-
Website
http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/ -
Original page
http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/crispin_porter_bogusky/la_times_destroys_baked_in_misses_point_in_process_142102.asp -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Rob Schwartz Admits That Chiat is "all Lee" Clow - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy
- Mother London's Holiday Gesture Will Make You Smile - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy
- KFC Knows How to Put White Guys at Ease - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy
- Breaking: Doner's Been Sold, Kalter to Retire - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy
- Blind Item: Which Creative Can't Hold His/Her Booze, Fights at Work? - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy
Neil's review was spot on.
The book is bullshit.
Ummm...not that it automatically makes anything he writes good or bad, but he _did_ also win a Pulitzer at the LAT, where he's been a columnist for the past several years.
Just sayin'.
By the way, Matt. What DO you know about advertising more than Dan Neil? Besides the gossip?
"doing something different, which CP+B and V&S are a testament to,"
No they are not. They are in-fact, knock-offs of other established companies. As opposed to CP+B, V&S will fail as the business model is flawed.
After reading this incredibly naive post I strongly suggest you find a job in the advertising and marketing business. Try the writing side for starters. Try it for a year or two. Be passionate and attempt to succeed. Get an MBA as well. Then return to blogging about the industry.
It would serve the community better.
You, in particular, are not even smart enough to post accurate information on your blog and when you recently jumped on the Cliff Freeman Closing band wagon you posted video claiming they did the Quiznos "Rats" as you called them. They had nothing to do with that campaign.
You are clearly not a journalist or relevant blogger either.
So please stop.
I won't be stopping anytime soon. I've probably been doing it for longer than your career.
Matt made one here. Which is why so many of the commenters are calling him on it. That's what comments are for. Starting a conversation not agreeing blinding.
I think it is unfortunate you cannot add to that conversation here, but instead throw myopic manic reactionary stones.
Very immature of a self proclaimed journalist.
You are really dumb.
But I'm looking at the review from a blogger's perspective - a blogger who has to worry every day about how many people read my stuff so that I can keep feeding myself. That's something that no one else in this entire industry does. No one. Not one person does what we do. People do similar things.
So from that perspective, when you read Neil's piece, it's easy to see why the story is written the way it is. The book is not a bible. As I said, it's adequate. Didn't say it was good, even hint at that, so I'm not sure where that is coming from.
Not the point: the point is that successful people write books because less successful people want to be successful, and learn from other successful people. That's why this book exists, and these guys have every right to publish - just like everyone else who has a name that has done so. That's all I'm saying - nothing else. Everything else is about how the LA Times knows it can garner traffic by beating down a book by one of the top names in this business. And that's why an otherwise unremarkable book (it's in no way controversial, IMO) was lambasted, unnecessarily. Where was this for Linda Kaplan Thaler's 'The Power of Small' or Jay Williams' "Soul for Sale'? Equally unremarkable books, no response. No precedent was set.
And what does a Pulitzer prize have to do with it? You can see from the piece that Neil expected something more from this book - but what he doesn't explain is why. Why would he go to such lengths, when he has no basis to prove that he understands other advertising books, or the business at all? It's like Stuart Elliot trying to call a baseball game. Sure, he's seen a game or two before, but 'Cubs Win' should never be emitted from his lips into a microphone. It's the fucking LA Times - not a little ad blog, like ours.
I don't think Dan Neil is suggesting that Bogusky and Winsor don't "have every right to publish" their thoughts. He just doesn't seem to feel that what they have to say is terribly original or insightful. He may or may not be right -- I haven't read the book so I can't say -- but he is certainly entitled to his opinion.
As for "what does a Pulitzer Prize have to do with it," well, you are the one who sought to undermine his credentials and credibility by implying he was an unqualified hack "who used to write about auto advertising, in 1991, for The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina" -- as if what he did twenty years ago at the beginning of his career negates what he has to say today. A lot of us got our start in less than auspicious circumstances, Matt -- including many of today's most celebrated creatives. Would you question Bogusky's bona fides because he used to work doing flyers for a pet shop in 1987?
In that context, I'd say the fact that Dan Neil won one of the most prestigious prizes in journalism is damn relevant.
And do you honestly think that the "fucking LA Times" deliberately set out to trash "an otherwise unremarkable book" solely to "garner traffic?" You are reaching Oliver Stone-levels of paranoia. Do you really think there is some sinister conspiracy here? Bogusky may be a rock star in our insular world but he is still largely unknown outside of advertising. We're not exactly talking Malcolm Gladwell here.
By the way, Matt, while I like you and your blog, for you to question the competence and the motives of a Pulitzer Prize winner and "the fucking LA Times" is a little rich. Even you have to admit that you routinely make mistakes and are guilty of sloppy reporting.
The sad truth is, Matt, that you have become another cog in the Crispin advertising industrial complex. Just consider some of your most recent posts on the agency:
* You write a lengthy lament about what a shame it is that Crispin is not participating in the VW review because they have all these wonderful ideas -- ideas that they could have implemented in the three or four years they actually had the account
* You report on the Microsoft-"Family Guy" debacle without mentioning Crispin once -- even though they were the ones who probably came up with the idea in the first place and their creatives were contributing content for the show
* You run a 20-year-old photo of Crispin's creative staff for no apparent reason other than to kiss Bogusky's ass
And now you savage a respected business journalist who has the temerity to criticize Bogusky.
Like I said, I like this blog, warts and all. And I like Crispin, too -- warts and all. But it would be nice if your coverage was a little more even handed. These days, it's about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
I hope you take this criticism in the positive spirit with which it was intended, Matt. I think with a little more integrity and objectivity -- and responsible reporting -- you could really make this blog worth reading.
I'll spare you the clarifications I'd like to make regarding Neil, my coverage of Crispin, and what it takes to make a blog hum from day to day. I could write my own adequate book.
I will say that we are rarely perfect, or anything close to it, and that's what pushes me to make it better. IF I had real agency experience (9 months as an extra set of hands in a boutique agency creative dept. doesn't really count). IF I had a Pulitzer (ha!). IF IF IF. I yams what I yams - and nothing more. That's the beauty of being in this position - I have more room to grow than maybe anyone else covering the ad business. When I get my head out of my ass long enough to breathe, I sometimes notice my shoes getting tight.
Best,
Matt
Well put.
But I did read the review, and I was struck by the open derision toward the marketing profession. Are the 4Ps a myth? If we as marketers act with only "promotion" in mind, we're not serving the client very well. So I find it logical that the authors recommend paying more attention to "product" in order to achieve a better sales outcome.
It's not groundbreaking, but neither is it wrong.