Thursday, December 18, 2025

A Report from Iowa.

A good amount of people read this blog. Not as many readers as I used to get. But I keep meeting my desired numbers. 

Long before I was in advertising, back when I thought I might want to be a print journalist (that was when I was 17, when journalism was a paid profession) I always figured I wouldn't be good enough to make it to The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. So I set my sights elsewhere.

I assumed I'd find my place at something like The Des Moines Register. A small but prestigious paper in a city where even on a lowly journalist's salary I could afford an apartment without too many cockroaches. 





Since I set my sights at that fairly moderate-level, I've had the same goal for this blog. To get the kind of readership I'd get if I was walking the "cat-stuck-in-tree" beat out in Ioway. I'd be ok with what I estimate would be my readership if I were working for the Des Moines Register.

There are no longer any advertising trade journals that do anything more than reprint press-releases from private equity companies that own the holding companies and the associated award shows that dominate our industry. As a consequence, most of my readers are from the ad industry. They're looking for something that regurgitation of holding-company press-releases can't deliver, or won't. As an industry organ, I'm about the only show--and the most-read show--in town. In short, many ad people read me. Mostly creative people. But people who wear proper clothing, too and who aren't the first to be fired because they're contrary.

All that being said, considering the size of my readership and their closeness to the advertising industry, I wonder how many of my readers have seen, read and, finally, thought about the ad below. I think about it with some regularity. It's profound, but also simple and obvious, like the statement "teenagers enjoy sex."

(Today, we call that an "insight.")

Not too terribly long ago, I was working with a prospective new client trying to zero-in on a set of deliverables and a fee for the help the client was coming to me for. 

Admittedly, I was a bit pissed about the whole wrangle, because the client found me through a client they knew and whom I had worked with for over five years. Nonetheless, if you say "f-them" every time you feel like saying "f-them," you'll have a whole lot of principles and a whole lot more of poverty.

Finally, the client said to me, "Do you have anything that proves what you do works?"

Of course I don't.

I have Effie Awards, naturally, for what they're worth. And reams of client quotations, and the same ginned-up case-studies virtually everyone else has. But that kind of "proof" really only convinces people who are willing to be convinced. 

I even thought of calling industry friends who have run agencies and I went to various "trade organization" sites and pulled veritable nonsense like the item below to bludgeon the client over the head with.

Along the way, I remembered a quotation by a World War II German tank general whose adjutants had urged him to proclaim victory after he had suffered catastrophic losses. He said something about "not wanting to victory himself to death."



I pulled a bunch of items and neatened them up into something prettified and presentable when you're trying to sign a deal. I kept all this a secret from H, my business director and L, my wife. I didn't want them to know the depths to which I would sink to get a couple dozen days at my day-rate.

In the end however, I sent none of the so-called evidence (or evidentiary-material) I found. 

Instead, I sent my client this note.

It appears it did the trick.

I'll let you know when the check clears.





Wednesday, December 17, 2025

Something's Fishy.

 

Something stinks. And it ain't just the fish.

About a year ago, I got rid of a monopoly cable and internet provider called (in my neighborhood) Xfinity which is owned by Comcast, which has a market-cap of just about $100 billion.

The service I had been paying for was non-Xistant. At that point I unplugged my television and since then have only watched about ten minutes of TV, a Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy game with my son-in-law who for some reason kept insisting the Patriots were playing.

By the way, Xfinity refused to come to my house to pick up their equipment and are now threatening to charge me $300 if I don't return it, though they were the ones who left it with me. What's more, while they had collected taxes from me, they've paid, most years, $0 in federal corporate tax. 

Sounds like a felon-in-chief I know.

Next time you hear someone say "the system is rigged," they're probably not talking about things like this, but this is rigging at its very repugnant-can worst.


A few weeks ago I got an inkling through the floorboards that my wife wanted to me to figure out how to restore TV service. My son-in-law (who is good with these things) had suggested YouTube TV (owned by another monopoly, Alphabet--they own roughly 91-percent of search). Alphabet is another company that loopholes its way out of paying billions in taxes. If you ever wonder why your taxes are so high, it's because there's are so low.


In any event, I went to sign up for YouTube TV. I found it cost $72.99/month including a bunch of things I didn't ask for, don't want and will never use. But, I figured, paying $875.88/year for commercial-free TV would be worth it.  

Except YouTube TV is not commercial free. 

And, I think the $72.99/month fee is promotional only and will rise after three months. Only I couldn't find out for sure because 
YouTube Paid Service Terms of Service legal copy is 36 pages long or 12,592 words. I couldn't even begin to make my way through it.

After all, it's 46 times as long as the Gettysburg Address, 3.5 times as long as the Magna Carta, and 2.86 times as long as the US Constitution (the document, not the ancient warship.)

This is a long overture to the opera that's about to begin:

Everything in amerika, as it is currently constituted, is a lie. The YouTube TV is a good example. 

Of the people, by the people, for the people? OK, boomer.

I grew up in an amerika where a half-hour TV show was 27 minutes of show and about three minutes of commercial. The ratio of programming to commercial was, back then, about 9:1. 

Watching that "1," gave us our TV shows without out-of-pocket costs. Today, a 30-minute show is between 20 and 22 minutes of programming and 8-10 minutes of commercials. Putting the ratio of programming to commercial at between 2:1 or 2.4:1. 

We spend between 28% and 33% of our watching time paying. Then we pay once again in dollars to get access to watch commercials.

Today, you are paying twice for about 25-percent less programming.

As much as this post is about the TV ripoff, as I said above, it's really about everything. It's about searching for a hotel in Nebraska and getting listings for hotels in California, because someone's sold my search terms. It's about service charges for no service. It's about the subscriptions you can't cancel. The resort charges you can't opt out of. The plethora of tiny cuts that wound us all, because amerika is a rip-off-ocracy.

It's the vacation days you can't use because your agency is so understaffed and you can't carry over. It's the prices that go up when commodity prices go up, but don't come down when they go down. 

As advocates for companies, we in advertising should be denouncing practices like the above--practices that are perpetrated by virtually every company and every ad agency and now, every government agency. We don't, because those who employ (and therefore control) us are profiting from them. 

Ad Holding Companies, which are largely owned the same institutional investors that own award shows like Cannes, pay the award shows to boost the agencies who then boost the award shows. Or Mark Read, when he was CEO of WPP sold Kantar, then (though he's still being paid by WPP) is hired by Kantar as Chairman. 

This is all legal of course. But it's the most venal sort of backscratching I can think of.

If a fish begins to rot from the head, we seem already to be heading quickly anus-ward at the speed of an out-of-control self-driving electric car.

You'll be charged for that, too.




Tuesday, December 16, 2025

Too-Much-Ism.

As Wordsworth wrote so many years ago, "The world is too much with us; late and soon/Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;--"




That's a 19th Century way of saying, "we're too fukkin frantic to be human, too busy to be kind, too FOMO'd to be present. Too mad to be decent and moderate." 

There's too much mania for us to be anything but 'insania.'

Some of what feeds this frenzy are the tiny stupid asinine things that we almost all fall-prey to, that is: OTY. 

Any statement ending with "of the year."

I am so fed up with 

agency of the year (but the work sucks and you've fired 51% of your staff.)
network of the year (but your market cap has shrunk by 96%.)
word of the year (says who.)
man of the year (cyber AI rapists.)
color of the year (again, says who and for what?)
food of the year car of the year leaf blower of the year photograph of the year monologue of the year restaurant of the year books of the year newspaper article of the year catch of the year play of the year song of the year all culminating in the giant fartification of every year.

All these and a thousand more my early-morning writing blear cannot summon are mass-produced distractions to all of us in a country where there's no health, no healthcare, no democracy, no paved roads, no schools, no child care, no functioning military, no cops, no way forward, no way ahead, no hope for a better tomorrow.

News is no longer reported.
It's manufactured.

Yet, rather than turning off this bullshit, we play along. We incessant the news and amplify it by our own chattering. We herald the awards and the OTY accolades never remarking that just because you're --------of the year doesn't mean you are or have done something of consequence.



As a nation, we grab for crap and fight over it as if it has worth and meaning. But it's all just mass-produced mayhem to distract us from the utter-meaninglessness of it all.

We produce thousands of always on ads. 
We make 185-page decks.
92% of all people are in back-to-back meetings all-day.
We have been neck-deep in shit for so long we no longer smell the stink.

Once more, with feeling:




Monday, December 15, 2025

No.

So much hate and so much violence and so much intolerance and so much access to weapons and so much eco-chambering that algorithmically and inhuman-ly confirms what you already believe and encourages an abnegation of understanding and decency and acceptance.

This was not my post when I went to sleep last night.

It is my post today.

I can't write about anything but hatred.

The hatred that starts at the top.

The hatred that's fueled by a country with 500 million guns.

The hatred of selfishness.

The hatred of so called christianity.

The hatred of knowing the 'one true way.'

The hatred of the world.


Friday, December 12, 2025

Time and a Hoff.

I spent the first 112 years of my 117-year career never hearing the word "content."  Now, you can't go four minutes without hearing it, without running into someone called a "content strategist," or a "content copywriter," or without someone spouting off about how "content is king."


A few days ago I was Escher-ing up, around, over and under various rabbit holes looking for an idea, or for back-up to an idea. Somehow I remembered an illustrator from my early childhood whose style I always liked--long before I even knew he had a style. The illustrator was called Syd Hoff and his book I remember best was a charming story called "Danny and the Dinosaur."


I found a site featuring many of Hoff's illustrations and there I read about a booklet he helped create for a "popular-priced liquor brand called Calvert. Calvert are still around, oddly-enough, but owned by another company that I'm sure is owned by another company which I'm sure is owned by another company. I'd bet seventy-five cents that no one that works for any of those associated company has ever tasted anything by Calvert and those brands of albatrosses though they probably earn a fortune.

Fifty years ago, I worked the 4PM to midnight shift in one of Chicago's largest liquor stores, I'm 99-percent sure I never sold a bottle of anything Calvert. And I sold a lot of bottles that summer.

I found a bunch of ads Syd illustrated on here. I know I'm both old and old-fashioned but I'm a sucker for cartoons and I found these more fun than about 99-percent of the ads I see today.













I also read about this:

I quickly went to abebooks.com and for $10.85, tax and shipping included, I got Hoff's Calvert booklet delivered to my door.



I don't give a rat's ass about content and I absolutely abhor the term. Never once in my 68 years on this darkening and dumbening orb have I used it. 

That said, everything that follows makes me content.


















Thursday, December 11, 2025

Stiff-Necked.


My best friend of half a century, Fred, died four years ago. He had the big C and after ten years of battle, C finally defeated Fred.

Of all the people in my long life, outside of my wife, Fred probably helped me and guided me and bolstered me more than anyone else. At his memorial, I cried through the short eulogy I gave recounting the words Fred said that changed my life, maybe saved it.

Fred and I met at ninth-graders at an elite private school in Rye, New York. That was 1971. 

In all that time, we had one major disagreement. 

About ten years ago, maybe more, I stopped watching Fox television on principle. I saw the network--whether sports, entertainment or what they somehow call "news" as a factory of hate, lies, and a lot of -isms I can't abide. Racism. Sexism. Anti-semitism. Climate-denialism. And more. More bad.




Stiff-neckedly, I started with a metaphor.

I said to myself, and Fred, when Woolworth's (amerry-kaka's largest chain store at the time) refused counter service to Black people, I would have boycotted Woolworth's. 

And so, I never again turned on and watched anything on any Fox channel, including Tubi. Not the World Series. Not the Super Bowl. Not the Simpsons. Nothing. 

If they ran a seven-part mini-series on the genius of George Tannenbaum, I would boycott that as well. (Seven-parts would have been too brief, anyway.)

I couldn't give my eyeballs, and therefore my money, to the terror Fox propagates.

Fred disagreed. 

"Bomber," he said (my old baseball nickname) "Life's too short. Watch the game." 

But I couldn't and I can't.

Sorry. I happen to believe anger and stubborn-ness are forces for good. Or can be. (I don't care that Owen, my therapist of 40 years disagrees. I don't care that everyone disagrees.)

About ten years ago, I also turned off Facebook and Instagram and about three years ago Twitter. The first two are the world's most popular and successful child-trafficking sites, not to mention their fascistic politics. Twitter might well be worse.

When I read the Athletic, the garbage that passes for a sports page from the New York Times, if I want to see a clip from a game, they force me to "X." 

Why?

Why do we as a society, as a people, as a voice abide this? Why do we go gentle into a cruel abyss? Why do we give up our ethics so we can watch tall men dunk a basketball?



Why do we share sunny photos of runway-ready scallops and artisan-cocktails on Insta--a site over-run by sexual predation?



What incenses me the the casual embrace of the horror these "platforms" represent. And how difficult they are to avoid. What incenses me is our casual embrace can easily turn normal people, you and me and Fred, into willing executioners. Otherwise good people who support cruelty, hate and torture because the game is on. Or in the case of 1960s Woolworths, because they have the cheapest hair-nets in town.

These platforms make themselves practically un-avoidable. (And yes. I succumb and read Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.)
It's hard to be pure in a filthy world.

It's hard not to do business with modern-day nazis, slavers and child-fuckers.

But we have to try. I know I am a rigid, unforgiving, Old Testament son-of-a-bitch.

Sorry Fred.

Our only fight.

But I'm still fighting.

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

Boiling Frogs.


One of the things that never fails to shock me about the advertising business is how its esoteric-ness has skyrocketed in the forty years since I entered the business. 

When I was young, we used to talk to companies about how they did business, how they treated customers, the way their stores looked, how they answered the phone. We wrote ads for them, of course, and Christmas cards. But many of us realized (and acted on) a larger idea that we were here to improve the public's perception of a company not just its ads. 

Public perception happens in a trillion ways every day. Ads are seen by fewer and fewer people and seem to matter less and less. Ads, in fact, are a small part today of the complex amalgam that makes up how people feel toward a brand. What's more, so many ads are created with the care given the 107th of 108 Xerox copies, that most of them have a life expectancy about 1/10th the longevity of the common mayfly.

Even so, more and more, ad agencies do ads that don't even run where real people (not awards' juries) can see them. And they're about smaller and smaller topics and further and further removed from 'the reality-based community.'

I remember when I was at Ally & Gargano my boss Ed Butler when told of an offer or offering from the bank we worked on, would often cite a segment that appeared on the news of the local affiliate of CBS. It was called "Shame on You." It would featured companies that engaged in heinous mistreatment or said one thing and did another. Ed would often say, "You're going to show up on 'Shame on You.'" Often the client would heed Ed's advice. 

Even things that seem temporarily good for business and turn out to be catastrophic for business if they're based on lies or deceit.




Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen what to my eyes seem like important articles in The Wall Street Journal. If you're in the business of helping clients business (once the sine qua non of advertising) you'd think such articles would be noticed. You'd think they'd be talked about. You'd think agencies might be advising clients on how to improve their customer relationships and their overall perception.

Alas, CMOs are as far removed from how customers are treated as lofty politicians are from the needs and concerns of their electorate.

So, people--you and I--hate brands more and more. Yet the commercials and ads we make pretend such disdain just doesn't exist. Cue the happy family eating bottomless breadsticks or the happy family luxuriating on a plane that's spotlessly clean, well-lit and accoutered with flight-attendants that make Heidi Klum look like some old bag.

The subject-object split in advertising has never been more of an abyss. What's shown has never been farther removed from what's real. (I think the same is true of agencies themselves. They're "network of the year," but they dropped from 1000 employees four years ago to 100 today.)

Or people don't like/trust advertising, yet we tack on 20 seconds of disclaimers to a 30 second spot read at a rate that screams "we're speaking fast because we're pulling a fast one," or "you need this drug even though it gives you projectile vomiting and can cause death."

At its very core, marketing and capitalism are about trust. Trust. As in if you don't trust us you won't buy from us.

That's why our industry ignoring trust (and the current administration destroying trust) is so terribly dangerous and threatening.


Sixty-one years ago, an agency Omnicom just shut down ran this ad for Avis.

It's an ad based on caring. 
It's an ad made-better by empathy.
It's an ad that speaks human.
It's an ad that understands the woes of consumers and how hard it is to get helped.
It's an ad that defined a brand as different, better.

I've talked to clients about running ads like this. The best reaction I got to such a suggestion was to be shunted aside as "naive."

When you look at present day data like this, it would seem to me what's naive is doing nothing at all and pretending customer disdain doesn't exist or will go away because you want it to.

  • More that 3/4 customers had a product or service problem in the last twelve months.
  • More than 7/10 customers think companies need to improve their customer experience.
  • A University of Michigan study shows consumer sentiment dropping by roughly 33-percent since the beginning of the year.

Our industry claims to want to keep abreast of culture. Dissatisfaction with current course and speed is a huge part of our lives--and culture. We ignore anything that doesn't show people smiling.





As Scott Broetzmann, the president and chief executive of Customer Care Measurement & Consulting, which conducts the National Customer Rage Survey with the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, recently said “I can order dental floss and it’ll be at my doorstep in 30 minutes, but when it comes to problem-handling, it’s still an effortful, frustrating, emotionally stressful.” 

Forrester principal analyst Pete Jacques sums it up well. “Like the proverbial frog that doesn’t feel the water becoming increasingly hotter, many North American brands are inching into more treacherous positions with their customers’ loyalty."

As Rich Siegel over at Round Seventeen might conclude, "Mmmmmm, boiled frog."