Random reflections on this crazy-ass industry volume 3: "Brave" vs "ballsy"

Have you seen this recent video of a teenage girl who, in an effort to protect her dogs, ran up to a momma bear (joined by her cubs, mind you) that was coming onto her property and proceeded to shove the bear off her backyard wall? Holy crap, who does that? That young lady is BRAVE. All caps, full stop.

I love this crazy industry, and the smart, talented, creative people I’ve come across and had the pleasure of working with throughout the years, but please, for the love of everything… let’s cool our jets on the “brave” talk when it comes to describing our work and the people behind it. As a wise man once said, Ixnay on the brave-shnay. (credit unavailable)

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve gone on LinkedIn and seen a post (or read in the comments/responses to said post) that labels a piece of work by a brand/client and agency as “brave.”

Now I don’t want to undermine or diminish any of this work. In many cases, the work truly is remarkable and worthy of praise. And has the potential to make an impact in the world.

But isn’t “brave” a bit much when describing advertising/marketing and the people behind it? A :15 TV commercial? A social post? Even a stunt that dips a toe into social commentary?

I’m not sure when our industry co-opted usage of the word ‘brave.’ But it feels like the surge in popularity has really skyrocketed over the last few years.

Ultimately, can any advertising or marketing truly be considered brave? Let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of the word:

adjective: possessing or exhibiting courage or courageous endurance.
noun: a brave person. a warrior, especially among North American Indian tribes.
verb: to defy; challenge; dare.

Pretty sure these LinkedIn posts aren’t referring to Native American warriors, so the noun definition is immediately out. But to be fair, you could make the case that there are some elements of “courage” and “challenge,” “defiance” and ‘daring’ within some marketing ideas, including the people involved in making those ideas manifest in the real world. Every person involved in designing, creating, producing and/or approving that work has a career, life and family to think about – and there is a bit of associated risk that’s built into their decision-making.

But I think there’s a nuanced difference. There is a certain, dare I say…gravitas (see what I did there with ‘dare’? *cough* I’m brave *cough*) that is inherent in the word ‘brave’ that may not be included in the dictionary definition, but nonetheless – it’s in there.

In my mind, brave is a word that should be reserved for people and actions that are truly courageous and put those people’s lives in harms’ way. Like, oh I don’t know… A firefighter who runs into a burning building. Or an officer. A military soldier. A political activist. A boxer who goes into the ring with Mike Tyson. The frontline workers at the onset of the Covid pandemic. A writer like Salman Rushdie who received death threats after publishing some works. There are even normal, everyday people and actions that are truly ‘brave,’ – like the aforementioned small-in-stature teen girl pushing full grown bears off walls.

But advertising? Bold, gutsy, ballsy, provocative, even slightly courageous at times, yes. But not brave. And frankly, I find it to be insulting to those people, actions and careers that are defined by being brave. By making split-second decisions that oftentimes put lives at stake.

Advertising and marketing can’t be brave. Because it is 100% considered. It’s mulled over, contemplated, analyzed, overthought, many times tested to death – both internally and externally. And at the end of the day, it’s produced and presented to the public as a calculated decision with a clear objective in mind – to drive attention and sales.

We live in an attention economy, and everyone’s looking for their share. When there is a constant barrage of content coming at us, how do you break through that as a brand? You do something risky. Gutsy. Polarizing. Ballsy. And kudos to these brands, clients and agencies for the vision and foresight to know that advertising/marketing needs to be provocative and compelling in order to truly break through. Even if they face some backlash, the 24/7 news cycle will surely move on almost immediately. In return, that brand will receive a bump in attention, whether good or bad or mixed (no press is bad press), perhaps a bump or slight dip in sales, and then the world will quickly move on to the next thing to get excited or outraged about.

But please, let’s not describe advertising or marketing as “brave.” Let’s reserve that word for people and actions that are truly deserving. Like that crazy young lady swiping at a bear. I mean… holy crap. B-R-A-V-E.


Dan Tucker is a NYC-based Creative Director who has been published in dantuckerwrites.com

Random reflections on this crazy-ass industry volume 2: Hard cut... Cheetos

SNL had a funny sketch a couple seasons ago starring Alec Baldwin, where he played an ad exec pitching the Cheetos business. Every idea that was pitched was anchored to a current social cause that had absolutely nothing to do with Cheetos, and the client loved every idea more than the last. You can check it out here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imUigBNF-TE

At the time, I found it funny but also just completely random. Since then, however, I’m reminded of this sketch almost weekly - whenever an ad has any sort of socio-political undertones.

I recently stumbled upon a video of Jeff Goodby giving a presentation at an ad school, where he shared work that his agency had done for Doritos - a stunt celebrating gay pride. Doritos had created a limited-edition run of rainbow-colored Doritos to show support and allegiance with this cause. As no surprise, the stunt was received with a combination of both praise for the bravery of the brand, and of course, harsh criticism from the conservative portion of the country. And it all made for a good case study video.

The interesting thing was, the Cheetos sketch and the Goodby video were released pretty much at the same time. Which got me thinking that the SNL writers must have been mocking that specific Doritos stunt, just using a different artificially-flavored (albeit delicious) Frito-lay brand.

And the thing is… it has every right to be mocked.

Don’t get me wrong, the goal and intentions of this stunt are admirable. And this is a cause that should be supported. But for the love of God, what the fuck do nacho cheese-flavored corn chips have to do with gay pride?

I’m honestly so sick of brands feeling the need or the responsibility to attach themselves to social and/or political causes. Nobody is looking to Doritos to take a strong stance on anything. Other than maybe cheese-to-chip ratio.

It’s not just Doritos. And it’s not just gay pride - pick a cause du jour, there will be a brand attached to it. Whether it’s candy. Soap. Mops. Chewing gum. I saw an ad recently that showed an old man who tells the story of how he grew up in an era where he was ashamed of being gay, but towards the end of the commercial he gets to experience his first gay pride parade at the age of 86. Which is a wonderful message. Until the commercial resolves on a 5 gum logo. Cue Debbie Downer trombone.

Yes, it’s a very political time. And everyone feels the need to be on the right side of history. Even brands. And the truth is, it can be a powerful, poignant and relevant message when the right brand supports the right cause. But that cause HAS to make sense for the brand. It has to be ingrained in their DNA, their very reason for being. Otherwise it just comes off as completely disingenuous… and, being in advertising, it just reeks of a ploy to build buzz and help the agency win awards.

The reason I bring this all up is because I keep seeing articles – whether from Adweek, AdAge or otherwise – that speak to the importance of brands attaching themselves to a cause. The fact that consumers expect brands to do this. And if they don’t take a stance, they’ll lose business.

Shit, I haven’t conducted any surveys about this. But if that’s true, that’s really sad. I don’t buy things based on whether a company supports a certain issue. It would never even occur to me to think about that. I’m just buying a fucking Ring Ding here. Sure, if I find out the CEO of a company is a total bigot, racist or sexist - it would probably make me think twice about buying from that company or supporting them in any way.

But it doesn’t work the other way. I am completely fine if Starbucks never tells me their stance on abortion. I really don’t give a shit. And if they ever do, regardless of their stance, it will strike me as faker than a purple Dorito.

No, sir - give me more of the below type of silly shit please. A simple whistling nose will give me a much better feeling about your brand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT3TGzZ91Sk

Dan Tucker is a NYC-based Creative Director. He has written for dantuckerwrites.com.

Random reflections on this crazy-ass industry: Volume 1

I came across this article the other day, and then again while perusing the industry app "Fishbowl" today.

https://musebycl.io/musings/those-advertising-yes-we-are-curing-cancer-here

The article is written by Jordan Doucette, an Executive Creative Director at Leo Burnett (hey, that rhymes!), and it makes a pretty bold, provocative statement right up front, in the form of the headline: "To those in advertising: Yes, we are curing cancer here"

For anyone who's worked in the ad industry for any measurable amount of time, you've undoubtedly heard this facetious comparison of what we do to the work of doctors, surgeons, ER workers and the like. "Hey, we're not curing cancer here"..."We're not saving lives, people"..."It's just advertising..." Whether it's a colleague, a jaded partner, or a flippant junior creative making the remark, it's something you hear often throughout your career. And Jordan is quick to acknowledge that.

To give a little more context to the article, Jordan starts things off by talking about her father's recent passing from cancer, which goes without saying, is a tremendously difficult thing to have to grapple with. I can't even imagine. She then goes on to say that having gone through this horrible ordeal, she started to reflect on her choice of career and question its importance and value to the world. An existential career crisis. She brings up the aforementioned statements, e.g. "We're not curing cancer" to point to how we are constantly diminishing what we do for a living. But that this was our choice, and the people we work with chose this job, and that, "I'm sure they could have been architects or doctors or lawyers. Instead, they've dedicated themselves to using their creativity to solve problems." Finally, she goes on to list some of those problems - inequality, racism, bullying. She gives examples of how advertising addresses these issues, in the form of things like the Fearless Girl statue, Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, etc. Making the point that our jobs are in fact meaningful, and that what we do makes a real impact on the world.

Now, I don't know Jordan personally. But with all due respect, I couldn't disagree with her more. I don't even know where to start.

First off, I actually love hearing the words, "We're not curing cancer." Or, "It's just advertising." Maybe it plays to my cynicism and acknowledgment of the realities of what we do. Maybe it helps to alleviate some of the daily stress. Or maybe it's just a reminder that people don't die if I fuck up. If I make an error, or forget to take care of something, or miss a deadline. The worst that happens is you get a little stressed out, or get reprimanded by a supervisor for said mistake, and then you take a breather, pack up your life lesson and move on to the next thing on your to-do list. And life goes on.

In addition, the statement "We're not saving lives" actually makes our jobs sound fun and not so cumbersome and heavy all the time. And for the most part, our jobs are fun – especially when you compare them with people whose jobs involve actual human beings' lives at stake. 

One other thing that doesn't resonate with me is that these coworkers she references could have been "architects or doctors or lawyers," but that they chose this business. From my personal experience, and this applies to the majority of creatives I know, we acknowledge that we don't have any other skills, albeit a bit hyperbolic (at least for some of us). And, I'm pretty sure you need a unique set of skills to be a doctor, architect or lawyer. I think, more often than not, finding advertising is a revelation because we lack interest or innate talent in other fields.

But, my biggest gripe about this article is the statement that what we're doing is important.

It's not. Not in the slightest.

And that's ok. Who says it has to be? Who's to say we can't have a career where we use our creativity to "solve problems" and then do things to help the world outside of our day jobs? Very seldom do people work on cause-based campaigns in this industry, ones that actually help to make any kind of difference. And even when you do work on them, it's not world-changing stuff. It's generally brands trying to latch onto whatever the current social and/or cultural trend is of the day. It's usually self-serving for the creatives and the agency, to get recognition and win awards. An attempt to stay relevant. What it absolutely is not is an altruistic deed. Such as - oh, I don't know - donating to a charity. Or helping to feed the homeless. Or volunteering time in other ways to help save the planet. Which can all be done on your own time, and likely will have a greater impact on the world around you, not to mention your sense of self.

I get it. Some people's entire identities are attached to this business, especially creative people. Their sense of purpose and self-worth. There's been a lot of articles that have come out recently by creatives that defend this business from the people who are continually proclaiming its demise. And at the end of the day, it is a great job and should be defended. Personally, as a creative, I can sit at a bar and think about crazy multi-million dollar ideas for clients, sell the idea, and then watch producers and directors and other people with genuine talent emerge from the woodworks to make that stupid idea I had at 3 in the morning happen. And it's a beautiful thing. And we're all lucky to do it.

But it's not meaningful. Not when you compare it to doctors. Or teachers. Or people who work for non-profits. Or even art, for that matter - music, film, books, paintings - things that really help people cope with their lives and the craziness of the world. 

Toward the end of Jordan's article, she talks about the theme of hope, and the power of creativity. The idea that our industry is one that's built on those things. We tackle everything with a "What if..." attitude. And it may be the one part of the article where I wholeheartedly agree. There is an optimism at the heart of all ideas we sell to brands. And at the end of the day, we should be optimistic about our industry, we should celebrate the best of what we do. 

But please, please, please. Let's not pretend we're curing cancer.

Because for an industry that (rightly so) favors work that taps into real human insights, work that is authentic and not using bullshit as a tactic to sell product - we sure as hell buy into our own bullshit.