Tuesday Rant: Too Many Cooks Spoil My Advertising

By / /

Volume 8 In a Series By Felix

I’ve been in this game long enough to have developed a pretty thick skin. As a junior, I had creative directors laugh at the work I pinned to the wall. Years later, I heard them shout my name with disdain. And once, a CD looked at the work, dropped his head and just walked away (that was a tough day…and a long night). But one aspect of this job I’ll never get used to is the idea that everyone’s opinion is valid, from the lowly account executive all the way up to the mighty CEO.

I’m of the opinion that creative teams should serve one master – the creative director. After all, he or she is directing the creative. The CD (should) know the brief inside-out, and be in touch with the client’s wants and needs. They know the end goal, the budget, the limitations of the job, the account team and the production department. In this world, they are God (sorry religious people). And when I’m creating ads, I’m doing the best I can to please God, because in turn he or she is doing the best they can to select and mold great work for the client. End of story, right?

Well, no. Unfortunately, I’m painting a picture here that doesn’t include other responsibilities of the CD; like keeping the most insane client happy because the agency can’t afford to lose the account. Or accepting changes, however asinine, from every peon involved in the job in order to keep everyone happy and maybe get home at a decent hour (or get that big fat bonus check).

In Denver, that goes double. This is not a town where anyone can afford to lose a client, regardless of size. And because this isn’t New York or San Fran, there’s less expectation to put in those longer hours. Hey, there’s camping to be done; and skiing; and white-water rafting. So, if we have to take direction from everyone, so be it.

That’s when you get those jobs that Luke Sullivan described in “Hey Whipple, Squeeze This!” as “turd boomerangs.” And over the years, my hands have become covered in shit from the nasty boomerangs I’ve been throwing back and forth between the account teams, CDs, clients, client’s spouses, client’s children and some guy who sweeps the floor at a Jiffy Lube.

The first and worst problem creatives encounter, that start the turd boomerangs on their journey, is what I refer to as the “puppet paradox.” This is when a client thinks they have complete control of a project and gives you an opinion that ultimately doesn’t matter, because someone higher on the food chain is really in charge.

So, you spend three weeks crafting work with the CD to please this puckered anus, only to see it get thrown out of the window when the big fish becomes embroiled in the process. I’ve worked on way too many jobs with puppets, and I know this is a problem that will never go away.

Then there’s the opposite problem – lack of confidence. Clients ask for more and more information to be included – “what’s with all the white space?” Equally, account teams will cave in to every tiny request from the client and the creatives have to pick up the pieces. At this point things start getting messy, but wait… there’s more to come.

When you get close to a finished ad which is, you think, not too bad considering the input and changes you’ve had so far, you get the second-guessing. Now, even the CD will start to wonder if it’s right, asking copywriters to rewrite lines that were “terrific” a few hours ago.

The client will start second-guessing the whole project, and ask for input from other departments. “We took another look at this and think it needs to address a different angle…can you combine this ad with one of the first ideas? Oh, and change the shot? And add a new headline?”

So, working into the wee small hours, the Frankenstein’s monster of an ad starts to take shape. It’s not pretty. It should have been shot in the head to save it from any further pain and embarrassment. And with shame and a heavy head, the team hands it back to the CD, who chokes back a little vomit, says it’s “fine” and sends it back out for final approval.

But in this world, final is never final. The client decides to put it in front of a focus group. Now, we have the opinions of 5-10 completely random people to deal with. And after two hours of ripping, shredding, gluing and pasting, new direction comes back. These are the finishing touches; the bolts in the monster’s neck; the oozing scar on its forehead. It’s ready to go out into the world, to be ineffective, clumsy and a complete waste of time and money. And lucky for us, we get to do it all again tomorrow.

As I’ve said before, I’m well aware that we are not creating art. We have a job to do and most of us know how to do it well. It’s not that I can’t take criticism; that’s not the issue at all. It’s that you just can’t please all of the people all of the time, and when you try, you fall flat on your face.

Comments

  1. Brian September 2, 2008

    Hear, hear.
    This is

    Hear, hear.

    This is constantly an issue for anyone and everyone working in this industry. Sometimes it’s a quick round and (wow!), astonishingly the project is already out the door. High-fives and the opening of beers ensues. The rest of the time it’s projects that causes everyone to be breaking their threshold for bullshit that day and that same project quickly turns into a reason to go home and cry quietly into our pillows with a 62-ounce bottle of vodka tightly tucked in one arm.

    So, we all already know their are issues. Crissakes, the client is literally cutting and pasting ads for us. But, what is the solution? How do you work with the client, which garners its own classification system, while working internally, to achieve that final, shining ad that everyone is happy about?

  2. M. Westfield September 3, 2008

    the irony of working in

    the irony of working in communications.

    design is so subjective and I always find when there is an absence of trust between client and any part of the team on that account, that’s when frankenstein’s monster starts to happen.

  3. Brian W. September 3, 2008

    jezzz. felix, you’re so

    jezzz. felix, you’re so depressing. next week can you rant about something sunny? like pretty interns.

    you’ve obviously worked with some great cds…

    everyone loves the dreaded senior management 12th hour review, right?

    another luke sullivan lesson was to jump on those projects nobody wants. the trade ads, internal vids, yada yada.

    some of my best work had been the stuff that flies under the agency-client done overthunkit radar with a team just big enough to handle the project, make decisions and sell sell sell.

  4. Not The Egotist September 3, 2008

    Question Brian. How would

    Question Brian. How would Felix “rant” about something like that? What, that he doesn’t get to sleep with them all? It’s called the rant because he’s ranting, right? I wouldn’t expect a happy rant anytime soon, seems like an oxymoron.

  5. Chris Maley September 4, 2008

    My first AD partner shared a

    My first AD partner shared a good term with me as we were staring at an ad we (and about 10 other people) worked on (and hoo-boy did lots of thought go into that piece), just before it was going to print. He said, “That’s a camel.”
    “A what?”
    “A camel. A thorough-bred racehorse assembled by committee.”

    Chin up, Felix.

  6. ESPI September 5, 2008

    wow man… if your job is that

    wow man… if your job is that bad why do you do it? some of us are in the game for ourselves and not to sell a product or make a client happy. some of us do it cause we like to.. and when you say were not creating art speak for yourself..
    maybe your not an artist felix.. but tell me this designer isnt.. http://www.kimdulaney.com/

  7. Chris Lawson September 5, 2008

    ESPI, what are you talking

    ESPI, what are you talking about? That link was for a designer/illustrator, totally different ballgame than creating ads for a client.

  8. Brian W. September 6, 2008

    well, i’m drunk enough to

    well, i’m drunk enough to reply…

    for starters: let me get my copyeditors’ glasses on (shiver) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rant

    as you’ll notice from definition #1, a rant is a form or rhetoric, not the substance of rhetoric.

    now, before you get all colloquial on my ass, howard dean’s famous iowa screaming speech was a rant. he was (trying) to be positive.

    if you really want to deconstruct some shit… and we’ll keep it simple. deductive logic that is.

    the denver egotist is trying to suck less.
    you are not the egotist.
    therefore, you ___________.

  9. Paul Suggett

    Paul Suggett September 6, 2008

    The full text from MW reads:

    The full text from MW reads:
    1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently transitive verb : to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

    and others sites list rant as:
    To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.
    v.tr.
    To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.
    n.
    1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
    2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence:

    So, there you go. Most people view a rant as something angry and derisive, myself included.

  10. Brian W. September 7, 2008

    lame

    lame

  11. Chris Lawson September 7, 2008

    I take it you’re not a

    I take it you’re not a copywriter then Brian? Oh, hang on, you work at Integer. Nuff said.

  12. Brian W. September 7, 2008

    dang mr. lawson.
    Free With

    dang mr. lawson.

    Free With Purchase.

    that was mine and it’s awesome.

    but not as awesome as

    Enter for your Chance to WIN!!!

    see, the client just wanted one exclamation point. and i was all like, it’s gotta be three.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *