<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: OBJECTIVE – GOOD.  SUBJECTIVE – BAD.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/</link>
	<description>Creative thinking and critique from Dave Trott</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sebastiano</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13176</link>
		<dc:creator>Sebastiano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 14:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13176</guid>
		<description>Those who evaluate advertising in terms of "I like it, you'll piss your pants watching it, it sucks" are similar to the couch-potato-football-professionals.

It's to comfortable way to give feedback.

What's sadder is that I'm in this creative school now and the CDs there often bring in opinions without any supportive argumentation, or just seem to make up arguments just to look objective.

Throwing passages from advertising books is not of any value.

How about putting a little more brain in it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those who evaluate advertising in terms of &#8220;I like it, you&#8217;ll piss your pants watching it, it sucks&#8221; are similar to the couch-potato-football-professionals.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s to comfortable way to give feedback.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s sadder is that I&#8217;m in this creative school now and the CDs there often bring in opinions without any supportive argumentation, or just seem to make up arguments just to look objective.</p>
<p>Throwing passages from advertising books is not of any value.</p>
<p>How about putting a little more brain in it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephen</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13175</link>
		<dc:creator>stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 11:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13175</guid>
		<description>That seems fair.   And who's to say that of the 100% of ads that make up the 10%, 90% of them probably 'don't work'.  (Enough percentages already!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That seems fair.   And who&#8217;s to say that of the 100% of ads that make up the 10%, 90% of them probably &#8216;don&#8217;t work&#8217;.  (Enough percentages already!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13174</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 09:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13174</guid>
		<description>Hi Stephen,
I always tell students, what I’m saying won’t work 100% of the time.
Nothing will.
But it will work 90% of the time, and that’s not bad.
For me Gorilla fits into the 10%.
I don’t think you can get there by logic.
So, I tell students, you either choose to work in the 90% that you can get to by logic.
Or the 10% that you can’t.
For me 9 out of 10 is better odds than 1 out of 10.
I'm not a genius so I can't depend on luck, I have to use logic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Stephen,<br />
I always tell students, what I’m saying won’t work 100% of the time.<br />
Nothing will.<br />
But it will work 90% of the time, and that’s not bad.<br />
For me Gorilla fits into the 10%.<br />
I don’t think you can get there by logic.<br />
So, I tell students, you either choose to work in the 90% that you can get to by logic.<br />
Or the 10% that you can’t.<br />
For me 9 out of 10 is better odds than 1 out of 10.<br />
I&#8217;m not a genius so I can&#8217;t depend on luck, I have to use logic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephen</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13173</link>
		<dc:creator>stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 09:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13173</guid>
		<description>By and large I agree with you here Dave.  And you are right - "I like it" - is not a sound yardstick.  Unless - as Paul points out - the words are uttered by the client.....

But help me here.  I'm not sure I would be able to say 'it works' when shown - say - Gorilla for the first time.   I mention the Cadbury's ad not because it's the only example - but because some ideas come from somewhere that is so left of field it's hard to look beyond 'I like it'.  Any thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By and large I agree with you here Dave.  And you are right - &#8220;I like it&#8221; - is not a sound yardstick.  Unless - as Paul points out - the words are uttered by the client&#8230;..</p>
<p>But help me here.  I&#8217;m not sure I would be able to say &#8216;it works&#8217; when shown - say - Gorilla for the first time.   I mention the Cadbury&#8217;s ad not because it&#8217;s the only example - but because some ideas come from somewhere that is so left of field it&#8217;s hard to look beyond &#8216;I like it&#8217;.  Any thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Gordon</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13172</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 09:29:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13172</guid>
		<description>Cheers Vinny,
What a lovely quote from your old boss! Someone who kept the chalice of creativity from being tainted.

Hi Ciaran,
Yes, it's no fun being an account man and its no fun having to argue over work. Although I never met John Salmon, I wished I had done. I had to attend a meeting with Bernard Jacobs one day as a junior creative. I asked him where I should sit at this vast table. He looked me straight in the eye and said "SIT THERE, WHERE I CAN SEE STRAIGHT INTO YOUR EYES"  I was absolutely terrified. Nailed to my chair. Fortunately the work was approved.
I dread to think what would have happened otherwise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cheers Vinny,<br />
What a lovely quote from your old boss! Someone who kept the chalice of creativity from being tainted.</p>
<p>Hi Ciaran,<br />
Yes, it&#8217;s no fun being an account man and its no fun having to argue over work. Although I never met John Salmon, I wished I had done. I had to attend a meeting with Bernard Jacobs one day as a junior creative. I asked him where I should sit at this vast table. He looked me straight in the eye and said &#8220;SIT THERE, WHERE I CAN SEE STRAIGHT INTO YOUR EYES&#8221;  I was absolutely terrified. Nailed to my chair. Fortunately the work was approved.<br />
I dread to think what would have happened otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ciaran McCabe</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13171</link>
		<dc:creator>Ciaran McCabe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 23:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13171</guid>
		<description>I remember coming back from an Aer Lingus meeting and going into John Salmon to tell him there were a couple of small changes. As I stammered and stuttered through the debrief he stopped me and said:
'Hang on a second Ciaran, your balls are coming loose, why don't you take a breath and start over." They were, and I did, and everything was fine. You're right, those were the days.
Ciaran</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember coming back from an Aer Lingus meeting and going into John Salmon to tell him there were a couple of small changes. As I stammered and stuttered through the debrief he stopped me and said:<br />
&#8216;Hang on a second Ciaran, your balls are coming loose, why don&#8217;t you take a breath and start over.&#8221; They were, and I did, and everything was fine. You&#8217;re right, those were the days.<br />
Ciaran</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vinny warren</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13170</link>
		<dc:creator>vinny warren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 23:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13170</guid>
		<description>kevin,

 it's always painful starting out doing this. i can vividly recall the gruesome awfulness of my first stabs on a D&amp;AD course aeons ago.

the thing that made everything fall into place for me was the realization that not everything is subjective.

 and that some ideas are just undeniably good regardless of the typeface used.  so i focussed exclusively on (trying) to produce work that is just undeniably good.

and you're right, the acid test of a great idea is how easily others can add to your idea.   big ideas make everyone's life easier as my old boss used to say.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>kevin,</p>
<p> it&#8217;s always painful starting out doing this. i can vividly recall the gruesome awfulness of my first stabs on a D&amp;AD course aeons ago.</p>
<p>the thing that made everything fall into place for me was the realization that not everything is subjective.</p>
<p> and that some ideas are just undeniably good regardless of the typeface used.  so i focussed exclusively on (trying) to produce work that is just undeniably good.</p>
<p>and you&#8217;re right, the acid test of a great idea is how easily others can add to your idea.   big ideas make everyone&#8217;s life easier as my old boss used to say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13169</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 22:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13169</guid>
		<description>They were the days Nic.
When we had a proper traffic system and account men had to care what creatives thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They were the days Nic.<br />
When we had a proper traffic system and account men had to care what creatives thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nicole</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13168</link>
		<dc:creator>nicole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 22:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13168</guid>
		<description>this blog post reminds me of the simplicity of language you used with account teams over the years - when they would come back from a mtg and say 'the creative work is client approved BUT...' - you would correct them and say 'well its not approved then' and they would insist it was by repeating  'yes it is approved dave,  APART FROM' and you would correct them again and say 'well its not fully approved then' - they would say 'it absolutely is approved, YOU JUST NEED TO'...........and so it would go on.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this blog post reminds me of the simplicity of language you used with account teams over the years - when they would come back from a mtg and say &#8216;the creative work is client approved BUT&#8230;&#8217; - you would correct them and say &#8216;well its not approved then&#8217; and they would insist it was by repeating  &#8216;yes it is approved dave,  APART FROM&#8217; and you would correct them again and say &#8216;well its not fully approved then&#8217; - they would say &#8216;it absolutely is approved, YOU JUST NEED TO&#8217;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..and so it would go on&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dragana Hartley</title>
		<link>http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/05/objective-%e2%80%93-good-subjective-%e2%80%93-bad/#comment-13167</link>
		<dc:creator>Dragana Hartley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 17:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cstadvertising.com/blog/?p=226#comment-13167</guid>
		<description>My lips are sealed, but no it wasn't any of you lovely people.  To paraphrase Woody Allen, my years at WTCS were the most fun I had with my clothes on....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My lips are sealed, but no it wasn&#8217;t any of you lovely people.  To paraphrase Woody Allen, my years at WTCS were the most fun I had with my clothes on&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->