Learn the difference between their/there/they're and it's/its. –Richmond, VA

We shot a TV commercial and were ready with the offline. Now that version, very few clients seem to understand. Fortunately, we have a client who is not only intelligent about these things, she also has a lot of trust on our work. She looked at it and liked it and left the online to us completely and didnt bother to interfere at all. She said, go ahead, I am sure you will do a great job. Now, thats something which is rarely heard:-( –New Delhi

An alternate title for this post could be "Why does so much advertising suck?" One simple answer is: because 90% of people are too scared to present, approve, and pay for truly memorable creative. Or simply that they don't know any better/have always done things a certain way and are more comfortable doing things the same way. Although I think Alex B. & company may have gone a step too far with that "Ego Emissions Index" slim-jim for the Jetta, the folks at CP+B and their clients are certainly not scared. And in the end, lots of marketers (client and agency side alike) look at their work and say "now that's the kind of breakthrough work we need to be doing". But then they present/approve the same old. Or maybe I'm just having a bad day today. –Branchburg, NJ

I can relate to clients not being sure enough to trust us. We're building a new building and we haven't given our architect carte blanche. In fact we've over analyzed their recommendations at times. This has made me more sympathetic to the position my clients are in when I ask them to trust me. I'm trying to do a better job to earn that trust. –Albuquerque, NM

When I read these blog postings, I realize one more excellent reason agencies do not hire people around my age (53) with our experience. (Way too much) We would constantly be telling you all how nothing you write is remotely new, ever. (Not that that's a bad thing.)

As an ACD on Isuzu during the great "Joe Isuzu" era, our Isuzu clients quit attending shoots the second Jerry Della Femina moved me over from VP/Acct. Sup. to the Creative Dept. Plus, Account people quit going as well since everybody figured I could wear all the hats. The pressure of all this responsibility was almost too much. (Once, during the first day of shooting of my first $1 million plus TV spot in 1990 to launch a new credit/calling card for another trusting client, I actually called a buddy for his therapist's phone number, called the therapist, made an appointment for that morning, went to the appointment to see if modern psychology could help me, learned it couldn't, and came back before anybody could notice I was missing.) But, yes, too many cooks do spoil the broth and that age old problem was gone, at least in my life, for a good, long time.

Later, I got to write and produce about 25 high-budget Acura commercials with no Clients present. Another fond memory was the Mars Corporation sending me off with a million or two to shoot dogs and the normal people who love them in countries like Argentina, New Zealand, the Czech Republic and the U.S. I only had to present scripts and give a short, heartfelt speech about what I hoped to accomplish. The result was a series of beautiful, natural and very successful spots for Pedigree that was like no other dog food campaign. In fact, Lee Clow, after a few very pleasant lunches with just he and I at his regular spot in Venice, had me hired to come by after TBWA/Chiat got the account to help it off and rolling. And during our reign at Ketchum with Acura, it never fell once from being "the best-selling luxury import car sold in America."

When your Client puts that much trust in you, along with the immense corresponding responsibility, you naturally tend to be willing to kill yourself trying to give them the very best you can in return. It would be a horrible, unacceptable betrayal not to do so. Plus, your Directors, producers, and crew love it because every single shot does not require a long, tortuous, remedial educational, massive group discussion as they sadly are forced to do nothing but watch the sun slowly sink behind the trees. Slowly going down into the distant horizon along with any remaining enthusiasm and collective creative lust for the new.

Then, there's the other kind of clients you've alluded to. In my case, clients like Nestle, and any phone company. Let's take the old US WEST for example. It's one I worked with for years. As if there was any creativity left in your shooting boards for these kinds of clients after countless months of meetings, focus groups, mystical research BOOGA! BOOGA!, and at least a dozen or so total rewrites, these clients still send their teams of recently ordained advertising experts to every shoot. Preferably, none of who have ever been to a shoot before in their lives. But, they have seen a TV commercial before. This gives them all the education they need to brow beat you and everyone involved to death before the camera has even been unloaded from the truck. If you believe humans do their best work while they're actually enjoying their work, you give up on putting this belief system to work for you and your spot long before the breakfast burritos have even made their way onto the craft-service table. At these shoots, my goal became, "Let's see if we can make a commercial that will be darn close to thirty seconds long AND make sense! If I can help make this miracle happen, then at least I'll know I'm a genius even if my closest peers will be forced to view me as a hack!" That's it. And I never failed! Sure, these commercials always ended up costing way more, both financially and spiritually, but we always somehow avoided complete gibberish! (Yes! There is a God!)Have you ever seen one of these kinds of commercials on TV? Sure you have.

Mr. Cleveland, if I may call you that, if you were one of those clients, you wouldn't have simply looked at your car that day in mid-repair and worried a little, you would have thrown a major hissy fit, declared everyone around you a fraud, perhaps even a criminal, then you would have proceeded to repair the car yourself with the earnest yet utterly useless and yet impressively counterproductive help of your know-nothing MBA assistants. (I'm pretty sure that's how many Ford and GM products are made.)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I agree with everything you wrote. Excellent observations and good use of a metaphor.

PS: Before you all give in to the obvious temptation to block my comments in the future, please consider how great it is that I have given up all hope of ever working in advertising again. So, who else do you know so free to mention clients and agencies by name and say whatever they feel like? For example, you feature the beard eating candy spot. I wrote Nestle candy commercials for years. (1994-1999) I always wondered, along with the Client, why Mars commercials were so much better on average. So, always driven by a dangerous brand of curiosity, I actually went and wrote commercials for Mars at another agency. (1999-2004) I actually lived with the two different cultures and lived to talk about it. What's equally exciting is I have no recollection of ever signing any "confidentiality agreements." Of course, I may have signed dozens. But I'm an old "Reagan Republican" at heart. So, to me at least, it's really what "I don't recall" that matters. Plus, I used to get paid almost a half a million a year to write. You get me for free. I really think you should consider all of this before you hit the BIG DELETE BUTTON.

Conversely, if you actually want to enjoy more of my writing, please visit my personal site, smokingchristian.com. (Yes, I'm a Christian who smokes and drinks. ( I believe such vices keep one from attempting to be "helpful.") My blog has nothing to do with advertising. So, I'm not competition. I think most normal people think of advertising like they do smog-It's a sorry byproduct of our economic/political/industrial/probably insane system, it's everywhere, it's frequently irritates the eyes, and it would be nice if somebody could stop the constant spread of it. THANK YOU. –Pacific Palisad, CA

Trust is key, the first thing I try to establish with a client is trust, when the client is constantly second guessing your decisions and wanting to see work in progress on the tiniest detail level it throws a monkey wrench into the who creative flow. When I write up a proposal I try to tell a story, I name every idea direction and try to go into detail to make sure that the client feels good about us having a true belief for the idea. I could never sell anything I didn't truly believe in and when I do I feel crappy about it the whole length of the project. When the client feels good because the advertiser is feeling good about an idea I notice that the whole process just goes much smoother. An idea is like a child, it needs to be nurtured and developed, similar to how we send our kids to school and need to trust the teachers, and companies need to trust the advertisers, like you said if there is no trust then the account is probably not a good fit for both parties. It's not enough to simply understand an idea but everyone onboard needs to believe in the idea. It takes a bit of a leap of faith but hopefully the idea was founded on solid facts about the demographic and based on the results the clients want to achieve. Looking under the hood makes people nervous, seeing something unfinished allows for fears to breed and changes to be made that will take away from the final outcome. I myself fall into that trap when my designers come up with an initial design and I think "wait, that's not what the client wants" but then I let them finish up the piece it somehow magically takes shape. Obviously if there are cases where intervention is needed but all of those aside I think that like two parents need to trust one another, the advertiser and the client need to both believe in each other in a similar way in order for anything good to come out of the working relationship. –new york, NY

Great thoughts Bart! It's a crying shame that there is a lack of trust from some clients. I have a few observations: First, when the client is an internal marketing department it seems to be worse micro-management. I tend to believe that they think they have more to lose by not being involved. Second, if the client is the CMO or higher, they tend to trust the agency a bit more. Usually these people are concerned about the high level details but are all about delegation and trust. These clients will also drop you like a bad habit if you fail to impress them. Third, the most appreciative and trusting clients are the entrepreneurs. These people love big ideas and generally understand that they are too close to the company to be a creative asset. The downside is that these clients tend to have smaller budgets and smaller projects. That said, trust can be achieved from every client by earning it. As simple as it may seem, i've been places were this is never accomplished. You work so hard to get a client in the door, just to ruin the relationship with lack of knowledge, poor project management and awful creative. The easiest way to earn trust early on with a new client is to underpromise and overdeliver. This will naturally lend itself to allowing an agency to be trustworthy enough to come up with the next candy-feeding beard idea. –Minneapolis, MN

If the advertising business were mostly or even largely about innovation then Mr. Arnell would have a meaningful and persuasive arguement. The hard reality is most time, energy and effort are focused on replication or duplication of materials, sales and communication of activities, and numerous other boring but necessary meetings, reports and paperwork. –New York, NY

Wonderfully articulated, your concern and sensitivity in a time when it lacks most is refreshing. One of the challenges we have is determining what it takes to get the job done and a head count is not always the right answer, usually never the right answer. I have found that agencies overlook the personalities of the talent; they are blind to fact that machines cannot and will not ever be able to produce an idea and see it through to launch. I have met a lot of very dynamic and talented people who get lost in the shuffle because they are nothing but a number amongst other numbers and end up becoming disgruntled and apathetic people because they have been pushed around like some machine on a cart from room to room being used as needed. Projects need personalities, they need bursts of life and most importantly they need soul. Half a person has no soul, they have one eye, one ear and half a brain, how productive is that? Great article, perhaps it will help spark a renaissance in our industry that will pay more attention to the individuals who make it go 'round. Just like websites like YouTube and MySpace that have grown tremendously because of the focus on the individual so to does business have to learn from what the public trends are literally screaming out, that the individual needs more attention, more credibility and regardless of dollars and cents, they need to be seen as a soul and not some fraction of a number. Unfourtunately the people who tend to act like computers are the ones who last at the agencies because they ware willing to be passed around, this is what leads to poor ideas and bad executions. –new york, NY

The myopia of ad agencies can be judged with the simple exercise designed to determine how customer-focussed but proactive they are: What is the agency doing NOW that will be of value to its client (i.e., customer) NEXT YEAR? If "nothing," then the agency is working for the client on a project basis. –CHICAGO, IL

Why? Just plain why? You use email for basic and prompt communication, not to have your life intruded upon. I can't believe people use an email system that actually reads your communicaes and then sends you advertisements based upon what it reads, that's just insane! Do we let the US postal system read our mail? They say Microsoft has monopolized the way we use our PC's but now Google has monopolized the way we think? It's just crazy, when is their reach gone too far? Charles Loiacono, CEO www.Kahzam.com –Pompano Beach, FL

Well said! Yet another deal with the devil and we're smiling and buying all the way. –Coquitlam, BC

I find Google email to be the best because of the related advertisements on the left. A company in China, Yimudi.cn, is also developing similiar dynamic interest identification and matching services, but focusing on blogs. This too will make blogs more relevant for people. –BEIJING

OMG how much did Google pay you to write this article? If you really think Google is going to take over the world... Please, someone is going to come along with a search model better than their's. As a matter of fact there are already better ones out there. Sounds like what you're saying is that Google is just going to be ad salespeople! Tracy Cox –Royal Oak, MI

Hi Simon, Your futuristic prediction is very similar to the world described in M.T. Anderson's book Feed. In this world, most people have an internet feed implanted in their brains very young, and their thoughts are captured by the internet, which sends them constant advertisements. A very interesting, fun read. -Jessica Sellers –Minneapolis, MN

Ah yes, a media monopoly. Shutting down publications is unecessary. Those that are truly unsuccessful will collapse on their own (as your examples did). Marketers should do their research if they want the best magazine to sell their product. –miami, FL

Thank god for a bit of honesty. We should follow the same advice in the UK. www.businessmedia.blogspot.com has more on this theme. Business publishers are much cleverer than you think because over the last ten years they have been seducing readers with more media than just magazines. We have created trade shows and conferences, awards and databases, newsletters and directories. Business publishers have been powerhouses of innovation. The media buyer must be very happy. To be fair, some are. But in aggregate Advertising Association figures show that in real terms, expenditure on business to business advertising at least, has hardly grown at all in fifteen years. Many years ago, senior Reed executives used to talk about the information pyramid. They argued that if you deliver "must have" information your customers will pay you more and your company will make better margins. The more "must have" the information is, the higher up the information pyramid you climb and the more money you make. This simple and elegant view of the world has informed their strategic progress for years and has served them rather well. They sold their consumer businesses in book publishing and magazines (which are not "must have") and acquired information rich companies like Lexis Nexis. The City rather liked what they did so they did some more of it. When I was thinking about this I started to wonder whether the "must have" idea infected magazine publishing at all. Could it be that the content of business magazines is not good enough to inspire real growth in business to business advertising? If this hypothesis is true it's pretty alarming. After all the heart of all business media companies is magazines and without them most of the other media diversifications that have been pursued would be pipe dreams. Before outraged business publishers begin explaining how their publisher sponsored research proves that their magazine is read for hours at a stretch by the most important decision makers in the land, let me admit that there are some fantastic business magazines around. The problem is that of the 5000 or so titles that are published in the UK, not more than a hundred of them would pass a test of editorial excellence. Too many business publishers have sacrificed their editorial integrity. Too much of the content is "advertorial", that cunning blend of advertisement and advertisement, as Ian Hislop, editor of satirical mag Private Eye, once so memorably put it. Too often the news desk is under resourced and left to cut and paste dreary press releases and then keep them separate with small, poorly reproduced photographs. My view is this; that 98% of the business magazine published in the UK are really not very good. –Swanely

You say: "Hearst and Time Inc. shouldn't be blamed for putting people out of work; rather, they should be applauded for making the kinds of cold-eyed business decisions that media and marketing companies need to make more often. These are industries that too often get stuck on emotion or ego and avoid making even the most obvious tough calls." I say: "They should be criticized for putting people out of work, especially when their new publications were ill-conceived from the get-go. Look to the original sin: Poor research, poor thinking, which puts people's livelihoods in danger unnesessarily." –Atlanta, GA

The great irony is that I heard the story on "On the Medaia" and as a result decided to look up lonley girl. The reality is that media coverage is one part of the equation that feeds the machine. I won't likely follow lonely girl, but I am now "brand aware." Mike Hart, Idaho Falls ID (heard story on NPR in Boston, found your Blog googling Lonley Girl when I was back home, podcast was on my computer when I got there) –Idaho Falls, ID

If this proves to be a charade as you say - and I think it will be - then it shows, in my opinion, how personal media will meet a rough road ahead. We've recently seen the Al Gore/YouTube flap.

If this is fake, then perhaps the negative press beforehand will make the agency and/or its client kill the campaign for fear of embarrassment.

The real decision makers are, though, her 'fans'...likely teens who would end up being the target of the campaign. Let's hope the value the genuine aspects of consumer generated media. –FALLS CHURCH, VA

Advertising/marketing that involves you via a "wink-and-a-nod" entertainment is great. There have been plenty of examples of fake stories handled this way that have been accepted by users.

But those that cross the line into deception, where it is possible to believe one way or another are really low. In 'personal media' we get to know people, we embrace the idea that many people are trying to share something genuine about their experience, thoughts, values. So we want to let down our guard.

If this is heading where you say - some ploy (which seems inevitable) - than it's just one long interactive episode of "Punk'd". A show that was never supposed to go on for more than a few minutes. - John H. Bell, Washington DC –WASHINGTON, DC

I share your skepticism, but even if lonelygirl15 does turn out to be the real thing, the ad community still needs to be proactive in "preserving the commons" of marketing integrity by drawing a better line between consumer and marketers generated messaging. There's no question the video space is making this all quite messy, and our first instinct as advertisers tends to be to exploit the ambiguity versus clarify it.

Perhaps what we need is the advertising equivalent of "organic labeling" when it comes to consumer generated media (CGM). Have not thought through all the "practical" issues of execution/implimentation, but there's no question this would hold agencies and brands more accountable....and rebuild consumer trust (which we all know is a depleting resource).

- Pete Blackshaw –COVINGTON, KY

One of the hallmarks of public affairs astroturfing is that it is usually hilariously unstealthy: think of all the organizations with overblown names that couldn't possibly be legitimate - and aren't. In advertising it's usually even more obvious. Would you go to a dermatologist with a degree from the Ponds Institute?

The sham is pretty obvious here, too. Miss Jailbait is obviously no 15-year-old (and if she is her parents *should* lock her up) and the production values, especially lighting and camera, are awfully good for a webcam.

Nevertheless, I agree that it seems more deceptive somehow. I wonder why that is. Do we feel more used because we have higher expectations for a medium that is inherently free of corporate control? Or are we just worried that one of these days the fakery is going to get harder to detect? –MENDHAM, NJ

We recruit for large and small agencies alike, and have for 22 years. Regardless of size, all recruiting is difficult because you are acquiring the only asset your agency has, your people. The process is painstaking, requiring introspection, a sense of your vision for the future (for your people and your agency) as well as the immediate need. There are, however, ways to make it a growth experience for all--and get what you want in the end. Maybe you should shake up your outside recruiter stable.....This isn't an easy business; hiring for it is no easier. Anne H Ross Anne H Ross, Executive Search: Chicago, NY and Boulder. We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are. Anias Nin. –CHICAGO, IL

I think smaller agencies with less of a "brand name" have it tougher. And while Brownstein does have a lot of street cred in our neck of the woods, Marc, it may not have the name recognition of a Tierney or even Gyro (or those Gasts at Mangos landing Cannondale!) Another thing to consider is whether your offered salaries are truly competitive. We interviewed for an entry level position recently and I think some people were a bit deluded in what they think they should be paid. While money isn't everything, it seems to be very important to some. More important than it should be, IMHO at least. –Branchburg, NJ

Small shops are not the only agency's that are having difficulty with regard to hiring. We recruit in the agency business all over the country and find that it seems to be equally difficult. In my opinion, the agency business in general does a poor job thoughout the hiring process. There are often too many interviews - both telephone and face to face - making the hiring process too long. With the way business is right now, candidates have a lot of options and are not going to wait around. –Palm Beach Gard, FL

The talent is out there and I am sure they would die to work for an agency. The question is: Can you recognize it? –Morristown, NJ

I need a job. I'll come work for you! –SAINT LOUIS PAR, MN

I personally feel if the agency gives u the right kind of enviornment and the freedom to express yourself, then there cant be a better place to work. I have been offered jobs on the client side many a times but I feel that I am still too young to take on that responsibility. I think working on variety of brands in an agency would do me far more good at this stage of my life and make me a much wiser and more knowledgable professional. At times the client side looks less stressful because of the timing and everything else but the high you feel in an agency despite the stress and challenges makes it so much more exciting... –New Delhi

I think, partly, the reason for Google's success is that they were among the first non-advertising companies to incorporate an advertising agency culture into the otherwise conservative corporate world. -David Wen, Austin, TX –bedford, TX

I do a lot of recruiting for our company and I talk to a lot of people out there, very talented people who rather freelance for a few different firms, make their own hours and provide great work without having to report to their desks at 8:30am every morning. Most of the talent I speak to have no desire whatsoever to be chained down to any one firm and as far as salaries, they make as much if not more freelancing and they get the benefit of calling their own shots, how can you beat that? Client side jobs offer less stress of going through all of the various layers of bureaucracy and having to kneel to the whims of people you will never even meet. It's frustrating. I totally agree with you that talent is scarce and that more incentives need to be made for people to want to work at an agency, perhaps if agencies set up programs that would allow a person to grow and move up in the company and not get buried. I met lots of people who came in for interviews coming off disastrous agency jobs and they all had the same thing to say, that they were unappreciated, worked long hours, had no life and had 12 bosses telling them what to do. This may work in the financial world but when dealing with a more emotionally driven crowd you need to consider the fact that these are people who have many interests, love to create, know they can job hop and need to have a certain level of appreciation in order to feel satisfied with the work that they do day in and day out. Crunching numbers is one thing but pouring your heart and soul into a piece of work is another. –new york, NY

I'd like to nominate Catherine Kresage, the actress in the Zales "String" spot, for a Bobby. I was the director of the commercial and found her to be simply amazing. Rarely does a performance in the cold light of casting seal the deal, but she was head and shoulders above her competition. Ms Kresage was born to play a loved woman. –Santa Monica, CA

Is that why Ad Age has lost its spark? –Mumbai

Are we going to see a blog from Bob on the Truthiness in Advertising? –Dallas, TX

The Lingerie Bowl didn't happen this past year from what I know. Having a pre-bowl party was a little over the top but I guess it makes sense to get it days away from the Superbowl when someone would attend. Steve http://FryingPanSports.com –Columbus, OH

Celebrity studs, indeed.

My guess would be that the profit margin on the Lingere Bowl is larger than that other game. –Nashville, TN

Bart, you have hit the mark! I really enjoy when the subtle things are paid attention to. Small things like laughter are a big sign that things are going right. A silent office is one that lacks passion and that gelling you speak of. Football is a great analogy because every single player no matter how good he is depends on the other players to win. If your guard doesn't pull then your full back can't open a hole and your running back cant score. In our industry when things are good they are so good, but when it stinks, its stinks to high heaven. A fast paced, creative and emotionally driven industry needs teamwork similar to the way sports needs teamwork, ideas need a field of minds in order to flourish. –new york, NY

No, it's just an interesting take on the subtle intertwining of journalism, advertising and food.

Garfield, I love what you write and say, I just want to know if you're really "Noah Cumin." –Nashville, TN

So, basically, you're upset because someone in a "funny" commercial compromised their personal values for the advertised product? Hmmm. –Elkhart, IN

There is just too much vitrol out there today. And this guy Horgan proves it. Whatever happened to political discourse without the hate? Sadly, it's a rarity today. Second topic: Why did Ad Age pull the poll on the NY agencies diversity question? Are we talking political correctness here? Fear of getting real answers that don't conform? Dennis D'Amico –Dallas, TX

Great post Marc - What I find to be ironic amongst the comments is the lack of distinction between a brand and a behavioral shift. Youtube is a brand. How it has affected people (people many would refer to as early-adopters) is a shift. There are trends and then there are evolutions in behavior and THAT is when we must be nimble. Eyes off the technology and back onto the people whose lives are impacted by the technology. Web-based entertainment WILL explode...exponentially after Mac, microsoft, Dell or whoever takes the lead and moves our beloved computers out of our offices/bedrooms and into the living rooms, where the computer screen can be viewed by the family unit. It's already beginning to happen. Several laptops now come with remote controls and the last several ethnographic studies I've done, I've surprisingly found computers out of childrens bedrooms and into family living rooms - too many creeps on myspace.com I guess. The main point of my post is simple: never ever ever say never and the evolution will come when the hardware shifts not the technology on its own. - Tamer Kattan, Los Angeles –Huntington Beac, CA

While I think that emerging media has its place in a media plan for some accounts, it will never provide sustainability for a small agency to hang its hat on. Marc, I don't think that you are suggesting that a small agency completely change its position to one of innovative media, correct? Rather, be known as an agency that has discovered clever, untapped mediums that have been effective for clients. I think that we have to remember that creative problem solving is our business and discovering ways to solve those problems should be par for the course. Whether you're pasting a message on someone's forehead or wrapping a skyscraper with a giant prophylactic, we constantly need to be on the look out for trends and emerging media. It's true that because we are small agencies, we are a bit more agile than Goliath, we are quicker to jump on trends, but that cannot be a differentiator. The question of differentiation for agencies is tough. What it always comes down to, is that no two agencies are the same. Regardless of the size, industry focus, etc. No other agency can say that they developed the creative for my client. The client who has seen a 47% increase in business because of our work. Several agencies can say they specialize in healthcare or that they are specialists in emerging media. All of a sudden you find yourself back at square one, now what makes us different. We will never be in the commodity business as long as creativity stays on top. Pump out great & unique creative, get positive results for your clients, stay on top of trends, then you'll be different. - Dana Severson, Minneapolis, MN –Minneapolis, MN

Al, you bring up a great point. The YouTube demographic is very large and broad, but when it comes down to it - its people who have a ton of computer time. I'm a few years younger than you, and I too have a slew of friends and family who haven't "YouTubed". (namely 2 on the FDNY and a Small Business Owner)

With that, YouTube does have a strong place in advertising (and brand placement). YouTube should be right up there with any other media placement decision. It acts as a great campaign supplement. A free place for people who want to just 'see it again', and a great way to share. –Hauppauge, NY

I totally hear what you're saying, although the way it is coming off sounds like your telling people to put their eggs in one basket. I think the main point should be that smaller agencies that are more flexible should be able to deliver more services like interactive, video and the like. What I don't like is the hype that is being credited to sites like YouTube, let's learn from out mistakes, it's hot now, really hot but we must also remember how fickle the public is and how fast web trends come and go. Home made content is great until we get absolutely sick of seeing regular people doing regular things. Web video will be forced to become more robust, interactive, and whatever else will come along, perhaps live streams, who knows? What I would like to contribute to what you said is that the smaller agencies do need to consider how well they can deliver a full plate of web services that do include everything that comes and goes, how fast they can have trained people who can deliver these services and how quickly they can adjust their process and methods to accommodate the various technologies that arise. You almost have to be a prophet to forecast what the next big thing will be, what is most important is being able to translate that to your clients, these days I think it is the role of the smaller agency to be able to be the eyes and ears of the industry and steer their clients in a direction that makes most sense based on how the newest trends fit into their branding plans. I would almost go as far as to say that clients should pay retainers to have the smaller agencies on call to act quickly when these trends emerge and even have "Plan X" in place when developing their interactive and online campaigns to clear budgets and room for things that emerge suddenly. Unknowns seem to become the norm in this industry and planning for them is something that is both creative and intuitive, a firm should be able to make their clients campaigns as flexible as possible to be able to adjust on the fly when things get hot in a certain area that may not have been known when the campaign was first thought out. This is the nature of growth, the web is expanding so fast that the whole industry is left to stay on their toes constantly because if you blink for a second you will miss the latest trend on the web. Think fast and think smart should be the mantra. –new york, NY

Two observations. Back in my NYC days, I had suggested doing a 2 minute late late night commercial on a random station (read: cheap media buy) for this one client...a placement that no one in their right mind would ever see. However, we'd send out a bunch of DM inviting our target audience to stay up and watch it. I think we may have even branded it "free per view" (I now have an allergic reaction to agencies who trademark stuff, btw). Outlets like YouTube make this so much more possible these days (not to mention the ability of using email to send the invite vs. postage and printing costs, etc.) Regarding YouTube, I went away with some similarly aged friends (37-ish) this past weekend and neither husband nor wife had ever been to You Tube. They're both ex-agency people. I was pretty flabbergasted. –Branchburg, NJ

Most people who can afford to buy a new car will probably be exposed to several media at a time, drawing information and influence from all of them (that's why integration works). Limiting yourself to any one media, whether it is broadcast TV or internet sounds narrow-sighted if not narrow minded. –Coral Gables, FL

How quickly we forget. This week the Pontiac strategy may seem "groundbreaking," suitable for a "pioneer." Remember Scion? That was supposed to be the latest in targeted marketing to young men. They were going to give up the traditional TV campaigns in favor of new media and anything that reached their target in untraditional ways. But, they lost their nerve when dealers were clamoring for traffic and sales. Let's see if Pontiac stays the course. I hope they do. Jonathan Hutter VP, Account Planning and Media Garrand Marketing Communications Portland, ME –Portland, ME

Do we care who pushed the button that fired the commercial that ran in the first avail in something something blah blah blah. No. Recognition within the industry is fine. Calling it entertainment is something else. –West Hills, CA

"New York is one of the best advertising cities in the world. From unique ads to unique media, it's a shame they're being restricted." –CHICAGO, IL

I'm not from NY but the ads are colourful and cool and would love more of that where I live. This sounds like a typical money grab - typical of most cities...control, control, control... Vancouver, Canada –New Westminster, BC

In my opinion, outdoor is one of the most effective forms of advertising there is. Color, 24-hour viewing, everybody sees it and its relatively inexpensive. Buses and bus stops in Manhattan and L.I. RR Stations and in NJ, LI and Westchester, NYC Subway posters. The numbers are mind-boggling and the cpm is most ecnomic. Gus Boyd –Bay Head, NJ

I think ads on sidewalk sheds are nice and neat. I would rather walk around the city seeing those instead of ugly green or blue plywood sections that are under the signs. If the city wants revenue from them, let them issue permits for the ads and collect revenue. I think Scott Stringer should get a life and pick something worthwhile to work on- traffic congestion in the city. –Brooklyn, NY

I agree. The comment, "...where the city gets no benefit...", would cause lynchings here in the Midwest. Isn't there an integrity issue if a government-run agency seeks to gain greater revenue through the sqaushing of the free enterprise system? And aren't some of the displays covered by the First Amendment, which would therefore mean a tax is being imposed on free speech? Honestly, you should be thinking about dumping tea into the harbor, except the environmental impact study would keep you tied up for years. –Waukesha, WI

These "illegal ads" tend to be more inventive and eye-catching, and constitute conversation fodder for New Yorkers like me - effectively accomplishing the task they set out to. Considering that construction sheds are painted a bland blue, the ads at least liven up the sidewalk. In fact, that's what I'd like to see legislated: make it mandatory that outdoor advertising be interesting and add color to the city's ambiance! In other news, this is all a money grab. *yawn* –Brooklyn, NY

My comment is really a question. How do advertsers and ad brokers ensure they are not held accountable if a vendor puts up a poster in an illegal space? Is a signed statement from the vendor enough to protect the advertiser? –Woodside, NY

"But you should not create an illegal market where the city gets no benefit and legitimate businesses are hurt," said Mr. Stringer," Hmmm, so it's a matter of the city not getting it's share of the pie... surprise, surprise. Also, I'd like to pose the question; "Aren't businesses hurt/supported by any and all types of advertising? What does is have to do with being in an "illegal" space?" –NEW YORK, NY

Yikes! What an amazingly partisan review. I suggest Ad Age figure out how much that space would cost as an ad and send the bill to John Dean. –port st lucie, FL

Bob, Your assessment is correct. Don McKay –INMAN, SC

The ad was flimsy attempting the "flavor" of an independent voice but lacking the charm and appeal of a standard YouTube production. This review from the "KnowItAll" creator? I'm shocked about that. –San Francisco, CA

I'm a bit confused by the editorial ... is this person a shill for the Democratic party or simply carrying a torch for it. It's amazing how "matter-of-fact" they are in their comments deriding anything Republican. –Massena, NY

You think that's a good ad? I know why you are a columnist and not a creative director. Ed Flores –San Antonio, TX

Not sure there is anything original here after the wonderful Guinness Ad. It does demonstrate that elections aren't about core issues, just marketing. And frankly, Al Gore will be the next president. His feature length advertisement is the one you need to watch. –palm Beach, FL

...and backlash they will have. Just ask Ford Motor Co. and Apple Computer what backlashes are like. –Wattatown, UT

Noelle, at our place we have a similar phrase when showing the first round of creative, something like "we're only showing poster-like objects for now...because after all, if you hate the poster, you'll hate the statement insert and banner ad even more." Regarding these big companies snapping up smaller ones (or putting money into smaller ones), I think what it comes down to with new technologies is that there's a question of ROI on each and every one that comes along. Okay, so they invest in some new platform, what if that is quickly succeeded by the next new thing and so on and so on. –Branchburg, NJ

As the audience starts to interact with all these new mediums, so does the advertising. Why can't advertising go back to its roots and start being more directly involved with the mediums? Think how agencies used to produce their own TV shows in the past.

And as the bigs get bigger and the smalls just get smarter, the bigs are riding the coat tails of the smalls. And if this means involving themselves in these emerging mediums and technologies then so be it. As long as the bigs provide the proper means and vehicle to grow them, it can be a beautiful thing down the line. Let's just hope this becomes true and not a mere ideal. This way everyone benefits - the audience, the holding companies, the creative, and more importantly...the brands. –New York, NY

Totally agree with what Craig said. And I'll add this - for some reason, people confuse WPP, Interpublic, Publicis and Omnicom for that matter with advertising agencies and marketing services firms. They are holding companies. {Disclosure: I used to work for one.} There is one reason they do these "web 2.0" acquisitions - to add to the revenue and profit pile. A better story would be how well each acquisition is being "integrated" with its new sister companies. -Kevin Horne, NYC –New York, NY

Why does a definition on Wikipedia need to necessarily define an age old industry? Sure we all need the safe definitions of things in order to put them into their place when things get chaotic but when things are not chaotic are we really willing to break away from those safe definitions and color out side of those lines you speak of? Agencies have a hard enough time producing creative work in general, how many campaigns end up being timeless? Now they are expected to deliver media technologies as well? Smaller interactive agencies have been doing this for years now; we have been innovating new ideas for launching all kinds of brand messages. Minisites, rich media banners, environmental installations, unique kiosks, online games, viral techniques, uploading, downloading, cross loading and more! Agencies are having a hard enough time keeping up in general when it comes to the web. Web 2.0 is all of the things I mentioned above and more, it requires breaking many of the rules that have been established in the Ad Biz and redefining what works and what doesn't and requires going completely against conventional wisdom. It seems to me that the point isn't are agencies willing to invest in new platforms, because its simply not their core competency, the question is are they now willing to play second fiddle to companies that are creating new platforms. Old habits are hard to break and the agencies have been holding on to the corporate reigns for a long time now, they manage the accounts, come up with the ideas and distribute the money but perhaps that role is now being reduced because of the overwhelming emergence of technology that smaller and younger companies have a better grasp on. Rather than buying up these smaller companies and driving them into the ground by making them adhere to old rules, why not just play nice and let the experts do their jobs in the environments that suit them best (smaller interactive firms) and let them drive the campaigns. Ideas thrive in smaller open environments and when the stresses of the corporate world take over then the ideas suffer, creating new platforms and ideas requires breathing room and coloring outside the lines and that means that new lines can't be drawn once the color is in place, you cant assume that an agency is ripe to now become a technology firm just because it has the money to do so, sometimes it takes adversity and struggle of being small in order for great ideas to emerge. –new york, NY