cast his cleansing zeal much wider than insults to the Queen and misuse of phone-ins. How about shameless editorial bias in prioritising and slanting news bulletins? And how about relentlessly aggressive and rude interrogation of public figures? The news bias is insidious and dangerous. The routine viciousness of interviewers sets an appalling example. It must also skew coverage by putting off the honest but timid from coming on air, while encouraging liars with thick skins.

It all serves to make adland look wholesome.

What is the difference between a London agency and a Japanese businessman?

Surprisingly, it is the way they dress.

My authority for how a Japanese ‘salaryman’ presents himself is a wacky website, called www.mynippon.com.

I quote: "You must maintain the utmost cleanliness at all times. This includes short neat hair, shiny shoes, clean pressed suit and shirt (the press line in the pants is very important), plain tie with only a simple pattern, no additional jewelry and nothing other than the most conservative adornments.

Also note that any items, such as a binder or meishi (business card) case must be black only, with no patterns". Really doesn’t sound like adfolk, does it? But for the rest, agencies and salarymen have a remarkably similar business model. Both are paid for the time they put in, rather than outputs or outcomes. Both are full on – here’s the salaryman’s life:

"Typically, you are also on call 24 hours, 365 days a year to your superiors – and there is no hiding since the ketai (as the Japanese dearly call their cell phones) should be turned on at all times”.

Both are vulnerable. The salaryman’s father could expect a job for life, just as ad agencies of 30/40 years ago looked to their clients to retain their services for many years. But nowadays the salaryman’s company can run into such tough times that the unthinkable happens and he is made redundant.

Similarly accounts in London agencies have a much shorter life expectancy than in days gone by.

The client can typically look at the gap between what's in his/her budget and the fee the agency is seeking, and conclude that there must be a cheaper option somewhere else. For the agency, not being paid for deliverables is potentially a big problem.

Being paid for time rather than results doesn’t seem very 21st century somehow – even if your ketai is always on.

Is it even remotely surprising that people are fed up?

Sometimes you see a survey that absolutely confirms what you have been thinking for a long time. ‘Fear and Loathing in Brown’s Britain’ is that survey.As David Tiltman points out, Brown can take some comfort in the fact that his accession to the Premiership is at least a positive for 32% of respondents. (But 32% won’t get him elected). We all know that the level of unhappiness and dissatisfaction is not all laid at his door. His predecessor became deeply unpopular, and has to bear the responsibility for presiding over a ten year period characterised by actual decline for Britain in many of the areas about which people care most. Also a period where the old political phrase “economical with the truth” became a massive euphemism for the institutionalised spin that attempted to gloss over the many threats to our quality of life. As the survey says, bad race relations, terrorism, the effects of war, and crime make people fearful. The cost of living and debt are rising to frightening levels. Societal staples like pensions, the NHS and education seem to have been eroded. It is not surprising that young people are worried about the decline in family stability, and the increasing inaccessibility of the housing they crave. I can only imagine (not having seen the detailed findings) that most older people are particularly pessimistic, unless they belong to the happy minority of merry pensioners.  So are we to believe the ‘marketing corollary’ of all this – that depressed Britons are going to cleave to traditional favourites like Heinz, Marmite, McVitie’s, Bisto and Hovis? Personally I shouldn’t think so for a minute. They will choose Tesco and Sainsbury own labels if they stay put, and adjust very quickly to whatever’s in the supermarkets in Bulgaria and Northern Cyprus if they take off. That’s the problem with brand loyalty. It’s a cosy aspect of inertia if everything’s going swimmingly. Easily broken if things are not so rosy. Brand owners have a recourse: increase your budget for ads and other marketing communications, and spend the money only on great campaigns from great agencies.  

Is it OK for the middle classes to go back on the wine now?

Keen readers of my blog will have followed the relentless attacks by Government, its agencies and the medical profession on all pleasurable activities. Scary statistics and frightening facts seem to point to the need to discourage all forms of enjoyment – and of course ad bans and restrictions will be used to pave the way. Until now that is.Today’s Daily Telegraph carries the encouraging news that, according to ‘Italian research’, red wine (and to a lesser extent white) is effective in inhibiting the growth of the streptococci bacteria which cause tooth decay and sore throats. So not only can wine help people avert heart disease and cancer and treat wounds (don’t use a Premier Cru for this), it is also apparently effective ‘at the point of entry’ as the Telegraph puts it. This is terrific news. I challenge the Home Office and the Department of Health, together with their fellow-travellers the BMA and the Royal College of Physicians, to eat their words of a month ago about the menace to society from middle class wine drinkers (ie you and me). It is now clear that from Tunbridge Wells to Wilmslow the detached house brigade have simply been imbibing for prophylactic reasons. So far from talking about restricting the advertising of wine, the Government should be actively encouraging it, in order to reduce the burden on the NHS.