Revisionist history

With the number of revisions almost every project seems to go through now, it seems like clients are less interested in making the work better, and more interested in securing their place in the Guinness Book Of World Records.

To my colleagues in the creative department, this isn’t exactly breaking news. But what has changed is the sheer volume of revisions.

Where it once was a middle-management client trying to show how he made an invaluable contribution to the process by changing the copy from sometimes to always, it’s now evolved into a cage match to see who can initiate the most changes.

The other thing is there are now more layers than ever. There's lower-middle management. Middle-middle management. Upper-middle management. Lower-upper management, and so on. Everyone who comes in contact with the copy feels like it's in their job description to have an opinion. And of course we all know what opinions are like.

My friend Rich Siegel even paid homage to the practice of client revisions by naming his book and well-written blog Round Seventeen. Every time I see that name, all I do is wish seventeen was where the revisions stopped.

There's an old adage about clients getting the work they deserve. Or maybe it's just karma. Either way, never is that more true than when the project manager brings the deck back for revision 68 (yes, actual number).

I think I’ve posted this story before, but it’s worth posting again. One time Paul Keye, a Creative Director/Copywriter and President of his now legendary creative agency, the long gone Keye Donna Perlstein, was in a client meeting. As the client was carefully scrutinizing the copy, at one point he turned to Paul and said, “I think it would read better if we changed an to the." Seeing the reaction on Keye’s face, the client followed up with, “What can I say? I’m a frustrated copywriter.”

To which Paul Keye said, “No. I’m the frustrated copywriter. You’re an asshole."

It would all run a lot smoother if the people who had the final say had the final say the first time around. Sure, it'd mean the middle-management types would have to actually find other ways to justify their almost six-figure salaries, and titles like Assistant Vice President Of Enterprise Integrated Product Analytics & Corporate Audience Targeting.

But if they really wanted to look smart, they could do it by focusing more on their jobs and less on ours. Their job is to make sure the work is on strategy. It'd be a far better use of their time if they stuck to that. It'd also go a long way towards making their corporate overlords and the bottom line more successful.

And the agency less resentful.

I have the negatives

Here’s a client comment every copywriter gets – some more than others – about a headline they’ve written at some point along the way.

”It’s too negative.”

I get it a lot. In fact, I got it today.

Despite the fact the second half of the line paid off the first part of the line beautifully and, dare I say it, positively, the client was having none of it.

My headline included the word “won’t.” Apparently that’s on the list of random negative trigger words, along with “can’t”, “shouldn’t”, “doesn’t”, “didn’t” and I’m sure a bunch more I won’t (there’s that word again) know until I present them and they’re shot down.

Mid-level clients are not big picture thinkers. Their tendency is to have crippling tunnelvision, and overthink everything, especially how much of their ass to cover. It’s why they examine headlines on a word-by-word basis, as opposed to taking in and reflecting on the entire line, the bigger meaning, the brand tone of voice and the overall message being conveyed.

Obviously to live in the purgatory that is middle management, one must have their sense of humor surgically removed. I believe they keep it downstairs in the pathology lab, next to the jars of middle manager brains.

I kid. Middle managers don't have brains.

It’d be a great business if clients read headlines and copy, and then reacted as if they were real people instead of what they think they are: experts in the life of the mind.

So my lesson for today, courtesy of this middle-management, ass-kissing, overthinking, boot-licking, water-toting, brown-nosing, apple-polishing, favor-currying, toady little suck-up is to try to be more positive.

How am I doing so far?

Best practices aren't

Clients and agencies both love to take refuge in "best practices."

The general definition, at least when it comes to advertising, is that they're a method, technique, style or set of defined guidelines that've shown results in the past better than had they not been used. They're tried and true. They've worked before. They'll work again.

Which begs the question: how do you know?

The truth is best practices make both sides feel they're doing the right thing - the optimum that can be done. It provides acceptable and universally understood cover if the effort fails.

In reality, what they do is slam the door (or block the road - it was the better picture) on new ideas. "Best practices" is the quintessential synonym for "It's worked before, it'll work again."

The problem with that line of thinking is the same one dice have at the crap table: they don't care what the odds are. In other words, best practices are just that. Until they're not.

Next time someone asks if you're using best practices, tell them not a chance. If they ask why not, say it's your best practice against mediocre work.