• What I learned in 2010: “Mad Men” will never replace “ThirtySomething”.

    / Comments (5)

    We asked creatives around the region to share their insights into what nuggets of wisdom and soul they picked up in 2010. What shaped their view of the industry, the work - and even themselves. This is the first in the series.

    Darren Easton, Creative Director, The Cyphers Agency

    When I was in college trying to decide what career path to take, ABC’s TV series “ThirtySomething” pointed the way. Barely in my twenties, I wasn’t thinking much about the importance of family and friends — even if subconsciously it made an impression. But when Michael and Elliot left for work and walked into that agency, something about it excited me. The rest of my career story is history; I’ve been an ad man ever since.

    That was the last time advertising as an occupation was successfully portrayed to the masses on the small screen. Then along came "Mad Men". There once was a time when mindless, “getting to know you” chit-chat started with talking about the weather. Nowadays when someone finds out what I do for a living, I hear “do you watch 'Mad Men?'”

    Of course I watch it. Before I got wrapped up in the seedy storyline, I hung in there waiting for the 5-10 minutes of the show that they actually talked advertising. I was once proud that it was so successful because I thought it was showcasing my profession. Apparently what it showcases is how terrible the men in this profession actually were as human beings. People actually ask me if I drink all day, have long lunches and nudge me, making reference to how much strange I probably get on the side. Yes, I am a CD, but that does not make me Don Draper.

    I long for the days when people didn’t know much about what I actually do. Until "Mad Men", my mom actually thought I sat around drawing all day. Now my mom thinks I’m a raging alcoholic with no scruples. "Mad Men" may get me cut out of her will, for God’s sake. A lack of ethics would propel "ThirtySomething’s" Michael into periods of self-reflection and depression. Don Draper and crew thrive on having no morals. Now, instead of asking or caring what I do, people believe a TV show that takes place before I was even born.

    Now, back to those 5-10 minutes of the show where they actually talk advertising. Pitching ideas is a big part of my job, so I love whenever they pitch the Kodaks and Hiltons of the world. But, how those ads come about is another trivialization of what advertising is all about: strategy. We don’t just toss around random, hokie tag lines that would appeal to all men age 25-40. There has to be a reason behind every big idea – a USP that drives every thought. Michael and Elliott sat in that office shooting Nerf hoops for hours on end, discussing the dramatizing of a clients’ differentiation and how to make it so dramatic it would stick in your cerebral cortex and never leak out.

    Don’t get me wrong, as a professional, "Mad Men" does inspire me in one ironically, unrealistic Hollywood kind of way. I admire the swagger in their step and the conviction for their talent. The amount of moxie oozing from these ad men allows them to gladly dismiss any client that doesn’t believe in the strength of their ideas. Something I, Elliott, Michael and all ad men throughout time wish they could afford to do. I’ve done it only a few times but I’ve done it nicely without a cigarette and a glass of scotch in hand. I’ve allowed clients to beat me down and disrespect my talent more times than I care to mention. Why?…because of the things that really matter: my career, my family and a personal belief that I am good at what I do. Michael and Elliott were good men. They knew that their jobs wouldn’t love them back. Only friends and family will.

    Until the next advertising drama comes to TV, "Mad Men" is the label for all CD’s regardless of the people we really are. "ThirtySomething" defined the ad man I would become. "Mad Men" defined the ad man people think I am.

  • 5 Must-Haves for Running a Successful Contest

    / Comments (0)

    (Jocelyn Rimbey, Digital Marketing Manager, The Cyphers Agency)

    So your company has adopted social media marketing techniques. You’ve been on social networks and built relationships with your consumers, but want to take your engagement to the next level. You’ve heard that online contests can help your business get there, but you aren’t really sure what separates a great contest from the gimmicks. Don’t worry – we’ve figured that out for you.

    1. Rules and Guidelines

    The first step to having a successful contest is creating a list of rules and guidelines not just for entrants to follow, but also for you to live by. The goal is to create an airtight document that gives you ultimate control in case the contest somehow comes crumbling down around you.

    Even with a small crisis, it is still good to be able to refer to a separate, impartial source when answering questions from entrants. Say it with me – “I’m so sorry, but it’s in the rules.” Have your lawyer look at it – we aren’t kidding. Having a foolproof rule book is the way to go.

    2. A Great Concept

    This one might seem pretty obvious, but you’d be surprised how pointless some contests can be. Too often, companies focus on how contests can drive traffic to their Web site, and stop there. But the point of a contest is to engage your audience and bring new consumers into your brand community. Just having participants enter their email addresses doesn’t really achieve that.

    Creating a concept that will mobilize your target audience doesn’t have to get complicated – just look at the simplicity of the concept behind the contest we’re running for the National Chicken Council: the I Love Chicken contest. Your concept shouldn’t be so narrow that only a small niche of people want to participate, but it should still hone in on what your audience cares about. The true balance is making the contest easy to enter, but also specific enough that you get great user-generated content to use long after the contest ends.

    3. A Huge A$$ Prize

    Listen – people aren’t going to enter your contest for a chance to take a picture with the mayor of your town. Okay, a few might, but let’s face it – creative people aren’t going to pass over content they worked hard on – the kind of content that could be really valuable to your brand – for a photo-op.

    You’ve got to give people a reason to enter. Money is always a great prize, or something worth a lot of money (think tropical vacation getaway). Personal promotion is also a good incentive (think about all the bands that vied to be the next FreeCreditScore.com guys). Whatever it may be, it has to motivate people to not only enter, but to get their friends and family to vote for them too.

    4. Sharing Options

    Give participants the option to share their entry with everyone they know on their social networks. It will be easier for them to pass the contest to their buds and relatives, ultimately driving traffic to your site. But it doesn’t just do that – it greatly widens that audience that can now connect with and participate in your contest and your brand. When you make it easy for contestants to spread the word and get votes for their entry, you hand them some power in the outcome of the contest, making them even more excited to be ambassadors for your business.

    5. Crisis Communication Plan

    Regardless of how well you plan the contest, set up your voting system, and monitor entries, there will be some sort of problem or question. And if you’ve got a great concept that is married to a huge prize, people will do pretty much anything to win, meaning that they will also find anything to call into question or complain about. That is where a crisis communication plan comes in.

    Prepare for these often headache-inducing inquires by drafting messaging with the proper responses, tone, references to the rules, etc. While it won’t eliminate issues, it will help you maintain sanity as you launch your contest, making it much easier to respond to contestants in a consistent and professional manner.

    Thinking about running a contest? Seems you’ve got a lot to think about. Not sure where to begin? It just so happens that we’ve got plenty of experience. We’d be happy to hook you up.

    (Originally posted here)

  • Five Ways Your Ad Agency Will Work In 2011

    / Comments (1)

    (Originally published by The Denver Egotist)

    On the morning of November 17 I got a brief that asked me to write a post titled "Five Ways Your Ad Agency Will Work In 2011" for the Karsh\Hagan blog. And that afternoon, I saw this in Fast Company:

    Over the past few years, because of a combination of Internet disintermediation, recession, and corporate blindness, the [advertising] assembly line has been obliterated -- economically, organizationally, and culturally. In the ad business, the relatively good life of 2007 is as remote as the whiskey highs of 1962.

    Ouch.

    I wasn't surprised by Fast Company's doom and gloom. The article was just a retread of all the Big Scary Death of Advertising stories we've been reading for a few years now. But being boring doesn't make you wrong. The world of 2011 looks nothing like the one in which many of us learned our craft.

    In a 2008 interview I did with Scott Goodson on FutureLab, I said the greatest challenge for the marcomm industry was this:

    Defining for new clients how we will approach their business problems.

    I still think that's true. But while the pitch process remains a bit of a jumble, the agency business model has changed. In 2011, your ad agency will be faster and more innovative than ever before. Here are five reasons why.

    1. Collaboration: Today, culture is made with mash-ups. It's about Kid Cudi mixing Christian Bale with LCD Soundsystem. About ideas that build on each other. That's how agencies will be working in 2011. Small teams of people coming together to add fresh thinking to existing work.

    2. Content: Social media is great. But brands shouldn't jump into other folks' conversations uninvited. They should start by creating content worthy of conversation. And then listen, engage and refine.

    3. Play: Ty Montague. Kevin Roddy. Alex Bogusky. Those are three of the biggest names in advertising and in 2010 they all quit their fabulous network jobs to explore the great unknown. Experimentation, play and the freedom to fail. Those are the seeds of creativity and the path to the biggest ideas.

    4. Flexibility: To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And to an agency with a bunch of specialists with billable hours to fill, every problem looks like it requires the attention of a bunch of specialists with billable hours to fill. To combat this agencies will hire people who have flexible skill sets and similar visions.

    5. Platforms: There are fun individual executions. There are powerful integrated campaigns. And then there are flexible, infinite platforms. For instance, Karsh\Hagan's 100 Honest Answers campaign for American Crew has run its course. But the Ask American Crew platform we built underneath it will always be there if they want to use it again. Your agency should be thinking about the long, long run.

    If the brief I'd gotten had asked for a sixth opportunity, I would add happiness to this list, and define it as "a blissful childlike state resulting from the act of creation." Because I think ad agencies are much less tied to the 30-second spot than the media would have you believe. There is so much cool stuff yet to be made. And as long as we're making it, we'll be so, so happy. Suck on that, Fast Company.

    [Ed. - This post was written by Karsh\Hagan's Matt Ingwalson and cross-posted on his blog and Karsh Connect.]

  • Why Any Monkey Can Write a Great Ad

    / Comments (0)

    (originally published by The Denver Egotist)

    Have you heard of the play Words, Words, Words by David Ives? The plot concerns a variation on the infinite monkey theorem: Scientist Dr. Rosenbaum tests his hypothesis that "Three monkeys hitting keys at random on typewriters for an infinite amount of time will almost surely produce Hamlet.”

    Without giving the end away, I will tell you right now that with enough monkeys, the theory works. Infinite monkeys + infinite typewriter + infinite time = the world’s great writing. And you want to know what? The same is true of copywriting. Any monkey can write an ad given enough time and a fancy typewriter.

    Of course, in the event your infinite monkeys are devoted to other things (they were probably all bombed at the Juice party), here are a few copywriting devices to fill your quiver and write better ads.

    METAPHOR

    A metaphor is a comparison between unrelated subjects. My love is a rose. Your computer is a jalopy. My Toyota is bubble wrap (that’s how safe it is). The implication here is that by making this comparison, I can telegraph certain benefits to a product quickly. Well-crafted metaphors are elegant and simple. Remember your brain on drugs?

    IRONY

    It’s not just for your sarcastic urban hipster friends anymore. Irony is the act of saying one thing but meaning another. Stephen Colbert has built an empire of irony. This device works the best when the reader knows the truth and can connect the dots. They are fun concepts to write, because oftentimes they make a case for the exact opposite point of view from conventional wisdom. We know that homelessness is bad, but at least you don’t report to a cubicle.

    PARADOX

    A paradox is so crazy it just might work. It’s when Jerry Falwell is busted for pornography. And it’s the very definition of a contradiction in terms. My favorite ads are paradoxical, because they’re often the solutions that require the most insight. I just saw this line for Gore-Tex in Outside magazine: “People who hike in anything won’t hike in just anything.“

    SIMILE

    Remember the metaphor? A simile is like a metaphor, except you compare two unrelated subjects using the word “like.” “The ride of a Mercedes-Benz is like swaddling yourself in a magic carpet pillow wrapped in diamonds.”

    Your English teacher will tell you that it’s not as strong a narrative device as a metaphor for this very reason. You should gently sit that teacher down and explain that you’re not writing fiction. You’re writing advertising. She will be so disappointed.

    Of course this isn’t an exhaustive list. There are almost as many copywriting devices as there are monkeys in your theorem. But at least this will probably give you a good start on your road to writing compelling, interesting headlines that go beyond “Got ______?” Want more? Maybe you should hire a copywriter.

    Jordan Sher is a copywriter. Hint. Hint.

  • Step away from the ad: Stop over-analyzing creative, please.

    / Comments (1)

    (By Anna Forbes, Account Executive, The Cyphers Agency)

    For as much intelligent, strategic thought that goes into the creation of a worthwhile ad, it still amazes me how one moment of obtuse overanalyzing can ruin a perfectly good ad. We generally have less than two seconds to get a consumer’s attention and get the message across. We know this. Our clients know this. And yet when presenting creative, the meetings often go like this:

    1. The client looks at the ad and has a natural reaction (usually positive because of our kick ass work); much like a consumer would – they’re not thinking they’re just reacting to it naturally.

    2. We’re happy and relieved and talk about how much we love it, too (because our work is so kick ass).

    3. THEN the client sits and stares at the ad and starts discussing its contents (while we pray they won’t go into overanalyzing hyperdrive).

    4. After pouring over the ad some more the client starts to bring up “what if’s” and “well did you think about this…” questions and scenarios.

    From here there’s a back and forth about these “what if” concerns. We try hard to convince everyone that the target audience will be spending 1.2 seconds looking at this ad. And that in that time they’re certainly not going to take 5 minutes pondering some vague deeper meaning, like how an ad for fabric softener could really mean that someone is just plain lazy. At the end of the discussion, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Unfortunately when we lose, the creative suffers. Just imagine if that had happened to a huge brand, like Nike:

    Just Don't (Click to Enlarge)

    As an agency, we have very specific and strategic processes in place to be sure every piece of creative that we produce isn’t just interesting to look at, but an effective ad that will resonate with the target audience. So when we go through the process of creating an ad only to have someone (who most likely does NOT fit the target audience profile) decide they think a consumer might be offended or may not understand the simplest of concepts, well it just breaks our little marketing hearts.

    Bottom line: ads need to make it into circulation based on their merit from the target audience’s perspective, not your’s, your mom’s and Uncle Sam’s. Think before you overanalyze.

    Originally published here.

  • Could creativity have helped Bob Ehrlich's campaign for MD governor?

    / Comments (1)

    (by John Patterson, EVP/Creative Director, MGH)

    With Bob Ehrlich’s poll numbers slipping in the final days of Maryland’s gubernatorial race, he’s got to be asking himself what he could have done differently.

    Take it from a creative director, Governor Ehrlich. You should have been more creative.

    We all know there’s no shortage of political campaign commercials on television right now. What’s lacking is creativity.

    Both Ehrlich and Governor Martin O’Malley are using rather predictable, formulaic approaches to their advertising. Together, they’ve spent more than $8 million in six weeks on some truly forgettable messages.

    Gauzy testimonials, black-and-white attack ads, exaggeration of minor or long-ago votes: This is the grist of nearly every political commercial. And this is why so many of these spots look the same to viewers. Candidates find comfort in doing what has been done before. They are afraid to deviate from what seems “safe,” lest they risk the election.

    But doing what seems “safe” can often be the riskiest strategy, particularly for an underdog like Ehrlich, who has raised far less money than O’Malley. He has missed an opportunity to reach out beyond his base with some truly surprising and creative advertising.

    Whenever we have clients with a modest budget, we encourage them to take more creative risk than they might be comfortable with. Say something surprising. Act differently than people expect. Make a commercial that doesn’t look like everyone else’s commercial. That is our mantra for retail stores, products and services. And it’s a lesson political candidates should heed, as well.

    You can make up for a lack of money with an abundance of ideas.

    Being in the apparent lead, O’Malley may have been able to rely on advertising that blended in. Ehrlich shouldn’t have. He had a chance to endear himself to a wider audience, to win over those on the fence about his opponent.

    Think it doesn’t work in politics? Look at the late Paul Wellstone’s now-famous political ads from 1990. Wellstone, a college professor, was being outspent by a 7-to-1 margin in his race for the U.S. Senate. But he created a series of humorous-yet-biting commercials that managed to put down his opponent, Rudy Boschowitz, while leaving a smile on the faces of viewers. Here’s one of them:

    Wellstone proved it was possible to be negative and positive at the same time. Brilliant.

    This kind of strategy was custom-made for a guy like Ehrlich, who is described as a nice, “regular guy” by even some of his opponents. In fact, Ehrlich acknowledged it himself in this article recently: “I’m a lot friendlier. That’s all I can say.”

    So where was that in his advertising? Why did it mostly reflect such an angry tone? It’s understandable that the former governor would try to tap into a possible national backlash against Democratic incumbents with spots like this:

    But this spot doesn’t broaden the former governor’s appeal. If you agree with him, you nod your head. If you don’t, you don’t.

    However, if Ehrlich had followed what has become known as the “Wellstone Way,” he could have taken a path that allowed him to criticize his opponent while charming his opponent’s supporters.

    He didn’t.

    I’m not going to blame advertising alone for Governor Ehrlich’s trailing numbers. And he may, in fact, prevail on November 2. But the truth is, voters of both parties would have been receptive to a more original, more endearing approach. With so many people claiming to hate political ads, they would welcome thinking that is surprising and new.

    Because a politician who isn’t afraid to put himself out there is a politician voters will like and trust.

    (Editorial originally published at The MGH Modern Marketing Blog)

  • The Tea Party Is What It Is – An Ad Campaign

    / Comments (0)

    (An editorial by Felix Unger; originally published in the Denver Egotist)

    I rarely venture into politics in my column, for a few reasons. First, it’s usually something that gives me an enormous headache. Second, it bores most people to tears. And finally, most of the time, we can’t do a thing about it.

    When Obama won the election, he did it on the back of a very well crafted campaign that inspired everyone from Shepherd Fairey to the Hollywood elite to make a creative contribution. The HOPE message, and those iconic posters, were all part of the ethos. The nation, indeed, the whole world, was caught up in it. It was a well-executed and well-supported ad campaign. It had headlines. It had viral videos. It had guerrilla marketing. It should have won a One Show award, to be honest.

    And now, a few years later, with the Obama posters fading almost as quickly as his battered public image, we are presented with a new ad campaign. This time, it’s for the Tea Party. And make no mistake, this is just as much of an ad campaign as the one Obama used. Only this time, the message is quite different. Now, it’s FEAR that is the root of all of this.

    Glenn Beck is, in my humble opinion, a smart guy. And dangerous. I have watched and listened carefully to his rhetoric over the last few years and saw exactly what he was doing. Every tear, every outburst, every outraged scream, it was all carefully planned.

    It’s easy to write him off as an idiot, but that would imply that he doesn’t know what he’s doing or thinking. He does. The fact that I’m even writing his name here is playing into his strategy. He wants to be hated. He wants people to despise him. His crocodile tears work on millions of people, too. Because when you polarize people in that way, you create powerful supporters. The Tea Party movement being one such offshoot of his rants and raves.

    Then there’s Sarah Palin. She entered the scene during the election and refused to go away. The fact that she backed down as governor proved to me that she also knew exactly what she was doing, and what she wanted. It was all about money and power. And being governor of Alaska brings neither – not when you look at where the real money and power actually is. Her speaking engagements, books, Fox News appearances and work with the Tea Party is netting her millions of dollars and putting her right back in the spotlight. Some people think she should be president!

    So, how do you turn someone as innocuous and pointless as Sarah Palin into a potential presidential candidate? How do you elevate a loud-mouthed talk show host to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s historic speech? How do you motivate millions of people to wave signs of protest? How do you make people believe that the beliefs of the Tea Party are completely different to the old GOP beliefs, when they are in fact identical? And how do you convince people that an organization is grass roots when it’s funded by big corporate interests and backed by even bigger media outlets?

    It’s all down to advertising. Clever, strategic, creative advertising. Adolf Hitler once said, “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” He also said, “if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” And the HBO show The Wire commented, “Americans are stupid people by and large. We pretty much believe whatever we are told.”

    Look at the O’Reilly Factor, for instance. Bill calls his show “the no spin zone.” That’s like calling KFC "health food" (which they tried to do, and failed, with Kitchen Fresh Chicken). Now I don’t like O’Reilly for many reasons, not just political, but I don’t give a crap about his content. It’s an opinion show, like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and all the other pundits out there. But watch a few episodes of “the no spin zone” and tell me it’s not bashing liberals and coming out favorably for the right. That is spin. Pure and simple.

    Fox News itself says it is “fair and balanced” which is also bunk. And yet, people believe it. I think CNN is slanted too, but it’s the Fox News tagline that bugs me. Come on. Keep it real. Somehow though, if you say it, then it must be true.

    So, keep it simple, and say what people want to hear. People are upset about the economy? Exploit it. People are paranoid about losing their homes or jobs? Jump on it. People hate paying taxes? Tell them they’ll pay more, regardless of the truth.

    I’m not saying that the Tea Party movement is just a complete pack of lies. But I am saying that exaggeration, and misdirection, plays a key role in its rise. Just like we dramatize or exaggerate a benefit in an ad campaign, so the Tea Party exaggerates and dramatizes the main messages. Fear is the key. I would not be surprised if there was a creative brief for the Tea Party campaign that said something like “without the Tea Party, you have everything to fear and everything to lose.”

    The Tea Party wants to take back the country and reduce the size of government. They want lower taxes and a reduction in wasteful spending. They want to reduce the national debt. These are all points that previous Republicans have preached, almost word for word, but the economic disaster that hit the country was under the watch of a Republican. The elephant has tainted the message.

    This is where advertising comes in, again. It’s time to rebrand. It’s time to create something radically new and different, even though it’s essentially the exact same product. The Tea Party is the product of that thinking. It’s a repackaging. It’s “hey, high fructose corn syrup sucks. We know that. But have you tried new corn sugar? It’s great. It’s sugar. And you all want sugar now!”

    This mentality makes it very easy for a movement like the Tea Party to gain traction. They are nothing more than a rebranding of the Republican party, with a few new bells and whistles and some catchy new taglines. It is advertising, at its best or worst, that has done this. It’s strategic, it’s planned, and it’s working. Hopefully, enough people sniff out the smoke and mirrors and avoid falling for the hype. But I doubt it.

    Felix Unger is a site contributor, ranter and curmudgeon for The Denver Egotist. He's been in the ad game a long time, but he's still young enough to know he doesn't know everything. He'll give his opinion, you can take it or leave it. If he uses the f-bomb from time-to-time, forgive him. Sometimes, when you're ranting, no other word will do. In his spare time, he does not torture small animals. He has been known, on occasion, to drink alcohol by the gallon. Do as he says, not as he does. Email him at felix@theegotist.com.

  • Have traditional creatives exceeded their sell-by date?

    / Comments (0)

    (by Helen Klein Ross, Copywriter/Creative Director, founder of Brand Fiction Factory)

    Ana Andjelic wrote a provocative post this week on a topic that's got Adland's knickers in a twist, a piece so provocative, she's incited no less than seven comments from one irate Mad Man. Her thesis is that traditional advertising creativity is being marginalized.

    "The 'kick-ass' creative director and what he/she does is no longer culturally relevant as it used to be. Today's creativity is way more collective, iterative, and yes, humble. To deliver it, creatives got to move away from "I have an idea, and it's brilliant" MO: the artistry today is in creating environments where collective creativity can flourish."

    Ana postulates that the trend of traditional ad creatives leaving motherships to start up new enterprises has nothing to do with producing new agency models, everything to do with renegades from BDAs (hi George) setting out to replicate old models that let them continue to do what made them a success in the first place.

    I agree with Ana that traditional advertising is itself being marginalized. (Oh, for the days that Harry Crane enjoyed, when all a brand had to do was buy 60 seconds on 3 networks to hit a stationary target of 85% of the country's consumers.)

    But the creativity behind traditional advertising? Here to stay, I hope. Because non-linear marketing brains capable of producing great TV and print can be essential contributors to greatness in a multi-platform arena. At least three examples of recent digital goodness--Old Spice, Tipp-Ex and Pepsi Refresh--are products of creatives at traditional ad agencies.

    True, breakthrough creative isn't a headline anymore. (Headline: just the sound of the word in your mouth feels ancient, doesn't it?) And creating content for old media and new(ish) media require different ways of thinking. To do a great print ad, you don't have to know how the ad is printed, but you can't do great digital without understanding at least some of the technology behind it. To their credit, plenty of traditional ad types have taken time to explore the space and find that creative (and collaborative) skills they've relied on for years are valuable in coming up with new content, complete with moving parts.

    Perhaps some of the problem lies in traditional Adland's limited use of the label "creative". The longheld convention of titling one department "creative", implying that those in other departments aren't, has understandably pissed off "non-creatives" for years. Post-millennial shops like Big Spaceship have done away with the nomenclature entirely, eliminating creative from all titles because "everyone is."

    Of course, creative thinking is essential to campaign success no matter which part of a campaign you're contributing to. And as Ana points out, there's artistry in creating environments where collective creativity can flourish. But it's not the same skill as coming up with concepts for brands year after year, noise-making ideas that are on strategy, on deadline and executable within budget. So, Ana, please don't toss out all of us traditional creatives just yet!

    ________

    (Originally published here.)

    About Helen Klein Ross: I started in the business in 1977, working for a guy who could have walked off the set of Mad Men. He had a glass eye to replace one he'd lost in the War (Korea) and because of this, I hated looking at him. Not because I was freaked by the fake eye, but because it looked real and I couldn't remember which eye was which and each time our eyes met I worried I was tracking the wrong one. Like most women in those days, I started out as a secretary. The halls of advertising were clogged with secretaries, everybody had one, even some secretaries. Eventually, I was promoted to copywriter at what was arguably the best shop on the planet. I pitied freelancers brought in to work on projects no one else wanted, people aged out of the business, who had missed landing a spot on the corporate food chain. Then, I got pregnant: a condition so unusual for creatives in that era, my boss reacted by granting six months paid leave. But the day before I was to go back to work, the sitter dropped my baby on her head. The kid was OK, but I was so shaken that I became an ad-agency migrant worker like the freelancers I'd pitied--who in roaring 80s were laughing all the way to pre-ATM lines at the bank.

  • Can You Have Kids AND A Great Advertising Career?

    / Comments (3)

    (by Felix Unger)

    In one of my recent articles on advertising, the subject of kids came up in the comments thread. Kids, it seems, can cause some serious problems for people in ad agencies. Those with kids want more time with their beloved offspring. Those without kids clearly couldn’t give a rat's ass and, therefore, want everyone in the agency working at the same rate and with the same passion as they do.

    The biggest issue I had with all of this came from a comment that basically said “no one held a gun to your head and forced you to have kids.”

    In effect, you wanted kids, you now have to deal with not seeing them because you chose this career. You knew, from day one, that advertising required a greater commitment from you than most marriages.

    But why?

    If that’s the attitude, it seems apt that more and more people, good people, are leaving the ad industry for other ventures. Why should advertising require you to work 15-hour days, week after week, plus weekends and holidays? It’s not for the money, we all know that. It’s not for the amazing lifestyle, those champagne and coke parties vanished a long time ago. Why should there be this sacrifice? And why should people who want kids have to choose other professions? What if the next great advertising creative wants kids, or has them already? Should this genius be relegated to a career they do not want because they dared to be a parent?

    I really don’t understand this attitude towards people with kids. And trust me, I have seen this from both sides of the coin. For the majority of my career, I didn’t have kids. I was a junior working late on pitches when the older crews were leaving at 7pm to see their respective families. I used to beat my creative director in, and leave after him. He had two kids and he wanted to see them. What a fucking bastard!

    To be honest, I never thought that actually. I never, even in my youth, thought that people with kids did not belong in this industry. I never thought that people with wives and husbands were somehow second-class citizens. I usually thought “good for them, must be nice to have a life outside of work.” Sometimes, it would be more like “man, that guy’s been here for 10 hours and he has to go home and change diapers.” Either way, I wasn’t pissed at anyone. While the folks with kids were off home at the stroke of 6pm to go and deal with yelling and screaming and drama, I was working at the agency with a beer, or out late having a few cold ones with the other agency folks who enjoyed real freedom.

    And make no mistake, you childless peeps, kids and family take quite a lot away that you used to take for granted. While you may see these family types scurrying away early when you’re still stuck at the agency, they’re also missing out on the fun (when there is some, I know advertising is not quite party central). So, you haters of people with a family, give it a rest. Do a paradigm shift and realize that a parent is not some slacker who’s watching the clock because he or she dared to procreate.

    Now having said all of this, I refuse to use kids as an excuse for not being a hard worker. That’s just lazy. If you are working with someone who does poor work, or doesn’t put in the hours, then you have a legitimate gripe. Kids do take more of your time away, but you can make that up. You can concept at home when the kids are in bed, and you can get in early and think through lunch. As with any other important commitment in life, you need to balance work and your personal life. Balance, my friends, is key.

    And that’s a nice segue to the real crux of the matter here; can you have kids and a GREAT advertising career? Not a regular career, but the kind of resume and portfolio that makes people drool and curse your name at the same time.

    That, I think, depends on when you have kids and what kind of balance you decide upon. To be honest, if you have kids early on in your career, and want to be there for them, then you have your work cut out for you. You usually have to sacrifice a lot of your free time to build a good book and good career. That sacrifice will impact the quality of life you have with your children. Is it worth it? Ask yourself why you want(ed) kids and why you would want to see so little of them in order to produce posters and billboards.

    Later on, after you’ve built a solid career for yourself, it’s certainly easier to do great work and enjoy a better balance. People will cut you more slack if you’re an advertising genius who has already proven what he or she can do. But there’s still no getting around the fact that, unfortunately, great careers come from making great personal sacrifices. This industry demands more of your time than others, it always has and it always will. This is no reason not to have kids. As I have said earlier, you should be able to balance work and home life and still enjoy a good career.

    But to be one of the greats? All I can say is, it’s possible, but your kids may just grow up hating advertising because it robbed them of a mother or father.

    Originally posted in The Denver Egotist

    Felix Unger is a site contributor, ranter and curmudgeon for The Denver Egotist. He's been in the ad game a long time, but he's still young enough to know he doesn't know everything. He'll give his opinion, you can take it or leave it. If he uses the f-bomb from time-to-time, forgive him. Sometimes, when you're ranting, no other word will do. In his spare time, he does not torture small animals. He has been known, on occasion, to drink alcohol by the gallon. Do as he says, not as he does. Email him at felix@theegotist.com.

  • Are you talking to yourself?

    / Comments (1)

    (by Dave Spivey, Senior Copywriter at MGH)

    Edwin Newman, NBC correspondent and crusader for clear language, passed away last week. Sadly, he leaves us just as marketers need his wisdom more than ever – especially when writing their companies’ websites.

    Newman loved lancing such pretentious linguistic boils as “motorized attendance module” (translation: “school bus”) and other polysyllabic puffery. He advocated a lucid, muscular style that never lacked flair, yet never left you wondering what the heck it was you just read.

    But on many corporate websites, loosely strung clichés are the order of the day. And that means a valuable selling opportunity is lost.

    Think about it. How many websites – business or retail – brag about “our unparalleled service?” How many solemnly invite you to “leverage our capabilities?” Do you feel compelled to buy? Or just to nod off?

    It’s bad enough that such clichés are flat and uninspiring. What’s worse is that they’re self-absorbed. Advertising – particularly on the web – is not about you, it’s about your customer, your prospect.

    So promise something. Get out of that “our” voice and tell your readers what you’ll do for them. To do that, you need writing that’s concise, active and vibrant; a style that’s closer to conversational, spoken English than some plodding monologue dredged up from last year’s annual report.

    One admiring reviewer of Newman’s two bestsellers, Strictly Speaking and A Civil Tongue, described Newman’s writing as “a glass of sparkling wine in a sea of tepid Tab.” Consider that for a moment. Then ask yourself: is your website talking to your potential customers – or to yourself?

    Which taste would you rather leave in your prospect’s mouth?

    (Originally published here.)

Rocket Fuel