(I’m away for 2 weeks in Umbria. But I’ll check in on all the comments from the local internet cafe.)
My daughter went to a boarding school in the country.
One day I got a call from her housemistress.
She said there was nothing to worry about (never a good sign when someone starts off like that) but Jade had spent the night in the sanatorium.
They’d wanted to keep her under observation because they’d found her passed out on the lawn.
Apparently she and some other girls had been drinking vodka.
So I put the phone down and thought it over.
Then I called my solicitor and talked it over with him.
Then I called the school’s headmaster.
I said I’d just talked to my solicitor to find out exactly what my position was.
In what way was the school culpable?
My solicitor told me I must make it absolutely plain to the school what I find acceptable.
Once notified of that, they can be held responsible.
So I called the headmaster and told him that I was notifying him of the boundaries I expected him to enforce.
I said I found it acceptable for my daughter to drink beer and wine and smoke marijuana.
I didn’t find it acceptable for her to take any serious drugs or serious alcohol, i.e. spirits.
The headmaster said he thought that was a strange position as most parents were against any drugs, because they were illegal.
But they generally okay with alcohol because it was legal.
I said I wasn’t really interested in what was legal.
I was interested in what was life threatening.
I didn’t know anyone who’d died from beer, wine, or marijuana.
But I knew several people who’d died from serious drugs and serious alcohol.
I wasn’t saying she should smoke marijuana, just that I found that safer, and therefore more acceptable than vodka.
See it depends on what you see your parental responsibility as.
I thought it was my duty to get my children to 18 in one piece.
After that I hand them back to themselves.
My wife is an art director.
So to allow her to work, the children had a nanny when they were small.
I told every nanny the same thing when they started.
“The rules are very simple:
Rule One: the children must be safe.
Rule Two: they must be happy.
Rule Three: they should be educated.
If you’re ever in any doubt at all, default to Rule One.
Because as long as the children are safe, we can fix anything else.”
That was my attitude to drugs.
Of course they want to experiment.
Of course they want to be a bit naughty.
You don’t want your children to be goody-goodies.
So it’s about damage limitation.
Everything that’s fun is usually harmful in some way or another.
It’s naughty because it’s harmful.
It’s fun because it’s naughty.
You want your children to grow up with a bit of spirit.
But you want them to grow up safely.
So it’s a compromise.
Allow them to do something a bit naughty, but make sure it’s the least harmful of the options.
That way everyone gets some of what they want.
I get the children relatively safe.
They get to join in with their friends and be a bit daring.
And I was always honest with the kids about it.
Because the problem when I was young was that no one was honest.
Everyone’s attitude was exactly that of the parents at my daughter’s school.
All drugs are illegal therefore all drugs are equally wrong, dangerous, and harmful.
So, when I got to be a teenager, I started to experiment with grass.
I found it wasn’t so harmful.
So I figured if they lied about that maybe they lied about all drugs
So my generation ignored all the advice.
They took vast quantities of drugs, and a lot of them died.
I thought it was safer to be honest with my children.
To tell them some drugs are a lot worse than others.
Marijuana is the least harmful (at least it was before skunk).
Sure, like any smoking it can cause respiratory problems.
Also, taken to excess, you lose all ambition.
But I think everything else is more dangerous.
So that’s what I told my children.
It’s exactly the rule for tackling any problem.
In life or in advertising.
Be honest.
If we find out the facts, and present them in the most powerful way, they must work.
If they don’t work, then either the facts aren’t good enough or we’re not presenting them well enough.
So something needs to change.
Someone once said to me, “If you only ever tell the truth you never have to remember what you said.”
That’s true for any argument.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
Interesting, Dave..
At first, I didn’t know why you called the lawyers.
Your what’s legal vs what’s harmful is a classic case of perception vs reality.
Few of my advertising friends have a rep for being nice guys - in that they don’t fight with the suits.
But what wrankles is, these blokes expect others - suckers like me - to fight for them.
So, if we’re a team, they accept all the suits say.
Whereas fiery me kicks up a storm.
Everyone says I’m hard to to work with.
But, at least, I have the balls.
Ever though of writing a rock ‘n roll parenting manual, Dave?
‘Thought’ even.
Thanks, Dave.
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-73.html
I’ve been reading your blog for over a year. This post is one example of why. I don’t think I’ve ever left a comment before.
You have an uncommon ability to tie together disparate issues and events and show their relevance, at least in your own mind, to advertising. This post is one of the more striking examples of that ability. Your thinking is provocative and unfailingly interesting. Thanks for publishing this blog.
Have you gone on holiday by mistake?
How do we know it’s not a typo and you’ve gone to Cumbria?
When you are in the internet café you should demand the finest wines known to humanity! Arrivederci or is it Ta-ra?
Thanks a lot Tom.
great post dave. so pragmatic. enjoy umbria. or cumbria.
DT!
My girl is just about to have our first child
couldn’t agree with you more
enjoy your trip
I take you’re point about honesty Dave, but from this parable I also get the sense you want people (in advertising and life) to take more risks and experiment. Playing by the rules gets you nowhere, but you also have to respect your personal and professional boundaries. Do you encouraging risk taking within your agency?
Also have you read this book?: http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/features/twctte/twctte_022307/index.html
And finally, my recaptcha words are planner $1,728,300 - that’s a good one!
Sorry Dave. This is one of those ‘I was in the room at the time’ stories.
Actually I WAS in the room at the time when Tim Delaney came up with the idea of casting John Cleese, not only to perform the award winning Sony radio commercials, but write them as well.
My memory doesn’t recollect him being offered anything like a hundred grand and even a note put through his door with any sum on it. I’m sure Tim rang his agent David Wilkinson and asked if Cleese would do it and how much?
Do you think John Cleese got Sony mixed up with Sainsbury’s?
Does it matter? As like Brian’s story it’s a good one, even if the facts are either wrong or distorted.
My comment should really be in the SOMETIMES NOTHING IS A REAL COOL HAND but somehow TRUTH, LIES AND ADVERTISING in this case seems a better place.
Have a great holiday
John O’D
P.S. What I do remember is going to John Cleese’s flat to meet him with Tim. We found him to be very nice and straight forward. Cleese did one funny thing though, he showed us into a room and disappeared off down a corridor saying he would only be a couple of seconds. He then appeared in the room from another door counting “22, 23. 24…sorry I’m late.” (Well I thought it was a hoot at the time.)
Keeping this short so won’t strain bad net connections.
Reckon Brits do Ok in Asia (not just Italy).
Unlike French who screwed up Indochina, Dutch, Indonesia and Spanish,Philippines.
Hope weather fine and all.
I’d always heard that the Cleese story was Schweppes for Saatchi: some nonsense set in the West Indies… maybe one of those apocryphal stories like the British Rail pitch and so on… have a great holiday…
Hi Dave. A big thank you for all that you write on your blog. While I work in advertising, I read your blog for all your thoughts and ideas on parenting, mentoring and coaching.
This blog really reflects what I think too. I let my daughter smoke her first cigarette at 16 yrs of age. In fact I bought the cigarette and lit it for her ! And this in a so called conservative society in India.
Often as parents, we are guilty of missing the wood for the trees and lose out on the beauty of our children.
Hope you are reading this comment while on your holiday !
Dave,
Your Private View in today’s Campaign is the best i’ve ever read. I’ve instructed the entire creative department to read it (although i’m only a junior copywriter, so they probably won’t listen to me).
Inspirational. Thank you.
John O’D,
Yup, I know Tim did the original radio stuff.
As I understand it, this was the agency that got the account afterwards (was it Ogilvy, Benton & Bowles, Burnett, somewhere like that) and they wanted to use him on telly.
Anyway that’s the way I heard it.
Hi Sunitha,
Yup I’m reading it outside a bar with WiFi connection in the Umbrian mountains.
It’s 42 degrees and so it would be rude not have a cold beer while using their internet.
My kids are here with us (they’re 23 and 25 now) and they always check my blogs before I post them (especially if they’re in them).
Dave,
Your piece of new media was brilliant.
Amazing how many ECDs who have little or no digital work now insist on it in other people’s books/reels.
Like you said, it’s just a tool.
Reminds me a bit of a famous photographer.
He had bought a fish eye lens for a job.
Thereafter, every shoot, he tried to convince agency/clients to use the lens.
Not only that - he would charge extra for shots with the fish eye lens.
Hope you enjoying your hols.
‘cleese and the hundred grand offer.’
must be benton and bowles.
they did have the account after BBDO, and made a bollocks of it.
then it went to BMP. right?
hundred and fifty still sounds a bit high though. if he got it no wonder his latest missus cained him for so much when they got divorced.
hope hols were good.
odee
Still in Umbria John.
There’s only one bar that has internet access so I have to have a cold beer or two whe I’m there.
Well. rude mot to.
My mentor, partner and boss Jim Mullen taught me three things. 1. people start reading when they’re interested and stop when they lost interest. sometimes what they’re interested in is an ad (I’ll add to that a blog post). Lesson, be interesting. 2. Tell the truth, you’ll never have to remember what you did or didn’t tell anyone. 3. But waterfront property. They’re not making any more of it. My problem is that I only listened to the first two. Your post lives up to 1, reinforces 2, and has nothing to do with three. But 67 percent good/right/whatever is a decent accomplishment. Now I just have to convince my wife that you are right.
Ooops, previous post of comment has typos: Here you go.
My mentor, partner and boss Jim Mullen taught me three things. 1. people start reading when they’re interested and stop when they lose interest. sometimes what they’re interested in is an ad (I’ll add to that a blog post). Lesson, be interesting. 2. Tell the truth, you’ll never have to remember what you did or didn’t tell anyone. 3. Buy waterfront property. They’re not making any more of it. My problem is that I only listened to the first two. Your post lives up to 1, reinforces 2, and has nothing to do with 3. But 67 percent good/right/whatever is a decent accomplishment. Now I just have to convince my wife that you are right.
My Dad who was born in 1905, was emphatic about the truth. He said he liked to go to sleep at night. It was from him that I learned, “Tell the truth and you never have to remember what you said.” I try really hard to life by that. It works. And it is why you can always tell who is inventing stuff and who is not. Thank you.