Monday, June 30, 2025

The Unknown Truth Behind Award Shows.

 


The idea that Informa, PLC, the for-profit company that owns the Cannes Festival of Advertising (as well as Warc, and Contagious magazine) is shocked about fraudulent ads winning at this year's Cannes is ludicrous. The notion that they will do anything about it is even more ludicrous.

As anyone can plainly see, Informa, PLC, is making too much money from their festivals to do anything that might endanger their cash-flow.

Four minutes of online research shows that claims of fraud have been swirling around the festival for decades. 

What's more, and this might be just a coincidence, one of Informa's top five institutional investors is BlackRock. BlackRock is one of WPP's top six institutional investors. BlackRock is also Omnicom's largest institutional investor, owning about 5-percent of Omnicom. BlackRock also owns about 12.5-percent of IPG and nearly 7-percent of Publicis.

So the people who own the awards shows and the people vying for the awards are owned in large measure by the same investors.

All this is a bit like owning a kids' soccer team and a trophy company. Everybody is walking home with something shiny.


There was a time when "interlocking directorates," that is when one board member was on the boards of two different companies that did business with each other, was frowned upon by regulators. 

But the "free world" (which by some semantic legerdemain includes the united states) no longer has regulators. And the ad industry no longer has a trade press that might examine things like this--even if only to preclude the appearance of malfeasance. (Investigative journalism ain't my bailiwick. I have about four full-times jobs and this ain't one of them.)

To my old eyes, Cannes, many other award festivals and the ad industry itself are all good examples of what philosophers might call a "subject-object split." That is, there's a difference between the subject, what is being said, and the object being experienced.

ie: "We care about the deficit. Here's a bill that adds $3.3 trillion to the debt."

I am a fairly assiduous consumer of advertising. I think it's been about 25 years since I've viewed a Cannes winner in the wild.

Most real ad spend (see below) is spent on ISPs selling you crappy service for $200/month. A telco selling you crappy service for $200/month. An auto-maker leasing you a crappy car for $500/month. A pharma company telling you to ask your doctor about a drug if you're not allergic to that drug. Or a soda company selling you diabetes wrapped in forever chemicals.

Broadly speaking, those five examples probably make up about 92-percent of the commercials you see, 92-percent of the world's ad spend.

They win no awards.

No agency takes credit for them.

So, again I'm guessing, the 27,000 entries at Cannes all come from less than 8-percent of all ad expenditure. In terms of statistical relevance, they're hardly a rounding error.

I'm shocked, shocked to find anybody cares.


--BTW,

In my career, I've worked for IBM, Mercedes-Benz, Boeing, 
H-P, and a couple other Fortune 100 clients. Many times as the "top" writer on these brands. Over 40 years, I've probably produced fewer than two dozen spreads.

In the wake of the Cannes-fraud "revelations," I do not for a minute believe that Domino's in Mykonos, Greece, whose website looks like this:


has produced four spreads that look like these:











Friday, June 27, 2025

Faith.


One of the big changes in the advertising industry from when I grew up in it, until today, roughly thirty years after it was fully-subsumed by voracious financial strip-miners, is the matter of faith.

Faith.

Faith in the efficacy of the work we do.

Faith in its importance to a brand.

Faith in its power to persuade.

Faith in its effectiveness.

Faith, without all the two-dollar words, that advertising works.

Not everyone, not every agency, not every account, but if you were working at one of the top shops, DDB, Scali, Ammirati, Levine, Chiat, or one of the good groups at larger, more anodyne shops, you believed in the product, service or brand you were charged with selling.

You became so intimate with that product, service or brand that you found reasons you could believe in it. And you, being charged with helping to make that product, service or brand successful, you worked and worked and worked to do things that did so. So others could believe.

That was our job.

Period.

The people who have taken over the advertising industry have no such faith.

That's not their job.

They bought the advertising industry but they don't believe in advertising itself.

They bought the advertising industry because at one time it had cash-flow and no capital plant. They wanted that.

ROI.

Buying the ad industry had nothing to do with loving the ad industry. The only thing they loved was the almighty buck.

Read their stream of bs and you'll see none of it circles back to advertising itself. There's always some data bs, or programmatic bs, or influencer bs, or AI bs that works. You never hear anyone say: 

"Good ads made Phil Knight a billionaire."
"Good ads made Steve Jobs a billionaire."
"Good ads made Fred Smith a billionaire."
"Good ads made the people who imported Absolut rich."
"Good ads built BMW, Honda, Lexus."

Because they don't believe in good ads. 

They find some ratiocination to explain success. It's seldom attributed to ad people who took apart a client's product, figured out what made it special and said it in an interesting way. 

Here's one example.


They don't believe in the work it takes to do work like this. Or the power that comes from work like this. 

It's too much work.

Especially when you can just have a machine stamp out what everyone else is doing and have AI generate data that says it worked and then give yourself a trophy that proved it worked.

I start every project I've ever gotten the exact same way. 

I write my client's product name on a sheet of paper. Then I write brand x cures cancer, or its equivalent.

A friend just told me he does something similar. When he hears about a product, he starts by trying to answere the question, "Where have you been all my life?"

Not too long ago a tech client called me. 

They were in trouble. Like clients always are.

They had, overnight, been subsumed by larger competitors. They were still "making shovels," while their industry had moved on to backhoes.

No offense to hoes.

They called me. 

And I knew it was important.

Because they had their engineers on the phone. 

When you talk to engineers not marketers, it's because the c-suite is scared. Engineers know how things work. Marketers know how to say things. 

They seldom talk to each other. There's a disconnect between the what and how. And neither gets the play it deserves.

That's why they call me.

The engineers spoke to me for an hour. Explaining unexplainably the efficacy of their technology advances. I didn't  understand a word of it.

Finally, I got mad.

Look, that's fine, I said. 

But what's it going to say on your landing page when people want to find out more about your product.

They pfumpfered liked a engine run out of gas.

Look, I said. 

What you're saying is simple. Also, you're not selling off the page. You're just getting people interested in learning more. You're giving them hope.

The rules have changed, I said.

Now the tools have changed, I said.

That's a moon, June, swoon rhyme.

But it carried the day.

It captured the specialness of the product. It helped define and differentiate it.

I believed in them.

I believed in their offering.

I believed I could make it sexy.

That's how this works.

--

BTW, about a month ago I was looking for a specific ad that I thought Chiat\Day New York had done, about two decades ago. My Chiat source helped, but I eventually found it myself.

I realized that with all the advertising books I have--probably 400--I didn't have this one. I found it on abebooks.com for less than most people spend on a week's worth of monopoly-owned coffee.

How can you not have this?


In looking at the work, a lot of it I hadn't seen before. Some of the work dates back to the early 70s. Before I was as advertising-perspicacious as I am today. And before anyone had heard of Chiat\Day. Much less the word perspicacious.

I took pictures of a few of the ads that I hadn't seen that I liked. They are ads that do what advertising is supposed to do. 1) Get noticed. 2) Differentiate a product. 3) Respect the viewer.

I can practically hear the naysayers saying today that my comparison is an apples and orange one because everything made or offered today is a parity product.

You could say Hondas are the same as Nissans. Why try.
You could say all banks are the same. Why try.
You could say all colleges are the same. Why try.
You could say all liquors are the same. Why try.
You could say all breaths are the same. Why breathe.

But parity-ness only happens when people don't look hard enough for a differentiation. 

Because they don't love either the product, their craft, their client or their customers sufficiently.

There's no reason advertising has to suck.

We just, apparently, like it sucky.














Thursday, June 26, 2025

My Next Job.

I don't believe in reincarnation, reincarceration, or any sort of rebirth after death. But if it turns out I'm wrong and after I perish I am forced to come back to life on this planet, I know exactly what I want to come back as.

I want to be the guy who has the government contract to print government posters.

I'm sure whichever crony-patronage person got the assignment, he (I'm sure it's a he) probably got $5000 for printing Hegseth's name plate plus another $12,500 because it was an over-night job.


A sign like this below, probably earned someone $50K. The printing itself might have cost $1,000. But the flag stock art and finding someone who could spell accomplished probably sent the charges skyrocketing.


That Mission Accomplished sign, however, is not where the money is. We don't accomplish that many missions after all. Especially the ones we say we do. Signs like this below are where the gravy is.


The sign-maker probably got vigged for using two colors, and two fonts. Plus they had to break the type. Plus they had to be able to spell "beautiful," put an outline on the thing and find stock art of the amerikan flag from some Chinese stock-photo company.

I'd betcha it cost tax payers $75,000 per. With no economies of scale if they ordered one-hundred, and a disposal fee of an extra $25,000 if they had to throw out the left-overs.

But the real chance for money for someone with my talents is not just making the signs themselves--though that would put me in a twelve-room apartment on Central Park West in the 70s. The real chance for me is coming up with good names for various government shams the government tries to sell as necessary.

The bombing of Iran, which probably cost one-billion simoleons, and is expected to delay Iran's bomb-building by just sixty days, means the "unprecedented total success," cost taxpayers almost $17,000,000 per day of delay. (Please note: there is more "spin" over the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Operation Leaky Faucet--or whatever they named it--than there is in the centrifuges they claim they destroyed.)


I'd imagine that this sign, roughly what an agency intern could make in keynote in twelve minutes, cost about $250,000. Look! They blew up (no pun intended) part of the map. Plus, the designer's security-clearance probably cost another $100,000 because he's probably a Russian agent. 

Where I'd really shine though is coming up with mission names. Though I'm a Jew and don't really know anything about tools, I'd have changed Operation Midnight Hammer to Operation Ratchet-Head Screwdriver. Or Operation Call the Super.

During Vietnam, whoever was handling the naming of killing civilians by dumb bombs from planes flown by teenagers dropping munitions on people living in straw huts, was really good at his job. Check out these:

Operation Black Lion.
Operation Strength.
Operation Desert Rat.
Operation Tailwind.
Operation Counterpunch.
Operation Honorable Dragon.
Operation Left Jab.
Operation Off Balance.
Operation Barrel Roll.

I know it's not unusual for old ad people like myself to say how much better writing was in the old days. But these names for indiscriminate killing almost make you proud to be an amerikan and a baby killer.

If I were close to the felon-in-chief, I could help make operation names great again. Sure, I'd charge a Tesla-load for my services, but I could help the administration turn a profit by selling exclusive marketing rights with names like these.

Imagine:

Operation Most Reliable 5G Network, brought to you by Verizon.
Operation Prime from Amazon. Free delivery on exclusive high-explosives for brown people.
Operation Monsanto. Dropping munitions and cancer. For you.

--

By the way, back in 1955, Ford Motor Company had hired ad agency Foote Cone and Belding to come up with names for their new car division. They came up with over 6,000 options. None of which were chosen.

A Ford VP, paid Marianne Moore, who had won a National Book Award, a Pulitzer Prize and had been nominated for a Nobel Prize in Literature, to come up with more names.

Here's Moore's list.
Eventually they named the car after Henry II's son: Edsel.

The Ford Silver Sword

Hirundo

Aerundo

Hurricane Hirundo (swallow)

Hurricane Aquila (eagle)

Hurricane Accipter (hawk)

The Impeccable

Symmechromatic

Thunderblender

The Resilient Bullet

Intelligent Bullet

Bullet Cloisoné

Bullet Lavolta

The Arc-en-Ciel (the rainbow)

Arcenciel

Mongoose Civique

Anticipator

Regna Racer (couronne a couronne) sovereign to sovereign

Aeroterre

Fée Rapide (Aerofee, Aero Faire, Fee Aiglette, Magi-faire) Comme Il Faire

Tonnere Alifère (winged thunder)

Aliforme Alifère (wing-slender a-wing)

Turbotorc (used as an adjective by Plymouth)

Thunderbird Allié (Cousin Thunderbird)

Thunder Crester

Dearborn Diamanté

Magigravure

Pastelogram

Regina-Rex

Taper Racer

Varsity Stroke

Angelastro

Astranaut

Chaparral

Tir á l'arc (bull's eye)

Cresta Lark

Triskelion (three legs running)

Pluma Piluma (hairfine, feather-foot)

Adante con Moto (description of a good motor?)

Turcotinga (turqoise cotinga-the cotinga being a South-American finch or sparrow) solid indigo.

Utopian Turtletop


 






Wednesday, June 25, 2025

"Anatomy of a Hoax."



I just saw yet another one of those self-promotion AI-propagated videos heralding the extraordinary power of AI-propagated videos.

This one shouts at the viewer (they all seem to shout at the viewer) as follows:

"The brand deck is toast.
The client wants strategy in ninety minutes.
We're absolutely dead."

It concludes with a humanoid with about 75 nostril studs looking at the camera and saying: "Speed to genius."

As if the idea of speed to genius is a) accomplished, b) achievable, c) possible.

The video never questions the intelligence, professionalism, or expectations of a client who "wants strategy in ninety minutes." 

It just accepts the viability of a machine that can do things quickly. 

As if the sole measure of strategic success is not deep understanding but speed--speed that's likely needed because of poor planning in the first place. (Why would anyone realize at 10AM that they "need strategy by 11:30AM"?

One of my writing heroes is a man who's won two National Book awards, and two Pulitzer prizes. About sixty years ago he wrote a newspaper story for "Long Island Newsday," called "Anatomy of a $9 Burglary." The New York Times called it "a strong example of Caro's ceaseless research process to uncover the deep truth behind a story."

I've reprinted Caro's sixty-one year-old piece at the end of this post. Since it took more than 6 minutes and 23 seconds to write, by today's calculus, it must be worthless.



If you read Caro's short book about his long-process, "Working," you'll find an aphorism too much of the world has forgotten. We're a world that believes you can get nourishment from sound bites. That it's ok to elect presidents because of them. And to not question their incessant lying. 

Getting nourishment from sound bites is like getting nourishment from bites of cotton candy.

Caro's aphorism is simple.

God forbid I'm ever again employed in a senior capacity at an agency, I would insist that the agency must paint on the walls of every conference room and must make it the cover-page of every client presentation, Caro's words.

Time equals truth.

And it's corollary, Turn every page.

Holding Company economics deny--no, abnegate--the essential permanence of those beliefs. That since the beginning of human time, time has been vital to success.

Pretending it's no longer that way is playing god.

The god of efficiency has, like Zeus slaying Cronus, eaten the god of good. It's why you can get Google results quickly, but never what you're searching for.

The efficiency god is a false god.

Because you have to do everything again and again because the first time sucked.

Fast food. Fast fashion. Fast thinking.

That's what landfills were made for.


It takes time to get to something real. It takes time to think with your heart, your soul, your brain, your life, your empathy, your experience. Not just your fingers.

Of all the evils visited upon our industry, the removal of time has been the most grievous. I don’t mean staying in an airless conference room till 2AM for months at a time. The time I mean is deeper.

It’s time to visit a client’s factory. It’s time to get to know the client’s employees—not just the C-level. It’s time to ride with five sales-people or ten. It’s spending time unattended in the corporate cafeteria. It’s time to talk to engineers and customers and retirees.

That’s essentially how you find a spouse or a life-long friend. You really get to know them. You meet their families. You break bread.

There are no shortcuts to learning a person, a culture, a language or an ethos. There’s no magic app that makes it happen. Or some powerpoint ‘deep dive.’ Or six hours of focus groups edited down to one eight-minute video or half-a-dozen man-on-the-street cameos.

There's no real strategy that can be derived in ninety minutes.

That’s no way to get to know a client.

And if you don’t get to know a client and their business, you wind up—in the two-hours you have between the initial brief and the first tissue session—you wind up with cliches, jargon and more and more pixels of advertising pablum. You know, crap. Insipid. Interchangeable. And meaningless.

Time equals truth.

But to agencies and clients time equals out-of-scope.

So, time is not allowed.

Because the truth, while effective, is expensive.

And most clients don’t want to pay for the truth that comes from time and most agencies don’t want to challenge them.

So as an industry, we produce shit.

I could show a dozen examples here. Including examples from things I've done. But all that would only get me in trouble. So, next time you're "consuming media," you decide. 

Truth. Or shit.

Lack of time equals shit.




--

Anatomy of a $9 Burglary

By Robert A. Caro


The crime was burglary, and the amount involved was $9.

According to police, the thief knocked on the door of a house and, when no one answered, walked inside and stole the money — a $5 bill and four singles — out of a wallet lying on the television set. As he was leaving, he was spotted by a teenage girl and, after trying unsuccessfully to explain his presence, he ran away. When detectives came to arrest him, he didn’t resist at all, and when his case went to trial in Mineola, the newspapers all but ignored it. Even the old men who hang around the courthouse to watch trials didn’t watch this one. Says the assistant district attorney who prosecuted: “Story? What story? It was just a $9 burglary.”

This, then, is the story of a $9 burglary.

How it really began may be a matter for the psychiatrists — one of them later was to say that Joey Solta’s problems went back to guilt feelings developed during his boyhood — but for Marsha Cooperman, then 17, and her mother, Eleanor, then 48, it began at precisely 11:25 AM on Sept. 9, 1958.

Marsha and her mother were standing on the front lawn of their $43,000 Colonial-style home in Flower Hill. Mrs. Cooperman was working on flowers she had planted and Marsha, just returning from a trip to the dentist, had stopped to talk for a moment before going into the house. “All of a sudden,” she recalls, “I looked up and I saw something — a shadow really — flash by the front windows inside.”

Marsha thought the shadow was one of her friends who often dropped over to visit. To surprise the friends she ran into the garage, from which a side door opened into the kitchen. She stepped into the cool gloom of the garage and there, standing at the open side door, was a strange man.

“What are you doing in my house?” Marsha asked the man. He answered quickly, “I was looking for Mrs. Johnson,” and was smoothly polite. But when Mrs. Cooperman asked him the same question, he said nervously, “My car overheated; I was trying to get some water for it.” And when Mrs. Cooperman said to her daughter, “Call the police,” he ran frantically to his car, jumped in and sped away. He left Mrs. Cooperman standing behind him in the road trying to memorize his license number.

Repeating the number over and over so she would remember it, Mrs. Cooperman ran into the house and found that Marsha had the police on the phone. Mrs. Cooperman gave them the number and then, she says, noticed that $9, all the money in her wallet, was gone.

Detectives Arrest Suspect

Checking the license number, the police found that the car belonged to a man named Joey Solta — and that Joey Solta had a record a mile long for similar minor crimes. “He was the kind of sharp guy who thought he could talk his way out of anything,” one says. “But he was a bad one, a sneak and a thief.”

Detectives went to Solta’s home at 62 Amsterdam Ave., Ronkonkoma. They waited in two patrol cars hidden up the street, watching his wife work around the kitchen and his two daughters play with friends in the yard. At 4 PM, Solta drove up and went into the house. The police drove up after him, and he was arrested.

After repeated postponements, Solta’s trial on charges of third-degree burglary (for entering the Coopermans’ house) and petty larceny (for stealing the $9) began on June 15, 1959. The trial lasted three days — mainly because of the vigorous attempts of the defense counsel, a young lawyer handling his first felony trial, to shake the Coopermans’ testimony. Although Solta was acquitted of the petty larceny, he was found guilty of the burglary count.

Judge Paul J. Widlitz gave him a rather routine sentence. Since Solta was out on parole for a previous crime, he had to return to serve out the two years of that term and he received a suspended sentence of 10 to 15 years at hard labor for the new crime.

The case was one of more than 1,000 house burglaries committed in Nassau County during 1958 and the assistant district attorney, jurors and police agree the verdict was “open and shut.” The only other item of note was that the Coopermans later received several anonymous telephone threats, but the police say that even this is routine, that cranks invariably call persons identified in any way with crimes.

These are the facts of the case. They are all you will find in the files of the police and the district attorney’s office, in the brief newspaper accounts of the trial or even in the 308-page, word-for-word transcript of the three days of testimony.

The Women of His Family
But is the story quite complete? Only two females, the Cooperman mother and daughter, have so far been discussed in the case, and yet, to some observers, four others might be considered worthy at least of mention. They are Joey Solta’s mother, his wife and his two little girls.

Joey Solta’s mother, Mrs. Paula Solta of Queens Village, has very little to say. “I don’t want to talk about it, and I don’t want to think about it,” she says. “Nobody could ever tell how a mother feels.” What were the circumstances of her son’s arrest? “I don’t remember. I really don’t remember. You know, there are certain things your memory sort of closes on.”

But Joey Solta’s wife remembers. She remembers well. “The girls were outside playing with some friends,” she recalls. “All of a sudden Joey drove up fast. He ran in. He was all excited. He said, ‘Hon, you have to believe me. Something’s happened. I know the police are coming. I had to tell you before they came.’ He became incoherent, almost. He handed me all the money he had in his pocket — I guess it was about $45. I was standing in the kitchen. He was standing right beside me and there was a big window that opened out on the street. Two police cars came around the curve. I guess my main worry was that while they were arresting him the kids would run in with all the kids they were playing with. While they were taking him, I went outside and told the kids to play outside for a while.”

Ann Solta, now 35 years old, is plumply pretty, poised and bright-eyed. She is personal secretary to the administrator of a Suffolk hospital, who says of her: “She’s about the nicest person you’d ever want to meet. And the best secretary. She keeps the whole office running smoothly.” Ann Solta relates the story of her husband’s arrest in a calm, low voice. Only when she finishes does she suddenly put her clenched fists over her eyes and press them fiercely up against her forehead. To begin to fully understand this $9 burglary, you have to see Ann Solta put her fists over her eyes.

To begin to understand, you also have to ask other people about what the case did to Ann Solta. Says her boss: “She was so sensitive about publicity. I was the only one here who knew about the case. But even if we were all just sitting around talking, if someone mentioned — you know, just in a natural way — a robbery or any other kind of trouble, she’d blush and become very quiet. You could almost see her going into a shell. You could almost see an actual physical change in that woman. It was a bad thing to see.”

And most of all, to understand the case, you have to listen to Ann Solta tell the story of her 14 years with her husband. For if the case was, unfortunately, just another small tile in the mosaic of that 14 years, it was, nonetheless, the tile that completed the pattern.

“That case was what made me get the divorce,” Ann Solta says today. “I had always stuck with him before, no matter what. This time, I said, ‘Joey, I’ll stay with you until the trial is over, but then I’ll go my own way.’”

“We met in December and we were married in June,” Ann Solta recalls. It was 1949. “After we started going around, he told me he had been in jail, but the way he described it to me, he took a car and went on a joy ride. It sounded like, well … it didn’t sound so bad. Joey was dynamic, a lot of energy, he could do anything he wanted; he was boyish looking and he had this big grin. We met in December and we were married in June. In July, he was arrested.”

What boyish-looking Joey hadn’t bothered to tell his bride was that the arrest for the “joy ride” had been his third encounter with the law. Twenty-three years old when he was married, he had already been convicted, under youthful offender treatment, of forgery and petty larceny in addition to the auto theft, which had earned him a two-year sentence in Elmira Reformatory. In July, 1949, one month after he and Ann were married, he broke into a house in Hawthorne, N.Y., and had to spend a month in jail.

“Then there was no trouble for six years,” Ann says. “You know, Joey and me, we seemed to get along so well sometimes. But the worst part about living with him was that he’d tell you one story and then later he’d tell you another story — completely different — and he’d swear he never told you the first story.” Two brown-haired girls, Margie and Betty, were born. In May, 1955, the Soltas moved into a little, rickety summer bungalow in a wooded, lonely area of Ronkonkoma, intending to buy a house in the autumn.

Sentenced to Five Years

When autumn came, Joey was in jail. In September, 1955, he broke into a store in Huntington, was arrested, pleaded guilty to second-degree grand larceny and was sentenced in December, 1955, to five years in Elmira. He was to serve three years of that sentence, and while he was in jail, Ann and her two daughters were still in that bungalow.

“The girls were little,” Ann says. “We had no money. We had to go on welfare. God. Just terrible.” She had no car, and the nearest stores were seven miles away so she had to depend on a woman who lived about a mile away to drive her to shop. “For weeks at a time, I didn’t talk to a soul, just the girls,” she says.

After serving three years, Joey was paroled for the remaining two in December, 1958. He got a $70-a-week job in a defense plant in Smithtown, began fixing neighbors’ televisions sets at night to earn another $30 a week, scraped together $200 and used it for a down payment on the red-brick, white-shingle, $11,000 house on Amsterdam Avenue. “We couldn’t afford a house,” Ann says. “But Joey, well Joey was the kind of person, his mother had a new house, his brother had a new house, he had to have a new house.” Joey got his new house and moved his family in. That was Sept. 2, 1958. Exactly one week later, nine months after he had gotten out of jail, he broke into the Cooperman home, and was arrested again.


“At the time he was arrested, we had about $15 in the checking account and the money he gave me while the police were coming,” Ann says, “and about $250 worth of stock. That was all there was.” She sold the stock and, persuading a neighbor to look after the two girls, began to look for a job. She finally found a job, as a secretary in a bank, but there was a problem. The other people in the bank knew her name.

“I knew it was going to be in the paper because of Joey,” she says. “I was working in the bank then. There was this old lady, a real old gossip, in the office. Every afternoon, the newspaper would be delivered to the office and she’d go all through it, saying, ‘Oh, look at what this guy did.’ She didn’t miss an article, no matter how small it was. The afternoon the trial started, I figured it would be in the paper. I was sitting there. She was going through the paper, talking loud, and then suddenly she was very quiet and nothing was said any more that day. Nobody ever said anything to me, but it became very strained.”

Ann’s salary at the bank was only $55 a week.

Believed He Was Innocent

The situation became a little better when Ann’s doctor, who knew of her financial troubles, got her a higher-paying job as a secretary at a hospital where he practiced. Then the trial started. “I thought he was innocent in the beginning,” Ann says. “I just believed him, I don’t know, it sounded like it could have happened the way he said … I just didn’t believe that someone who was just out nine months could walk into someone’s house and do something like that. But he always had a different story. No, after a while, I didn’t really think he was innocent.”
At the trial, Joey’s lawyer, Thomas P. Repetto of Mineola, told her it might help Joey win sympathy from the jurors if she sat in court with her children.

“We sat in court,” Ann recalls, “but I don’t remember much about that trial. The only part I remember was when the judge was sentencing him. It’s a funny thing — all I remember was the judge saying, ‘10 to 15 years in Sing Sing,’ and the next thing I knew Mr. Repetto was standing over me and saying, ‘Ann, it’s all right. It’s all right. He suspended it.’ I was still sitting up straight, but I guess my mind had stopped.”

When Joey was sentenced, Ann kept writing him in jail. “I knew no one else would,” she says. “I knew he’d be lonely.” But she also made up her mind to get a divorce. “I was in a hospital four times in a row,” she says. “It was for various things, but the doctor told me it was all due to nerves. He came in one day — he had known Joey and me for years — and he said, ‘Ann, he’s killing you inch by inch. You’ve just got to tie up your heartstrings.’”

The same doctor had given her the same advice before, but Ann had always stayed with Joey. “It’s the way you’re brought up, I guess,” she says. “I felt that when you get married, it’s forever.”
Joey refused to give Ann a divorce unless she paid half the expenses involved. She borrowed money from a finance company to pay her half, and then Joey refused to pay the other half. She borrowed more money — “I just had to be free,” she says — and the divorce came through in April, 1962. Joey, who had gone to Mexico after he was released from jail, promptly married an 18-year-old Mexican girl.

After about a month, he returned to Ronkonkoma, living with his mother, and opened a television repair business. Some of his customers began to complain about things being missing from their homes, and he left Suffolk abruptly. During 1963, instead of the regular child-support payments he was supposed to be making to Ann, she and her daughters received one post card from Joey. It was sent from Mexico and bore no return address.
Last month, Ann refinanced her mortgage, raised an additional $2,000 on the house and “finally got all the bills paid off.”

Now, she says, “I can manage nicely on my salary ($118 a week). This will be the first time I’ve ever been able to relax and just enjoy the girls. Now the case is closed for me.”
But is it — even now? Will the case ever really be closed for Ann Solta? Talking about the possibilities of her marrying again, Ann Solta stops abruptly and says, “I don’t really want to, you know.”

Explaining why she doesn’t have many friends, Ann says, “When you have to explain, it’s worse, right? So you don’t make friends. To tell you the truth, I’m still sort of afraid to make friends.”

And often, when she is talking about her life, Ann Solta pauses for a moment and then says quietly, “Older people, we can handle things, but little children … what about little children?”
The last time their father was arrested, Betty, then 4 years old, hadn’t started school yet. But Margie, then 6, was in the first grade. Recalls her mother: “One day on the bus, the kids all made fun of Margie. You know, ‘your father steals’ — that kind of thing. She came home crying. I was working and the neighbor was babysitting for me. Luckily, she [the neighbor] got out a telephone book and said, ‘Look at all those Soltas. That’s not your father they’re talking about.’

“But eventually, they find out. The neighbors talk to one another, the children overhear, I guess, and when the children have a fight, it comes out. I told them Daddy was sick and that made him do things wrong sometimes, that he was still their Daddy, that he was a kind man — and that you had to take people the way they are. But they loved him so much, they were crazy about their Daddy, he was so handsome and always playing jokes. When he went to jail and I told them that he wouldn’t be back for a long time, I’ll never forget the way they cried.”

The two girls haven’t seen their father for more than a year now. They knew he was in Mexico, but Margie’s 10th birthday was May 22. Says Mrs. Solta: “For two weeks before, every afternoon when she came home from school, she’d run over to the mailbox, and when there was no card … On her birthday, I took her to the [World’s] fair. Then we stayed that night with my mother in Kew Gardens. I thought I took her mind off it. But on the way home, Margie said, ‘There should be some cards in there for me today, shouldn’t there, Mommy? Shouldn’t there?’ I tell you, older people can handle things, but little children — they’re at the mercy of circumstances.”
This, then, is what a $9 burglary did to a mother, a wife and two daughters. But what of the other persons involved in the case? The jurors? The young defense attorney? The persons who witnessed the burglary? To this day, almost six years after the crime and five years after the trial, most can easily remember what that burglary meant to them.

Of the 12 jurors who sat on the case, five have moved away from Long Island and cannot be contacted. Of the remaining seven, two say they can hardly remember the case. But the other five remember — and they all remember the very same thing.

As one, Donald Cohen of 1483 Peacock Lane, Great Neck, puts it, “It was that wife and the two little girls. She’d come to court every day and sit in the back of the court, such a sweet-looking girl, with her two daughters, one sitting beside her, the other was so small the mother used to hold her. It got around among us that she was his wife. There was no doubt that the guy had done what they said he did. But when I saw the wife, I kept thinking, ‘It could happen to your own boy, you know.’ And you know, I was really on a seesaw there. But you had to say he did it. Whenever I read in the paper about some young guy doing wrong, I remember her. To this day.”

What about the defense attorney? For Repetto, the Solta case was his first felony trial. A young lawyer just setting up practice, he had been assigned the case by the judge when Solta said he had no money to hire an attorney. There would be no fee.

“I had long talks with him,” Repetto recalls. “I tried to determine for myself what kind of a guy he was. He said he went to that house only to get some water for his car, and that he never went inside, and after I went all through that case, I believed him. I thought he was innocent.”

To try to prove it, Repetto spent hours driving around Flower Hill, memorizing the area of the crime so that he could handle all details about it that might come up in court. He drove, over and over again, along the route Solta said he had taken from the Coopermans to his home to clock times and distances. When Solta told him that he had been in the Flower Hill area to look for a job, Repetto found the man to whom he had applied and persuaded him — “I pleaded with him” — to appear on the stand. Trying to get all the facts about car over-heating, he talked to auto mechanics. He checked all available public records on the Coopermans and on all witnesses — including his own character witnesses — to see if they had any criminal records that could be used for or against them when they took the stand.

“I dedicated myself to the defense of this fellow to the exclusion of all my other cases,” Repetto recalls today. In court, his involvement was obvious. As he cross-examined Mrs. Cooperman, the judge had to caution him, “Relax. Just relax.”

Summation Stresses Doubts

In his summation, Repetto’s feelings spilled over. “With you,” he told the jury, “sits the 13th juror. He is the presumption of innocence. The defendant is presumed innocent. If you have any valid reason in doubting his guilt, you must acquit him.” Over and over again, he pounded at the doubts the jurors might have. How could the two women be sure the shadow Marsha saw inside the house wasn’t just a shadow? How could they be sure the garage door hadn’t been left open? How could they be sure that Solta wasn’t just standing by that door and had never actually entered the house? The jury found the defendant guilty, but Repetto planned to appeal. “I still believed with all my heart that he was innocent,” he recalled.

But then, something happened. On the day that Solta was sentenced, the day that his wife’s mind “stopped” as she sat in the courtroom, Solta stopped for just a second as he was being led from the courtroom to prison. He leaned over and whispered something to Repetto. “Listen,” he whispered. “So what if I was inside that house? Big deal.”

“Yes,” Repetto says today. “I guess you could say that case had an effect on me.”

And what about the victims, Marsha and Eleanor Cooperman? Their glimpse of Solta insider their home was as flickering as a shadow, their conversation with him lasted no more than two minutes, their financial loss was small.

Criminologists talk about an “element of fear” that enters even the smallest crime when there is an actual confrontation between the criminal and the victim, an actual meeting face to face of the innocent and the person who is trying to do them harm. But, you wonder, will there be any fear in a case this small?

“Please don’t ask my wife about it,” Alex Cooperman says.

“There had been an instance once before of prowlers in the house. And after the trial started, there were these phone calls. They would come in at midnight, at two in the morning, at four. A voice would say, ‘We’ll burn your house down,’ or ‘You’ll be lying out in an alley someplace.’ The police said it was cranks, but my wife …”

Today, six years after she encountered Joey Solta on the lawn of her home, Mrs. Eleanor Cooperman won’t go outside without locking all the doors behind her. The locks are big double locks and there is a chain lock on the Coopermans’ bedroom door. Says her daughter: “Mother was always nervous and this case had made her more nervous ever since. She doesn’t talk about it any more, but you can see it’s in the back of her mind every time she walks into the house. To tell the truth, I think that no matter how long she lives, that case will always be with her.”

The case began with a shadow. It lengthened somewhat.






Tuesday, June 24, 2025

Credit Crunch.

Karl Westman, the Soul Captain, my music guy for twenty years just sent me an email. Lest you think I'm telling one of my old-man-and-the-sea tall tales, here it is:


I'm old-fashioned in so many ways. Sometimes I think I'd have to advance a century-and-a-half only to be three or four centuries behind everyone else.

I think of a lot of work like I work in a car-wash. 

Most places you go to for quotidian services, like the dry-cleaner, a shoe-repair place, renewing your driver's license are so backed up that even something simple--even when they promise "in by 9, out by 5," takes three or four times longer than that.

Whereas car washes run pretty smoothly.

They handle the dirt at hand right away.

You never have to leave your car and come back in a week.

That's they way I handle requests from friends and clients. As if I'm working in a car wash. 

So, I scribbled out the credits for the two campaigns Karl was asking for within about 17-minutes of getting his email. One of the campaigns had about six people involved in its creation and production. The other had one or two more.

There was a time that was normal in the industry--and in most other industries. Below for instance you'll find the closing credits of arguably the greatest movie in the history of celluloid, "Citizen Kane." The credits include about 25 names in total. 

Maybe these days unions and everyone-gets-a-trophy sensibilities demand that even on a 15-second spot you have to list in the credits the pigeon wrangler, the key grip, the colorist and about 71 other people who sneezed in the direction of the production.



When Karl asked me for credits I put down the writer, the art director, the director, music, producer and business manager. Those are the people who did 99.97-percent of the work. 

We're seeing a lot of photos from Cannes of late with a dozen or two dozen people accepting a trophy. That photo doesn't include the dozen or two dozen people who couldn't make it all the way to a dying industry's Bacchanal. 

But maybe one of the reasons we're dying is that we're so damned fair it's unfair. With everyone we have to acknowledge for playing a part in creating an ad, we can no longer give the people who actually came up with the idea, sold it, and got it made their due.

Yes, a lot of people had a hand in a particular project. And they're important. But by giving them all praise and...money...we're denying the people doing the lion's share their fair share.

When I worked at that place I worked at, I talked about this with the head of HR. He wrote back, this is a quote, that the agency is looking for "Highly collaborative agitators."

My two cents says there is no such thing.

Agitators don't collaborate. And Collaborators don't agitate. And it's fight and agitation that make work good.

In an era where everyone gets a trophy, I won't get a trophy for this.

Thank god.