VISIBLE v RELEVANT
Years ago, when I worked at Boase Massimi Pollitt, I had a conversation with Martin Boase about what made BMP different to other agencies.
Martin said it was the work.
Some agencies could do work that was strategically sound, but creatively dull.
(RELEVANT - INVISIBLE)
On the other end of the scale, some agencies did work that was strategically unsound, but creatively exciting.
(visible – irrelevant)
What made BMP different, was that we delivered work that was both strategically sound and creatively exciting.
(RELEVANT and VISIBLE)
My initial reaction to this was, “Yeah, and I bet every agency all over the world claims to do the same thing.”
Obviously that’s what anyone with half-a-brain would want.
So the real question is: if that’s what everyone wants, how come 90% of advertising is strategically unsound and creatively dull?
(INVISIBLE and IRRELEVANT)
Here’s what I think.
We have deadlines, we have budgets, we have disagreements.
As the airdate/ pitch date/ presentation date looms, it becomes apparent that we can’t have the perfect solution.
(RELEVANT and VISIBLE)
If we keep waiting for it to turn up, we aren’t going to have anything.
So we have to choose.
We have to choose between being relevant or being visible.
Now in that situation different interests get polarised.
Account-handling, Planning, Clients, will always drag it towards relevant.
Whatever conventional thinking makes sense in their market, based on the data and market research, they have available.
(So, whether they admit or not, they will drag it towards RELEVANT – INVISIBLE.)
The creative department will always drag it towards whatever they think is most likely to win an award, or at least not embarrass them, regardless of whether it sells or not.
(So, whether they admit it or not, they will always drag it towards VISIBLE – IRRELEVANT)
We all have to choose between these two alternatives.
And of course we don’t want to, and so we pretend we don’t have to. But, if we don’t choose, the choice gets made for us.
So, if you accept that you have to choose.
Which should you choose?
Personally, as in most things, I defer to Bill Bernbach.
He said, “If no one notices your advertising, everything else is academic.”
So, given that, I would choose VISIBLE – IRRELEVANT.
At least if people notice your advertising there’s a chance of something happening.
If no one notices your advertising, there’s absolutely no chance of anything happening at all.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
“Our job is to sell our clients’ merchandise… not ourselves. Our job is to kill the cleverness that makes us shine instead of the product. Our job is to simplify, to tear away the unrelated, to pluck out the weeds that are smothering the product message.”
I agree with your choice, but as Bill himself is reminding us, one has to be aware of what he/she is actually making visible.
“Vanity, definetely my favorite sin.”
slightly depressing though isn’t it?
I guess our trade offers lots of depressing point of views.
[...] Visible v Relevant Work that is strategically sound, but creatively dull = (RELEVANT - INVISIBLE) Work that is strategically unsound, but creatively exciting = (VISIBLE - IRRELEVANT) BMP allegedly made ads strategically sound & creatively exciting. (RELEVANT and VISIBLE)” (tags: bmp davetrott cst advertising agencies 80s) [...]
Creative brilliance always floors me but I can’t conceive a world where every ad floors my. That’s what a couple of thousand floors a day.
That doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the good stuff Dave. I live off it.