Ad hair day

Creative directors often have an over-inflated sense of their contribution to the process.

Their value to the agency.

Their rapport with the creative department.

Their indispensability.

And, if you read the Revolving Door section of AgencySpy.com, apparently quite a few of them also have an over-inflated sense of hair styles.

It seems there's no middle ground. In the pictures that accompany the articles, they either look like a nice guy, or a douche who's trying way too hard. Which is a shame, because they might actually be the first one coming off as the second.

Part of the problem is too many creative directors want to make sure their clients, their department, their bosses and the viewing public know exactly how creative they are at first sight. And what better place to start than from the top down.

From perms to pigtails, curls to comb overs, I believe none of it makes the impression they think they're making.

Some of these people have worn their hair the same way for years. Ironic for an industry that waves the banners of change and disruption every chance it gets.

There is a great benefit to the readers of AgencySpy.com every time one of these pictures pops up: we get to read the comments. AS is kind of a lawsuit free zone, where readers can anonymously post any kind of disparaging, libelous, childish, defaming and derogatory comments they want. They're always a great read.

I think the lesson we can take away from all this is to dial down the judgment, and try as hard as we can not to judge a book by its cover.

After all, some of these salon-challenged people might be hair apparent to running the agency. All the more reason not to wig out at something as superficial as a hairdo.

Or hair don't.

There's a reason it's free

Yesterday, my partner and art director extraordinaire Imke was taking a break and looking at something I didn’t even know existed.

No, not pictures of me with a 32-inch waist. The free stuff page on Craigslist.

When I looked over at her monitor and saw it, I was reminded of what George Carlin once said – “Hammer two pieces of wood together and some schmuck will buy it.” Except you don’t have to buy this crap. Cause it’s free.

Most of the items, like the ratty, I-don’t-want-to-know-what-that-stain-is couches, mattresses (ewww!) and giant piles of dirt are things that won’t fit in the back of the donor's cars. So they want us to cart it away for them.

Not that the idea of a free used toilet isn’t appealing, but sometimes it's just better to pony up the money and sit, lay and pee where no man has gone before.

I don’t know why, but for some reason couches seem to get tossed more than most items. I just wonder who buys couches this ugly, and then decides it’s done and they need a new ugly one.

Maybe Craigslist is the couch underground, like the resistance in wartime France. It's a giant black market couch exchange, where one person sneaks their couch curbside in the wee hours, and then picks up a free one from someone else.

And of course, they're all wearing that damned black beret while they do it.

Whatever, it’s scary and disturbing to think there are that many ugly couches in the world. These couches have spent more time on a curb than Chelsea Handler at the after party.

While it’s pretty safe to say I won’t be hopping in the Land Cruiser to pick up anything off that page, I did like the one ad showing a silhouette of a comb and scissors advertising a free haircut. I'm sure it's probably a Vidal Sassoon or José Eber student looking for people to practice their faux hipster cuts on.

What could possibly go wrong?

As long as I don’t have to sit on one of those couches while they're cutting my hair, I might think about it.

It's complicated

I don't know any parent who hasn't wanted to write a letter like the one shown here. Especially if they've tried to help their kids with math homework.

The Common Core curriculum is a ridiculously complicated, long-way-around to solving even the simplest of math problems. A point which this father - with his degree in Electronics Engineering - so succinctly points out.

But this example of going from A to B by first going from A to Z then back again is representative of a much bigger problem.

We over complicate everything.

From our relationships (which are complicated enough) to deciding which Mocha Grande Chocolate Iced Half-Caf Vanilla Latte we're going to have at Starbucks.

On second thought, make it a frappuccino.

While no business runs as simply as it could, nobody (with the possible exception of the public school system and the federal government) is more guilty of complicating things more than they need to be than ad agencies (I can't quantify that statement - go with me on this).

In the name of "process", agencies have several layers of people who are paid for one thing and one thing only: to complicate the work. They over think, over analyze, over test, over route, over question, over accentuate, over react, over compensate, over control, over exaggerate, over dramatize and over inform every assignment they come in contact with.

My friend Rich Siegel at Round Seventeen has another dirty word for it: Collaboration.

But by doing all that, they usually also overlook the fact that by the time they're done with it, no one will want to watch, read or listen to it.

Anyone who's suffered the slings and arrows in an agency creative department knows it should be easier. Instead of ten page briefs (Hello? They're called "briefs") they should be one. Instead of several bullet points that need to be crammed into the work, it should be one. Instead of twenty people around a conference room table for every kick-off meeting...well, don't get me started on meetings.

Life is demanding enough without complicating it more than it has to be. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best one.

I hope I haven't left out any of the points I wanted to make in this post.

Maybe I'll run it by a few more people just to make sure.

I didn't do that ad. Why do you ask?

Campaign ideas don’t want to be bad, but like Jessica Rabbit said, sometimes they're just drawn that way.

The fact is an idea can often look good on paper, then get lost somewhere along the way to executing it.

And I'm just man enough to say that sometimes bad work happens to good writers: the lousiness of some of my spots has been my creation and mine alone.

For example, the am/pm mini mart spot where I made a joke about the son in the family being adopted. Immediately after it aired, they started routing all the complaint calls from adoption advocacy groups to me so they could tell me, in very raised voices, why adoption jokes weren't funny. I listened patiently, then told them I was adopted and I thought it was hilarious.

I’m not, but sometimes you just want the noise to stop.

Then there was the absolutely awful campaign my partner Doug and I presented for Suzuki cars using the cast of LOST. There were several spots, but the highlight (lowlight?) was one where instead of a blue VW van, we had them discover a Grand Vitara on the island. We liked the show and we wanted to go to Hawaii, so sue us.

It's a good thing it never went anywhere. It wouldn't have been nearly as good as this one:

I don’t remember this, but my wife swears years ago I wrote a radio spot where the characters were building a house out of meat (SFX: Hands slapping ground beef). This was pre-Lady Gaga. Obviously I was way ahead of my time, which is so rare (see what I did there?).

This isn't the first time I've written about good and bad ads. I posted a piece here about it.

But I'm beginning to think putting up posts running down the list of bad ads I've done is probably not the most career-enhancing move I can make. So forget you've seen this.

Just like you did with all those bad ads.