Here's a novel idea.

It is an emanation devoutly to be wished that somebody smarter than I, or more famous than I, or smarter about getting himself PR than I, will Christen the era I believe we're about to enter "The Back to Basics Era."

We have for so long sold sizzle instead of hormone-enhanced steak. We have for so long judged people according to the size of their bank accounts or the decibel level of their bluster. We have for so long prized bombast over logic.

"A url in the spot will ruin it."
"That's too 'selly.'"
"It's not subtle enough."

Right now in the ad industry, there is (I am speaking broadly here) a lacuna between work that wins awards and work that drives revenue and builds brands. Salient product features, permissions to believe, unique selling propositions are, at least to awards show judges and the agencies that kowtow to those judges, passe. No one seems to care that a Bud ad could be Miller ad, the fucking horse ones notwithstanding.

My guess is that the commercial here will win all sorts of awards. It will earn its creators all sorts of plaudits and they will get fat new titles, fat new jobs and maybe skinny new wives. But this spot could be about any product. There is no innate-ness in it. Therefore, it sucks. Eyebrows my arse.

My idea here is simple, and something I stole from an agency I worked at twenty years ago, "Impart useful consumer information in an executionally brilliant way." That is communication. Most of what we see is communturbation.

Look at the two spots embedded here. Which works? Which is about the brand? Taking out age-bias, which would get you a job today?