From the Bottom of Everything

I've been working on a site re-design as part of a project at Boulder Digital Works. I'm just about ready to push it live. That means I'm going to screw things up and learn along the way. So be ready for a disruption in the space time continuum. If the site never comes back up again know that I must have stumbled upon some new quirk in html5 that allows for the creation of black holes. Either that or I gave it all up to work on a small farm in Iowa. Either possibility is equally likely at this point.

Labels: justin mccammon, space-time continuum

Here's a long overdue update from the Sufjan Steven's concert last month.

Since Sufjan hasn't toured much lately, a few friends and I decided to make the trek up to Madison, WI to see him play, the closest he would come to Denver. When it was all said and done we had a great time and the concert totally rocked our socks off. Here's a sampling of what we saw: some old songs, some new, all awesome.




I have a few general criteria for what makes a concert awesome to me and Sufjan hit almost all of them:

1- Be interesting - Sufjan made some great banter between songs. I hate it when the only thing a musician says is "thanks" and then keeps on playing.

2-Give me something unique - I've already bought the album, so mix it up a little bit and give me something I can't get anywhere else. Sufjan certainly did by not only playing brand new songs but also re-arranging older ones to fit the band he was touring with.

3-Show some energy - Sufjan did a pretty good job of looking like he was into the music and enjoying himself up there. I like that.

4-Smash something - OK, maybe it's a stretch, but I really want to see a musician smash an instrument after - or even during - a show. Sufjan didn't smash anything but I guess I can forgive him.

Labels: awesome stuff, concerts, madison, sufjan stevens

I'm a big fan of the Wall Street Journal. I became addicted to the paper while studying at the University of Northern Colorado. The college of business received a large supply of WSJ's every day and students were encouraged to grab one. I did. Every day. Towards the end of my time at UNC the paper became a talking point at the beginning of most of my classes. Professors were encouraged to use the WSJ as sort of a real-time textbook of sorts to augment what we were learning.

After graduating I was left with a conundrum: how to feed my addiction to the WSJ's reporting without breaking the bank. Subscriptions to the WSJ are prohibitively expensive for someone graduating into a recession with uncertain at best job prospects. So I did what most of my generation does: I went online. That was until I realized that many of the articles I wanted to read required a paid subscription.

Over the next several months I learned to get my info elsewhere--from sources that were free. Then I got an iPhone and installed the WSJ app. I was in love again. That was until earlier this week.

Upon opening the app for my several-times-a-day check of what's happening in the world, I was greeted by a message telling me that the WSJ app was going to a paid subscription model as well.

All of this got me thinking about the relationship between users and a service. Is it better to have more users or the right users? (this statement assumes that those users willing to pay for your service are the right users and that you can't have it both ways, i.e. having lots of users means having many that aren't your ideal user)

Services like the WSJ that have chosen to make users pay for content have seemingly determined that it is better to have the right users...or have they? Perhaps they've simply decided to generate more revenue regardless of whether the people they want reading their content are or not.

On the flip side there are a lot of examples of sources of content that are simply happy to have lots of users. In fact, many major blogs derive part of their value from having such a large and engaged following that is adding comments and interacting with their content.

I'm not sure that either way is right or wrong but I do feel that companies need to be thinking about questions like this when they decide to go to a subscription based model or when they likewise go to a free model. The old method of merely thinking about profits and losses is less applicable today. Today it's about users, engagement and content creation.

So what do you want? More users or the right ones?

Labels: deep thoughts, new business models, wall street journal

I found out last week that I'm amongst the 16 students admitted to the first class at the Boulder Digital Works. I'm excited, and nervous, and excited some more all at once. It's an incredible opportunity, one that I see as a potentially life changing.

If you're not sure what Boulder Digital Works is you can find out more on their website. Simply put, it's a school for developing future digital leaders. With partners that include a who's who of the digital advertising world it is definitely a program with potential. Huge potential.

Right now I'm figuring out how to pay for the tuition ($25k, and because it's not a degree bearing program, most government loans don't apply) pay for living expenses while attending and still kick ass in the actual program itself. It's going to be a tough balance of debt, work and school.

The whole thing has the potential to weigh me down for the rest of my life with debt or put my career into overdrive and launch me into the sort of places I've only dreamed of.

I'm hoping that by leveraging the things I can control (my hard work, effort, etc) I can overcome the things I have less control over (my lack of money, the economy, etc).

One thing is for sure: it'll be interesting.

Labels: boulder digital works, justin mccammon

Hi everyone! I'm Erin and I usually blog over at the state that i am in. Justin and I were paired together for the 20sb Blog Swap, so we're swapping blogs today. Yes, I am aware that the blog swap was last week, but we just couldn't get our acts together in time. Oops.

Anyhow, since Justin writes about advertising, I thought I'd share what I consider to be a fairly off-putting piece of advertising. Observe:



The women who use this razor walk past bushes that magically get trimmed down. Ummm, just what are you implying here Schick? I mean, the bush reference is obvious, but is that really the best way to get the ladies to want to buy your razor? I can tell you that from my perspective, I certainly wouldn't buy it based on that commercial. I might even go so far as to deliberately not buy it because of the commercial. I just really don't want to equate my personal hygeine with bush trimming. Even if that's what the product is intended for! Certainly, I find the commercial amusing, but I don't really think it does the best job of selling the product! What are you thoughts on this commercial?
- Show quoted text -

Labels: 20sb

The New Denver Ad Club and Ad2 Denver have teamed up to bring young creatives the opportunity to sharpen their skills and strengthen their spines. Next Creatives is a program where creatives get briefed by top Denver area CDs (like Mike Sukle of Sukle, Gregg Bergan of Pure, Norm Shearer of Cactus, and Jonathan Schoenberg of TDA to name a few) then work their ass off to create the next big idea. All along the way they get feedback that actually makes them better, not just some nice words.

Next is free (to paying members of Ad2 Denver or NDAC, but you're already a member, right?) and applications are due August 5th for this first round.

You can find out more by following @NextCreatives (and also request a few choice words be given as a smackdown to someone on twitter) or by emailing nextcreatives@ad2denver.com

To see what nice words get you, take a look at these videos below, then apply to Next:

Labels: ad2 denver, new denver ad club, next creatives

You know all those crazy ideas you have? The ones that are really cool and maybe even revolutionary, but you would never be able to do anything with them. Maybe they're for an industry outside your own or an industry or company that doesn't really solicit or care to hear new ideas. We'll normally I'd just file them away in a lonely corner space of my idea file but now I have a place to let them free. So go ahead, take these ideas and make them happen, I dare you.

Ok, got an idea here that has two potential implementers: big radio (looking at you, Clear Channel) or small-indie-start-up net radio Jelli.

Right now, traditional, broadcast rado, kinda sucks. It's been sucking for a long time and it's only gotten worse with competition from I-know-exactly-what-you-want-to-hear-next, algorithm driven, internet radio. But maybe there's a way to improve the traditional radio experience and leapfrog it ahead of internet radio. Ok, at least catch it up.

Radio, like all the other so-called "traditional" media, is mainly a one-way communication channel. Sure, listeners can call in to make requests (and as of late, email or tweet them in too) but for the most part it's a DJ blathering on about something semi-relevant while queuing up the next corporate-mandated song. Since you (as the listener) have little input over what is played we tend to gravitate towards the station that plays the most of what we want to hear, thus freeing us from switching stations every other song while we're driving.

What hasn't hit radio yet (that I'm aware of) is the social, web 2.0 revolution.

Enter a service like Jelli (which I've mentioned before) that makes radio much more social. Now you're not just a listener, but an active participant in voting up what you want to hear next, voting down what you don't and chatting about what's currently playing with fellow users.

What happens is that traditional radio licenses (or develops on their own) a platform like Jelli's for their stations. Remember that one of my main criticisms about Jelli when I reviewed it was that you had everyone (and their musical tastes) in one room. As a result no one really got to hear what they wanted consistently. With an existing radio station that problem is taken care of as the filtering is already done. Those who listen to an indie rock station aren't going to be looking for Celine Dion. Those who listen to a classic rock station aren't going to be looking for, well, Celine Dion either. This puts listeners with similar tastes in pools together and lets them decide what is played.

But wait! OMG! How will radio make any money without ads!

The great thing about a platform like Jelli is that you are checking the home page a lot. It's updated constantly to reflect the ever changing votes determining what's played next so you are always paying attention, unlike other internet radios. This presents a fantastic opportunity for advertising to be inserted that will more than likely be looked at. And since you have additional information being captured (what's being voted up or down) you can make some assumptions about who's listening and serve them more relevant advertising. Got a lot of punk rock being voted up? Serve up an ad for a skate shop or tattoo parlor (obviously a stereotype, but you get the idea.)

But what about those listening in their cars, do they get a commercial free listen? I don't know, I can't solve everyone's problems all at once so I guess some things are going to have to be left up to those who implement this idea.

What about payola and all that cash that record labels pay big radio to play the same six songs over and over again? Fuck it. Seriously. It's time for radio to reinvent itself and obsolete itself before something else does. (I attribute the quote of "Obsolete yourself before someone else does to a Wall Street Journal about Netflix from a few years back regarding instant viewing. Smart thinking.)

The end result of all this is that radio stations get more engagement with its viewers, more two-way interaction, possibly more relevant advertising (which should lead to more effective advertising) and a path forward in our increasingly digital future. Who's gonna be the first to jump?

Labels: internet radio, radio, steal this idea

You know all those crazy ideas you have? The ones that are really cool and maybe even revolutionary, but you would never be able to do anything with them. Maybe they're for an industry outside your own or an industry or company that doesn't really solicit or care to hear new ideas. We'll normally I'd just file them away in a lonely corner space of my idea file but now I have a place to let them free. So go ahead, take these ideas and make them happen, I dare you.

My car has one of those sensors on it that automatically turn on the lights if it senses "darkness," maybe yours does too. Trouble is, often this "darkness" isn't really darkness, it's just me sitting at a red light under an overpass. Or my car being parked in the carport. But hey, what are you gonna do, it's just a stupid little sensor, right?

Here's what I'm thinking: my car has enough information to make a better decision, it just doesn't currently use it. There's a clock in my car, probably yours too. My car's clock currently doesn't know its am from pm, but I'm sure a small and inexpensive upgraded part could. Now, armed with the ability to know what time of day it is my car could make a much more informed decision about turning my lights off or on. Perhaps between the hours of 9am and 5pm my car could require five minutes of darkness before turning on the lights rather than the current 30 seconds or so. That would take care of most all the shade you would encounter and still allow the sensor to preform the safety function it was originally set out to do.

This also got me thinking, what else out there could be making smarter decisions if it was using all the information at its disposal?

Labels: cars, smarter, steal this idea

Recently I've given Jelli.net to see if it lives up to its promise to be the future of internet radio. The difference between Jelli and, well, just about every other internet radio is that Jelli opens up the playlist to its users and lets them vote on what is next from anything in their catalog. At first thought, this seems really cool. The thought that (for now) it's just you and a few dozen other users sorting through the catalog and pulling out and voting up the best of the best is pretty appealing. Ideally this would be a great way to discover new music. Sort of like sitting down with your BFF of Music and sharing iTunes libraries on a rainy afternoon.

In reality, Jelli is like that point in every party where everyone's had six too many and wants to hear THEIR favorite song. So every 30 seconds someone else is grabbing at the ipod "No, dude, you gotta hear THIS!."

And this is where Jelli fails. You'd be hard pressed to put three people in a room and have their musical tastes match up, let alone dozens of random people from all over the net. What happens is lots of crap you don't want to listen to (at all, not just stuff you've never heard before) mixed with the occasional track you love because you sat there and voted it up and rocketed (each user can send a track to the top, called rocketing) and generally spent 10 minutes voting down other songs to finally hear what you want.

But it's not all bad news. I think there's hope for Jelli if they are willing to segregate people out a little bit. Make separate "rooms" for various genres, thus semi-guaranteeing that you are surrounded by people with similar musical tastes. This eliminates the Metallica fans from having to deal with the Celine Dion fans and visa versa. Yeah, maybe that limits your exposure to diverse music, but there's a reason I (and presumably you) don't listen to the Adult Contemporary / Top 100 FM radio station - you know what (specific) genre you like and you want to hear a few hits you know and some new stuff you don't.

Another use I could see is traditional radio stations (that already have their niche / genre set) adopting the Jelli platform for requests and determining their playlists, even if only during a certain time. 105.3 FM in San Francisco lets Jelli control its playlist every Sunday night from 10-midnight. With Jelli's integrated chatroom and constantly updated voting it'd be a great way to re-engage listeners and you could easily display some ads (like what you would normally hear) alongside the music to keep the revenue coming in. And unlike other net radio sites, Jelli encourages you to keep watching its page since it constantly is updating.

It'll be interesting to see where the future takes Jelli, perhaps a larger user base will make it better as the crowd ebbs and flows with support for various genres / artists. In any case, it's a good step forward for internet radio. For now I'll stick with my iTunes library, but I'll keep half an ear on Jelli just in case it turns into something worth listening too.

Labels: internet radio, jelli, music

Funny or Die spoofs the MS "Laptop Hunters" campaign from CP+B with some hilarious results:

Labels: crispin porter bogusky, funny, microsoft

Busy night for me and @CeramicErin so we picked up some take and bake pizzas from Papa Murphy's. I noticed something weird about the included coupon sheet.

On one side was the suggestion to give them feedback on your experience and get $1 off.

On the other was a $2 off coupon. No work required.



I wonder which one most people do?

We live in an age where feedback is more valuable than ever to corporations. Every day thousands of consumers interact with them through new mediums like twitter and thousands more through more traditional means like phone surveys. Corporations should realize the value of those willing to reach out to them and reward them for their time. Rather than give me the lowest value coupon they offer for taking five minutes of my time, Papa Murphy's should offer free breadsticks or similar side with my next order. By giving me a side item like that they can give me greater value (worth $3.99 or whatever) that probably only costs them half of that. Now that's a win-win.

Labels: customer service, papa murphys

Be there, June 24th. Proceeds benefit Wish for Wheels.

Labels: bike, cactus, wish for wheels

Ira Glass of NPR's This American Life talks about the battle young creative people have between their ability and their taste. What a great insight.

Labels: great idea, ira glass

One (of the several) projects I've been working on lately that is consuming my life (in the best way possible) is brewing a beer via twitter for Odell Brewing in Fort Collins, CO.

After having the idea back in January, I worked with Reel Motion Media to pitch the idea to Odell's. In April we finally began bringing it to life and the rest is well documented history (search for the hashtag #odelltwitbrew to see the history on twitter.)

If you're reading this before 7am MDT on 5/29/09 go vote for your favorite label design for the beer.

And now it's all culminating in the release of the beer, Blackbird, this Saturday May 30th at the brewery in Fort Collins. You can see details on Upcoming or Facebook.

I'd love to see you at the event. If you find me and tell me you read about this on my blog I'll buy you a pint.

I'll be sharing more learnings from this project in the future when I have time to reflect on it. Stay tuned.

Labels: justin mccammon, odell brewing, twitter

I'm not interested in about 95% of everything Hugh Macleod (gapingvoid) publishes. Ironically, it took him publishing an article about how 95% of advertising is dreck to get me to realize that. The 5% that I am interested in is so powerful that I wade through the other 95% to find it. But I'm not here to discuss the merits and pitfalls of following Hugh, well actually, I am, in a way.

There's a fascinating video in Hugh's latest post with Clay Shirky discussing "Gin and the Cognitive Surplus" at Web 2.0 in San Francisco. And this is what really got me thinking.



(read the transcript here)

What Clay is talking about is the shift from media as consumption (i.e. watching TV) to media as producing, sharing and yes, still consuming but to a lesser extent. He estimates that Americans spend 200 billion hours watching TV in an average year. If the whole of Wikipedia represents 100 million hours of human thought then all that TV watching is equal to 2000 Wikipedias being created each year, if all of that time was shifted to something else. Of course, all of that time isn't being devoted to other projects, but even a small shift can create big changes. Think of all the things you see on the internet and wonder "Where did they get the time?" Well, there's your answer.

So back to Hugh, and his 95-5 "dreck intolerance" principle. If we take and combine it with Clay's thoughts, what do we get?

We get people moving away from TV due to the fact that 95% of it is shit, or dreck. We get people moving into other realms, for example the net where 95% of it is still shit, but it's a much bigger pile overall. I don't believe that anyone can claim to even have read 5% of the net. You'd be hard pressed to have even viewed 1% of all of the sites that are out there. Compare this to the fact that most of us have seen 95% of the channels offered on TV (even the obscure cable ones.)

What you get is the internet as a giant filter. There are so many sites you can possibly go to, you can only possibly go to a small handful.

Therefore, you only spend time going to those that interest you.

And thus, the internet filters out the dreck, the boring, the mediocre, even the very good for the most part (look at all those Youtube videos with 10 views.) That is the shift that Hugh is talking about when he discusses what is really killing advertising (as we have known it.) Watch TV for a few hours (as Hugh mentions) do you think any of those ads you saw would garner more than a few thousand views on Youtube, where people have a choice in their consumption? Most likely not. And yet they are still produced because too many people in too powerful a position still believe that the public is a consumer waiting to be force-fed.

Those who understand that every eyeball has a choice, that every input must pass through a filter, that people want to share and interact with what they consume and that modern media consumption is no longer a well-balanced plate but rather a limitless buffet of choices, those are the people who will prosper in the future.

The producers, whether they be ad agencies, bloggers, or something else, who continue to survive on mediocre output will find that their days are numbered.

Mediocre is dying a slow death.
Thanks for taking the time to filter through the dreck and find this post.

Labels: clay shirky, cognitive surplus, deep thoughts, hugh macleod, sunday morning philosophy

A new, updated portfolio reflecting some of my more recent work.

Justin_McCammon_Portfolio_April2009.pdf

Labels: justin mccammon, portfolio

I've been working on the public service campaign for Denver's Ad2 club a lot lately. Like a lot, a lot. Here's a little sample of some of the work coming out of that campaign, a 30 second radio spot for Wish for Wheels that I wrote and produced. Big thanks to Coupe Studios in Boulder for helping us get the spot recorded, mixed and sounding awesome.

Labels: ad2, radio, wish for wheels

Should probably be on every ad-person's must-see list:


ART & COPY trailer from Baldwin& on Vimeo.

Labels: art, copywriting, movies

If you read / hate / worship the Denver Egotist you might have seen me in the "please, please, please hire me. someone, anyone!" section. Welcome, feel free to browse around the site.

You can find more samples from my portfolio here.

You can see some of my favorite posts here.

You can contact me at justinmccammon [at] gmail.com

Labels: justin mccammon

I'd been looking for this spot for a few days now. Finally it popped up on Adpulp. I love the quirky, "I Heart Huckabees" atmosphere they're creating with this campaign:



But then Adpulp has to come along and point out that the above spot sells the category, not the specific product.

Well shit. I have to admit they've got a point there. But it's just so damn entertaining to me. Let's look at another spot from the campaign:



Ok, now we're getting somewhere. We've got a benefit, albeit a vague one, but Jimmy Dean will make you full. That's at least something they can lay their claim to.

Now here's another spot:



Ohhhh. So now Jimmy Dean makes you happy. Happy Breakfast. Maybe that's a new saying, sorta like "Happy New Year." In any case, it's all coming together for me now. Jimmy dean fills you up, keeps you full, and gives you a happy breakfast. That sounds pretty good.

And the campaign continues with lots of similar commercials.

I like that there are so many variations on this one concept of the sun and cloud / planet / moon cast. It's great. So few brands have big coherent campaigns like this anymore. So many are doing a little something here then jumping to something else over there and then to something different.

There's also a few webisodes of interviews with the sun, moon, cloud, etc. Looks like they were added a couple years ago. Is this campaign really that old? Maybe I'm just out of the loop.

Labels: funny, great ads, jimmy deans

Earlier this week the people behind The Pirate Bay were convicted of piracy crimes in Sweden and sent to jail for a year. Of course, the media industry is calling this a big win over illegal piracy of their precious copyrighted materials. I call it delaying the inevitable.

The RIAA, the MPAA, the whomever thinks they should sue the fuck out of their customers next group, you are all sorely short-sighted.

Bottom line: Piracy will continue until legal alternatives are actually useful.

I could drone on about all the bullshit that has gone on with copyright infringment in the last decade or so, but I think we all know the story by now. Instead, I'll try to offer some insight.

Example of the problem:
One of the few shows I watch regularly on TV is Rescue Me. It is easily one of the most well-written and thoroughly interesting shows to be broadcast in a long time, but I digress. I choose not to pay for cable, so I have to rely on streaming internet sources for my Rescue Me fix since it plays on FX. Turns out that some dumbass at the network decided that the streaming episodes on Hulu should come out eight days after they play on broadcast TV.

Eight days.

Now if I'm an avid fan, and I have friends who are avid fans and I want to discuss episodes with them you have completely broken down my means to do so in a timely manner.

So what do I do? I bit torrent the episodes the next day. It takes about 20 minutes to download and I can watch them in HD without commercial interruption. I'd gladly save myself the hassle and watch them on Hulu with commercials, but they aren't available when I want them. So they lose.


Solution:
Make the episodes available online at the same time it is broadcast. Build in a chat room functionality. Get me engaged with other fans. Maybe get advertisers to sponsor special promotions to engage us during the normal broadcast commercial breaks. Make it a community.

Remember how CNN and Facebook teamed up to stream the inauguration with a live chat with your FB friends next to the streaming video? Bring that sort of engagement to TV shows. Let me crack jokes alongside SNL. Let me use your networks so you can more accurately gather stats about who watches your shows (and make nielsen families a thing of the past.)


The alternative is that the big networks drive more and more fans away in seach of better solutions. There is no reason why the big networks shouldn't implement something like what I'm suggesting. In fact, it's in their favor to capture and grow these online communities now before consumers form habits of getting their media fix from someone else.

Think long term solutions. Offer your fans what they want, when they want it.

Obsolete yourself before someone else does.

Labels: deep thoughts, pirates, rescue me, sunday morning philosophy

Odell Brewing in Fort Collins, CO has decided to brew up the first "Twitter Brew." The beer's style, ingredients, tap handle, etc will all be chosen by followers of Odell's twitter. A few people have pointed out that 21st Amendment Brewing in San Fran did a twitter brew this spring, but it would seem to have been a twitter brew only in name, not in the way it was produced as the Odell version will be. Pretty cool stuff. From the press release:

A Twitter Taste in Your Mouth

Odell Brewing Releases First Twitter Community Brew

On May 30, 2009, Odell Brewing will release the first Twitter community inspired brew.

Followers have until April 19, 2009 to tweet their suggested beer styles for the first Twitter Brew poll. Subsequent polls will be conducted to determine beer qualities like color, strength, body, and hop character. Twittering beer lovers can also tweet ideas for beer names and tap handle designs.

The voting will end on May 8, 2009 and brewer, Jeff Doyle will then brew the Twitter Brew on Odell Brewing’s Pilot brewing system. “There are so many people who are interested in brewing but don’t really have the means to do it,” said Doyle. “The Twitter Brew will give them the chance to get involved with the whole process.”

Twitter brewers can try their beer at the brewery’s Tap Room during the tapping party on May 30, 2009.

Odell Brewing is a proud sponsor of the Cicerone Certification program and an award winning brewery, nationally and internationally: 2008 North American Beer Awards – gold medal for 5 Barrel Pale Ale. 2008 World Beer Cup® – gold medal for IPA, silver medal for Double Pilsner, silver medal for Cutthroat Porter. 2007 Great American Beer Festival® – gold medal for IPA, silver medal for Easy Street Wheat, bronze medal for Extra Special Red. 2007 Stockholm International Beer Festival – bronze medal for 5 Barrel Pale Ale. 2007 Australian International Beer Awards – silver medal for 90 Shilling, silver medal for Cutthroat Porter, silver medal for Easy Street Wheat and bronze medal for 5 Barrel Pale Ale.

Labels: great idea, odell brewing, twitter

In the US, sitting through a two minute commercial means having to watch a hooker-beating douchebag peddle some miracle cloth that can soak up all the shit you're constantly spilling on your floor. In some places, some mystical, magical, advertising wonderland, a two minute ad is revered and respected by advertisers and viewers alike. This is the result: something beautiful, something I want to watch.



(via Dear Jane Sample)

Labels: adidas, great ads

The advertising industry never ceases to amaze me. The talent. The timeless ads. The fucking bullshit.

On a tip from Adpulp I just read this Newsweek piece on Peter Arnell. You know, Tropicana (and Pepsi) re-branding dude. Or maybe douche is more appropriate.

This quote from Arnell (single out on Adpulp as well) pretty much sums it up:

Arnell also can't understand the kerfuffle over his work for Tropicana. "Can you imagine such mishegoss over a freaking box of juice?" he says. "I can't believe that for the rest of my life I'm going to be known as Peter 'Tropicana' Arnell." He says Tropicana overreacted to complaints. "I have my own perspective on it. But it's not my brand. It's not my company. So what the hell? I got paid a lot of money, and I have 30 other projects. You move on." (Neil Campbell, president of Tropicana North America, says Tropicana will continue working with Arnell.)

If the Newsweek article is half true (and I believe it's more than that) then Arnell is a prime time asshole. But it's not really my place to berate Arnell, I'm sure he has his own not-a-fan club that will take care of that. Rather, this brings me to a plague of advertising: great minds getting recognized and paid for their greatness and then slipping into a coma of douchebaggery.

I have no doubt that Arnell is a fairly smart guy, you need to have a pretty good head on your shoulders to run an organization like his. I have no doubt that the countless other CDs and CEOs and other C-level executives that have risen to similar postions around the world are talented as well. But why do so many have to turn into ass-clowns?

Is it the money that corrupts? The power? The corner office?

I don't have an answer to that question.

But I do have a solution.

Bring in the juniors.

That's right. Let's give those who have no resonable claim to fame or fortune the chance to attain it. Let's re-inject the passion into the system. And let's make it a booster shot straight to the heart.

But, you might say, won't the juniors just become old douches in a few years?

Yes, some will. It is inevitable. But we must continue to flush the system of inpurities while gulping down a nutrient-rich double dose of high energy, fresh idea spouting youth.

I believe that deep down, most people are good. Even most people in advertising. I've run into far more immensly talented, genuinely caring souls than I have asshats in my brief ad career.

So what are you waiting for? Clients, juniors, seniors, and everyone inbetween or outside, I'm calling on you to boycott the bullshitters and champion the pure, passionate individuals around you. Flush out the old, move up the truely talented in the ranks and backfill with juniors.

Ummm, you taste that? That's pure, 100% not-from-concentrate talent. And it will do this industry some good.

Labels: rants, sunday morning philosophy

Yesterday morning I read the superb article "The Quiet Coup" by Simon Johnson in The Atlantic regarding what sort of advice the IMF would give the US about our current crisis if the US actually gave a shit what the IMF thinks. While the article is worth a read for its look at the causes, the current plan and what ultimately must be done in a way I've yet to see articulated, I'll do it the great injustice of paraphrasing: some really tough decisions must be made and the future of the US / financial system will not look anything like the past (if we are to be prosperous again.)

Which brings me to every other industry right now that's crying "Save us! Bail me out too!" This includes advertising. We've all see the layoffs, from varying degrees of intimacy. Surprisingly enough, it was harder for me to watch eight dedicated people get their walking papers one afternoon and be asked to leave the building than it was to see 300 people be told their areas would be shut down by the end of the year.

But here is where I feel The Atlantic article's advice meets the advice that everyone, from Timothy Geithner to your local ad shop's CEO, needs to hear: some really tough decisions must be made and the future of your organization cannot look like it has in the past if you intend to be successful again.

I think that's the hard truth that few are embracing right now. Sure, you can make layoffs and cut costs here and there and limp along until "this thing turns around" (if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that I'd have enough to turn this thing around.) Or you can act boldly. Act offensively not defensively. Instead of reacting to the pressures of the outside economy create your own success.

This gets to a personal mantra of mine, a pet peeve in a way. Anytime someone says "good luck" I'm always tempted to say "I hope luck has nothing to do with it." That's because relying on luck is a really shitty way to go through life. That basically gives you an excuse for anything that happens to you and absolves you of all personally responsibility for the course of your life. Bullshit. I believe we create our own luck. When you work your ass off, suddenly you seem "luckier" you know why? Because you are creating new opportunities for yourself rather than sitting back and hoping that by some cosmic occurrence you get exactly the outcome you want.

And it is from this belief that I offer this advice to agencies or business or individuals everywhere who are willing to listen: go forward boldly.

Take risks. Fail boldly. Succeed boldly. Reinvent yourself. Do not remain static. Do not recoil into the fetal position and hope this all blows over. You will not emerge stronger on the other side if you emerge that same as you went in.

There is a need for [insert your service here] but that need is not fixed. It's dynamic and ever changing and so you must be as well. If you're not obsoleting your own business model every few years you should be very afraid. Because someone else will.

And there you have it. My Sunday Morning Philosophy for you. Let's hear your take in the comments.

Labels: deep thoughts, justin mccammon, sunday morning philosophy