The sub-prime President.

Nothing more to say.

Help wanted: Editors.

With the release of the remake of "3:10 to Yuma," I got to wondering about its length compared to the 1957 original. Then I checked into a few other remakes vs. the originals. Here are my unscientific findings:

3:10 to Yuma orig: 92 mins remake: 117 mins +25
Manchurian Candidate orig: 126 mins remake: 129 mins +3
Cleopatra orig: 100 mins remake: 192 mins +92
Cape Fear orig: 105 mins remake: 128 mins +23

OK. My list is highly arbitrary and maybe you can find movies that belie what seems to me to be a trend of flaccid editing (or lack of editing.) But I betcha somewhere in my thesis there's a shred of evidence that today we take less care in paring our story or message down to its elemental core. Thus we wind up squandering people's time and betraying their trust and our craft.

Be careful who you sleep with.

Back in June, when the Earth was slightly less warm than today, I self-published two posts about the then incipient iPhone. (The iPhone, will it be for U? and i Told you so.)

In each, I pondered if Apple's alliance with AT&T--a consumer unfriendly brand--would be bad for Apple, a resolutely consumer-friendly brand. Well, it appears it is. After all, as Mao used to grumble, "when you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas."

Jobs just introduced new, better phones at new, lower prices and in the process he and Apple have alienated their loyal customer base, gotten a ton of bad press, made people like myself wonder if Apple is a bad apple. They've behaved, generally, like schnooks.

I would love to have an iPhone. It's delightful, it's delicious, it's de-lovely. But now I also wonder if it's de-ceptive.

Fallon Fallin'.

Finally! Something that pertains to the demise of the advertising Old Order--the imminent obsolescence of hide-bound advertising.

But first, a digression. Years ago, I worked for Ally & Gargano which at one time was the brightest light in the advertising universe--the agency that created the brands for FedEx, MCI (when it kicked AT&T's ass), Volvo, Fiat, Saab, Dunkin' Donuts and a more than a few other major companies. When Ally lost FedEx to the former Fallon, McElliot, Rice, that agency ran an ad proclaiming that Fallon would never go the way of Ally, ie never succumb and be killed by mediocrity.

Well history is repeating itself. Last night I ran across this in Ad Age. "Fallon Fall Continues as Shop Loses Bahamas. Citi, United Airlines Have Also Pulled Biz From Agency This Year." http://adage.com/accountaction/article?article_id=120276

In other words, the mighty have fallen.

Fallon was a great agency that for fifteen years broke through with smart, intrusive work. Something happened and their ability to continue on that course has dissipated. The question for Fallon, Saatchi (their holding company) and Publicis (their holding company's holding company) is now the $64,000 one. Can an agency brand--like any brand--be turned around, resurrected, revitalized?

It's sad. Having been at Ally, I doubt it.

Notes from the 16th Century.

I am reading "The Culture of Cities," a history by a hero of mine, Lewis Mumford. (He is to the study of History what Peter Drucker is to the study of Business.) It is one of his brilliant panoramas on civilization and our development as a species. It's pretty damned impressive.

In it, Mumford quotes a poem by a 16th Century writer called Robert Crowley. It's 500 years old and worth thinking about, especially vis a vis the schmendricks running for president or working for Goldman Sachs or engaging in some other form of rapine or pillage.

And this is a city
In name but in deed
It is a pack of people
That seek after meed [gain].
For officers and all
Do seek their own gain
But for the wealth of the Commons
Not one taketh pain.
And hell without order
I may it well call
Where every man is for himself
And no man for all.

Another lie.

Those of you who know me know I have an Asperger's-like obsession with World War II. That said, last month during the anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, I was thinking about the term "mushroom cloud." That term is a horrific canard.

A mushroom cloud does not sound all that bad. Mushrooms are good, tasty and clouds are light and airy, soft and cozy like wispy giant pillows. It's phrases like mushroom cloud that allow politicians like Reagan to proclaim that in the event of a nuclear attack "If there are enough shovels to go around, everybody's going to make it." (Remember the W. Bush administration telling us to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting--protection against a "dirty bomb" attack!)

In reality, the explosion of an atomic or thermo-nuclear bomb does produce a cloud, but more truthfully it also produces temperatures on the ground of greater than 9000-degrees fahrenheit and winds in excess of 1000 miles per hour. The dust of the so-called cloud is rife with immolated human flesh, bones and hair.

We use dozens of terms that hide true meaning like "mushroom cloud" in our daily intercourse. "Global warming" could easily and properly be replaced by "imminent environmental destruction." "Dirty bomb" is another one. Man, if I'm hit by a blast of strontium or cesium or some-other-um, I'm a helluva lot more than "dirty." My insides are being eaten alive, my skin is falling off, I've got a goiter the size of a bowling ball.

My point is this: language is powerful. Choose your words and images carefully and honestly.

How many times do you believe a liar?

I confess. I have been called "Old Testament"in my proclivity to see the world in terms of black and white. Good and evil. Right and wrong. It's probably true. I am exacting and I expect to be told the truth when I'm spoken to. When I'm lied to, I get pissed and I'm apt to boycott or go elsewhere with my business. Or my career.

That's why I ignore the President when he says the surge is working. I'll ignore General Petraeus when he says the surge is working. And I ignore virtually any message from virtually every phone company, airline, candidate, big-box-retailer, etc. It's all a crock of crap. Yesterday, Ad Age reported that AT&T's claim of "fewest dropped calls" (a claim they backed by nearly $1 billion of ad spend) was "inflated." As were nearly all telco claims backed by $5 billion of spend. http://adage.com/article?article_id=120207

The advertising industry (that's us) is both the propagator and the victim of these falsehoods. Our work is ignored because we've lied too often. Because we produce messages that no one believes we're regarded by clients as a commodity and a cost center.

So the question I think for us is this: Is there a way to be honest, to become credible, to actually communicate useful consumer information in an executionally brilliant way? In short, how can advertising become influential again?

Why does "search" suck?

I'm looking for a job. As a consequence I go to a variety of job sites and type in my desired title as a search term. Almost invariably I get back matches for Media Planners. Account Executives. And the like. Then, somewhere further down the list, there might be a listing or two for my anticipated title.

This illustrates two things I've learned over the years.
1. Software, as much as we'd like it to be, is not a panacea. I've lived through agencies that think it's going to solve their time-sheet/billing issues, their recruitment issues, even their new business issues. The fact is, software, no matter how good it is, cannot replace human intelligence, such as it is.

2. Software isn't a service end-all. It is merely a tool to help real, live people serve you better.

Undoubtedly search is valuable and important. Consumers can't live without it. But my guess is it only works about half the time, especially if you're looking for things somewhat esoteric like a good job in advertising. It's not that much more effective than any other "service" sellers provide to buyers.

All that being said, I'll keep searching.

Zagats' Guide.

The United States

Food 8
Decor 11
Service 7
Cost $$$$

Long-time residents decry “the fast-food nation.” Good restaurants exist but mostly it's “golden arches, e-coli and vermin.” Decor marred by nearly 1000 Superfund sites, sulpher-spewing oil-refineries, privatization of national parks and laxer pollution standards. Service is “virtually non-existent.” “Everything’s a phone tree” says one respondent. High taxes for everyone except “the super-duper rich.” "Not what it used to be" lament many.

Yo Mama.

Yo Mama is so dumb she thinks "Linked-In" is an online sausage company.

Yo Mama is so dumb she thinks "flash" is something you do with a raincoat on.

Yo Mama is so fat she thinks she's part of the "new media landscape."

editor's note: Yo Mama jokes are a Labor Day special. They will not be repeated.