Dear bloggers,
Below is an article written by Saatchi & Saatchi Sydney ECD David Nobay about the CB Blog, opinions that no doubt he would have if he lived in NZ with the NZ Creative Circle blog.
If you have an opinion about the NZ Creative Circle blog (or the CB Blog for that matter) you can either email me (michael@campaignbrief.com) a brief paragraph or two, or if you have more to say, either for or against, feel free to elaborate at length.
I know there will be quite a few against, but if you have an opinion PRO the blog that is especially welcome to counter the argument put forward by Nobby.
Opinions will be published in Campaign Brief magazine first, then later on the blog at www.campaignbrief.blogspot.com (unless you specifically request otherwise) to encourage more attributed, and less anonymous, comments.
If you want to contribute to this (no anonymous comments will be used), I need your spiel by the end of the week, Friday 27th October.
Regards,
Lynchy
PS: There are many things for which the CB Blog, with about 1100 hits a day, has played a central role: increasing AWARD and The One Club membership to record levels, getting OZ/NZ jurors on international award shows, promoting events with spectacular results, getting NZ into the Caxtons, informing the industry of news and people movements, showing and discussing good and average work, links to most TVC production companies, discussing issues (like AWARD judging recently) and keeping expats informed of what's going down back in OZ. To a lesser extent, some of the above may apply to the nz creative circle blog.***
Anon-imosityI’m not a big fan of the CB Blog. There, I’ve said it. Actually, a lot of
people in the business say it. But, like the Blog, it doesn’t matter. Because they’re essentially anonymous. I guess they’re not keen on drawing the Blog’s invariable fire: rather like outing a bully in class, only to get your head kicked in once the bell goes.
I suspect some in the industry at this point may suspect my motives are wholly Saatchi-centric. Sure, it’s true that our name does feature heavily on the Blog, but I accept that. We make more news than most, and with that news rightly comes opinion; good and bad. No, the reasons behind my point-of-view are (at least I’d like to think) more objective.
Firstly, in my opinion anyway, the CB Blog celebrates cowardice and, worse still, positively encourages bitchiness.
Rather than the veil of anonymity protecting the innocent, it allows anyone with an axe to grind – but no experience to back it up – full rein to vent their spleen. While I concede this may be mildly cathartic for those sorry souls who carry their chip on the shoulder (“I never got the good briefs/good job/right salary/fully formed penis/trip to Cannes”) like a heavily laden rucsac, I question how this ultimately makes our industry a smarter place to work. Worse still, it opens the door to targeted, professional sabotage. Don’t like the look of the competition at a particular agency? Forget the boring, old-fashioned method of trying to out-write and out-think them by penning a better ad. No, these days all you have to do is seed the notion on the Blog that the competition’s latest ad is a scam, and leave the rest to the good online townspeople of Salem. By the time the accused has rebuffed with sworn affidavits from their client, it’s too late, and the bonfire’s familiar crackle can already be heard (trust me, I’m still trying to get the smell of smoke out of my clothes!).
Before anyone suspects that the gallons of mint tea I consumed on my recent, annual detox has made me all mushy and holier-than-thou, hang on: I like a good stoush as much as anyone in this business and haven’t yet completely lost my sense of humour, (especially now I’m off the wagon at last). Actually, I admit about 1% of the Blog is a fucking hoot. But it’s also a very expensive, little joke: at a time when our industry is finding it harder than ever to be taken seriously by clients, the Blog is fuelling just the kind of catty, superficial crap that got us marginalised by big business as “adwankers” in the first place.
What do I mean by catty?
Well, look for yourself. How much of any issue on the Blog is debated with objectivity, wit or constructiveness? An easier calculation would be how much of it is puerile, misinformed, inarticulate ping-pong, played out by a lucky few juniors, unencumbered by the necessity to work more than 2hours a day? And it goes far beyond inane, but essentially harmless banter. Six months ago, the tone and content of the Blog dipped so frequently into homophobic, racist and legally slanderous territory that Lynchy decided to step in and pre-edit every day’s offerings before publishing them, in fear of being marched off to court. (Which begs the question, is a pre-screened, pre-edited blog even a real blog?)
Ironically, I’ve always held that one of the best things about working in Australia is the lack of anonymity in the business. At the expense of sounding a bit Californian, we genuinely boast an “Advertising Community” here, and that’s not to be taken for granted. When I worked in the States, for instance, you never had a clue who was doing what, let alone enjoyed the chance to meet up regularly over a beer, play fooseball and catch up with guys from rival shops at shows like Caxtons. Working in a relatively small pond should be a good thing. Admittedly, the proximity should make us more competitive; but surely not at the expense of our basic social skills. Sadly, these days when we do converge as an industry, you can tangibly sense the room eyeing each other up; deciding whether the guy grinning at you over his beer is also the bastard that called your campaign unmitigated shit, your dress sense laughable and your mother a she-goat on the morning’s Blog. Mass Paranoia! Cool, eh? Like it wasn’t enough when we just suspected it was the clients and research companies that hated us. (Speaking of folksy, little communities, I’m told the issue is even worse in NZ, where their Blog makes ours look like an online puff-pastry discussion group.)
My second and more pressing reason for discounting the Blog is arguably more selfish: it doesn’t add any value to my day – a day, which like most of you I’m sure, is sufficiently busy to expect that a ten minute online distraction would at least reward me with some nugget of useable knowledge beyond “I hear so and so is a twat and works for a crap agency, so there!”.
On the other hand, would I profit from a daily, online update on what the broad industry thinks about my work and that of others I respect? Absolutely. As creative people, perspective is our lifeblood. Without it we’re rudderless, (hence, the importance of international awards – but that’s another subject for another day!). Problem is, that’s my whole issue with the CB Blog: what value are all those hundreds of perspectives to me without any evidence of where they come from?
As the late, great John Webster skilfully illustrated in his legendary TV spot for the Guardian newspaper back in the eighties; a story told from different angles has very different meanings. Think I’m talking bollocks? Indulge me in this simple exercise: I’ll take a classic entry from today’s Blog, but credit it with four different authors. Is the insight the same? Is the impact consistent. If the subject was your work, would you care?
“I’ve seen this idea a hundred times before and the execution is crap”
David Droga
“I’ve seen this idea a hundred times before and the execution is crap”
John Singleton
“I’ve seen this idea a hundred times before and the execution is crap”
Trish Jones, AWARD SCHOOL student
“I’ve seen this idea a hundred times before and the execution is crap”
Howard Draft, DM Guru
The issue for me isn’t that one opinion is more worthy than another. All these hypothetical cases have a valid perspective to comment on a piece of creative work. The point is; the significance of each perspective changes with its author. And, as such, if I was a Blogger, my rebuff would change accordingly. Without knowing the source of the opinion, the CB Blog really is “the blind leading the blind” and as such pretty worthless as a source of information. Does that stop it being titillating? No, of course not. I have no doubt that, regardless of content, the site appeals on some level to the voyeur in all of us. But then so does roadkill and Chinese bear-baiting, so is that really a reason to exist?
Before I come off overly righteous here, yes, I admit it: I have cruised the Blog myself from time to time. I am a user; if infrequent. However, like President Clinton, I never inhale. As for the Saatchi creative department; I’ve instructed them to stay off the Blog unless they have something sufficiently mind-blowing to say that warrants including their name. To my knowledge, only Luke Chess has since regularly contributed (which suggests he’s either very profound, or that I need to talk to Traffic about giving him more work).
So, for the record, that’s my opinion: my perspective on the CB Blog. Granted, you may not agree. But at least you know it’s mine.
Nobby
