LIKING IT ISN’T THE JOB

When Gerald Ratner took over his father’s business, he had 18 shops selling jewellery.
He worked night and day to build the business.
He forced suppliers to cut their costs to the bone.
He trimmed his profit margins as tight as possible.
He was excellent at running a cut-price jewellery chain.
So much so, he was able to acquire other jewellery chains.
Eventually he had over 2,000 shops.
Ratner was often invited to give speeches.
Usually these were to smallish groups of directors.
He liked to tell his audience about the diversity of products he sold.
From the most expensive to the cheapest.
He’d say “You can buy a watch from us for £50,000.
You can also buy a pair of earrings that cost less than an M&S prawn sandwich. (Mind you the prawn sandwich will probably last longer.)”
This always got a laugh amongst the other directors.
Eventually he was asked to give a talk at the Institute of Directors Annual Conference.
Around 4,000 people at The Albert Hall.
So he wrote a speech and showed it to some of his colleagues.
They said “It’s a bit dull. Can’t you put in the jokes that usually get a laugh.”
So that’s what he did.
He gave the speech about satisfying all sectors of the market.
He said “People ask me how I can sell a cut-glass decanter, six glasses, and a silver plated tray for £4.95.  I say “Because it’s total crap.”
And the audience laughed.
At least all the other directors in the audience laughed.
What Ratner didn’t know was there were tabloid journalists in the audience.
The next day The Sun had a single massive headline all over the front page.
‘CRAPNERS’
With the sub-head,
“FAT CAT BUSINESSMAN TAKES PUBLIC FOR MUGS.”
Every newspaper followed.
What he said could be twisted to make a good story.
“TYCOON MAKES MILLIONS FOISTING RUBBISH ON CUSTOMERS.”
And people stopped shopping at Ratners.
After all, how could you give anyone a present from there?
Almost immediately, half a billion pounds was wiped off the value of the company.
Gerald Ratner was forced to step down as CEO.
He was fired from the jewellery chain he (and his father) built.
And the name Ratners had to be taken off every store.
All because of a joke.
All because he took his eye off the ball.
Because he was thinking of execution before strategy.
He wasn’t thinking of the purpose of the speech.
If he had been, he wouldn’t have made jokes about selling shoddy jewellery.
That would have served no purpose.
The problem was he forgot the purpose of what he was doing.
He confused the purpose with the execution.
He wanted some laughs.
And his personal feelings took over from what he should have been thinking about.
Do you ever notice when that happens in our job?
When we forget the purpose of what we’re supposed to be doing.
When someone: client, planner, account man, creative let’s their own feelings take over.
When they try to change the advertising into something they personally like.
As if that was part of the job.
I think at that point we’re acting like Gerald Ratner.
We’ve forgotten the purpose of what we’re supposed to be doing.
We’ve confused the subjective with the objective.

We’ve taken our eye off the ball.

  • john woods
  • Grilla Login

    Dave, do you think Mister Ratner now has a tear in his eye for Rupert Murdoch and his crumbling media empire? 

  • Christmas Clarke

    Did you get your cat back?

  • Christmas Clarke

    If motivation for creativity is being objective then you have boring. Are you trying to tell me that when you did, ‘Alright tosh…’ you were being objective? You weren’t you were making a name for yourself, letting your arse hang out. Now you’re a guru you can’t let young guns to go blow the budget on building a swimming pool at the Glastonbury festival. One other thing, clients might read this blog, right?

  • Dave Trott

    Christmas,
    Don’t just look at what was done, consider why it was done.
    The TV market was dominated by Sony with30% awareness.
    Everyone else, Toshiba included,  had 2% awareness.
    Because all the oriental names sounded the same to western ears: Sanyo, Akai, Aiwa, Samsung, etc.
    The job was to find a way to quickly anglicise our name.
    6 weeks after the ads ran we had 30% awareness, like Sony, while everyone else was still on 2%.
    I spent 10 years learning from John Webster that an ad might have a whacky execution but it better have rock-solid thinking behind it.

  • Mark Hancock

    Dave – interestingly we have a rare moment of synchronicity. I was recommended your book recently – (which I love btw) by a mutual friend and colleague Andy Lawson – which inspired me to write this: http://www.holycowthinks.com/2011/07/the-dangers-of-being-liked.html on my blog. It seems we are saying the same things – albeit yours is more interesting.

    Keep up the great work.

    Best

    M

    • Dave Trott

      Mark,
      I read what you wrote and I do like it a lot, except for the last line.
      The implicit assumption that awards are credible, worthwhile, useful, meaningful, important.
      IMHO awards are just a manifestation of the need you speak about (the need to be liked).
      So we might have to agree to differ on that point.

      • Mark Hancock

        Dave, do you not think that awards are credible, worthwhile, useful, meaningful and important? I think it is interesting that P&G and Unilever think they must be as their presence and keynote speeches would indicate. Perhaps they are misguided by agency folk who use those awards to build more ‘likability’.

        Your point is – as always – brutal but fair.

        M

  • natasha rich

    Interesting.  I am a graduate at Saatchi and I have found it a challange to stay focused when we are constantly reminded to ‘stand out’ etc. I realised I can’t pretend to be someone else but just stay focused on my tasks and learn as much as possible. Do you not agree that putting effort to show people how ‘fun’ i am is wasted energy when I could just produce even better work?

    Any advice to us graduates on not taking our eye off what the task really is as an intern?

    • Dave Trott

      Hi Natasha,
      My advice is that it’s always about the work.
      As an intern, you can always take the work with you when you leave.
      You can’t put people liking you in your portfolio.
      So the work comes first, second, and third.
      That said, there’s no reason you shouldn’t enjoy yourself and have fun.
      Think of the work as the product and you as the packaging.
      We buy the better product of course, but good packaging doesn’t hurt.

  • Dave Trott

    Mark,
    If 6 people line up on a track and race, the one that crosses the line first is the fastest.
    No argument, provable and objective criteria.
    Now imagine 6 people line up on the track, but there isn’t a finish line.
    And judges had to vote on who they thought was the best.
    And that person was considered the winner and presented the cup.
    That’s what awards are like: artificial and subjective criteria.
    The awards themselves aren’t wrong, what’s wrong is taking them seriously.
    They’re just someone else’s opinion.

    • Mark Hancock

      Dave. Irrefutable logic. Which is why I wrote this: http://tinyurl.com/3wvgllt. The IPA Effectiveness and Marketing Excellence awards are based on what advertising does – not what it looks like. Much of the subjectivity has been removed.

      I worry that the judges start off judging the work by saying ‘I like this one’ rather than saying ‘I like this one because of A, B and C.

      Andy tells me that you dislike awards – but added ‘when you have won as many as he has – he has every right to turn his back on them’.
      Can’t really argue with that either.

  • Grilla Login

    Grilla Login D&AD, ONE SHOW, CANNES, BTAA, CAMPAIGN POSTERS, CAMPAIGN PRESS, CREATIVE CIRCLE etc. etc. etc. would be a joke, right? But Grilla Login KBE, DBE, OBE, CBE, CBEEBIES  etc. etc. isn’t. Why is that – All r awards based on, as Dave states, someone else’s opinion? [I ain't no Dame b4 any1 gets any funny ideas...]

  • Kevin Gordon

    Jim Dale in Carry on Cowboy hits the nail on the head when he’s looking for work as a plumber in America and pulls out a ‘Golden Plunger’ award from his bag to impress his judges. At least you can use a plunger. Does the D&AD pencil have any real lead in it yet? 

  • Brian Millar

    He didn’t do it because of a lapse in concentration. According to a recent FT article, Ratner consulted a large number of leading media gurus about the wisdom of including the joke. Charles Saatchi told him to go for it. PR luvvy Lynn Franks told him not to. Which shows what admen know.

     http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8817953e-8bf1-11e0-854c-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1TCSBGOBp

    Before
    he gave his fateful speech to the Institute of Directors, he consulted
    the public relations expert Lynne Franks and explained that he was going
    to go with the self-deprecating jokes that he was using with some
    success on the after-dinner circuit, including the “total crap” line.
    Franks told him to give a speech about ethical business instead. He
    ignored her. He also ignored his wife’s advice and even that of the
    woman operating the autocue.

    A textbook example of dismissing good
    advice? Unfortunately it’s not so clear-cut. Ratner asked his company
    accountant, a trusted associate, who told him to put in riskier jokes.
    Ratner recalls that his friend Michael Green, of Carlton Communications,
    thought the speech was fine. So did Charles Saatchi. (All the female
    critics were correct; all the men were wrong.)

  • Kevin Gordon

    I suppose the moral of that story Brian is
    “If you’re going to make a mistake, make it with someone else’s money”.

  • Pingback: Dave Trott Blog « Cog Research

Campaign Jobs