The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Thanks for what I think [I’m not sure] is a compliment Andy – but even if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, your second paragraph is great, especially when you highlight that regardless how some agencies think/act/behave – the lethargy and delusion of the majority does have some major implications on how far/how much the better agencies can do.

For years I’ve heard agency CEO’s complain how adland has ‘lost its place at the boardroom table’ and whilst there’s many reasons for that, maybe it would help if they started talking in terms of things that actually was of interest and value to them rather than their usual “everything can be solved with an ad” approach.

In the blame game, there’s always at least 2 sides to the story and I am amazed how few in adland are willing to take a long hard look in the mirror to see what they’ve done to contribute to it … and hell, even then it doesn’t mean they’ll actually change anything, even if they can spout all the buzz words at meetings.

Ad rule #1093: Being able to prove it has more value than saying it. And when I say ‘prove it’, I mean on an on-going basis, not something someone did back in 1922. And then it was scam. Where they used a typical media channel, albeit in a more interesting way.

That’s why as much as I rate the Barbarian Group – and love the stuff they did for CNN – the ‘Fat Pig’ choccie that the Brooklyn Brothers launched pisses all over it because it was an idea that transcended media, it was simply a fucking great idea, even if they did it for themselves rather than a client.

I doubt all business and people think the advertising industry has run out of ideas but when the trend is to ask the general public to submit their executions for a brand campaign or “borrow” from youtube clips, it’s not too much of a shock to understand why many may question what adland brings to the table.

But then as Andy says, if adland is under increasing scrutiny, then so should the marketing department within many organizations.

Finally I agree with your Brooklyn Bros observation but that CNN thing was very good wasn’t it.

That’s all you have to say about this post is it Lauren? Don’t blame you … ha!

To answer your question, I have 1 word: George.

Actually I’m joking … it’s for next week [yes, I’m back to pre-writing my stuff] and the reason you probably saw it is because after working with Andy for the best part of a decade, his techno-ineptness has infiltrated my soul and I put it up before realising I’d not set the date.

You’re not missing much – though I doubt George will think that way when he sees it. 🙂

Just seen your comment John and I know why you would say that and I agree with it – however I don’t think it’s exclusively their fault, infact in my experience, when we have not been working with a CEO who is acknowleged to be more entrepeneurial [which is actually one of cynic’s core business strategies] I have quite good experiences from CFO’s, mainly because we never pitch ideas to them interms of ads but always interms of fundamentally growing their business and whilst that sounds bleeding obvious, you’d be amazed how few people forget you get a deal when the opposite party sees value in what you’re offering, not when only you see value in what you’re offering.

The problem is advertsing effectiveness is very hard to evaluate as there are so many factors that determine it’s success [despite what many agencies say] which is why many CFO’s choose to invest their companies money in areas that represent ‘less risk’ – be that advertising that follows ‘the rules’ through to investing in a new production line.

Saying that – as Marcus and I said in previous comments – CFO’s are charged with the financial management of their organisations which means protection AND growth and that is why if you present an argument that demonstrates understanding of their issues and reality in your solutions, they are very likely to give you their backing, even if there may be further discussion regarding the level of investment they feel comfortable with.

I have far less problems working with CFO’s than I do mediocre marketing directors. Infact, I would say I’ve met more CFO’s with vision than marketing folks … but like most things in life, you can’t generalise, there’s good and bad – even though in adland I’d say there is a definite skew in one particular direction, haha!

People are too afraid of taking risks, both agency and client, too afraid of being the one to screw up, too afraid of losing a safe cheque. We should be out there showing clients why they should be bold, why they should be interesting and why they should listen to what we say.

I think one issue is that we refer to it as a ‘risk’. As much as we might like to all think we’re risk positive, I bet few are – especially in areas where the investment level is high.

The goal should always be to find ways to make it sound like an incredible sensible decision – and that means really exploring the issues [big/small/broad/narrow] because as much as it’s not ‘their money’, they do represent the companies conscience and if you start referring to things as a ‘risk’ you shouldn’t really be that surprised when they say no.

To be honest that was the point of the last
A[P]SOTW assignment and the reason why we often get experts to pitch on our behalf rather than think some company would believe a bunch of bald English blokes who have a company called cynic.

Whilst adland should never mirror business directly [otherwise why would they think we can offer something they need/can’t do] it should be able to understand their minds and responsibilities and where the word ‘risk’ is concerned, you have to make it sound and look as unrisky as possible.

As we like to say, “sound, twisted logic”.

John – a bad CFO is a like a bad CMO is like a bad CEO is like a bad waiter: not very good at what they do. People who I not good at what they do are generally not very good for the company they work for.

simple rule. dont fuck off the person who pays you. thats why we have george.