Filed under: Comment
So yesterday I saw someone had written a comment on one of my old posts.
When I checked it out, I saw it said this.
“Not only are you inarticulate, but you also show in the above and in many other posts on your blog, your narrow view and limited understanding of the advertising world.
Occasionally in the advertising industry, we feel as though we’re taking advantage of consumers, we’re operating within a shallow existence or we could be doing more for society. This blog reassures us that at the end of the day we can be reassured, that there is a lower form of scum in cyberspace.
I’m not sure what you do for a profession (obviously it is not advertising), or who would employ you, but a tip for your career – ensure the decision makers in your organisation never see your blog. Or you’ll be in the streets faster than the duration of a groan delivered by the average online user when reading one of your poorly worded assumptions in your advertising ‘literature’.”
Thanks Byron, you speak a lot of sense – please show me the light and take me to examples of your work because as an advertising master, you’re bound to have stuff that will blow our tiny, uneducated minds.
Oh and for the record, you can see why I’m so bad at knowing anything about advertising by going here.
Filed under: Comment
Remember a while ago I wrote about event sponsorship?
Or should I say, mad event sponsorship?
As I said then, when done right and done for the right reasons, sponsorship can be a really powerful and valuable tool for brands – whether it’s for driving audience resonance, improving internal/partner company morale or simply exploiting a distribution opportunity.
That said, I can’t help but feel too many companies do it badly and for the wrong reasons and the latest version of that is this:
OK, so Hyundai are one of South Korea’s most important companies and yes, I am sure a lot of people from a lot of different countries will be attending, BUT WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING SPONSORING THE NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT???
Let’s say that again, Hyundai are sponsoring the NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT!
Look, I know Hyundai make a bunch more stuff than just cars, but short of making nuclear security equipment, I can’t see the point or benefit of sponsoring this event – especially for their car business.
Fine … they’ll get to drive a bunch of dignitaries from hotel to conference and yes, it lets them show an international audience they don’t just make cheap metal [even though the powers-that-be already think they make Merc equivilents], but seriously, this is totally and utterly fucking mental.
Having read the copy, it appears some sales genius flogged this sponsorship to Hyundai under the guise of it helping ‘drive brand perception’ and ‘national pride’ – but seriously, is it going to do that???
Hell, is anyone in South Korea even going to know this event is going on?
Or care?
Then again, given the nuclear aspirations of South Korea’s crackpot next-door-neighbours, maybe they will.
I suppose that even though the chances of a visiting dignitary going back home and trading in their Merc or BMW for a Hyundai is approximately nil, making sure their car brand drives the important ‘heads of state’ around town makes a bit of sense [note: a bit] … but sponsoring the whole event?
THE NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT EVENT?
Give me a break.
I would love to know how much this cost and what they claim they’ll get out of it because to me, the only real ‘return on investment’ they’ll achieve is keeping the CEO’s ego in its deluded state for a little bit longer.
Filed under: Comment
So I recently came across an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about the ‘premium economy’ ripoff.
If anyone has read the wonderful ‘Why I Hate Flying’ book, you’ll know airlines are masterful at giving the illusion of value, especially where business class is concerned … however, in these economically tough times, they’ve turned their hand at ripping off less wealthy customers thanks to the magic of ‘premium economy’.
Sure you get a better seat, better food, more room, a bigger television screen … but with some airlines now charging up to double the price of a traditional economy seat for these little improvement, you’ll realise the airlines have focused on the word ‘premium’, rather than ‘economy’.
As any woman will gladly tell you, a few more inches can make a big difference, but when you look at the economies of those minor improvements, you realise the increase in price you’re expected to stump up is way more than it is worth and – in some cases – proportionately more expensive than a business class ripoff.
Of course, if people are willing to pay it, then more fool them.
Sure, I understand the attraction.
Apart from having knees that are simply brushing the seat in front rather than being wedged tightly against it, you can pretend you’re superior to the plebs in “cattle class”, even though they’re not plebs and – it could be argued – they’re smarter than you because they’ve not fallen for the airlines attempt to pull off a David Copperfield illusion trick.
But believe it or not, that is not what this post is about.
You see accompanying the aforementioned article were photographs comparing 3 airlines offering Premium Economy.
Cathay Pacific. Virgin. Qantas
Here are the pics …
The pic above is Cathay Pacific’s offering.
She looks comfy doesn’t she?
Of course she does, she’s only 3ft 10″ so she could sit in a child seat and still feel it’s relatively roomy.
Mind you, even at the sort of height that makes Bazza look tall, her knees are nearly touching the seat in-front so you hope that she’s not paying for the ticket because it might be a bit of a rip-off.
Talking of rip off …
If I was her I’d be pissed off.
Why?
Because there seems to be only 2 people on the whole plane and those bastards have set her next to the only other passenger.
Mind you, they both seem quite attractive so maybe they’ll end up talking, start dating and then – in less than a year – produce 2 perfect children and call them Cathy and Pacific.
Right, next up, Virgin.
Lee? Steve? Dickie? What are you doing?
I know the economy is tough, but flying a plane that seems empty is pure bloody madness.
But what about the seats?
They seem alright, but you don’t get a sense there’s much room do you?
Couldn’t they have used a better photo? Even the Cathay Pacific pic is better.
Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that all these appeared in an Australian paper and that Virgin is seen as a much bigger competitor to Australian air travel than Cathay Pacific.
No, I must be living in a conspiracy World bubble, after all, this is the photo they used to show Qantas – the spirit of Australia’s – premium economy seat …
Another nearly empty plane, what the hell is going on?
But forget that, look at the space … the comfort … the serenity.
Of course, given the photo has been taken from the front, features another midget woman and the seat appears to be in a bulkhead position, it’s no fucking surprise there appears to be more room there than the average house in Blackpool.
Biasedness?
Surely not – Australian media isn’t that petty, myopic and small minded are they?
Regardless, what this highlights is that too many airlines sell the dream but never manage to live up to the promise.
You might fool a customer once, but you won’t get to do it again. Unless you’re Ryan Air, who are more devious than the Chinese Government.
So to the Sydney Morning Herald, congratulations on being so blatantly biased, it’ll probably win you the ‘Australian of the Year’ award, even if everyone else will regard you as nothing more than a press release output for Aussie industry.
Filed under: Comment
… a couple of months ago, I was sent an email by some uber-senior strategy bod at McCann’s who resides in New York.
In the email, he said he had met someone who told him we should “have a chat”, so wanted to know when we could talk/meet with the view of discussing some very senior opportunities that might be coming up in the company.
OK, so at this point there’s a couple of things we should mention:
I have documented my many issues with McCann’s in the past, so the likelihood of me [a] working there [b] being happy there and [c] getting a job there are very remote
I don’t know who told him he should “have a chat” with me, but I’m guessing it’s a mate that thought it would be very funny. Or an enemy. Probably one and the same.
Anyway, because I always enjoy meeting new people – even people who work at places I pretty much loathe – I said I’d be happy to chat.
Nothing.
Not a dickie bird.
OK, so maybe he had read some of my anti-McCann posts of the past but surely then he would have contacted me and told me to fuck off.
To be honest, I’d of admired him if he did that – but instead I heard nothing.
I know he’s busy … I know he probably has lots of people to see and talk to … but he reached out to me and so if he can’t even find a way to communicate with someone that – at some point – he was considering for a job at his company, then it’s little surprise McCann are so bad at communicating on behalf of their clients.
With all that in mind, I am sure you won’t find this little episode amusing.
Or childish.
Probably childish.
So a couple of weeks ago, a headhunter called me and said a senior bloke from McCann’s wanted to meet me.
I have no idea what it is with senior blokes and McCann’s but after confirming it wasn’t the same guy who had given me the cold shoulder previously – even though I’d of given him the same answer – I responded with 2 questions:
1. “Can they afford to pay me US$1 million a year tax free?”
“Errrrm, probably not” came the reply.
2. “OK, is he a hypnotist?”
“I have no idea, why?” he responded, with just the right level of nervousness in his voice.
“Because if he can’t pay me a million quid, the only way he can get me to meet him is to hypnotize me”.
To be fair to the headhunter, he did persevere and it was only when I said,
“There’s not a cat in hell’s chance I want to join them”, he finally accepted defeat.
I know I’m being very harsh towards McCann’s and I shouldn’t be because not only have they done some great things in the past, they have some very talented friends who work there [some who I am lucky enough to call friends] … however I am fed up of hearing them say the same old bollocks and make out ‘change is afoot’ when all they end up doing is changing people rather than changing the very attitudes and processes that are holding them back.
Just a few years ago, McCann’s were riding high – at least in terms of clients and cash – now they’re leaking like an Italian cruise ship after the captain got distracted trying to chat up some Russian bird … which further highlights why W+K and BBH are worthy of even more praise than they already get.
Filed under: Comment
“Goodby Silverstein & Partners won the Commonwealth Bank business over four years ago and have lead the Bank’s core creative work during a time in which Commonwealth Bank ascended to the #1 banking brand in Australia. Jeff and the team had established themselves as friends and valued partners to the Bank. Their impact will be felt well into the future.”
… and then this …
“Goodby have done absolutely fantastic work over the past four years. We couldn’t be happier.”
That gushing praise comes from Commonwealth Bank Of Australia Chief Marketing and Online Officer, Andy Lark.
Not bad eh?
Seriously, if you were at an agency and one of your key clients said that, I’d bet you’d be pretty chuffed … except these words are pretty empty, because they were said just after the Commbank had ditched Goodby and replaced them with M&C Saatchi Australia instead.
Put aside the fact it was always going to be hard to have an agency based thousands of miles away from the client [despite Goodby opening a satellite office in, I think, Sydney] … put aside the fact the reason most banks hire ad agencies is to make them less hated rather than to make more cash … put aside the fact that over the 5 years, the ads that were made caused a lot of controvery in the Australian marketplace and instead, focus on the bullshit platitudes being showered over the agency deemed ‘not good enough’.
I appreciate no one wants to leave a nasty taste in people’s mouths … they want to be professional, responsible and reasonable … but those two quotes are the equivalent of divorcing your wife and leaving her with these parting words of wisdom:
“I love you more than life itself. You are the most perfect person in the World. You make me happier than I ever thought possible. You are my rock, my soulmate, my love. Nothing will ever be able to shadow the brilliance of you.”
Utter, utter bullshit.
Whether it’s for valid reasons or not, Commbank decided they didn’t want Goody’s anymore.
That’s disappointing, but it happens.
Sure, it happens a bit too often for my liking, but in these days where a couple will reach for their divorce lawyers phone number if someone has burnt the toast, it’s not that surprising to see so many corporations following the same fickle attitude to ‘relationships’.
Now I appreciate at highly volatile times, no one wants to be seen as either callous or the ‘bad guy’ … however publically smothering the injured party with praise doesn’t actually help because they end up going, “SO WHY THE FUCK DID YOU DITCH US THEN?”
Of course no one actually say’s that out loud because there’s a fear it might scare another brand from working with them … but what it all ends up meaning is you can’t actually trust anything anyone says anymore.
Is a compliment a compliment, or a precursor to execution?
Is an insult an insult, or really a sign of support & belief?
When they say they like you, are they really checking out someone else?
No one likes being told they’re wrong, bad, horrid or finished … but it’s better than being taken out back, shot in the head and then told everything you’d done was wonderful.
As with most things, ‘how you say it’ is the key, but adopting a stance of unconditional love when you’ve either just ended a relationship – or about to end a relationship – doesn’t do anyone any good, except maybe the person who instigated it all, who can now go to bed in the deluded knowledge that everyone is still happy and are still friends.
I’m not suggesting people should be nasty or intimidating or downright horrible when they’re considering – or have broken up – a corporate relationship [even though it would be bloody awesome to read] but a bit more honesty, and clarity would go a long way … especially if we want society to start believing what adland communicates to them rather than view it as the actions of con merchants.