Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Essay 4161


Here’s a delayed overreaction to a comment posted at Essay 4076. Let’s start with the comment, followed by MultiCultClassics rhetoric…

---------------------------------

First off: You can’t blame a guy like Brownstein for recruiting out of the ad schools. I’d do the same thing if I were him. Here’s why: The ad schools replaced the old agency training programs. This guy Siechrist figured out that he could get people to pay him for two years worth of the same training agencies used to pay people to go through. So bottom line is a graduate of Miami Portfolio Commonwealth Center is the equivalent of a second year junior. There’s a lot less training to be done and at a small shop like Brownstein’s—that’s a distinct advantage. Bigger agencies, however, have no such excuse and they’re the ones who should be looking at community colleges and the like for talent.

Second off: The “Creative Revolution” of the 1960s came about when outsiders joined the ranks of ad agencies. Advertising, believe it or not, used to be a very posh, very WASPy, Ivy League dominated business. DDB was one of the few places that Jews and Italians could get jobs. And the very New York ethnic sensibility those people brought to their work was what created the creative revolution. Hence the stereotype of the Jewish copywriter and the Italian art director. There also seemed to be far more women in the field at that time. I mean Mary Wells was a big enough name that she could start her own agency. There just aren’t any women even remotely close to that position right now.

I find the male-ness of creative departments (and the female-ness of account management) to be almost as shocking as the white-ness of agencies.

And Bill [referring to comments from Bill Green of makethelogobigger] is right that rather than look in our own backyard for new talent, agencies are far more likely to reach out and grab someone who was big in Kuala Lumpur or Buenos Aires because it makes them seem worldly and “global.” Whereas a kid from a community college would just seem “out of touch.”

And finally, the fact that we have ethnic agencies, a veritable Negro League of advertising, is astounding to me. Because it basically says, “Use Ogilvy to sell IBM to people in the U.S. and the rest of the world, including all those black people who live in places like Kenya and South Africa. But if you want to sell to black people who live in places like New York or Los Angeles, you need a special agency, because they’re completely different than the rest of the planet. Astounding.

---------------------------------

First, the ad school perspective is debatable. The old agency training programs, particularly for creatives, remain an industry myth. Even the shops boasting formalized development courses rarely executed anything in regimented fashion. Art directors saw semi-structure when starting in the mount room or studio, but that also varied from agency to agency. Regarding the notion of ad school graduates being better equipped, well, it just ain’t so. Having hired numerous interns and entry-level creatives in recent years, including ad school alumni, it’s safe to report all the kids are equally inexperienced. Despite the hype and hustle by people like Ron Siechrist, it’s nearly impossible to give students real-life work simulations—especially when scenarios are unique for each agency. In the end, you won’t get it until you’re actually doing it. But hey, that’s just our opinion.

Secondly, the “Creative Revolution” mini-dissertation is fascinating, and could probably explain the industry’s chronic exclusivity. But that’s a topic for another post.

Finally, the fact that Madison Avenue continues to run “a veritable Negro League of advertising” is indeed astounding—and nobody’s more astounded than the players in the segregated arena.

For starters, let’s clarify a point. The “Negro League” conditions technically apply to any agency with a cultural focus: Black, Latino, Asian, GLBT and more.

It’s also important to note most of these shops launched and grew for different reasons than the agencies of the “Creative Revolution.” Minority shops seek to address legitimate and specific communication objectives. Their expertise covers audiences historically ignored by advertisers and “general market” agencies. Plus, the shops radically transformed minority representation in media (i.e., minorities in advertising used to mean Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Rastus, The Frito Bandito, etc.).

In short, minority shops are established on a fundamental—and universal—advertising tenet: Know Your Target.

Sure, a lot of the original minority shop founders were indulging their entrepreneurial spirits too. Ditto the contemporary leaders. As the majority of these minorities started in “general market” agencies, they likely hoped to call the shots while escaping the real and perceived restrictions.

While we don’t officially speak for every minority shop in existence—or any minority shop, for that matter—we’ll go out on a limb to proclaim there’s much the companies did not foresee. These areas could be categorized as “astounding.”

It’s astounding that minority shops must provide services at discounted rates. Quiet as it’s kept, they’re routinely required to produce commercials, print ads, radio spots, etc. at prices well below their “general market” counterparts—and well below industry standards. Additionally, they have to do it with tighter schedules and smaller staffs.

It’s astounding that minority shops inevitably satisfy everyone’s quotas. Clients expect minority shops to almost entirely hire minority vendors, a mandate never placed on “general market” agencies. Plus, clients use minority shops to silence Jesse Jackson and fulfill their personal minority obligations. That’s one reason why the shops maintain minority ownership when absorbed by global holding companies (i.e., minority officers retain a 51% share of the shop). Qualified shops without minority ownership status have been eliminated from new business pitches because of their lack of alleged authenticity. And of course, “general market” agencies use minority shops to excuse their diversity deficiencies.

It’s astounding that minority shops are professionally pigeonholed. They’re systematically excluded from AOR opportunities. Damn, they seldom get the chance to compete on “general market” assignments when a client conducts shootouts with their roster of agencies. Were agencies from the “Creative Revolution”—or the current devolution—ever ordered to only carry out the Jewish and Italian ads? Such constraints totally handcuff a minority shop’s ability to expand, since the minority universe features a surprisingly finite number of clients.

It’s astounding, bewildering, mystifying, bizarre, frustrating and downright insane that minority shops are forced to perpetuate cultural stereotypes. It’s tricky trying to finger a sole culprit here. The pioneering minority shops introduced breakthrough imagery, and soon everyone desired a carbon copy. Or clients requisition blatant caricatures to justify the expenditures—hence the glut of gospel choirs, family reunions, piñatas, chili peppers, Zen monologues, etc. Or clueless clients duplicate their narrow vision of minorities (“Afro-Americans like to dance, right?”). Or the fear of straying from the safe and politically correct induces the clichéd and artistically incorrect. Or a percentage of minority creatives are fucking hacks. Whatever. Shit happens. Then it gets sold, assembled and broadcast on BET or Telemundo.

It’s astounding that our racist industry relegates minorities to corporate ghettos. We’ve made the “general market” agencies so unwelcome to non-White people that they opt to set up alienated enterprises rather than confront the constricting barriers and glass ceilings preserved by a majority class too old to change yet too young to retire (it’s amazing how those who repelled outsiders with discrimination now cry “Ageism!” to deny obsolescence).

Yes, it’s astounding that in the 21st century, Madison Avenue still runs a veritable Negro League of advertising. But be careful to aim your astonishment at the minority players. They’d love to battle on the same field—hell, they’d gladly settle for separate but equal terms. Given the chance ultimately awarded to Negro League baseball players, minorities would probably rule the ad game too. Which might render the White folks astounded.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Aw, you’re just being paranoid.

;-p

I agree on the school thing. Unless you're on the radar of recruiters, win student competitions or attend Miamia Ad School, good luck. The days of majoring in communications and snagging a job at any decent agency are over.

My daughter goes to Brainco in Minneapolis and most of all their teachers are working in the Minneapolis agency scene. Try as they might though, they just can't simulate real-world deadlines. It's just something you need to be thrown in the deep end to see if you can make it or not.

I think so many schools prepare the kids to think better, moreso than ever before, and that's great, but they still don't give them enough real world deadlines to toughen them up.

(On a sidenote, it's ironic what's also happening in MLB, where the ratio of African American players to non is getting smaller. I'd think a possible cause would be the emphasis on hoops for most urban kids. Where can you find a field anymore that isn't taken over by soccer moms talking to other moms–when they should be watching and taking an interest in their kids–kids who will likely abandon the sport in a few years when the discover how much work it becomes.)

HighJive said...

You’re right about baseball. It may also have to do with the sport being more expensive (i.e., easier to find places to play hoops or toss footballs or kick soccer balls—baseball requires more equipment, a specific field, etc.).

HustleKnocker said...

Very cool and thoro post, as always. Would add the following:
The negro League analogy is perfect.

The biggest issue with the MLB's shrinking black player participation (around 4.5%, give or take) and rising international player participation is akin to Madison Ave's:

Investment.

Since the 1970s, the MLB has sent scouts, coaches and money to countries like Venezuela, Cuba, China, the Dominican, Mexico, Columbia, Puerto Rico for the express purpose of developing talent and building ties with globals consumers. They literally build baseball diamonds in the poorest most impoverished countries in Central America and Asia.

The result has been 2-3 generations of kids with access to every resource needed to compete in MLB. The NBA has been doing the same thing in europe for the last 30 years and the results are paying off with a now 20% International-born league.

Conversely, the MLB does ZERO to recruit, teach, etc. inner city blacks or native-born blacks of any socio-economic background.

The result: dwindling numbers. PSAs and jerseys can't hide instituionalized marginalization.

What does Madison Ave do? Everything possible to recruit white kids along with increasing efforts to recruit international kids. What does it do to recruit Blacks? Nothing, beyond bogus internship programs that create more photo-ops than actual change.

Anonymous said...

@HJ: Hey- don't I get credit for being the guy who wrote the original comment?
And as for the ad school thing, you're right that nothing equals real world experience, but the ad school grads do generally have a better sense of the business. I've blogged about the problem with ad schools - I think that may have been how we first became friends- but for those who missed it, my point was that having to pay $15K to go through grad school just to get an entry level creative job pretty much means that we're getting upper middle class white kids (and wealthy foreign ones) coming into the business. Not a good sign for diversity of all sorts.


@Mr. Hustleknocker: So right about the internship programs. They're sort of designed to fail since they tend to find kids who are marginally interested in advertising. Or, funny enough, who are black versions of the kind of kids the agencies wish would get into the business (e.g. Ivy students with brains)

@All of you: Re: Sports- one other thing: you need at least a dozen kids to have a pick up baseball game. Otherwise you're just playing Running Bases. Whereas one-on-one makes for a perfectly fine basketball game. So without some structure (which you note is sorely missing) baseball winds up taking a back seat.

HighJive said...

Hmmm. Still not buying the ad school position. In fact, we’ve met with three VCU graduates in the past week. None were impressive. And none showed having skills beyond the typical entry-level creative. Our next rant may be directed at the ad schools.

Unknown said...

Toad:

Running Bases? I 'member playing that on the westside of Chi when all we had was a 50 cent rubber ball and the sidewalk infront of the crib...

HJ:

I've had to interview ad school grads and i've taught kids at regular colleges.

The Ad School kids have Access. Ego. and White skin. period. Some of the most obnoxious and overhyped children i've ever had to work with, supervise and deal with. With very few exceptions--literally two--no group of people has infuriated me more than Ad School grads.

Anonymous said...

Man, ad schools. That's a year’s worth of topics alone.

Alan Wolk said...

@Hadji: My kids still play Running Bases on the do-or-die streets of our quaint little suburb. With a tennis ball instead of a Spaldeen.