I just read this blog-post on this very interesting site and it made me think.
“Nothing IS enough
Materalism is out of control.
Our desire for ‘more’ simply feeds continued discontent.
Our pursuit of ‘things’ that will bring us happiness makes us unhappy.
Our attempts to ‘improve’ our lives is destroying the world in which we live.
We need to change our expectations, and start appreciating life for what it is.
We need to stop thinking that what we have will make us happy…
…and start recognising that we can be happy with what we have.
We need to stop feeling that nothing is enough…
…and start realising that nothing can be enough.
Maybe we just need to stop.”
On the one hand I agree with it.
On the other I don’t.
I don’t agree that attempting to improve our lives has to destroy the world.
But I do agree that just buying stuff is the wrong way to do it.
It’s dull and boring.
Paul Arden once said to me, “I’m not buying anything anymore.
Buying things is just other people’s ideas.
There’s nothing creative or clever in paying other people to do it.
Anyone can buy the same stuff.
It’s just boring.”
True enough.
But it always has been.
Shopping has never been about creativity.
It’s just a way of showing off wealth.
Like WAGs.
About as creative as banking.
Just acquiring someone else’s creative thinking.
The only creative act is counting off the notes.
That’s why, traditionally, art school students ’shopped’ at places other people didn’t.
Oxfam shops, junk yards, army surplus stores, skips, pavements.
It’s not about what you can afford to buy.
It’s about what you can find, what you can see that no one else sees.
Buying stuff is just other people’s ideas.
Really creative people make new combinations from what exists.
Look at Picasso’s most creative pieces.
A gorilla’s head made from two toy cars stuck together.
A bull’s head made from a bike saddle and a handlebar.
An owl made from a rusted trowel.
A stork made from an old bent gas-pipe tap.
A head made from a wooden box, a plate, and some buttons.
A woman with hands made from dinner forks.
A face made from a broken clay urn, with the handle as the nose.
All made from stuff that was lying around, unwanted.
Stuff everyone else just saw as junk.
What was new was the combination.
What he saw that nobody else saw.
Not just what he bought before anyone else bought it.
That’s not creativity.
But that seems to be what passes for creativity in advertising.
Being the first to use the latest computer-graphics technique.
Quickly using the latest digital app before anyone else.
Quickly using the latest internet technique before anyone else.
Being the first to rush in and buy it and show it off.
Despite the fact that it’s going to be out of date as soon as the second and third person does it.
Picasso didn’t rush out and buy the latest bicycle saddle and handlebar before anyone else.
He picked up some rusting old bits of bike that had been lying around for ages.
Unwanted, unnoticed, rubbish.
And he made something amazing from them
Using the latest technique isn’t creativity, it’s just fashion.
It’ll be out of date almost as soon as it runs.
But great ideas never go out of date.
Tell me, if you made VW ‘Snow Plough’ today, wouldn’t it be the best commercial around?
Or the Avis ‘We Try Harder’ campaign, wouldn’t it blow everything else away?
Of Fedex ‘When It Absolutely Positively Has To Be There Overnight’ campaign?
Or the ‘Smash Martians’?
Or B&H ‘Iguana’?
Or Lego ‘Kipper’?
Or any one of several dozen ads and campaigns that everyone remembers and talks about decades later.
Ads that didn’t just rely on using the latest fashion, first.
Because just being the first to use the newest technique isn’t creativity.
It’s just shopping.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
Yep - was written in one of those moments of existential angst over the nature of what we do.
Def agree (and wasn’t intending to suggest otherwise) that attempting to improve our lives has to destroy the world.
Creative at it’s best is win-win for all.
It’s the mindless (and misguided) buying of stuff in the hope that it will make ‘me’ feel better (and sod everyone else) that always troubles me…particularly our part in fostering this worldview.
Are you accidentally espousing my mischievous theory that we should just run/remake old ads? I saw ‘Kipper’ on TV over Christmas and it was wonderful. I’d love to see Snowplough, Avis and Iguana running again. What’s with this whole neophilia, anyway? We’ll happily check out an old Rembrandt without whinging about how it’s not very new or orginal, and I’d happily sit through many classic movies before most of the crap from the last decade. The same for books and music. Why not ads?
(I know why: It’s because the agencies wouldn’t be able to charge so much for what they do. The Ad Contrarian is so right.)
Dave,
On the subject of enough, a favorite poem by Kurt Vonnegut:
Joe Heller
True story, Word of Honor:
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
now dead,
and I were at a party given by a billionaire
on Shelter Island.
I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel
to know that our host only yesterday
may have made more money
than your novel ‘Catch-22′
has earned in its entire history?”
And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”
And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”
And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”
Not bad! Rest in peace!”
–Kurt Vonnegut
The New Yorker, May 16th, 2005
Think in this digital age, especially, agencies and clients are often guilty of using technology to cover up lack of ideas. So much so that these days, print advertising seems to have taken a far back seat. Go to agency websites and the press ads are often nothing more than an announcement to watch the spot on TV. But that’s how the cookie crumbles.
Surely some bankers have been a little *too* creative in recent years?
I remember working on Arthur Andersen, just when Olins were doing the big re-brand. They dropped the ‘Arthur’ because it didn’t sound ‘maverick’ enough. One of their new corporate values.
Back then, there were five big accountancy firms. Shortly after, there were four.
Creativity isn’t desirable in every walk of life…
Exactly why they can run ‘Kipper’ today and it’s just as creative as it’s always been. Great work never goes out of fashion.
OK, so which ads of 2009 will we still be talking about in 40-50 years’ time?
I’m afraid I’ve no answer to this myself, seeing as I barely watch any commercial television these days that hasn’t been either purchased as a DVD or downloaded from the US three months before we’d get it here and stripped of advertising. And if it’s on with Harry Hill, I’m making tea.
The ad that made me want to do advertising was The Muncher (”He ate the Taj Mahal…”) for Chewitts. I was 8 or something silly. By the time I left university, it was the DDB work from the 60s that inspired me. Thirty years later. So…is “Drive it like you hate it” still lighting the way for Bucks graduates?
I must agree that you could run the classic old advertising and it would work just as well now as it did then. I think in this case, the fault lies not with the agencies, but with the companies. They own the spots and could revive them; run them. They lack courage and instinct. They would probably try and remake them, so they looked modern. Freshen ‘em up a bit. And in the process ruin the charm that made them classics. Just like they do when they remake classic films for the “new” generation. And what ads from today will we be talking about decades from now? Perhaps the World’s Most Interesting Man. The Johnnie Walker stuff. The new Jack Daniels spot. Harley Davidson print. But in reality, we’ll probably still be talking about what was mentioned today.
Last year I shamelessly borrowed (ripped off?)
- with acknowledgement - the Give a Damn
campaign from the sixties for a local homeless
shelter. they had their best response ever in a
tough year. Alas, I didn’t have LLoyd Bridges for
the voice over.
Ciaran
Thank you. A great and thought-provoking essay. I truly appreciate it.
Whilst most ads nowadays aren’t as memorable as even those of the ’90s, one exception is Cadbury’s Gorilla. It’ll be remembered for a long time to come. It was revolutionary - the first all emotional ad ever done. The first to focus only on winning hearts and not minds. Sold loads more bars for Cadbury’s and won more awards than any other ad of 2008.
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-114-115.html
I agree Dave. I thought for a while that maybe nostalgia played a part in my belief that these old ads would kick the shit out of their bland, modern equivalents. But I don’t think it’s that at all. They have a power that comes from the freshness of their thinking, not from technique. And great thinking is timeless, unlike the bland, technique-led, ‘emotional’ uninteresting work we generally see today.
A minute of vaguely related entertainment and an endline isn’t great thinking.
Cheers.
Hi Dave,
I agree.
It’s not just the executions but also the thinking that makes those ideas timeless.
I find it interesting that as times change our basic needs don’t.
We still need:
Reliable transport. (VW).
Companies that provide good service (Avis).
Deliveries that arrive on time (FedEx).
Labour saving ideas in the kitchen (Smash).
And toys that fire up our children’s imagination (Lego).
Looking at most of the ads on the TV at the moment, you would think that what people needed is to be told:
How to live.
Or who to be.
It’s enough to make you reach for those cigarettes in the gold packet.
Great post as usual. OT, why do people write comments on their own blogs and post the links? No offense to Anca but if it’s an attempt to draw traffic to your own blog I can’t see it working. I’ve no intention of clicking on the link to load it up.
Is it a cheap piggyback? If it’s not a way of trying to improve your own site’s viewings, then what is the purpose?
Hi Whelan,
Anca has strong opinions and likes to express them at length.
This upset some people who were quite rude.
Anca decided she would put her opinions on her own site and post a link.
If you wanted to know what she thought, you clicked the link.
If you didn’t you didn’t.
So that no one had any excuse to be rude about whatever she wanted to say.
I think she does it for discretion rather than self promotion.
Oh OK, fair enough. I suppose that makes sense. Sorry if I’ve offended you Anca!
Anyone can walk into a shop and buy something.
Any client can cite an ad and say: I want it just like that.
And that’s just what they end up getting.
Wallpaper.
It’s as if the comfort zone is more important than the standout zone.
It’s like a competitor going to a fashion show and saying:
I want my show to be identical.
When it is done it is done.
Finito.
What’s the point of being unoriginal and uninspiring?
It’s such an irony that it takes a really intelligent and brave client
to run a creative ad that will make buckets of money.
The fact is, to people like us it’s a no-brainer,
but why is it only us that can see it?
I find the whole thing very strange indeed.
REF: Anca. Damn. I never really went to her site until the above commentary. The woman is uber smart. And too deep for my own good. It’s probably good to keep her a little under wraps. As a pretty smart guy, I’m sure I would be reduced to cinders in mere moments by her superior brain waves. And that’s no joke. I’m assuming philosophy was probably her major in college. Anyway, now I’m going to visit more often…
at my own risk!
Dave, think Anca uses her site because some guys were pretending to be her. “Funny til it happens to you” as they say - and a line I been trying to sell some client.
when companies started computerising their businesses there was a saying -
“no one ever got sacked for buying IBM”
wasn’t the best product but there was safety in numbers
Totally agree with the technique point but there’s still a whiff of ‘things were better back in the day’. I think there’s some incredible modern advertising. It’s just not as memorable because there are billions more people in the world watching more stuff made by more agencies via more channels.
Vessel,
Yup, we’ve got lots more problems, we’ve also got lots more solutions.
The problem is what the problem always was.
How do you stand out?
Don’t blame the situation for a lack of creativity.
Noted Dave.
Marshall McLuhan said that people generally only looked forward through the rearview mirror - meaning that in the present moment things are moving so fast that we feel more comfortable living ten years ago in our heads…….maybe things are a bit weird at the moment so it seems that old adverts like kippers and snow plough had something extra special but i think that’s not the case…..just a bit of a nostalgia trip, picasso is one big nostalgia trip (I’m talking about the way we experience him today)…..it isn’t that there aren’t as many “real” or “great” ideas around as there used to be….there are….the problem is the exponential volume of traffic….it’s just so much harder to find them
That’s what I just said ain’t it…?
Hi Vessel.
It is the same.
And the answer’s still the same.
I always took the McLuhan quote to mean that most people imagine the future in terms of the past.
Like how Star Wars was The Future, but via the 1930s. (And yes, I know it was “a long time ago…”)
Like how Blade Runner was essentially Victorian.
Or how Mad Max was the Wild West.
A reorganisation of existing ideas to simulate The Future, because they’re all we have a frame ofd reference for?
It’s difficult to describe something new using words and ideas we’ve never encountered.
That was my reading anyway.
Like most things, time changes everything. What worked to gain cut through when the world was a different place doesn’t mean it would automatically cut through now ( we ‘apparently’* consume differently now). A lack of cut through or standout doesn’t mean there is less creative or brilliant work about.
I think so much of the creativity vs efficacy argument is redundant if the is no constant measurement stick. I personally enjoy the work that strives to be new or refreshing if it reaches millions or just me, but I’m not a client wanting high ROIs