They want you to fit in, because then they can ignore you

By December 2 2009, 12:57 pm 30 Comments
Tagged:

Last week in his Campaign blog, Steve Henry was lamenting the fact so few agencies enjoy taking risks.

Everyone wants to be successful, but only in a safe way. No wonder most advertising doesn’t work.

Maybe the greatest art director ever was Helmut Krone. At the end of his life, someone asked him why advertising had become so predictable.

He said, “We were anti-establishment. But nowadays the kids want to be part of the establishment.”

It reminded me of a Picasso quote, “When the avante garde becomes the establishment, you’re in trouble.”

 

And the wrong kind of trouble. The dull, boring kind.

 

Personally I much prefer Marlon Brando’s response in The Wild One. He has ‘Black Rebels Motorcycle Club’ printed on the back of his jacket.

A woman asks him what he’s rebelling against. He says, “Whadya got?”

Surely for a creative person, the whole point is to get into trouble. To cause controversy.

Because if our ads can do that people are talking about them, writing about them.

We can get into the language, in the papers, maybe even on the news. And each time it’s another free OTS for our ads. Media we aren’t paying for.

The whole point is to generate the equivalent of a big budget from a small budget.

Sure if you’ve got a P&G size budget, you can afford to be safe. Your ads don’t have to work hard because you can outspend the competition.

But it you can’t afford that, your ads need to work harder. They need to get noticed and talked about. So they need to be different, they need to take risks. They need to get into the language.

And to do that, your competition isn’t just other ads. It’s all other media.

Steve remembered an LWT poster we did, for a religious programme called Credo, that got death threats.

It featured the Ayatollah Khomeini with a shadow of a hanged man on the wall next to him.

The headline said, “HE’S SAVING PEOPLE FROM CHOOSING THE WRONG RELIGION”.

We used to enjoy getting threats. It meant people were paying attention.

We once got threats to burn down Cadburys factories in India for a poster that Damon Collins and Mary Wear did.

 

It seemed innocuous enough to us. A cartoon of a man taking off his turban with a Cadburys Creme Egg underneath. And the headline, KEEP ANOTHER ONE HANDY, GANDHI.

We got often got legal threats too. We got one from the Arsenal manager who said our LWT poster helped get him the sack.

They were a boring team in those days, and Nick Wray wrote the headline. THIS SUNDAY EVEN ARSENAL FANS CAN WATCH LIVE FOOTBALL.

We even got a legal threat from the Kray twins, inside prison. Nick wrote a London Docklands commercial featuring ‘the Crow twins’, Ronnie and Reggie. It ended with on crow’s feet sticking out of a cement mixer.

The real Ronnie and Reggie said this could stop them getting a parole.

But controversy doesn’t just result in threats.

We once did an anti Third World Debt ad, featuring previously unreleased concentration camp footage.

That caused the entire German delegation to get up and walk out at Cannes.

We made those ads as controversial as possible because we had no money at all. Not a penny. And that was the only way we could get the issue on the political agenda.

But strangely enough, the ads that get you into most trouble are often the ones you least expect.

The commercial we did that got record numbers of complaints was for a company that checked brakes and steering on cars.

In a little ten-second ad, Dave Waters had an animated hedgehog say to camera, “Why don’t you lot get your brakes checked?”

Then it turned and walked off, revealing it had been squashed flat.

I think every animal lover in the country complained. And again, we got lots of free media.

Nowadays of course all this would work even better. Because everyone who heard about it could go straight to YouTube to watch the ad.

And much more hype could be generated via Twitter, Facebook, and blogs.

Now there’s more reason and more opportunity than ever to create controversy, and free advertising.

Isn’t that what creative people enjoy?

As Steve Jobs’ said, “Who wants to be in the navy? It’s much more fun to be a pirate?”

Truly creative people love to rock the boat. To upset the status quo.

That’s what disruption is all about.

I read an interview with the 85 year old Tony Benn. He said, “I had a death threat recently, I was so pleased. I haven’t had one for ages. It shows I’m not past it.”

  • http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/ Anca

    Creatives complain that clients are afraid to take risks. Wrong. Clients are afraid to take STUPID risks, indecently expensive risks. And that’s a totally different story. This year I had the opportunity to talk to many important business men and they ALL have the same opinion about ad agencies: ad people don’t seem to identify the difference between taking risks and playing Russian roulette. Keep this in mind, if your client is ready to take whatever risk you ask them to take, then you’re working for an idiot! Serious business men never accept that, they really do have their strategies and establish a limited budget for various risky experiments: new products/services, daring advertising campaigns etc. But you cannot expect them to offer you a huge advertising budget for ADVERTISING GAMES – if you think that’s the right thing to do, that makes YOU an idiot that doesn’t understand economy. At all. Here’s how real business men think: “I’ll take any risk you want me to take. On one condition: you have to take risks yourself. Here’s how we do it: I offer you a generous advertising budget, you take 30-50% of it and come up with some brilliant ads that can be done with that money. If the results are impressive, I trust your creativity and you can use the entire budget however you like. If the results are shameful, I fire you.” How many agencies have the courage to tell their clients they can do brilliant low budget ads? How many agencies have the courage to say “Hey, we only need 50% of your advertising budget, you can invest more in product design.” Clients aren’t idiots. It’s just that ad agencies offer no warranty. Do creatives usually buy expensive products that are sold with no warranty? I don’t think so. Or if they do, that’s cosmic stupidity. But yes, it’s fine if you take the risk of buying some cheap product that comes with no warranty, but seems to be a good deal. Before being creative, YOU HAVE TO BE PRAGMATIC. That’s how you learn to identify the difference between risks based on probability and risks based on idiot ad school theories. Sorry to be this honest, but I really think most of the times creativity is inversely proportional to advertising budgets.

  • Kevin Gordon
  • Gelos Grapos

    @ Anca and Trott.Agree with every word and idea you put forward but if your agency is run by “bean counters” then not only are you stopped from taking risks but the objective is to grab the clients budget and spend it as fast and as safely as possible.
    Creativity in advertising was always generated by independently thinking and owned agencies not corporate monoliths.
    Only solution is more brave young start ups!!!!

  • Gelos Grapos

    @Gordon not exactly PC but they could do a remake based on the ad industry with the Olivier part played by Sorell!!!

  • http://www.milendesign.com Milen

    You need to find the balance, the balance between creating work that stands out but also makes sense to your client.

    Sure no sensible business minded client is going to bet the farm on some hair braind ad campaign with no track record, but equally they aren’t going want something that sees them melt into the background.

    I have found that getting clients to take risks, change their view is a gradual thing and depends on you building a relationship with them that allows both your client to believe you have their best interests at heart and are not just interested in the most off the wall ad idea that will win you cudos from the industry.

    Getting clients to take greater and greater risks, that makes their brands stand out, requires time, patience, and planning, you can’t just steam roller into a conservative company and offer a complete 180 on their work, you need to woo them gently over time, mould them into the direction you want them to take, if they trust you, and know that you have their best interestes at heart in time they will let you do anything.

  • http://rubyrosamund.blogspot.com/ Ruby Rosamund

    As a student, I am told fairly regularly that if I want to go ‘Far out’ and do some crazy, wild idea then I should, because when I get a job all that fun will be crushed by budgets and clients and whatnot.

    I actually haven’t done anything that wild or offensive, because even when I think of them they often don’t have that all important ‘Human truth’ in them. Or the fantastical idea clouds the message, the benefit that I am trying to convey.

    So, is it more important to have a sound concept or to have something that shocks people into talking? Surely a great ad can get people talking WITHOUT being overly controversial.

  • http://www.bobashwood.com Bob Ashwood

    “Playing it safe is the biggest risk you can take.” – Bernbach
    Violate probability.” – Ruskin

    Being wrong about something is the best way to learn fast. Never being wrong is usually accpompanied by an absence of decisiveness. Here’s a tip on how to stop a decisive client. If they use the term ‘decision-maker’ about themselves, then you have a good chance of getting ‘strong’ work approved. If they say that approval will be given by ‘the appropriate stakeholders’, you have less of a chance. They won’t be aiming for success. They will be steering clear of failure. That’s how Greg Chappell described the difference between Australian and English approaches to cricket.

  • Dave Trott

    Bob,
    I saw that interview and thought exactly the same thing.
    He said something like,
    ‘After a failure we’ll be looking for what went wrong so we can fix it.
    The English will be just looking for excuses so they don’t have to do anything.’

  • http://www.bobashwood.com Bob Ashwood

    That’s the one Dave. I’ve just noticed my Freudian slip. Above it says ‘how to stop a client’…I meant it to say ‘how to spot a client’….

    Maybe I was right first time. :)

  • John W.

    What interview? Bernbach? Any links?

  • Kevin Gordon

    Hi Anca,

    It’s good to see you have such strong feelings about this. The Odessa File was made in 1974. thirty five years later we can still feel the tension of sitting in a dentist’s chair. That’s what makes great ads. SHARKS TEETH. Something unforgettable. Imagine the same clip of film

    I agree with a lot of what you have said, I’d just ask myself about “creativity is inversely proportional to advertising budgets”. When great ads have appeared, yes they have tended to be on smaller budgets because the money has to work harder because the risk factor is greater whereas when it’s a big budget, the risk is increased so fear steps in to kill creativity. This is a great shame. Some ads like “Manhattan” and “Lakme” had both. Big Idea, and Big Budget, and that is the way it should really be.

    Imagine this film with a headline:

    “Someone should have told him about Colgate” or you could launch a new brand of toothpaste called ODESSA, “Make sure you’ve got some in your bathroom cabinet”. That’s half the impact, The other half is the media budget. I couldn’t tell you half the D&AD Ads that get awards, because they are never seen by the general public because they don’t get enough media spend behind them to make them memorable by mass media. The point is, when things go right you’d think tclients would throw money at it, but only a handful of companies do because they beileve in advertising.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG5Qk-jB0D4&feature=related

  • http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/ Anca

    @Kevin

    “I agree with a lot of what you have said, I’d just ask myself about “creativity is inversely proportional to advertising budgets”" — that’s a truncated quotation.

    Try to read my exact words:
    “most of the times creativity is inversely proportional to advertising budgets. ”
    – … where “most of the times” is not a poetic ornament, I’m really not good at literary decorations, at least not in English. :)

    “The other half is the media budget. I couldn’t tell you half the D&AD Ads that get awards, because they are never seen by the general public because they don’t get enough media spend behind them to make them memorable by mass media.”

    1. I hate ALL ad awards shows. No distinction at all.
    2. Ask Dave about clever ways to get free media — that’s still part of what I call creativity.

  • Dave Trott

    John W,
    It wasn’t an advertising interview, it was Greg Chappell being interviewed after Australia lost the ashes.
    But it applies to a lot of situations where something needs fixing.
    It’s a lot easier to pretend nothing is wrong.

  • Kevin Gordon

    Hi Anca,

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your English at all, far from it. Twenty people can interpret the same sentence differently, because we all think differently. I’m fascinated as to why you hate all awards shows? Surely even a bad awards show is better than none at all because it creates uproar and talk in the community, and that can only improve the quality of work at the end of the day. There was a recent one in the Middle East where blatant cheating took place. The result? A cleansing of all creative departments in the Middle East to get back to true advertising standards. That’s not a bad thing at all, and was in fact greatly needed, and has no doubt improved the quality of creativity.

    Regarding Dave, I’m just grateful he has spared us all the time to tell us what he has already told us. How many other agency heads can you name who have taken the time and effort to tell us freely what they think online?

  • Grilla Login

    Kevin, you are correct about ‘The Trott’.

    Since his early black Camaro and orange VW Beetle days on Bishops Bridge Road he has been generous with his time, happy to share his experience and thinking with others.

    He has helped guide countless young ad people over 3 decades, sometimes to glory, sometimes to obscurity. [If it were to obscurity it wasn't Dave's fault].

    As we all know, the most precious gift we can bestow upon others is, a little of our time.

    All hail the great Dave – he gives plenty.

  • http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/ Anca

    Kevin, I didn’t say ad awards were useless. But since I don’t agree with their standards, I only have two options left: hate them or ignore them. I think it’s better to hate them, at least this way I pay attention.

    It is true that not many great ad people take the time to share their thoughts online. PUBLICLY. But in private, their predisposition to communicate is something I’d never doubt. Never underestimate the reason they’re in this business. The only thing you have to keep in mind: BE ENTERTAINING. These people are avid for entertainment! Don’t try to attract their attention. CONFISCATE their attention. And by the way, sometimes you don’t even have to contact them. Let them find you and be attractive enough. I’m surprised to see young people running out of ideas and being unable to… communicate with the ones they want to impress. They have huge portfolios with “shards of COMMUNICATION”, but they need months or years to TALK to those ad people they admire so much. I’m sorry, but I can’t take them seriously. It’s almost 2010!

  • Tod Norman

    Hmmm.

    Dave writes outrageoulsy that being outrageous is the most important thing in advertsing.

    As a result, there are 18 responses to this blog.

    So either his point is proven (we have interacted) or the fact that it has generated no income (as permost of his examples) proves that outrages engages but does not create profit.

    I like a quote attributed, I believe, to Charilie Waters: ‘You want awareness? Nuke Sheffield’.

  • Kevin Gordon

    It doesn’t surprise me at all that that young ones are in awe of advertising legends. That’s part of what being young is all about. There’s a rare beauty in the naiive which can get lost if we are not careful as we get older. It’s good to do something dumb now and then. I’ve done something really dumb today, I’ve been a real bad boy! The great thing about age is you can also laugh at your own stupidity, and not take everything to heart. People make mistakes. We are all human. The important thing is to recognise mistakes and learn from them. Nothing has been made without error ever. Even Jesus made a mistake when he hired Judas as a mate. Nobody’s perfect.

  • Dave Trott

    Hi Tod,
    Obviously I don’t agree with your point, but it was well made and made me think.
    So I started to write a reply.
    But it got so long it’s turned into another post instead.
    So thanks for that.

  • Grilla Login

    Kevin, despite what you may think, not all of us are human.

    But you’ll be pleased to hear it isn’t only humans that are prone to error, as we Grilla’s have our dumb and dumber episodes too.

    ‘Banana skin’ moments you might say. One of the occupational hazards of being a Grilla, I’m afraid.

    Still beats being human.

  • Kevin Gordon

    Oh Grilla,

    I’m so glad you’re free to roam in the Jungle. Captivity sucks. A few years ago I had a captive Dog, Cat, and Rabbit. They must have had a terrible life because I dont think any of them had a chance to know who their real parents were, and they’d never looked in a mirror and identified themselves. In fact, the cat caught himself in a mirror one day and even attacked his own image.

    So come Springtime, the the Rabbit was trying to get off with the Cat, and the Dog was trying to get off with the Rabbit, and they were all running round the back garden chasing each other. I think there’s a 007 film with Roger Moore where a caged Circus Gorilla gets off with a villain and an atomic warhead in a railway wagon. “To um as well as err is human” wouldn’t you say?

  • Kevin Gordon

    I’ve just completed my wife’s car insurance online on my laptop and the next thing that pops up is an ad for Bravissimo Bras with a well endowed young lady named Katie telling me ‘it did her some good’. “You know, I’m sure it did Katy”. I wonder, is this the beginning of a new phase of online activity called “Cross-Shopping?”

    Now, it’s not about football girls, so surely there’s a few females out there who can who can comment. Come on Anca, use your flamethrower.

  • Jayne Marar

    we can’t comment Kevin, first they’ll call us ‘difficult feminists’ then we won’t get any work :)

    it does seem to me that even today women are continually measured more by their ‘sexulaity’ and men by their ‘intellect’.

    the funny thing is (from my experience anyway) you’ll find more men making sexual innuendos than women.

    there’s nothing wrong with women (or men) wanting to appear attractive, but does it have to be about sex all the time?

    i mean it ‘s been done over and over and over and over… let’s try to be a bit more original?

  • Kevin Gordon

    Hi Jayne,

    Ooh I don’t know about that one. There are many women I know who I would not go “intellectual boxing” with because you all have this canny habit of being able to think about a multiplicity of things at once. Men ‘en masse’ always make innuendos, it’s a tribal thing, but get them on their own, and they’re like putty in women’s hands. What do you say Grilla?

    I look at it this way. I always say: “My wife’s the boss, and I wear the trousers.”
    She likes that, and I like it too, because the last thing a man wants is grief.

    Must go now…being summonsed by the boss!

  • Jayne Marar

    i agree with everything you say about women Kevin, in fact there are times i wish i was gay (but i’m not :) . my question for you is why is there an absence of women ‘on top’ in today’s society ‘at work’ ?(and i’m not talking about women who make house calls and charge by the hour). it would appear, in general, men still wear the trousers there. things are a lot better than they were, but they’re still not equal.

  • Kevin Gordon

    In my experience women like being on top, but they have to be invited.

  • Jayne Marar

    but they have to be invited? i’m a bit confused, please explain?
    are you saying woman are less forward than men at work?
    so they let me call the shots and should be more pushy?
    or women are more pushy and shouldn’t go where they’re not wanted?
    like many things in life it’s hard to gage what or when to do something?

    i’ll give you a personal analogy…
    i know several lovely, beautiful, intelligent women happily living their lives.
    then a man comes along and pursues them with much enthusiasm.
    finally after years of persistence and emails on his part they say OK.
    then as soon as they say ok – he runs off, it’s a common pattern i’ve seen.
    leaving the woman confused and hurt if she believed there was a ‘real friendship’ there.

    what should she do? write him off as a twat or try to figure it out?
    should she think he had more integrity and their friendship meant something?
    or write him off instantly as just bad, mean or just plain crazy?

    is she allowing herself to me manipulated by reacting?
    or is she being manipulated by not reacting?

  • Jayne Marar

    oops.. think i meant ‘let men call the shots’ – it’s been a long week :)

  • Jayne Marar

    …and women …gauge …front to back …and off some missed!

  • Grilla Login

    Jeez, the human condition…

Campaign Jobs

More Jobs