The Polluted Fountain Of Youth

Anyone who's ever had a parent knows one thing for sure: Old people think young people are idiots.

If you're young, your parents hate your music, hate your haircut, hate your friends, hate your language, hate your clothing... it's an inviolable rule of nature.

This is nothing new. It's been going on for generations. Ever since youth culture emerged about 100 years ago, every generation of parents has thought that every generation of kids were a bunch of bozos.

The only people who don't seem to know this are us geniuses in the advertising industry. According to us, older people don't just admire young people, they long to be like them.

It's no coincidence that people in the ad industry tend to be young. All this youth worship is really just narcissism masquerading as business strategy.

What our agency masterminds don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between wanting to be youthful, and wanting to be like young people.

People of a certain age certainly want to be youthful. But their idea of being youthful is  being like they were 15 years ago. Not being like young people are now.

I think Michelle Obama wants to be youthful, but I doubt she wants to be like the doofuses in Taco Bell ads.

Now that people over 50 are dominating our economy, it's about time agencies (and marketers) learned to draw a distinction. There's a difference between wanting to be youthful and wanting to be like young people.

Ask your parents.

Lots Of Screwing But No Marriage

Well, the big news this weekend was that the honeymoon between Omnicom and Publicis seems to be in trouble before we even get to the foreplay.

According to The Wall Street Journal,

"...battles over position and power are threatening to upend the slated $35 billion "merger of equals" between advertising firms Omnicom Group Inc. and Publicis Groupe SA."

Battles over position and power? In an ad agency? You mean it's not "all about the work?" Well fuck me blind.

Back in July, almost a year ago, the two blundering behemoths decided it would be a good idea to get married. The rationale? Some idiotic nonsense about "big data." The real reason? Corporate ego. These guys don't like the idea that Sir Martin has a bigger one.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is a giant "so what?" The ad industry has already surrendered everything to fearsomely dull men in grey suits. Who gives a shit whether a couple of these cuties decide to snuggle up together?

It really doesn't matter much if you have one elephant in your living room or two. It's still gonna smell.

According to the Journal, one of the biggest battles is about who's going to keep track of the money.

"The companies are also at loggerheads over who will fill senior jobs, particularly the position of finance chief. Omnicom wants its chief financial officer, Randall Weisenburger, in the slot whereas Publicis wants its CFO, Jean-Michel Etienne, to get the job..."

(NOTE TO OMNI-PUBE: If you need someone to watch your money, pick a Weisenburger over an Etienne every time.)

This whole monstrosity was billed as a "merger of equals."

Anyone who has ever done a deal knows that there ain't no such thing. Someone's buying and someone's selling. It's the law. And all the baloney and corporate double-talk doesn't change that.

The PR jive coming out of the agencies is that the problems are not about who's in charge, but about "legal and tax issues in Europe." Can you imagine  how brilliant these clowns will be with all their "big data" if nine months into this deal they still can't figure out what the legal issues are?

Unable to keep his own mouth shut, Sir Martin Of The Big One chimed in on the contradictory statements coming out of both camps:

"You have one talking Chinese and the other Japanese," Mr. Sorrell said.

I'm afraid Sir Martin is wrong. They're both talking the same language. The only language they know -- bullshit.

Steve Jobs Hated "Branding"

Here at The Ad Contrarian Worldwide Headquarters, we have always taken a skeptical view of brand babble.

While we appreciate the value that certain types of brand equity confer, we are appalled by the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of how brands are built, and the dreadful lexicon of "branding."

Our views on the topic are summed up in a few little axioms we trot out whenever the subject surfaces:

"We don’t get them to try our product by convincing them to love our brand. We get them to love our brand by convincing them to try our product."

"A strong brand is a byproduct. It comes from doing other things right. Make sure your product is excellent. Make sure you're taking good care of your customers. Make sure your ads differentiate you. That's what builds brands."

Now, when you're a dumb-ass blogger, it's nice to have pithy little statements like that. But it's a lot nicer when you find that your views are shared by someone with actual, functioning brains.

That's why an article I came across recently was particularly gratifying.

The article, at Business Insider, was called "The Two Most 'Dreaded, Hated' Words At Steve Jobs' Apple." 

And what were these two words? According to Allison Johnson, VP of Worldwide Marketing at Apple from 2005 to 2011...

"...the two most 'dreaded, hated' words at Apple under Steve Jobs were "branding" and "marketing."

The article goes on to quote Johnson...

"...we understood deeply what was important about the product, what the team’s motivations were in the product, what they hoped that product would achieve, what role they wanted it to have in people’s lives

...The most important thing was people's relationship to the product. So any time we said 'brand' it was a dirty word."

Back in 2009 I wrote a post that included the following

Apple’s advertising is always about product benefits and differentiation. It is never idiotic “branding”... No lifestyle bullshit... And always done beautifully.

Just goes to show, sometimes even bloggers can be right.