Educating Rick

The Republican party has a lot to be proud of in Rick Santorum.

Finally, finally, someone has the courage, the foresight, the vision, and let's just say it - the balls to take a stand against higher education.

As if it wasn't enough to misquote President Obama while he was speaking to a tea party group in Michigan, Santorum decided to throw in some good, old-fashioned name calling. Apparently in Santorum's universe, Obama is a "snob" because he wants everyone to have the opportunity of a higher education should they choose it.

It's easy to see why Santorum would be against this. After all, with his B.A., M.B.A. and J.D. degrees (one more than Obama has), he's obviously an educated man. He understands first-hand the pointlessness and futility of a higher education.

While he was a hard-working student at Penn State, University of Pittsburgh and Dickinson School of Law, he must've come face-to-face with plenty of those educated elitist snobs day after day. What with their "intellectual" discussions and "critical thinking" and "larger world view" it must've taken everything he had to graduate with his three degrees.

Obviously being around those leftist professors and their America-hating agendas is how Santorum is able to recognize Obama for the snob he is.

As the above paragraph from his 2006 campaign website so clearly illustrates, Santorum is so flustered at the thought of today's children having accessibility to affordable, higher education, he forgot that six years ago he was for it.

Thank you Rick Santorum for coming out against education. Together with your woman-hating policies to turn back all the progress they've made in the last 100 years, I believe you may have a real shot at this thing.

And if it doesn't work out, you can always tear up those over-rated degrees and get yourself a job requiring less skills.

After all, even liberals have to buy their fries from someone.

One word too many

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern here?

When's the iSelectric getting here?

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, copywriters didn't work on computers. They worked on this beauty. The IBM Selectric Typewriter.

If you've ever typed on one, just seeing the picture instantly brings back the sound of the inter-changable font ball clacking away, not to mention the visceral feedback from the keys as you pounded on them.

The Selectric III pictured had several improvements over previous models. I won't go into them here, but you can read about them all at the IBM Selectric Wikipedia page.

This old school technology - which was quite revolutionary at the time with it's correction ribbon and stationary carriage - has been single-handedly responsible for every keyboard redesign since desktop computers were invented, at least when it comes to haptic feedback (for the haptic-ly challenged, it means using the sense of touch in an interface to convey information to the user - for example, if a key has been pressed).

They were big, clunky and loud, just like my high school girlfriend.

But like her, I loved working on it.

The punishment should fit the crime

On my friend Rich's blog, Round Seventeen, he's started a series of posts called People We Need To Kill. I'd like to nominate these two examples of human garbage.

Joyce Hardin Garrard on the left and Jessica Mae Hardin on the right are, respectively, grandmother and stepmother to 9-year old Savannah Hardin. Or at least they were.

What happened is that Savannah lied to the grandmother about having eaten some candy, so as punishment last Friday they made Savannah run for 3 hours straight. She wasn't allowed to stop, nor was she allowed to drink any water.

Dehydrated and sodium depleted, Savannah had a seizure and died days later.

I suppose the telltale line in the news story was "The trailer where Savannah lived..."

I'd like everyone who thinks I'm kidding when I say you should need a license to be a parent to take a good look at these two aberrations. I hate to judge books by their covers, but what's painfully evident to me is this couldn't have been the first physical or emotional abuse this little girl suffered from these inbred freaks.

Fortunately they've both now been charged with murder. As I said in the title, I think the punishment should fit the crime.

They need to make both these women run for three hours nonstop in the Alabama sun, then let them die of dehydration. Preferably while holding ice-cold water bottles in front of them, just out of reach.

I know some of you think the death penalty is wrong, and I should be more forgiving and merciful. Here's my answer to that.

Tell it to Savannah.

Hostile takeover

So there you are, casually surfing the web trying to kill time, or worse yet, actually find out something. You innocently move your cursor a micrometer on the screen over an ad, and suddenly it takes over your whole page and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's a whole new level of frustration for the internet age. Without any warning, you're an iHostage.

Of course there is a close box, if you can find it. They don't make it easy.

I guess in the interest of full disclosure I have to say I've created a few page takeovers in my time. I'm not proud of it, but you know my motto by now - say it with me: the check clears.

Still, here's the dirty secret for clients who drink the Kool Aid about advertising on the web: no one is clicking your banner ads. No one. Not your friends, not your family and certainly not anyone at your agency. Forget the "metrics" and "click through rates." Totally made up. Pure fiction, like Potter, Narnia or legitimate Republican presidential candidates.

Don't believe me? How many web ads have you clicked on in the last week? Month? Six months? Thought so.

You know what nothing from nothing is? That's how many people are clicking your web ad.

Don't misunderstand me. Are they fun to do? You bet. Can they be creative? Absolutely. Creating them a nice revenue stream for the agency? Of course. People worldwide clicking on them? Not a chance.

Pissing people off by forcing a web page takeover on them doesn't just make them uninterested in your ad, it makes them angry at your brand.

At the next status meeting, ask the agency about metrics for that.

Letting the account go

One thing you can say for ad agencies is they're not quitters. Especially when their largest account goes into review. If they're invited to pitch it - again – there’s no doubt they'll give it everything they've got.

Even when they shouldn't.

We've all been there. First come the rumors of trouble. Then the hushed closed door management meetings. Sometimes, an email goes out letting people who work on the business know. But as a rule, they find out on their own from somewhere else. Like Adweek. Or a friend at another agency pitching the business.

When a sizable account goes into review, agencies predictably knee-jerk into "we can't just let $200 million walk out the door mode."

But sometimes they should.

I understand the economics and the responsibility to try and keep everyone employed. But there comes a time when done is done. The fat lady is singing.

The problem is most agencies don't hear her.

The rank and file, people working on an account day in and day out, have a much finer honed ability to take the client's temperature than management. They know when the ground shifts and something doesn't feel right. They've seen it coming weeks if not months before management. Sometimes they've even sounded a warning.

But when it comes to management hearing about the possibility of losing business, denial ain't just a river.

From a new VP of Marketing to the client's wife not liking the work, there are a million reasons accounts go into review. Agencies always feel if they can just give it one more go, they can really understand the problem and come up with a solution.

And granted, on rare occasions, they can.

But sometimes what the client is looking for most from the agency is to be taken at their word.

Even if that word is goodbye.

Clients, like dogs, smell fear and desperation. And the scent is never stronger than an incumbent agency fighting for business, or begging for the chance to fight for business, at all costs - including its dignity, reputation and morale of its employees.

You know what's worse than losing a piece of business? Trying to rally the troops with false and tired arguments like "it's a level playing field", or "our client is working for us on the inside", then grinding everyone for weeks or months with them knowing full well it's gone regardless of what they do.

I suppose there's an argument to be made it's a few more weeks of work before the first round of layoffs. But like I said, the people bound to be most effected have already seen it coming. They're usually ahead of the curve on calls to headhunters and other agencies (especially ones pitching the business) .

Advertising is a business that rewards imaginative thinking, and punishes realistic thinking when it’s needed most. Pride before a fall.

What agencies should do, especially when business is good and clients are satisfied, is have an ongoing open and transparent new business directive everyone can take ownership in. After all, management isn't the only one in the agency capable of cultivating connections beyond the agency's doors. Leads can come from any department.

And if the lead pans out, you get coffee. Because coffee is for closers.

Wouldn't it be better to spend all the money they'll inevitably pour into a review on new business pursuits throughout the year, so when one account finally does decide to leave the agency isn't crippled by it. Better to have ten $2 million dollar accounts than one $20 million dollar one.

Of course, when an agency does have to fight for a piece of business, it usually brings in a ton of freelancers for a fresh perspective. It's always a good gig, and keeps their bank balance happy for quite a while.

On second thought, just disregard this post.

Rick Santorum probably didn't date much

I'm not sure, but I think I may have stumbled onto the reason Rick Santorum hates women so much.

He probably wasn't very popular with them. Exhibit A: the picture you see here.

In case you're not familiar with primitive points of view about women's rights or roles in society, all you have to do is take a look at any of Santorum's white papers on them.

He thinks pre-natal care shouldn't be covered by insurance, because really, "more often than not" all those amnios do is cause abortions - a fact supported absolutely nowhere. (While it's true there is a slight risk of miscarriage after amnio, it's between 0.5 and 1% of all second trimester amnios - which is the normal risk during that trimester even without amnios, so there's no accurate way to distinguish between the causes).

That's going to come as quite a shock to the majority of women who've had them and now have happy, healthy babies. And who had less stressful pregnancies because of the conditions, including Down's Syndrome, that an amnio positively rules out.

Santorum talks often about "the dignity of human life." Apparently that doesn't apply to rape victims. Santorum believes even if a woman is raped, she should be forced to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption. His wife shares this point of view as well, which is ironic since she used to live with an abortion provider 40 years older than her. In fact, he was the OB who delivered her.

As far as working women go, according to Santorum they shouldn't be allowed to go far at all given the havoc he alleges they wreak on their families. Here's his point of view on it from an article in the Washington Post:

His 2005 book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” suggests parents in two-income families aren’t doing what’s best for the kids. Too often, he writes, both parents work when the family could get by on one salary: “For some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.” He described it as a sad situation created by “radical feminists” who undermined the traditional family by “convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

As someone married to a working, professional woman, and the best mother my children could ever hope for, I find this point of view particularly offensive. But I imagine not nearly as much as every working woman does, with the possible exception of the women working to get this neanderthal elected.

It all sounds like something from a Saturday Night Live sketch. And points of view as outdated and irrational as these would be funny if this clown wasn't, for the moment, the Republican frontrunner.

If you go to Santorum's website, there's a tab at the top labeled "Why Rick".

My sentiments exactly.