...at least according to Livingston Miller in AdAge this week.
Miller claims that students aspiring to pursue a career in advertising would be better served by a major and subsequent bachelor's degree in any of the the "precious" subjects of science, history, art, literature, language and math. These are the degrees that will develop my brain, Miller says, whereas advertising is wasting my time.
Personally, I was upset upon finding out that I couldn't take more classes in advertising and have them count for credit. I am genuinely interested in this industry, and plan to enter this workforce right after I graduate from undergrad study. It is an insult and an outrage to have Mr. Miller say that he would assume someone with a Russian History major that was competing with me for a job would be "significantly brighter" than I am.
I responded to Miller's article in the only way I know how, with two heaping scoops of sarcasm:
Dr. Livingston, I presume? Or should I say, deckhand-turned-ad man Livingston, I presume.
Allow me to thank you for helping me to make up my mind and switch my major to Russian History! I had been looking for a really compelling reason to stimulate my mind with the lives of Lenin, Dostoevsky, and Gorbachev.
Of course I want to work in the advertising industry, but why bother learning things related to that? I have a whole career to bumble around at no name agencies like Seiter and Miller and learn those silly details. I'll be so much more valuable to an employer with my understanding of Marxism than any candidates who learned lame things like media planning!
After all, advertising schools certainly don't teach any of the key skills that help "Media people...know when the best deal is on the table" or that help "Creative people who ignite consumer interest with the right phrase or image." These things can't be learned...except this begs me to ask why you include Math and Art/Design in your ideal curriculum for aspiring ad people, since these are the skills they would also glean from an advertising major.
You forgot the best point of all: with a Bachelors' or Masters' in Advertising, I'll only be qualified to get an interview at almost any agency, and my carefully honed skills can help me get a job. A Russian History major, on the other hand, also has the backup plan of working as a tour guide in St. Peter's Square.
I encourage you if you are a part of this industry or just support my cause, to read Miller's article and give him a piece of your mind as well. If anything, it'll show future readers that Miller's is not the agency they want to work for and it may also show Miller that perhaps he should consider something other than the mastery of the life of Ivan the Terrible when evaluating possible new hires.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Best ad on TV 10/22: Mac vs Windows 7
Thursday night prime time is always a great time to debut commercials, in my opinion. I'm not a big TV viewer and yet I can sit down and watch straight through for more than two hours (this week, if you're curious, was Flash Forward, the Office, 30 Rock, and It's Always Sunny. It helps to have a roommate who's a TV nerd).
Combine this time slot with a lot of young viewers, and you'll usually see some good ads. Throw in the launch of a new Windows OS and it's war.
Despite my last two posts endorsing anti-Mac ads, I have to find some way to appear non-biased. As far as the commercials go, Mac won on Thursday night. It may not really be prudent to buy a Mac instead of just upgrading your OS, but it becomes an inticing alternative for people entering the new computer market, especially if they've had a negative experience with a Windows upgrade or with a computer that started with Vista.
That's exactly what this one touches on. John Hodgman is always great as "PC," but he takes it to a new level in this one. I don't know what I like more, the 1995 flipping aviators or the creepy "trust me" smile.
It's tough to go against a 90% market share behemoth in any category, but TBWA time after time does a wonderful job playing David to Microsoft's Goliath.
Combine this time slot with a lot of young viewers, and you'll usually see some good ads. Throw in the launch of a new Windows OS and it's war.
Despite my last two posts endorsing anti-Mac ads, I have to find some way to appear non-biased. As far as the commercials go, Mac won on Thursday night. It may not really be prudent to buy a Mac instead of just upgrading your OS, but it becomes an inticing alternative for people entering the new computer market, especially if they've had a negative experience with a Windows upgrade or with a computer that started with Vista.
That's exactly what this one touches on. John Hodgman is always great as "PC," but he takes it to a new level in this one. I don't know what I like more, the 1995 flipping aviators or the creepy "trust me" smile.
It's tough to go against a 90% market share behemoth in any category, but TBWA time after time does a wonderful job playing David to Microsoft's Goliath.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
"iDon't" ads pit Droid against iPhone: Tonight, we dine in hell
Two posts about Verizon/Apple in a row? This must be an advertising blog...
The iPhone's dominance in the trendy smart phone category is finally going to be challenged by Verizon. The Verizon Droid, slated to come out this November, claims to be everything iPhone is not. Their clever :30 spot which came out this week lists every common qualm people have had with the iPhone and does so by cleverly spoofing every Apple ad you've ever seen, with black-on-white text and an indie sountrack. After listing all the things iPhone doesn't so ("iDon't..."), it cuts to some wild sci-fi scene with the words "Droid Does"
If Droid does do all these things, it should challenge Apple rather quickly. Despite the iPhone's dominance in the market, this ad has pinned down every reason people would have to switch, or to not choose iPhone in the first place if they're shopping for their first smart phone. A lot of them aren't really a big deal ("iDon't take pictures in the dark; iDon't run simultaneous apps"), but the biggies are things like "iDon't have a real keyboard," "iDon't allow open development," and of course, the lack of "The Network," Verizon's primary leg up on the competition.
A visit to the official website, DroidDoes, offers little information except that seen in the ads: all the things Droid does, most of which iPhone does not. You can sign up to receive email updates, and there is a strange countdown in some alien language that Christopher Daggett at TechCrunch has apparently decoded to mean a countdown to October 30 at 1:00:00 AM.
You have to think that Verizon is finally getting it right, going for the jugular in their war with AT&T. It all boils down to a pretty simple message, "Our network is better than yours, and our stuff is as cool as yours, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah." By all accounts, the next large battle will commence with the next shot heard round the world, sometime around October 30.
The iPhone's dominance in the trendy smart phone category is finally going to be challenged by Verizon. The Verizon Droid, slated to come out this November, claims to be everything iPhone is not. Their clever :30 spot which came out this week lists every common qualm people have had with the iPhone and does so by cleverly spoofing every Apple ad you've ever seen, with black-on-white text and an indie sountrack. After listing all the things iPhone doesn't so ("iDon't..."), it cuts to some wild sci-fi scene with the words "Droid Does"
If Droid does do all these things, it should challenge Apple rather quickly. Despite the iPhone's dominance in the market, this ad has pinned down every reason people would have to switch, or to not choose iPhone in the first place if they're shopping for their first smart phone. A lot of them aren't really a big deal ("iDon't take pictures in the dark; iDon't run simultaneous apps"), but the biggies are things like "iDon't have a real keyboard," "iDon't allow open development," and of course, the lack of "The Network," Verizon's primary leg up on the competition.
A visit to the official website, DroidDoes, offers little information except that seen in the ads: all the things Droid does, most of which iPhone does not. You can sign up to receive email updates, and there is a strange countdown in some alien language that Christopher Daggett at TechCrunch has apparently decoded to mean a countdown to October 30 at 1:00:00 AM.
Verizon Droid by Motorola (photos courtesy Boy Genius Report)
You have to think that Verizon is finally getting it right, going for the jugular in their war with AT&T. It all boils down to a pretty simple message, "Our network is better than yours, and our stuff is as cool as yours, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah." By all accounts, the next large battle will commence with the next shot heard round the world, sometime around October 30.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Verizon: Don't you forget about me
With all the buzz building around Apple's iPhone, it's about time the guys at VW retaliated.
There's a Map For That:
They could have gone the parody route, saying "there's an ap for" various ridiculous things, but the way they did this I think is awesome. Verizon has been using the "map," that is, the one of their 3G coverage, for a while. Finally they hammer home with consumers the basic advantage they have: if you buy an iPhone and go to AT&T, you'll lose 80% of the 3G coverage you could have with Verizon.
Excuse me as an aspiring ad practitioner for not bowing to the mighty Apple, but finally someone is swinging back at their snarky, indie spots they've been running for years.
It's good to see Windows taking a shot too, with the "I'm a PC, and I'm..." campaign. In the spots, they give people cash if they can find a computer within their budget, and it's always a PC because Macs are too expensive. Another clever way to take a shot at the ad giant's chinks in the armor.
Then again, if everything was about cost and functionality, this industry wouldn't exist. Thanks, Mr. Jobs.
There's a Map For That:
They could have gone the parody route, saying "there's an ap for" various ridiculous things, but the way they did this I think is awesome. Verizon has been using the "map," that is, the one of their 3G coverage, for a while. Finally they hammer home with consumers the basic advantage they have: if you buy an iPhone and go to AT&T, you'll lose 80% of the 3G coverage you could have with Verizon.
Excuse me as an aspiring ad practitioner for not bowing to the mighty Apple, but finally someone is swinging back at their snarky, indie spots they've been running for years.
It's good to see Windows taking a shot too, with the "I'm a PC, and I'm..." campaign. In the spots, they give people cash if they can find a computer within their budget, and it's always a PC because Macs are too expensive. Another clever way to take a shot at the ad giant's chinks in the armor.
Then again, if everything was about cost and functionality, this industry wouldn't exist. Thanks, Mr. Jobs.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Best ad on TV 10/8: Tabasco
As much as the faces on the pepperonis might freak you out, this is just an all around great ad. Despite never seeing an ad for Tabasco brand hot sauce before, we all know what it is or at least that it exists.
They identify the product in the first 2 seconds of the ad, have the humorous value of singing pepperoni as well as a memorable jingle (which can go horribly wrong sometimes), and they bring it all together with the tag line "So Much More Than Hot." That line makes me get it; as a heavy user of the hot sauce category, I can tell you that a lot of times you are just trying to mask the actual flavor of something by dousing it in Frank's, for example. The idea that Tabasco sauce enhances the flavors rather than covers them is an awesome, unique one.
I may indeed try Tabasco on my pizza real soooooooon. Great, now that's in my head. Damn signing toppings.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The FTC won't let me be
Last week I had the chance to attend a seminar entitled "Is This Ad Legal?" given by Lesley Fair, an attorney for the Federal Trade Commission. The gist of her message was, "if you see me again, you're probably in trouble," meaning we'd have screwed up by producing an ad deemed to be "unfair."
It would seem like someone like Fair (a most apros pos name, given her position) would be the enemy, but alas, she doesn't need to be. There is beauty in truth when it comes to advertising. In an industry consistently ranked near the bottom in the perceived honesty of its practitioners, there is indeed value in the truth. If I'm trying to create a successful long term campaign for anything, there is no advantage to being dishonest, I'll only feel the wrath of my customers and my competitors. As long as it's a fair game, I'm convinced I'm going to win.
Fair seemed to be all over a bunch of famous or formerly famous brands which had stretched the truth or otherwise did it injustice through omission. Why then, are there so many unfair advertisements in the media? Pretty much any ad on the web comes to mind, but how about the case of US fidelis:
This auto insurance claims to be better than the warranty on your car, and it is if by better they mean a much much bigger rip off. I looked into this after seeing the commercial featuring Rusty Wallace on ESPN over the summer. It disgusts me that any celebrity sponsor can jump onto an illegitimate company like this one (then again, you already know how I feel about celebrity endorsement in general).
Another more famous example of ads that shouldn't be allowed to exist:
A lot of people say they like these ads. The video even has a 5 rating and more than 500,000 views on YouTube. The ads are, however, misleading. Of course the site is not free. Unless an ad is clearly a public service announcement, you can probably expect that it is trying to solicit money from you. Not only is it not free, but most "customers" don't know this until their credit card is billed monthly for the chance to receive their "free" credit reports. The ad is even dishonest in it's portrayal of the characters: the lead singer of the freecreditreport.com band is Eric Violette, a French-Canadian actor who does not speak English. That bears repeating. This guy only speaks French. He doesn't even sing the super catchy songs.
Ms. Fair showed us the FTC's rendition of these commercials, theirs for AnnualCreditReport.com, the site that actually allows you to see your credit reports three times per year for free:
Beauty in truth? Yes. Good use of taxpayer money? Maybe.
It would seem like someone like Fair (a most apros pos name, given her position) would be the enemy, but alas, she doesn't need to be. There is beauty in truth when it comes to advertising. In an industry consistently ranked near the bottom in the perceived honesty of its practitioners, there is indeed value in the truth. If I'm trying to create a successful long term campaign for anything, there is no advantage to being dishonest, I'll only feel the wrath of my customers and my competitors. As long as it's a fair game, I'm convinced I'm going to win.
Fair seemed to be all over a bunch of famous or formerly famous brands which had stretched the truth or otherwise did it injustice through omission. Why then, are there so many unfair advertisements in the media? Pretty much any ad on the web comes to mind, but how about the case of US fidelis:
This auto insurance claims to be better than the warranty on your car, and it is if by better they mean a much much bigger rip off. I looked into this after seeing the commercial featuring Rusty Wallace on ESPN over the summer. It disgusts me that any celebrity sponsor can jump onto an illegitimate company like this one (then again, you already know how I feel about celebrity endorsement in general).
Another more famous example of ads that shouldn't be allowed to exist:
A lot of people say they like these ads. The video even has a 5 rating and more than 500,000 views on YouTube. The ads are, however, misleading. Of course the site is not free. Unless an ad is clearly a public service announcement, you can probably expect that it is trying to solicit money from you. Not only is it not free, but most "customers" don't know this until their credit card is billed monthly for the chance to receive their "free" credit reports. The ad is even dishonest in it's portrayal of the characters: the lead singer of the freecreditreport.com band is Eric Violette, a French-Canadian actor who does not speak English. That bears repeating. This guy only speaks French. He doesn't even sing the super catchy songs.
Ms. Fair showed us the FTC's rendition of these commercials, theirs for AnnualCreditReport.com, the site that actually allows you to see your credit reports three times per year for free:
Beauty in truth? Yes. Good use of taxpayer money? Maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
