Project Mayhem

It’s 11:30 p.m. and something’s bothering me again: Halloween. I hate it.  But those of you who have been following my blog brilliance the last few years know that by now.  It’s a different riff this time, though.

If women feel an overwhelming urge to dress “as sluts” during Halloween (I hear it every year), then what’s the male equivalent go-to Halloween costume? Pimp? Misogynist? Stud? Pornstar? Joe the Plumber?

This actually raises a more intriguing question for a man who has nothing better to do than type on his blog while eating dry Cheerios: What is a slut? Rather than base this solely on my own, perhaps eschewed or warped, view, I turned to a higher authority … Him … Webster.

According to Webby, a slut is defined as 1) “A slovenly woman.  This drove me to the definition of “slovenly,” which was conveniently located on the opposite page. (Hey, Eph you!)  Slovenly is defined as “untidy or habitually negligent of neatness.”  This led me to believe that Webster didn’t get out much.  It took until the third reference for Webby to define slut as a “prostitute.” TaaDaa!  (FYI: second reference was “a lewd woman.”  Yeah, “I’m getting freaky this Halloween and going as a lewd woman.”)

So, what is it that makes a girl want to dress up like a prostitute?  Risking a sexual harassment lawsuit, I asked a few of the girls at work. The answers ranged in nature from, “I don’t know, you just want to, you know, get wild on Halloween,” to “I know what guys say, ‘it’s because it’s the woman’s alter ego.’ But I don’t do it because of that, I just think it’s fun to do something you wouldn’t ordinarily do.  Isn’t that what Halloween’s all about?” to “What’s wrong with dressing slutty, look at what you’re wearing.”  (I was informed that I was wearing a shirt tighter than the home loan requirements.  Hey, Donny Deutsch does it!)

Anyway, ladies, I’m begging you (again).  This is your chance to weigh-in without actually stepping on a scale.  Will you, did you, or have you ever dressed as a slut on Halloween?  If so, why?

In case you’re wondering what this has to do with PR, creativity or anything remotely related to communications … absolutely nothing.  I just think it’s an intriguing anthropological question based on the cultural nuances that help shape some of our country’s long-held social traditions. And feel free to send photos if you want. It’s research, damn it!

Using clichés makes writing boring, deadly and creatively dull. And there is a ton of “clichedonism” in our business.

Far be it from me to point out any specific examples, however, because, you know, what goes around comes around. Anyway, if I were to try to point out all the clichés I’ve seen tucked into writing during just the last few days, I’d be busier than a cat on a hot tin roof. I don’t have that kind of time to kill.

I think the problem with clichés stems from the fact that, in our business, we’re generally running around like a chickens with our heads cut off.  So people just get lazy and throw any old phrase into a sentence with devil-may-care attitude. They don’t realize that, in the long run, they’re only hurting themselves.  Save time, lose creative power – it’six to one, half dozen to the other.

My suggestion for people trying to avoid clichés is to put your best foot forward and try thinking outside of box before putting pen to paper.  As they say, failing to prepare is preparing to fail.  It may be frustrating at first, but don’t give up, practice makes perfect.  Besides, it’s better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all. Right? Time will tell if it ultimately helps your writing.

Rather than waiting to cross that bridge when you come to it, start now to prevent the continued spread of clichedonism. The handwriting is on the wall.  If you don’t do something now it will only get worse.  So don’t put off tomorrow what you can do today, start cracking down on those clichés.  If you need help, check out:

http://www.westegg.com/cliche/search.cgi?query=love.

You’ll bet your bottom dollar you can teach old dogs new tricks.

Prepare for a butchering of this quote:  “An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. ” Or something.

Here’s the current bug up my *&^:  To be creative, is it important to be an expert in the subject matter?  We just got out of a great new biz pitch. The team was great, the deck was solid, and we were good in the room – rapport, engagement…  the whole schpeil.

The problem is this: we are most definitely NOT experts in their field. We’re have some people in the network who had a serious personal interest in the client – but no real work experience.  Should the client hire us?  Does this make us more or less creative?  I concede that in order to apply smart strategic thinking, you need to understand the landscape. The audiences. The marketplace and its trends. But do you need to be an expert?  I’d suggest not.

I’ve said it before; never let the ghosts of past success out-vote original thinking. But I’ll take that a step further:  don’t let the ghosts of past failures determine what you can or can’t do. When you know a category inside and out, upside down and backwards and forwards, you know what works and what doesn’t, right?

Wrong.

You know what you’ve done in the past. A million variables and a million decisions  influenced success and failure.  It’s a challenge to view the world with a fresh perspective. New eyes. The naivety of the inexperienced.  I don’t want to know the mountains that haven’t been climbed. Not interested in the crashing and burning of the past. I want no idea of how things are stacked against me. I wanna dive into the pool head first.  I can worry about whether or not it’s filled with water later the water later.

The next time you get an assignments, bring people together who have no idea about your product, industry or client. See what they can bring to the table. Sure, the might have ideas that have been tried and failed a million times before. But the fresh perspective will inspire. Invigorate. It’ll free you. And in terms of execution?

I’ll leave that to the experts.

xoxo

marc

There is a plague spreading in marketing and PR departments across the country.  It’s the communications version of the flesh-eating virus, eating away at campaigns, killing programs and stunting sales.  It lies there quietly suckling from the unwitting marketing host’s healthy budgets, consuming millions of marketing dollars in every bite.  Ironically, like doctors turned mad scientists, the perpetrators behind this unchecked PR plague are the very marketing executives who helped design, approve and launch them.

The disease is impatience.

I’ve watched as impatience killed programs anywhere between one to eight months after launch.  I’ve even seen a client kill a multimillion dollar program two weeks before a launch, flushing $150,000 down the PR pipes.

One January, we pitched this cool campaign to a client who loved the idea and immediately funded it.  We started work immediately and launched the program in June the same year.   In October, the client was already getting cold feet as the all-too-familiar grumbling began.  “We’re really not seeing the results for all the money we’re spending. We’ll give it a couple more months, but people aren’t very happy right now.” In December, just six months after launch, we were instructed that if we did not generate a significant amount of coverage, the funding would be pulled.  Six months – that’s like enrolling your kid in first grade and pulling him six months later because he can’t divide.  (If “Got Milk” had been pulled after six months, would you remember it now?)

Fortunately, in this case we generated enough hits to give the program some breathing room and it became the most successful PR program in the brand’s history, runny for 10+ years, generating millions of non-advertising-supported revenue and serving as a clear differentiator for the company.

Too many clients view PR like advertising:  You design the ad, produce it and place it.  Taa Daaaaaaa! NOT.  PR requires timing, persistence, constant adjustment and mirroring the interest of reporters and current news trends.  I mean, c’mon, man, Chef Emeril doesn’t just throw his Pasta Primavera in the oven; come back a few hours later and Voila!  He sticks around to throw in some carrots and asparagus, adds a tablespoon of salt, lets it marinate over a medium-high heat, melts some butter, adds a touch of olive oil, throws in a pinch of garlic and fresh tomatoes …

Damn, I’m hungry.

It’s Friday. So take five and enjoy this brilliant street art by Joshua Allen Harris. His ‘air zoo’ and animal installations on the streets of New York are made by tying plastic bags to the subway vents. It’s one of those simple, brilliant creative ideas that makes you smile and ‘I wish I’d thought of that’. Sadly I can’t help myself also thinking about how it could be used to promote something and it’s a reminder that attention-grabbing stunts can be cheap as old chips.

This may surprise some of our loyal readers — and if you roll your eyes, I’ll kick your ass — but I’m actually a bit of a tech-head.  Not quite sure if I fall into the early-adopter stage, but that’s based more on economics rather than desire.  (In other words, I can only by so many PDAs before my wife starts throwing my clothes on to the driveway.)  I always want the newest, latest, tech-awesomest stuff.

That said, I’m always amazed by people who demand that we use technology for technology’s sake.  Take VoIP for instance.  When used in a corporate environment, this makes zero sense.  For the love of God, THERE’S A PHONE ON YOUR DESK!  Do we really need to improve on the phone?  When was the last time you hung up the phone and said, “jeeze, that experience was horrible.”  When was the last time your phone didn’t work — and your internet connection did?

(Same thing with video over the internet.  Not talking about mobile video or youtube-like clips.  But those who insist that content should be enjoyed on a computer screen — WHEN YOU HAVE A 42-inch PLASMA IN THE DEN!)

Here’s the bottom line:  The ability to do something with more advanced technology doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better.  Technology for technogy’s sake is kind of lame.  I once worked with a woman who would label people who were just trying to hard with their wardrobe — you know they type I mean.  She’d look at an outfit, shake her head, and remark, “Deliberate Chic.”  That’s what a lot of technology is.  If you’re trying to save a couple of bucks, fine.  Otherwise?  Using the computer to make a call is deliberate chic.

Same with creativity.  I’ve told anyone that cares to listen — and the numbers dwindle with each passing day — that there’s a difference between what Claire, Jeremy and I do… and creativity for creativity’s sake.  You can have the coolest, wildest, most original creative idea in the universe.  If it doesn’t sell sneakers, it ain’t worth nothin’.  I’d rather just recommend a press release.

xoxo

Marc

I have a dentist appointment tomorrow.  I hate going to the dentist. 

Dentistry seems to have been doing the medical industry’s impression of a deer in headlights for the last two decades.  While other medical fields have been doing such things as, oh, discovering DNA, completing the human genome sequence, cloning animals and using lasers to help the blind see, dentistry has been pumping Air Supply’s “Lost in Love” through headphones so you can’t hear the drill.   

I decided to investigate what dentistry has been up to.  Let’s see, there’s “air abrasion,” a method of “removing dental decay with a high-powered spray.”  Reports are that that’s not very effective.  There’s also laser treatment, but it doesn’t appear very common.  (Does your dentist use one? Case and point.)  And then there’s “photo imagery of the teeth” so they can “instantly be shown on a computer screen.”  Kodak has been doing that with disposable cameras since the ‘90s.

Near as I can tell there are only two things that have changed since I started going to the dentist in 1965:  the chair’s a little more comfortable and they now have cable TV.  Oh, and they don’t give you suckers anymore – a bit counterintuitive, I guess.  Otherwise, all the crap is still the same:  a needle the size of a yardstick, a foot-controlled drill, a dime-size mirror on a stick, a metal squirt gun and Scholastics Magazine in the lobby.  (Was it just me, or did Gallant always seem like a total lame-ass wuss compared to Goofy?) Oh, and they also started putting a protective vest on you during the X-rays.  The fact that I was given no such vest during the first 25 years of my dentist-going days is somewhat disconcerting.  And all those years I thought I was going prematurely bald because of genetics. 

Yo, what up, dentists?  Where’s the creativity?  Come to think of it, maybe that’s why the industry has been sited as the profession with the highest suicide rate.  (Apparently, though, that’s just an urban legend, fueled by a Seinfeld episode.  The American Dental Association claims the suicide rates among dentists are no higher than the national average.  For the record, the Center for the Study of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior at the University of South Carolina says that, “occupation is not a major predictor of suicide.”  It is worth noting, however, that PR people were not included in that study. As far as I’m concerned, the case is still open.) I digress…

Dentistry needs creative help, and I’m not talking toothpaste with fluoride, I mean serious creative, like push-button robotics that drill to precise depth and dimensions, eliminating my dentist’s hand in my mouth.  Hell, I’d be happy if they could find something other than those razor-sharp cardboard torture cubes they put in your mouth to take an X-ray.  After they position the jagged little suckers to perfectly pierce the roof of your mouth, they have the gull to demand, “Bite down.”  Seriously?  That’s like a doctor holding a scalpel against you and saying, “lean into it.” 

I know this all probably sounds like a man with dementia – I’ll blame it on the ton of lead I still have in my teeth.