Part the Seventh, of Twelve.

In my subterranean office I have about a dozen replicas of notebooks of famous thinkers from years past.

A small publisher in Barcelona, Knonecker Wallis, publishes reprints some of these notebooks and charges handsomely for them. In about a year, they go out of print, and I wish I had bought two copies.

Here are a few pages and the cover from Isaac Newton's college notebooks. You can browse them on this site from Cambridge University. 

I can't say I understand anything here but that doesn't matter. They show the flow of ideas, the cross-outs, the hard-work of actual thought. All that is marked down so it can be thought about, remembered, re-worked like a tough Saturday crossword. That's the point.

Thinking.

Here are a few other examples.

Just like in real-life the Turing one is clipped together with the kind of clips I last used in seventh grade. They didn't work for Turing. They didn't work for twelve-year-old me, they don't work any better now. Open the Turing a few pages and the things breaks apart.

That's part of its charm.

Johnnie von Neumann was the genius who intimidated all the other geniuses. By the age of six he could divide eight-digit numbers in his head. By eight he had mastered calculus. He even knew the word dumb had a b in it.

This is von Neumann's blueprint for an early computer.

I like note books like these--and I have half a dozen more--because while I don't understand what's being deciphered in them, it helps me to see the very act of deciphering.

Too many people, especially those who grew up with sophisticated digital tools like those we use so readily today, think work springs fully formed like Athena from Zeus' head. 

They start designing and 'word smithing' before they have the vaguest idea down. They refuse to acknowledge that many of the greatest discoveries of human-kind--from the very beginnings of human-kind--radiated from the simple human act of making a mistake, taking a wrong turn, talking your way out of a jam, or getting lost.

From an evolutionary point of view, finding yourself in a fix has always lead to ingenuity, risk taking, rolling the dice and finding something magical.

As Ogden Nash wrote...

In other words, the termite got where she got by mistake. Most living things do.

The Shibboleths of our era prize speed and efficiency. They'll put up with a Library of Congress' -worth of AI slop from a NASA's-worth of computer brains so long as it's fast and cheap and meaningless, and for the most part, insulting. 99.78-percent of everything we read and heard uttered, regardless of the medium or the speaker, is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." 99.78-percent of what we read today makes the Gilligan's Island Christmas Special look like "Hamlet."

There's no guarantee that pencil and pad will reduce the amount of crap in the world. I'd guess Bulwer-Lytton wrote this archetypical drivel with pen in hand. So hand-work is not guarantor of quality.

Robert Caro, two-time winner of both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer-Prize, told a story about slowing down his writing. While at Princeton, he would wait till the last moment to write for his fiction class.

Though Caro always got A's, his professor R.P. Blackmur, encouraged Caro to slow down.

Writing, drawing, doodling by hand forced Caro to slow down--to not think with his fingers.

When Caro interviews people, he follows similar "slow down" guidance. 

Much of the decline of nearly everything is because we have so much to do we believe nothing is worth our time. 

The truth is, however, whether or not people know for sure whether the messages you or brands send to them are made by humans or machines, they may very well sense how they are being treated.

Very few people are gulled by a dirty carpet at 
an understaffed hotel front desk that says "elite" on it.

Most people, most creatives, most agencies, most of the world are treated like a pothole on the way to enormous profits. Caring, craft, time, pencilling get in the way of ever-more Mammon.

I remember years ago a story I read about Bill Bernbach. It's said a client said to him, "Why do you spend so much time on copy? Nobody reads it."

Bernbach is said to have answered, "Ten percent of people read copy. That's who I write it for."

The best way to be a human is to care about other humans who care.

                            Photos by Christopher Payne.

Part the Sixth, of Twelve.

Last week, I was sent two decks by two different agencies. One was twelve pages long. The other was fifty-five pages long.

In each case I would have been better off with a single sentence type-written on a page, preferably in Courier, with no codicils or subordinate clauses, or even commas.

Recently I did fourteen days of day-rate for a giant agency recently subsumed by an even gianter agency. Part One of their brief was forty-one pages. Part Two was eighty-one pages.

Semiotically, this is the world today.

We have so much to tell people to do, we have no time to listen, or think, or even discuss.

If a brief is a set of instructions, 

simply,

a set of instructions shouldn't be more than a few dozen words.  Maybe, at most, six or twelve steps.

I'm not one-hundred percent sure why briefs can't be as simple as recipes. Even a recipe by an old-school chef/writer like Craig Claiborne. When cooking was an all-day affair, not a sixty-minute sprint.

Whenever I meet with a client, especially a new client, I am wary when they schedule a thirty-minute meeting.

Very often a thirty-minute meeting means they expect nothing but them giving you orders. Thirty-minutes is not really enough time to question something you don't understand, share a joke, much less have a discussion. Semiotically, a thirty-minute meeting says, "You must do this. End of meeting." It's basically, I'll talk, I'll order, you'll do.

Also, it's ostrich-y. A thirty-minute brief ignores the fact that most often people are two minutes late and have to leave three minutes early. Thirty minute meetings rarely have more than twenty-five minutes of meaning. There is usually at least five minutes of fonfer.

Another example of this sort of talking-not-listening semiotic malfeasance is the "no reply" email or text message. Basically, those mean: do this and shut up. Take it or leave it. But no push-back or questions are permitted.

In so many cases, in work, in life and in our world, listening has been removed from the human equation. As Fran Lebowitz once is said to have said, "the opposite of talking isn't listening. The opposite of talking is waiting."

What's more, the famous I'm not really listening dodge, aka "I'll get back to you," is more and more widespread. No one ever gets back to you ever. If they do, they didn't understand the question you asked (because they weren't listening) and more than likely their answer raises more questions which you can't get answered.

Humanments are things people should do to act like decent humans. That is, accord people with honor, respect, equality. Listening--like a close read in literature--accords people that respect.

Instead we live in a TL,DR world.

That's both Too Long, Didn't Read

and Tain't Listening, Disrespect Rules.

If you care about your fellow humans listen. Think. Listen. Think. Listen. Speak. Listen.

Can you imagine if this were posted within an agency. Or if a deck started with this as a slide?

 

Part the Fifth, of Twelve.

Years ago I read something in a book called "The Upswing," by Robert D. Putnam. The book is subtitled, "How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do it Again."

Putnam laid out two ways of living. (This is something I constantly talk to clients about, BTW.) One way is YOYO. The other choice is WITT. The world can essentially be divided between YOYOs and WITTs.

YOYO stands for You're On Your Own.

Think of modern life in amerikkka.

It is a zero-sum game. 

Helping someone else impoverishes me.

You have no safety net.

You have no essential services. 

Public schools, public parks, our roads, our systems suck. 

There are a lot of politicians but no one who helps you.

No one who tries to right wrongs.

A lot of advertising is YOYO now, too. 

(After all, the microcosm of advertising reflects the macrocosm of the world.)

You have no job security.

You have no raises.

You have no training.

You have no time.

You have no pride in what you make. Or say.

YOYO is growling, sneering, ignoring.

WITT is the underdog alternative.

It stands for We're In This Together.

It's loving thy neighbor.

It's believing that a rising tide lifts all ships.

It's altruism, respect, welcoming, kindness.

WITT is smiling, laughing, having a beer.

H, my friend and Account Director wrote this to D, a photographer and ex-O colleague who is doing a shoot for a client with GeorgeCo., LLC, a Delaware Company.

This sort of thing is rare today.

People appreciating and expressing appreciation.

It's a smile.

It's important.

L, my wife sent me something important this morning from Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter. She sent me James Talerico's victory speech. Talerico, in a huge upset, was just elected senator from Texas over a hugely favored and trillionaire-funded corrupt repugnant candidate, ken paxton.

Take a minute here and read this with the YOYO/WITT dichotomy in your mind.

But the billionaires who own the social media algorithms, who own the cable news networks, who own the politicians fighting on our screens, they want us at each other’s throats. They want us focused on how we’re different instead of on how we’re the same. They want us looking left and right at each other instead of looking up at them. The real fight in this country is not left versus right. It is top versus bottom.

All these words can, I believe, also be applied not just to the political, non-tax-paying elites but to those who have taken over the ash-heap of the advertising industry and have strip-mined it so they can earn nine-figure pay-outs. 

Talerico continues,

The people at the top work so hard to keep us angry and divided because our unity is a threat to their wealth and their power. We saw it in this race. We saw it in every billionaire-funded attack ad. The people at the top divide us by party, by race, by gender, by religion, by culture, so we don’t notice that they are picking our pockets, that they are defunding our schools, that they are gutting our healthcare, that they are raising taxes on all of us while they cut taxes for themselves. It is the oldest strategy in the world, divide and conquer. But tonight we sent a crystal clear message to the people at the top. We will not be conquered.

Back around 1963, president lyndon johnson said essentially the same to his press-secretary Bill Moyers (if you want to consider amerikkkan decline just chart the descent from Moyers as press-secretary to trump's: sean spicer, sarah sanders, kellyanne conway, karoline leavitt to katie zacharia, who lasted just over 100 hours in the job.) 

Moyers reported:

Rebellion against being cajoled to look down on someone, to fear, hate, beat, kill, demonize and other is simple.

Smile. 

Help.

Trust.

Smile.

Help.

Trust.

Repeat.

This is YOYO:

"They're eating the dogs! The people that came in. They're eating the cats! They're eating, they're eating the pets of the people that live there...They are taking over the towns. They're taking over buildings. They're going in violently." --donald trump

This is WITT:

We must heal the deep spiritual corruption at the root of all of these crises. We must bridge the divides between us and repair the ties that bind us... We showed that when working people come together across every dividing line, we can do extraordinary things. We won this race because people who are desperate for change now are going to get change." --James Talerico

In an age of universal deceit, division, selfishness and corruption, a smile, a simple smile, is a revolutionary act.

Revolt.

 

 

The Demon-crats. And Modern Marketing.

Now that amerikkka's mid-term elections are over, or nearly so, it's time to think about what we can learn from them. Not from a political point of view, not because of the so-called "blue wave," but from a marketing point of view.

I'm a liberal and democratic. I don't make a lot of political donations. But I do, on occasion, make one. I did send money to Senator Raphael Warnock's campaign back in 2022 when Warnock was running for Georgia senator against the supremely unqualified Herschel Walker. 

That donation, which was not huge btw, was like meat to the democratic party. My name was parsed and distributed by literally hundreds of candidates and hundreds more PACs and likely hundreds more left-leaning companies, periodicals and causes.

I was treated like a guy shopping at the Gap who need a whole new wardrobe. Suddenly my data was sold to every company around the world that's ever made any kind of apparel whether for male, female, human, dog or mackerel. 

Again, this isn't about politics or the way the political parties behave. This is about how marketers of everything from senators to hemorrhoid cream think they own you because they have your name, your phone number and other data on you that convinces them you are a viable prospect. (For about 99.99998-percent of companies, anyone who's breathed in the last three decades is worth marketing to.)

This is about how marketers treat you, not as a human-being, but as an asset to be squeezed and besieged until they annoy you into actually hating a person or brand you once had the propensity to like. This is about marketers who have convinced themselves that it's ok to market to you ceaselessly, it's ok to call you by your first name, it's ok to shill and shill and shill and cloy and cloy and cloy to the point where they're creating more disdain than sales.

Over-saturation creating more brand-disdain than sales is, today, a marketing best practice. 

Marketing no longer informs--we're told people make decisions based on emotions not product features. 

Marketing no longer entertains--that's expensive and sometimes the humor falls flat.

Marketing no longer helps people decide--that's what SEO and AI are for.

Marketing today exists only to chase after people. It's more harassment than helpful. It's more ugly than useful. Marketers they can bludgeon you into buying.

I'm sure in some marketing algorithm, democratic marketers said about my data, "oh we've got a liberal jew here, a two-fer. Let's go get 'em."

This is not just AI. This is the prevailing behavior of most marketers, not just political marketers, today. 

Speaking of politics, John F Kennedy said in his inaugural address in 1961, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Today, that would be articulated as, "If you want to do for your country, give me your money, and more more more more more. And then once you've give and we know you have a propensity for giving, give even more."

So, speaking of "liberal jew," they sent a liberal jew after me. Assuming our mutual liberal jewness would be remunerative.

Further, when Tuesday night's results were just about all in, the Senatorial race in Mississippi still hadn't be called. Surprisingly a democrat--an African-American democrat--was a few hundred votes ahead of his republican opponent. 

That's when these text messages started.

Two in four minutes from two different numbers.

Here's what I mean, down to the nubbiest of nubs.

Years ago while at Ogilvy on IBM, IBM was trying to differentiate by saying they believed in data integrity and privacy and that they wouldn't surveil their customers. (Common practice.)

I said, "IBM should stop retargeting people. Everybody hates retargeting, it's unethical and IBM can take a stand here."

A planner barked me down. 

"We get seven-percent uplift on re-targeting," she data'd.

"Margaret," I countered, "if we get two clicks per thousand views--or fourteen clicks per seven thousand views, you're willing to retarget and do something people hate in order to get fifteen clicks per seven thousand views rather than fourteen clicks per thousand views? 

For one extra click per seven thousand views you're willing annoy people. For .00014286-percent lift, you'll piss people off."

Conclusion: Best practices say 2.14/1,000 with customer hate is better than 2/1000 without hate.

IBM kept retargeting.

My point here isn't about politics.

It's about how marketers see us.

We are to be used and squeezed and bled dry. 

Squeeze everything out.

Distance, respect, permission, moderation, courtesy, respect are no longer attributes of a brand's behavior.

There's a term I read about a decade ago that I liked, though it never caught on. 

That term was "bionic monopoly."

The way I understand the term is straightforward. 

Old time monopolists, like Frick, Schwab, Rockefeller and Carnegie, dominated markets. You went to them or you went without.

Frick, Schwab and Carnegie sold 95% of the steel in the US--but they could only sell it once. Rockefeller sold 90% of the oil--but only once. Swift and Armour, 90% of the meat--but only once.

Moo.™ A wholly-owned subsidiary of trillionaire.

Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, CVS, Walmart, dimmycrats and repugnants and their ilk sell you products, but they believe they also own your data identity. They sell it and sell it and sell it and sell it. You and your endless stream of data are their product. You are not a human. You are a revenue stream.

They sell to you endlessly because they own you and your attention (and thereby your wallet) completely.

We are no longer people.

We are no longer customers.

We aren't even that horrible term: targets.

We are victims.

Part the Fourth of Twelve.

If you go back a few million years to the South African veldt, when our hominid ancestors evolved to stand on two feet, not four, when our evolutionary blueprint was mapped, there was a very simple reason behind the move. A simple reason with an even simpler impetus. We needed to survive.

Our ape ancestors weren't as fast as most species they were competing with for food. And their sense of hearing and smelling wasn't as profound. So to look over the high grass and see either danger or dinner coming, we got up on our haunches and could see over long distances.

Awareness of our surroundings, awareness of those around us has for most of the last 3.2 million years has become an integral part of the survival of most species. 

Fast-forward to today.

Walk down a street in a crowded city.

Look at people driving (at 83 miles per hour) alongside you.

Look at people in important client meetings.

Or in the grocery store.

They're no longer alert to danger or dinner, 

they're only aware of their screens.

Likewise, human contact has been vital to human survival and happiness. Here's an inter-species proof point.

We accept dogs into our homes and lives in part because dogs have something around their irises called sclera. That's the white around the colored part of your eye. 

You have it. Dogs have it. 

But wolves have no visible sclera. 

You can't track their eye movements. You can't look and see what they're looking at, like you can with a dog. You can see your dog paying attention or ignoring you. You can't with wolves. So we don't trust them. Just like we don't trust a cop who keeps his sunglasses on when he's speaking to you. Tracking eye movements is essential to trust. That's one reason, police interrogations often look like this. 

They can see you. 

You can't see them.

There's more that's wrong about putting screens first. It says both overtly and semiotically, anything from the outside--whether it's work, news, a friend, a movie, a newspaper, a video--is more important than who I'm with and what I'm doing now.

This might be too sensitive on my part, but it reminds me of when you're waiting in line in a store, and just as you're about to be helped, the phone rings and the salesperson prioritizes that customer over you, making you wait when it was your turn. That seem line-cutty and wrong. Yet we do this sort of thing in nearly every aspect of our lives.

There's more that's pernicious about prioritizing screens over people.

It means we are prioritizing screens over our own mental well-being, need for quiet, and alone-time. Always on screen means you're always on. And always on is always unhealthy.

We need time to wonder.

We need time to wander.

We need time to be human.

To think.

To read.

To look at the clouds and something not designed for maximum distraction. In fact, we have distracted distraction out of our life. That means we're always focused, and often on the wrong thing.

Finally, looking at screens narrows our vision.

We are confined algorithmically to what's being fed or sent to us. 

Like pre-bi-pedal ancient hominids, our field was abbreviated.

Like pre-bi-pedal ancient hominids, our field was abbreviated, and our other senses, smell, hearing as well as our physical abilities had no way of compensating for our limitations. We stood on two feet, above the field, so we could see more.

When you see more, you think more.

You become more creative. You weigh new thoughts and ideas. You're exposed to new things.

You break the bubble.

You defeat the starvation algorithm called, without irony, a feed.

When you see more, you become more human.

Better than the alternative.