A really good young team had just started at the agency: Mary Wear and Damon Collins.
The agency was working on Marlboro and we needed a new campaign.
We got all the teams together and briefed them.
Afterwards Damon and Mary came to see me.
They said they didn’t want to work on cigarettes,
I said, “You’ve put me in an awkward position.
Let me explain my problem.
Is it fair to make everyone else work on cigarettes while you don’t?
What’s the knock-on if everyone sees you choosing what you do and don’t want to work on?
Should we let everyone in the agency choose what they want to work on?
And what if everyone chooses not to work on cigarettes?
Marlboro makes up around 10% of the agency’s income.
Should we fire the client and ask everyone to take a 10% salary cut?
Do you feel strongly enough about it that you’re prepared to take a 10% salary cut?
Or is fair that other people should work on cigarettes to subsidise your salary?
Should you only work at agencies that handle clients you approve of?
Or are you willing to take money from the income of products you disapprove of, but just not work on them?
And what good does this passive disapproval do anyway?
If you feel strongly why aren’t you working on anti-smoking advertising outside the agency, in your free time?
You could offer your services for nothing.
That would do more good than just refusing to work on it.”
Damon and Mary said they didn’t feel strongly enough to do any of those things.
They wanted to work at our agency, they just felt bad about working on cigarettes.
They were a good team and I didn’t want to lose them.
I said, “I shouldn’t have to tell you this, but there’s a simple solution.”
They said, “We’re listening.”
I said, “How does a husband avoid doing the washing up?”
Damon said, “Break a plate, so his wife never asks him again.”
I said, “Right, so what would that look like in this situation?”
Damon said, “Do such a bad job that you don’t pick any of our ads?”
I said, “Right, and if you do a really bad job I’ll probably think you can’t do cigarette advertising, and never ask you again.”
Damon got it straight away, but Mary still wasn’t happy.
She didn’t like the idea of doing bad ads on purpose.
She thought she shouldn’t have to.
I said, “I know it’s not perfect, but in a compromise everyone gives a little.
This way, you get most of what you want: you don’t have to work on cigarettes.
And I get most of what I want: the rest of the department sees you did some work and had it turned down.
So they’re still motivated because you didn’t get preferential treatment.”
And that’s what happened.
Everyone got most of what they wanted.
See, I think pragmatism gets a bad rap.
People take pragmatism to mean ‘the course of least resistance’.
I think it means finding a way around the problem rather than confronting it head on.
So for me pragmatism is creative.
I won’t make a moral judgement on what you should or shouldn’t want.
That’s your business.
But I will make a judgement about how you go about getting it.
That’s my business.
If I set the game up right, in order for me to win, no one else has to lose.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
i dunno if anyone comes out shining in that story, to be honest.
everything is a bit cynical.
i would have taken the 10% pay cut. after all,
what did bernbach say about principles?
That’s fine Robbie, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
But they didn’t want to work on cigarettes, they didn’t want to take a 10% pay cut, and they didn’t want to go to another agency.
So what should they do in that situation?
Firstly, after spotting your blog in the Times recently I and others at our PR agency are finding your blogs posts very insightful and entertaining.
In relation to your latest post, I agree but an issue we find in PR is people never try hard enough to work on what they feel passionate about.
At times our work in tech PR can be very dry, but we’ve tried to encourage our teams to go after clients in sectors/industries which lie outside of tech PR.
This helps them break from the blinkered creative process which our Tech clients sometimes demand from us.
But it’s strange that people will jump up and down to tell us what they don’t want to work on, but rarely do they bang down any doors to let us know what they want to work on.
I think they should do what they are fucking told, frankly.
I agree with you. If their salary is coming out of the account revenue, then they are already in a morally dubious position.
Nothing worse than a hypocrite. I think you were generous to offer them the paycut.
We all choose the morality that suits our ambitions
Think same thing happened at BBH.
They had just won a farming account and some employees (not just writers and art directors) were against it.
So Big John had them all gather in the board room.
Told them how much revenue that farming account billed.
And said he respected their decision not to work on the account.
In return, they had to take significant pay cut.
Don’t know how many opted for the pay cut.
Interesting to see in these bad times, how may would clint to principles.
Re: this doing bad work.
My friend does it all the time.
He does bad work for ‘boring’ briefs.
Not very responsible, I feel.
And I suspect also because he’s not so good at ‘boring’ briefs.
I mean I used to hat doing brochures.
Then I found out I hated doing brochures because I sucked at writing long copy.
So I forced myself to become the best brochure writer in the agency.
Folks laughed at me.
But in these hard times, and when few writers can actually write, my brochure-writing skill has helped me net so money.
As Grubbie once told me at DFGW, “it’’s about doing the best with what you have.’
why didn’t you just fire them and get some other people to take photos of cowboys?
That is rather damn generous, Dave.
But maybe their time would have been better spent on liquor ads and prescription campaigns.
Thanks to your blog, Dave, everyone in your agency now knows the preferential deal you gave to these two. I’m sure your guys are loving that. And how any creatives can sit down and deliberately create crap work so it won’t get chosen, defies belief. Particularly in one of your agencies. If these two losers have such high principles, why choose to work in an agency that has a major cigarette account in the first place?
If I took the moral argument side on everything I believe in i’d have no money, few clothes and bugger all possestions.
Morality isn’t just about being on the side of right, its knowing when and where to focus to get the best results without causing damage. As Dave said, setting the game up right.
Maybe the question here should be concerned with the morality of the agency and its values. I respect your agency but why work on a project that, if you are successful, will cause harm to people. Where’s the morality in that? I know its easy to say ‘well, if I don’t someone else will’, but that is not a moral stand. Its an excuse for poor ethics and greed. The banks probably used the same justification for risking so much on the sub-prime market.
I agree with the first comment above from Robbie - who shines in this story? I think your approach to the problem was pragmatic and clever but its a shame that the ethics of your business did not make it easier.
If they were working for themselves, and it was their source of income, I’m sure they would not have objected so strongly.
I have an aversion to gambling, as I feel it is a total ripoff- too many families have lost their houses and possessions - but I would still work for them, and do the best I could.
I like the way you handled the situation.
Want to be treated like a professional?Advocacy for products that are legal to market is no different from advocacy for people.Lawyers have to defend to the best of their ability even for people they believe may be guilty.Or evil.Or both.Don’t like it,don’t enter that profession.
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-10.html
Simon wrote a similar post — I think it was one of his Tuesday tips. He called this kind of game “Playing to lose”.
Then they went on to create some brilliant anti-smoking advertising.
There’s a complete double standards about this in production, by the way: loads of great directors say they won’t do MacDonalds because they disagree with their principles. Yet they would happily work on Nike during the years when its sweatshop practices were well-documented.
It came down to the fact that MacDonald’s scripts were shit, but Nike’s were brilliant.
As Bill never said: A principle isn’t a principle until it costs you a One Show Bronze.
The agency I work for tends to assign creatives to a project until they do a good job, doing bad work or hoping another team will do better doesn’t come into it. We have a few potentially contentious clients too, no-one has ever refused to work on one, but if someone did it wouldn’t be less easy to create such a pragmatic, under-the-tablecloth solution. I wonder if you think this way of assigning creative is good or bad for this, and any other reason?
How does posting this fit into your pragmatism? (not trying to be a smart ass, genuinly wondering)
Sturat B and Christian.
It wasn’t this agency, it was years ago.
And hopefully, if everyone learns about pragmatism, it’ll make my life easier.
@ian
Good to see that the best hat doing brochure writer in the agency has clinted to his principles.
I would just get on with it no matter what, I personally hate Tescos and what they are doing to this country but i still would work on a brief for them.
At the end of the day you can just go home and bitch on about it and just move on and be lucky you got a job.
Any particular reason for why they didn’t want to do them?
Dave, this is a bit like the Water and Rock analogy you presented last month. Pragmatism is vital in all walks of life. Idealism is great…if you are in University on a grant or the spoiled child of wealthy parents. Idealism is a great creative force if tempered with pragmatism. Many of the top entrepeneurs of today were radiacal idealists in their youth. Age and the acquiring of pragmatism/common sense turned that energy into sound business sense. Political leaders who can cut practical deals do a lot more for mankind than idealists. It is true that a win for one side does not always mean a loss for the other side.
Hi Pat,
Churchill said, “Anyone under 30 who is not a Liberal has no heart. Anyone over 30 who is not a Conservative has no brain.”
Mike,
Apparently David Abbott’s dad died from lung cancer, so he refused to work on cigarettes and a lot of people followed his example.
“Apparently David Abbott’s dad died from lung cancer, so he refused to work on cigarettes and a lot of people followed his example.”
____________
Great campaigns can convince smokers to choose one brand or another, but I really don’t think a non-smoking person is influenced by ads.
Personally I don’t smoke because I find it useless. Has anyone ever seen a campaign that proved the usefulness of smoking? I haven’t.
Some other people don’t smoke because they care about their health. Has anyone ever seen a campaign that proved the positive impact of smoking on health? I haven’t.
So working on cigarettes is immoral only if that’s how you handle the brief.
I’ve always wanted to go to Graham Fink and say “Hey Graham. You did the Iguana cigarette ad didn’t you!”
And he’d say “why, yes I did, thank you for asking.”
Then I’d say “Graham, my dad thought that ad was so cool that he actually started smoking as a result of it”
And Graham would say “really? well say hi to him.”
Then I’d say “I would graham but sadly he died of lung cancer yesterday.”
And I’d like to hope an uncomfortable silence would follow.
If you want to call a house meeting in the kitchen try pissing in the sink
I think it’s good to stand for something, but at the end of the day, you’re not holding a gun to anyone’s head and you’re probably not the first person to introduce them to it.
One of my instructors used to go on tirades about insurance companies and then go work on them the next day. From the stories I’ve heard about many cds, a request like that would get you killed. But then again, maybe they’re just telling us ghost stories.
A principle isn’t a principle until it costs you money.
Bill Bernbach.
“I really don’t think a non-smoking person is influenced by ads. ”
Interesting.
And worrying.
Visual: 6 year old kid wearing adult sized suit and shoes, standing outside an office holding a lit fag.
Line: Smoking. Not Big. Not Clever.
You had me right up to the point where you basically told them to submit crap. Always give it your best shot or get out of the game.
And I would be very surprised if the other creatives in the agency didn’t know exactly what was going on when they saw this team’s submissions.
Steve.
You might be right, but I subscribe to the oriental concept of ‘giving face’.
Bothering to go through the process at least shows a bit more respect.
An agency I worked at was handed a cigarette brand on a plate. It would have been the easiest money they ever made. Almost no new creative, mostly managing the account and planning and buying the media. One of the agency principles had lost a parent to Emphysema, so the agency declined the account. What makes this story really remarkable is that at the time this agency was only about a year old and had only two accounts.
I’m all for pragmatism, and frankly wish there was more of it, however, I would never trade it for integrity. If I was those creatives, I would have taken the pay cut and got on with my next assignment.
I think Dave had a great deal of integrity to offer them that option. There are many who would have forced them to do it on fear of retribution.
We all draw lines in our lives, consciously and unconsiously. Those lines relate to our values. if you value ‘honesty’ (Cigarettes can seriously damage your health) and ‘freedom’ (the option to choose to smoke) then you also have to understand consequences. As a smoker I choose to smoke and I chose how much, I take a calculated risk. I do not demand others smoke nor do I expect others to tell me not to. Faced with any situation we can weigh the options, recon the consequences, make our judgement… and then stand by it. Of course it’s hard. The option you gave them in a way denied them the human experience of making hard choices (or re-assessing values).
Just going out for a smoke…
“Personally I don’t smoke because I find it useless. Has anyone ever seen a campaign that proved the usefulness of smoking?”
You’re never alone with a Strand.
Dave,
” … go through the process at least shows a bit more respect.”
Respect to whom, for what?
Ciaran
Ant, that’s a perfect example for my theory. (No, it doesn’t prove the usefulness of smoking.) It’s a perfect example because it does exactly what I’ve previously mentioned: it has great chances to convince a smoker to choose Strand, but let’s be serious, would anyone dabble with smoking in order not to be lonely? Young people usually take up smoking because their friends smoke, so they don’t want to be left outside the circle, but that’s the social impact, not the impact of a good ad. Advertising only convinces you to choose a certain brand.
(And thanks for reminding me of that campaign, Ant, excellent work.)
RE: “You’re never alone with a Strand”
That’s funny, I’m too young to have seen the Strand Ad but I do recall my mum telling me about it years ago. She described it as the worst ad she had ever seen. I’m not sure if it took Strand out of business but I remember her saying that “nobody wanted to be that guy”.
Dave
Aren’t we are in the business of facilitating choice?
And choice is the defintion of liberty.
Hi Ciaran,
Sometimes we lie to spare other people’s feelings, even when we both know we’re lying.
We accept the fact that we bothered to lie as good manners. We call it a white lie.
For instance, “Does my bum look big in this?”
We both know the answer, but the truth isn’t appropriate.
So, in this case, bothering to lie shows respect for the feelings of the rest of the creative department.
It does this by showing that they don’t consider themselves better than the rest, and deserving special treatment.
It also takes responsibility for the consequences of their position rather than making it the creative director’s problem.
They could choose not to work on cigarettes by leaving the agency.
They could choose not to work on cigarettes by taking a pay cut.
They didn’t like either of these choices, so a third option was needed.
I agree John.
But as Sartre would say, we’re never not-choosing.
Even choosing not to choose is still a choice.
And if we don’t like any of the choices on offer we can choose to create more choices.
Or we can choose not to.
And if we pretend we have no choice, then we chose pretence.
As Sartre said, ‘We’re condemned to be free.’
So, the respect was for the team that didn’t want to work on cigarettes, you don’t have to address the brief seriously, but don’t breathe a word to anyone.
Got it.
Ciaran
Dave
Satre was a cheery sod then?
When life gives us lemons we should make lemonade.
…or does that belie an acceptance of circumstance? Swings and roundabouts I suppose. It certainly is a dilemma and I commend your ability to navigate the situation. Another lesson duly noted.
Barack Obama smokes.
I love your posts. I feature you on my blog as a “must follow”.
Thank you for your work and your wisdom.
Hallo Anca, re: your question about a good ciggie campaign.
There was one years ago for “Death” cigarettes.
Not only did the ads win D&ADs, they also boosted so much interest and sales the British government banned them.
It was all copy ads.
And the idea was brilliant, I thought.
It went along the line of “or cigarettes won’t make you more attractive. But they’ll kill you just as quickly.”
What’s ironical, to me, is the ads told the truth.
And that’s why they were popular.
And that’s why the government banned them.
Re; Dave’s original point about doing ads for the agency and then doing anti-smokes on own time.
In parts of the world, agencies that handle anti-smoking accounts will not be chosen by Marlboro and the likes.
Lastly, Abbott’s ‘exclusion’ extends beyond cigarettes.
AMV also doesn’t do toys, I was told.
Ian, nice example, thanks.
Still, I think their increase in sales was the result of “stealing” customers from other brands,
not the result of non-smokers taking up smoking.
Paul, you do demand others smoke when you do. It’s called passive smoking and it’s the reason why smokers can’t claim a restriction on smoking is a restriction on personal freedom.
Richard Foster (heavy smoker) did an ad with the smoke from a cigarette going straight back up the smoker’s nose. The line was ‘If only’.
I love cigarettes, and alcohol. Can I have a job?
I wonder what an Opus Dei devote would do in a similar situation?
I’m with Zulu and her past employer (2/20 post)
The level you parked the decision at is unfair and a bit cowardly. If you took the account then examine what type of culture you are providing and what type of brand are you portraying. Makes me question if those two are working at the wrong place.
QUESTION FOR ZULU:
DID THAT ETHICAL AGENCY DO WELL IN YEARS THAT FOLLOWED THEIR TOUGH DECISION?
Splendid conversation you got going here Dave. Well done.
Hi Anca. No, the Strand campaign didn’t PROVE the usefulness of smoking, but it definitely offered a credible benefit. (If it had been successful, we’d be sitting here saying their big mistake was that the benefit was too generic, so it drove market growth instead of brand share.)
To your question, “let’s be serious, would anyone dabble with smoking in order not to be lonely?” - of course they would. Why do you think so many teenagers start smoking? The problem with the Strand work was that the execution was too literal and people associated smoking Strand with being a lonely loser. I guess the flipside to that was the Hamlet campaign. Yes, it drove brand share, but surely it must have driven market growth, too? The benefit (”happiness”) definitely has appeal to non-smokers, who might have been persuaded to try cigars.
“of course they would. Why do you think so many teenagers start smoking?” — that’s why I said (I can’t believe I’m quoting myself!):
“Young people usually take up smoking because their friends smoke, so they don’t want to be left outside the circle, but that’s the social impact, not the impact of a good ad.” I still believe it’s the social impact, seriously — also known by its almost scientific name as The Herd Effect.
Or… there’s another possibility: I just haven’t met such stupid teenagers yet. Really now, what is the percent of people taking up smoking because they’ve seen a great ad on TV? I hope it’s a small number, otherwise we’re talking about a frightening degree of universal stupidity.
Again, I believe great ads for cigarettes can only benefit from the existing addiction to smoking, they don’t create new victims.
I used to smoke 2 to 3 packs a day when I was younger.
Advertising had nothing to do with it.
Humphrey Bogart did, Jean Paul Belmondo did, tough guys in American movies, cool guys in French movies.
Anti-smoking ads about death just made it seem cooler and more daring.
I only gave up when it occurred to me it was an uncool habit, like picking your nose: it gave you bad breath and yellow teeth.
Exactly, Dave. Nobody smokes because X brand is the encapsulation of an extraordinary concept or divine poetry. It’s a thing that has more to do with attitude. Some people imitate other people, some others refuse to be like other people and then there’s the crowd that follows the rebels, which kills the idea of rebellion — that’s the rotation of trends and it’s a social phenomenon. Stop doing ads for cigarettes and nothing will change.
Of course one has to be wise enough to realise that oneself is being uncool and stupid.
@Anca: I don’t think cigarette advertising has a conscious effect on people’s decision to take up smoking. But it may indeed work subliminally.
Because how many people (who don’t work in the creative departments of ad agencies) will tell you flat out “I eat Cadbury chocolate because the Gorilla ad is so good.” Even if it subconsciously affects their decision,
I guess the converse of your argument would be to argue that a complete ban on any and all cigarette advertising would not impact the number of new smokers.
Would you agree to that?
“…would not impact the number of new smokers.”
That’s exactly what I meant, Alan. It DOES have a subliminal effect, but it only influences your preference for one brand or another, it does not convince you to take up smoking. That’s why I said doing ads for cigarettes has nothing to do with morality or immorality.
Hallo Anca
Can’t be sure on this.
But I think what happened with Death was it also got lots of kids to take up smoking (that’s why it was banned).
Well, Ian, if it really happened that way, that’s really sad.
It’s not their health I’m worried about, it’s their intelligence.
Actually I think it goes the other way round:
due to their inconceivably low level of intelligence,
there had to be a safe road to premature death.
I didn’t invent that, it’s called natural selection.
(I was probably joking.)
Even so, I think it was not really the success of that ad campaign, it sounds more like an educational failure and that’s where the real immorality is to be found.
Anca, the surreal nature and beautiful art direction of the Silk Cut and B&H campaigns work in exactly the same way as watching Jean Paul Belmondo smoking in A Bout de Souffle did on Dave: they make smoking seem cool. And teenagers are desperate to be cool.
Ant, their surreal nature actually DOESN’T work the same way, EXACTLY because it’s surreal. People are always choosing their models among the ones that don’t seem to be any different from them and are still paradoxically cooler than anyone else. That’s where they identify the possibility to imitate. Have you ever heard of teenagers jumping from the top of the Empire State Building while trying to fly like Superman? I bet you haven’t. But I’m sure there were many young men who started dressing like Peter Fonda after they had seen Easy Rider.
“Anti-smoking ads about death just made it seem cooler and more daring.
I only gave up when it occurred to me it was an uncool habit, like picking your nose: it gave you bad breath and yellow teeth.”
Dave, I’ve just remembered an alternative and involuntary anti-smoking campaign developed by one of my friends, who was just trying to be ironic:
he’s a very good looking guy and he used to attend pubs where he would seduce smoking women, dance with them, create the proper atmosphere for physical interaction, then he’d say “I’m sorry, I have a liver disorder, I can’t kiss women that smell like ashtrays.” Embarrassment is a very efficient weapon.
I had a similar situation at BMP - I’m a vegetarian and we had the British Meat account.
I asked the CD (Larry Barker) if it would be okay not to work on it. He immediately said: “You are hereby excused from all meat duties.” Cool guy.
I don’t see a problem with an Agency being able to accommodate individuals’ principles. Maybe it’s easier in a big Agency. At BMP there were 25 other accounts he could give me to work on, and he had 25 other teams he could give Meat briefs to.
Hi Anca. Whether something is surreal or not has absolutely no bearing on whether people think it’s cool. I Am The Walrus is one of the coolest songs ever, but who knows what it’s about? People are attracted to/influenced by people/aesthetics they find attractive/stimulating. For example, as a teenager, one of my heroes was the Japanese writer Mishima - who couldn’t have been outwardly more different to an Anglo-Indian kid from the east end of London. I guarantee lots of people thought the Silk Cut aesthetic was very cool. I was one of them.
“Whether something is surreal or not has absolutely no bearing on whether people think it’s cool.”
At all! Never said that. But it has something to do with the possibility to imitate what you see. It’s easy to smoke while talking to an incredibly good looking woman — the way many cool actors do– but it’s not that easy to imitate a smoking cow flying across the Atlantic. Of course I exaggerated with the second example, but you get the idea.
You don’t even need any surreal setting in order to be faced with the impossibility to imitate your hero. Imagine a colonel shooting and smoking at the same time or negotiating a 5 minute break with the enemies to enjoy his cigar.
Simply put, in order to do* what someone else does you need to be “sure” that it will make you just as cool as that person is. Otherwise there’s no reason to even bother with the whole thing.
____________________________________
*compare “do what someone else does”
with “WANT to do what someone else does”
Anca, I’m pretty sure I disagree with you but my head hurts now! My point is that showing someone cool consuming your product isn’t the only way to make your product seem cool and attractive to potential consumers. That’s the genius of the Silk Cut work.
An answer to Mike’s question (post 53) the agency is thriving. They didn’t skip a beat. Oh, and, I’m not a “she” — not that there would be anything wrong with that.
Why wouldn’t the other teams have been pleased the young, fresh, talented team weren’t working on it? Less competition, surely?
Hi Rich,
The problem is cigarette advertising is harder than other kinds, because of all the restrictions.
So it’s harder to do good work.
This would have left the younger team free to do good work on better briefs, while everyone else had the tougher job of doing cigarettes.
Ant, I understood your position from the very beginning, it’s just that I can’t think of cigarettes as being an attractive product — they just taste like hell, smell like hell and are highly unhealthy, just like a bonus. So since it’s not the product that we’re selling here, it must be the attitude. That’s why I find it more efficient to present “someone cool” rather than work on a great product presentation.
But I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I actually enjoy very much the way we disagree, you always bring great arguments and clever examples. Thank you for that.
Ah, cheers. It’s been a pleasure disagreeing with you!
By the way, have you ever read Allen Carr’s books on smoking? I think the reason he’s been so successful in helping people quit is that he tries to get smokers out of their addict’s mindset and into the mindset of a non-smoker. When that happens, as a smoker you suddenly think, hold on, what on earth am I doing? I’m paying a fortune to have dreadful breath and give myself an early death from a horrible disease.
I haven’t read Carr’s works. Nice perspective, thanks for the suggestion, Ant, it’s on the list now.
_______________
off the record:
I’ve just found this:
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2009/02/good-night-post.html
Could be the symbol of illusory efficiency through extended office life.
Ben Kay: I think you misssed the point. Born again breathers (the most evangelical as they have given up and are pleased with themselves) are always telling smokers to stop. Smokers don’t tell people to start. Passive smoking is a whole other issue.
Back to the original process described by Dave I suspect it is a pragmatic solution to the whole confusing mess that is the clash between ethics and capitalism. By providing a ‘compromise’ or way out I fear you did the people concerned no favours at all, only compromising them ethically and in terms of the business. Is it okay to do a bad job or fake it or sabotage for the sake of expediency? If so how far down that road are you prepared to travel?
Dear Dave,
I’ve only read a few of your most recent posts. I think you’re probably one of the wisest people I’ve ever encountered.
Thanks for the inspiration!
The husband that drops plates to get out of the washing-up also runs the risk of no nookie that night and reduced nookie thereafter. You could have given the work to a hungry creative, gone out of your way to help make it a great piece of work then given them a big bonus that the other guys would have heard about. I’m an anti-smoker.
I’ve got my principles and if you don’t like them there’s plenty more where they come from.
Maybe the solution would be to find a team that didn’t have a problem with advertising smoking - say, a team that smokes (though this is a generalisation) - and get them to do it.
Rather than allowing your agency to throw sub-par work out the door.
How could anyone have reacted badly to their wish to abstain from the brief? Smoking has proven to be a creative goldmine, as well as thoroughly lucrative - therefore, the reasons for not taking it up can only have been moral. If you thought the rest of your teams would fail to see that, that’s worrying…
A little more pragmatism from them, and a little less feeling butthurt about imaginary politics, and maybe you wouldn’t have had to come up with a distasteful solution.
i clearly remember that happening at ggt with damon & mary - bless them, they probably would have only been earning £6,000 each a year!
that was the beauty with dave, always a different way to think to get the best result
I was in that position once. I quit. Found another job at an agency more in-line with my values. I don’t believe anyone should have to work on an account or product they don’t believe in. If your Creative Director doesn’t understand that then he doesn’t understand people, he understands making money. That’s why agencies pitch cigarette accounts in the first place. You’re better off leaving. If you were good enough to get a job there you will be good enough to get a job at an equally creative place. You’ll be happier and they will be happier.
Mr. Trott, I respect most of your opinions but not this one.
Darrell, of course there’s no universally right option. Just like pure business is the right option for some CDs, as cold as it may sound, while others also need to feel love floating around in their offices. Wouldn’t it be unfair to force all CDs from the first category to change their principles?
Making choices is natural. Making wrong choices is a subcategory. Trying and failing is just as natural.
[...] There was a lively discussion on Dave Trott’s blog last month about the ethics of cigarette advertising. [...]
Depends also on who gets to see the “bad ads” .In my small experience clients will often choose unwisely if presented with a bad option. However if the agency was only submitting what they saw to be the best option/s to the client then yes, an assured win win.