真的，最高兴的还是可以跟大家碰面。

有人瘦了，有人剪了新发型。有人话多了，有人还是默不作声。

有对话也好，没对话也好，不管怎的，享受那几个小时。

 

至于那所谓分享时段，我还是死不悔改，永远讲一些不中听的话。

 

但是各位，你们真的要到中国发展吗？

一个在中国大陆毕业的学生，起薪点只有两千到四千左右。

在香港呢，不计金融风暴的影响，好景的时候，大概有八千到一万，

已经有人不屑，是香港的学生能力比较高吗？

其实只是香港的生活指数比国内高，薪酬也比国内高两三倍。

水涨船高，所以我们认为理所当然，因而我们的竞争力也愈来愈低了。

 

纵观每年在业界从业的反应，低薪的工作，都被认为是不合理的。

同学大都认为有了学位，理应得到更高的待遇，更佳的回报。

有这种想法的人，千万不要到大陆发展。

 

还是一句，大学不应该是vocational training, 不应该是职业先修培训。

First Degree 只是打开人生大门的钥匙；有了它，你才可以更方便前进。

至于广告是不是值得加入的行业，我觉得因人而异。但请分清楚，行业不是事业。

行业是用来赚钱糊口的、养妻活儿的；事业是个人的生涯规划，请不要混淆。

如果你要干一番事业，要先能糊好自己的口。

 

 

 

我在货运升降机大堂碰到他。
这里大概有两百平方尺，四个角落摆放了烟灰缸。边上是一口窗，往下望是一个小区，一排一排的红色瓦顶，在灰朦朦的天色底下，格外显得抢眼。

大家都会来这里抽根烟、歇一歇，几分钟也好。

因为没人，只有我们两个，我主动跟他招呼，打破僵局。他掏出打火机替我点烟，我们开始了对话。

 “你好!”
“你好！”

“你是…”
“我是AAD。”

“我是…”

“我知道。”

“在这里待了多久啦？”

“两年多了。”
“是你的第一份工作吗？”

“对，毕业后就来了这里。”

 间中，我们会挪前移后一步半步，像拳手在擂台上试探对方一样。

 “你是哪里人？”

“东北人。”

“东北是…”

“近边境，苏联边境。”

“很冷？”

“对。”

“所以，现在上海的天气对你来说是很热？”

“也是。”

 “多久会回家一趟？”

“我两年没回过家了。回家很远，坐飞机之后，还要坐火车，然后还要走一段路才到家。一来一回要五天。”

“哇！”

“想家吗？父母不挂念吗？”

 他笑了笑，说：“每年只有七天假期，交通已经用了五天。很多时要趁年假，加起来有十四天，才会回家。”

 他是东北师范大学的毕业生，来上海是追求理想的生活和事业。纵然是苦，却有憧憬，一个追梦少年。

 烟抽完了，我们彼此说过再见。我推门走往接待处。门特别沉，我觉得我自己只是一个港璨。 养尊处优、不知世界艰难的港璨。

 

Tony,

 

Thanks for the waiting.

Allow me to sidetrack a little bit. Let’s compare desk diaries between a creative person and a client.

A creative’s desk diary might look like this…

1000               Briefing for a new business pitch

 

1130                Brainstorming session/Creative review

 

1430               Teleconferencing on regional creative platform

 

1530                Preproduction meeting with production house

 

1700               Meeting with planning and account servicing

 

1800               Presentation to client

 

 

While a client’s might look like this…

 

 

0830              Budget review

 

0930               Sales forecast meeting

 

1100                Pre-launch meeting with operation department

 

1230               Lunch meeting with suppliers

 

1430               Marketing plan review

 

1530                Dealers and wholesalers’ meeting

 

1730                Meeting with agency

 

1830               Trade cocktail party

 

 

 

Well, it is hypothetical but it says something about the difference of a typical working day between a client and us.

To a client, advertising is just a tiny bit of his tasks. To us, it is the whole.

And we tend to believe that everything centers around advertising, including a brand’s success. In fact, it is hardly true. (Remember the conventional saying of the 4 Ps? Not one P, right?)

Now, going back to your question, “Is creativity, ever, an integral part of effective advertising?”

I have no dispute with that, period.

But effective advertising cannot stand on its own and plays only a part in successful marketing. And if creativity is just part of advertising and advertising is only part of marketing, then creativity can’t be the sole element that makes or breaks a brand. Sounds cumbersome but I can’t find a better way to articulate this.

In a nutshell, advertising is only a thin slice of the total marketing mix. Effective advertising helps. And that is it. Successful marketing programs of a brand rely a lot on other marketing arms and promotional vehicles, and never solely on advertising.

I have no intention to belittle what we are doing for a living but I am reluctant to magnify it to an extent that is out of its proportion.

 

cc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            

Tony,

What a BIG question!  A petite story first, bear with me. 

I was once working for a shampoo client, young and reckless then, I proposed something radical. 

Not exactly obscene, violent, mean, unethical, poking fun on race and sex, weird, politically incorrect and what not… like what you said about possible creative ads.  But edgy enough to make his balls contract. 

This client patiently sat through the presentation without a frown.  Afterwards he passed me a tape of commercials that he has done since he was a marketing executive. And he was regional marketing head at that moment. 

According to him, he didn’t make the position by luck but hard work and commercial success.  The tape is his credential, all formulae shampoo advertising.  A set-up, a CG demo of how the product works, and a roundup with a peacock shot of how beautiful the hair is at the end.  Typical those both you and I would sneer at. 

Obviously, his definition of creativity and effective advertising is very different from ours. 

Donald Gunn has started the Gunn Report after he retired as worldwide creative head at Leo Burnett. The intention is to prove to clients alike that creative ads are prone to be effective ads. Whether the nature of Gunn Report has changed or not, the intention is still valid. 

It’s late and a bit chilly, I want to retire to my warm bed now.  I will get back to this.

Later.

 

cc 

CC,

The question is, "Is creativity, ever, wanted in advertising,  
throughout history?"

Or to be rephrased as,  "Is creativity, ever, an integral part of  
effective advertising?"

The question is rooted from the logic below.

Well, people are willing to pay more for what is WANTED.

Say, people will pay more for delicious foods;

Will pay more for nice-looking hair-cuts;

Will pay more for hotels with superb service;

Will pay more for cars with better performance;

Will pay more for flats at nicer locations...

The list goes on.

Yet, who on Earth, if there's any, will pay more for creative ads?

In most cases, the less creative ones are more preferred. (Well, maybe  
there's a higher chance for people to pay more for a less creative ad.)

Because, under the invisible force of the Market, it's just natural  
for people to pay more for what is WANTED.

And creative ads are definitely not included.


Ground two.

The market is a harsh and true indicator of what works and what doesn't.

As per our rooted belief, Creativity=Effectiveness when it comes to  
evaluating ads, right?

Hence the 99.9% of ads that exist in reality which are not creative  
are indeed non-effective ads.

Under the harsh and true indicator, The Market, whatever ads done  
persistently in a non-creative way for years or even decades should  
already have their own punishments, i.e., The brands/products being  
advertised should have already been forced out of the market.

Yet as per our observation for more than half a century, it seems like  
the opposite has a far stronger footing.  Which means, given enough  
exposure and frequency, non-creative ads are far more welcomed by both  
the people who pay for the ads (advertisers) and people who watch the  
ads (target audience).  For advertisers would not be that stupid to  
have repeatedly promoting in the same way if it doesn't drive up the  
sales at all, throughout the years.  And for the audience, they'll  
make complaints once they see ads that are too obscene, violent, mean,  
unethical, poking fun on race and sex, weird, politically incorrect....
(which are basically what make ads creative) both in the street, as  
well as in the room with a one-way-mirror of a research house.

Simply put, if something is damn wanted, why should we have to sell it  
real hard every single time like a cunning used cars salesman?

That's why life of an ad creative who truly believes in creativity is  
never effortless.

'Coz maybe he's swimming against the "Main Stream".

For his whole fucking life.

Simply for one deep-rooted pseudo belief, that creativity is an  
integral part of effective advertising.


tony

(Remarks: This question is never meant to create a super-pessimistic  
sentiment among ad creatives.  Instead, if we could seriously think  
about this big question, even though we might not be able to come up  
with an ultimate answer, it might still be possible for us to create a  
brand new set of paradigms for the whole industry.  Rather than  
settling for the existing distorted state I coin as A.D., adverse  
dichotomy-

To do non-creative ads that are real for clients to get fortune.
To do "creative" ads that are fake for judges to get fame. )

 

Note

Tony Wong (once a colleague) is a friend, an adman and also a nuisance to ask such a heavy question on October 23, 2008. And I have had insomnia ever since.

不止我, 尚有阿嬌、阿靚、阿健及一干人等, 都覺得金帆應該是超市囊中物, 誰知規矩, 成了方圓, 一地玻璃碎。  

今年環顧, 其實沒有什麼, 能夠像慳得一蚊得一蚊那麼深入民心。  但遊戲規則, 就要遵從, 唯有這幾天去一趟亮視點。  況且我只是個局外人, 攀車邊目擊整個評審過程, 也拉衫尾參加頒獎盛宴。  今年, 沒記錯的話, 應該是我第五或第六次, 出席4As的廣告獎晚會。  身在其位的時候, 總有借口婉拒現身。  八八伴, 8 Partnership憑MC Farmer也拿了不少獎項, 比起舊公司出色多了。  奧美集團, 全靠interactive那邊的健力士, 才不致銀杏收場。 

最開心的是見到了不少廣告界的朋友, 一個照面, 兩聲招呼, 連番擁抱, 何況還可以趁機換新眼鏡, 不枉此行。

去舊山頂道嘉諾撒探徐媽媽、徐爸爸、徐娃娃, 睇完娃娃, 仲睇到…

一個ward, 有三分之二係內地媽媽, 講普通話, 睇CCTV。  嘉諾撒即使不是婦產科的四季酒店, 但肯定不是翠華或新釗記之流, 幫襯生仔, 至少要預幾皮嘢。  內地人, 仲要額外使費, 可見內地家庭消費能力。  有咁嘅吸引力, 要多得以前個香港政府, 令香港醫療水準在大中國區, 依然值得信賴。 

探徐娃娃期間, 不時聽到經紀口脗人士講電話, 報價、解釋、排期, 一片生機。

電台節目原來不是隨口講, 生仔港至少實在過數碼港、中藥港、資訊科技港及創意工業港。 

多謝徐娃娃, 令我體會多咗, 更明白為何養和醫院積極申請擴建。  李氏醫一族, 除了本業, 還有生意眼, 觸覺比商務及經濟發展局敏銳得多。 

言歸正傳, 祝徐娃娃開開心心, 健康成長。