Some old uses for Newspeak.

As the cash-strapped advertising industry returns from its annual approximately $200-million Bacchanal at Cannes, it all makes me think, as so many things do these days, of George Orwell.

Mostly I think of Orwell's "Newspeak." The only language ever divined where the number of words decreases every year.

The number of words in Newspeak is limited for a specific reason. Limit words and you limit thoughts.

(Think of 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down.' 'Hot or Not.' Complexity of opinion narrowed to two options. No nuance, controversy or discussion.)

As Orwell wrote in "1984," "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."

Geoffrey Hughes, a noted English philologist said in his classic book, "Words in time: A social history of the English vocabulary,""Newspeak is the product of a totalitarian control over semantics, history and the media more ruthlessly complete than any which has yet emerged in the modern world."

Over the past few days I have kept track of 3,191 different comments of friends and colleagues in the industry who have just returned from the south of France.

My extensive research led to the chart below. Almost 40% of the speeches, tweets, posts and emails about Cannes included the word "humble." 20%, the word "brave." And the remaining 40% was divided among just five words.

As an industry, we used words like humble to mask our incessant chest-beating and bragging. We say brave because we're not. And so it goes.

Our industry's cognoscenti want to narrow our range of thought. As agency 1-percenters make off with 99% of our business' spoils, they want you to stop thinking. They hope you won't notice that in our no-raise era, they are drinking wine on yachts.

They want you to believe they're brave, humble, changing the world and doing it for a cause.

Yep.

And War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. 

Open Plans are Productive. Everyone is Creative. Timesheets are Accurate. Seventeen Rounds of Review improves Work.

And bragging is humbling.

I might not be very smart. But I'm smarter than that.

Questioning the way things are.

I understand the importance of winning awards. And therefore I understand the importance of awards shows.

But that doesn't mean I like them or respect them.

Mostly because when it comes to awards shows, there is a pretty pronounced subject-object split.

But first a little background.

In 2018, Cannes received 32,372 entries. That's down from 2016's high of 43,101 submissions. Cannes grosses from those submissions between $50 million and $75 million a year--depending on how many submissions are subject to late fees.

[* BTW, that $50 million to $75 million is the agency cost of entry fees only. My guess is you can double that if you account for billable hours, hotel bills, expensive wine, cheap wine, yachts, expense-account purchased swim-wear and more.]

I wonder two things.

1. Does anyone believe that there were over 32,000 great ads last year? If there were, how come I don't think I've seen ten great commercials while watching TV. 

All I seem to see are horrible ads with "real people," for Chevy. A Toyota affront about 12 times an hour. Cell-phone and cable company commercials that make me hate the brands sponsoring them even more than their service does. And of course pharma ads, which often make me wish I had one of the diseases those ads claim to cure, just so I could die and never see another pharma ad.

Am I watching the wrong kind of TV? If there were 32,000 great ads made in 2018, where do they all run? Is there a closed-circuit Cannes network? 

Even if each ad is entered ten times, were there really 3,200 great ads last year? Without doing any research whatsoever I can tell you there weren't 3,200 great movies, plays, operas, novels, short films, comic books, fortune cookies, stand-up comedy routines.

Now, #2. Some thoughts on the money we spend.

According to globalgiving.org, $530 will educate one female child in India for a year. $530 will cover tuition, books, notebooks, uniforms, health supplements, transportation and lunch.

So at the low-end of the money agencies spend on entries alone, we could send almost 100,000 poor girls to school for a year.

That's a pretty dumb thought, though.

We're too busy creating ads and experiences that will change the world. Why would we actually want to change it?

Fearless Friday.

It's funny how life goes. Not some of the time. But mostly all of the time.

Maybe this is something you can only accept and appreciate when you're a little older. When you've got some money in your 401(K), your mortgage is mostly paid, and your existence isn't quite so hand to mouth as it was when you were young.

When I was 56 I lost my job. I was fearful that my days of having a regular job were perilously close to coming to an end. Forever.

What agency in their right mind (that's supposed to be funny--agency/right mind) would hire someone who, in advertising parlance, is about 20 years into his dotage?

I was scared. 

As scared, to tell you the truth, as I was at 29 when my wife delivered our daughter. Shit. I better make some money.

Fear has a way of kicking you in the ass. Of waking you up in the morning and pushing you forward. Of making you work so you can earn/

When I was 29, when I was 56, it drove me to find a way. It drove me to get that job.

As New York's oldest living copywriter, I can tell you, working is not easy. You have to deal with a lot of things because of your age that aren't really fair. You always have to reckon with the specter that you can be canned at any moment because you're old, expensive and no one really wants you around. After all, you're old and expensive.

But something's happened to me. I've learned something through the years. I've learned to no longer be afraid of fear.

Life is full of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. I've dealt with that weaponry my entire life.

I'm not special. 

So have you.

You'll be much happier when you come to terms with those barbs.

You'll be much happier when you accept that they can, yes, hurt you.

But they can't stop you.

A bit more on diversity.

Of course, I believe in diversity.

And I'll fight for diversity.

And I'll do everything in my power to help my agency and the world become more diverse.

My problem is, I'm not 100% sure that the way most people use the word diversity is really diverse, really inclusive.

This will probably get me in trouble.

(Because I have a "diverse" opinion.)

The fact is, I've never felt more estranged in an agency, more ignored, more un-considered, un-heeded, un-listened to than I do today.

There are a lot of exogenous reasons behind that.

One is that I use words like exogenous. 

The fact is, despite all our current bushwa about diversity, most agencies don't really accept people who (despite what Apple used to tell us) think different.

No, we don't really appreciate or accept differences of thought, bearing, education, vocabulary.

We don't accept people who represent that sort of diversity.

I read an article not long ago in a high-falutin' academic magazine called "Society." It's pretty heady stuff and you can read it here. But here's the gist:

[We]... tend to use the word diversity predominantly in its demographic denotation to refer to variety of external appearance instead of to variety of mental phenomena. 

Appearance, not thoughts.

"At the very least, the results of this work suggest that [we] ...use language in their own online institutional profiles, prioritize demographic types of diversity around variety of external appearance cues over intellectual heterogeneity."

My simple point is this.

If we as a society, an industry, an agency, decide to loudly embrace the concept of diversity and inclusion, some time must be taken to consider what that concept means. Or what you mean by it.

When you say you're inclusive, who are you really including and who are you excluding? When you say you want diversity, what kind of diversity do you want? Merely diversity based on appearance or diversity based on world-view, intellect, thought-patterns and more.

In short, do you want diverse diversity? Or are you just mouthing an au courant phrase?

I suspect that when we use words like diversity and inclusion they comfort us because we're saying the right thing. People will smile, nod and say, "aren't we good, aren't we righteous?"

Saying the right thing is not the same thing as doing the right thing. No matter how often you say it.

These days, that's probably the wrong thing to say.
-->

The language of our lives.

My guess, having circled the sun as many times as I have, is that something on the order of 75% of all communications are prevarications. That is, they are deviations from the truth. Or, put another way, they are communications that mislead, either by intent or through lack of skill.

For me, Dashiell Hammett, the great writer behind "The Continental Op," "The Maltese Falcon," "The Nineteenth Murder," and "A Knife will Cut for Anybody," among other works, pointed this out most astutely and semantically.

At the opening of "The Continental Op," Hammett's narrator observes:

Usually in the morning when I get into work, I check my Twitter account. I don't send out tweets--I'll do almost anything not to appear presidential--but I do like to see if others are tweeting about me or this blog.

Because "Ad Aged" is so close to "Ad Age," and Ad Age is more popular than this organ, when I search Twitter using the word "ad aged," it returns this notice:

Beneath the above header is this tile:

An ad, as it were, for the august trade magazine "Ad Age." Today, after years of seeing this ad, I read its copy.

"Ad Age is a daily must-read for an influential audience of decision makers and disruptors across the marketing and media landscape."

Now, the same copy with meaningless or jargon words highlighted.

"Ad Age is a daily must-read for an influential audience of decision makers and disruptors across the marketing and media landscape."

Now, that sentence deconstructed and redefined:

must-read--what happens if you don't read a "must-read." Or is Ad Age a must-read because its circulation has probably dropped by 90% over the last ten years and if you don't "must-read it," the three or four remaining writers will lose their jobs.

influential--influential to whom? And if they are "influential," what/whom/how are they influencing. I'd rather speak to people regarded as intelligent than influential. Besides, I assume the heads of agencies and holding companies are influential. The chart below, from "The Wall Street Journal," essentially questions how good they are at their jobs.

decision makers--How did this phrase come into being? Hmmm, should I press the elevator for 7 or 8? I can't handle that, I'm not a decision maker. I need a decision maker to help me. It's almost lunch as I write this. Chicken salad or tuna salad. White, wheat or rye. Can't someone help me.

disruptors--I assume this is code for someone who is flatulent during a meeting.

marketing and media landscape.--The Alps are a landscape, Thomas Cole's Hudson River paintings are landscapes. Marketing and media are jobs.

--

Writing like this is the coin of our realm. It sucks. It's dispiriting. And it doesn't communicate.

It also reminds me of nearly every agency website I see, and nearly every deck I read.

Handy Dandy Diversity and Inclusion Kit.

I read an article just now in "The Washington Post" about a recent tech conference in Italy which was attended by 17 tech CEOs: 15 men, and two women.

When the obligatory group photo was snapped, the women, somehow showed up missing. So, the tech conference did what is au courant behavior: they photoshopped the two female attendees (who couldn't make the shoot) into the photo.

You know, if you want something to be true, alter the truth so it appears to be true.

The reality in our industry reflects a similar lack of inclusion and diversity. In 2016, according to data in WPP's annual report, only 2% of employees were over 60. Just 7% were between 50 and 59. (Fear not. The report goes onto say that 23% of WPP companies--that's almost one-in-four--have "introduced measures to support recruitment and retention of older people.")

I am part of that 2% group. But I am not unaware of a similar lack of representation among other groups. I found this data from a fairly recent Association of National Advertiser's report.

I wondered if I could make it easier for agencies at Cannes? Could I sell them photographs to make them appear more egalitarian? Shots that can be easily purchased (from me) that could be easily photoshopped into their iPhone photos.

First, since the industry has fewer than 9% of its employees over 50, a selection of "AKS," known in the inclusion business as Alte Kocker shots. Any one of these shots can be inserted photoshopically into any group photos from Cannes.

An authentic old person.
Old people often cross their arms and wear quaint mechanical watches.

Research indicates that there's no better way to depict a youthful older person
than to put them on a swing.

Nothing says "gravitas" (which is Latin for "of or pertaining to gravy")
than a stern-looking older person looking defiant.

This photo of an older person has everything.
Ratty cardigan, straw hat, man with walker and Nazi salute.

Then, because LatinX people are even more egregiously underrepresented, you can use the two shots below for your Diversity and Inclusion purposes.

For your photoshopping convenience, a two-fer:
This woman is LatinX and over 40!

Hipster LatinX-es are all the rage this year. Flannel shirt, check. Nerd glasses, check. 

Wispy beard, check. Anesthetized smile, double check.

Finally, since African-Americans make up only 7% of industry work-forces (and only 3% of senior roles) I've included an assortment of relevant shots you can use.

Today, everyone aspires to be collaborative, earnest AND diverse.
Like people everywhere, diverse people also like to point at screens while smiling.

But, of course we shouldn't overlook work/life balance either.

For your Cannes photoshopping-convenience, I've included this shot.
It already has palm trees!

And a three-fer. Grey hair, over-40 and African-American.

--

By the way, if you want to read more about the diversity in fact and fiction, click on this link. It also has a "Diversity Bingo Board." Fun for all ages. (Except those over 50.)