Frankly, the later choice would, I think, result in
losing the most meaning. I realize now in rereading that document that there
are timeless concepts and there are situational routines that were, perhaps, a
sign of the times. It was written as a fictional work, but like most fiction it
was based on observations and real experiences. It is kind of like looking at
old family photos. Suddenly, you realize how much and how fast things change: cars,
clothes, people, occasions and so on.
My story, at the time, was focused on an advertising
agency. I was trying to illustrate the characters and situations in the
business with some poetic license that I had hoped would present opportunities
for a readable story arc. Here are a few highlights as I recall about that
story two dozen years later.
Dorothy Dash – The central character in a mid-sized
NYC advertising firm as a young woman account executive. I remember thinking
that Dot Dash was a person who had to keep up with details and manage people.
The two o’clock meeting – Dorothy is responsible but
is outranked by almost everyone she needs to corral. This is illustrated in the
sequence of events around a critical internal agency meeting. The meeting is
important but the egos of participants preclude conventional business etiquette.
Dot has to call (on a land line phone) the extensions of several of those key
players. The Creative guy is absent minded, the media guy is too busy to keep
track of time and Dot is charged with keeping everyone on track. Time is a
recurring theme in this story. So much time is squandered in the name of
waiting, concept development or political maneuvering. The long Martini lunches
are generally accepted because they fill time while characters wait for such
things as ideas, type, press proofs or client decisions.
Managing Clients – In the agency everyone has very
specialized responsibility and expertise. The agency eventually has to come to
term with a winning strategy. It generally means convincing the client to take
action. The individuals inside this agency are complex and diverse. However,
they somehow adapt a singular point of view when it comes to presenting to the
client. In this world there are sides. The agency-side is ultimately about
selling concepts that will trigger media spending. The client-side is where
rational thinking ends up being portrayed as lacking open-mindedness. You see,
inside the agency, the client is a moron because he avoids risk. He is more
likely to see a downside to a creative direction. The client can also spoil the
party by pulling back funds altogether.
The case for supporting a brand – Even in that
humble mid-sized Manhattan agency, the argument for advertising had to do with
adding value. The client is an importer of cheeses from around the world. The
agency believes that a branding campaign will generate interest in the client’s
line of products. (The agency firmly believes in mass media tactics. Not even
close to a discussion about engaging people through social media platforms.)
The lines might not be as strongly drawn today. Clients and agency people, I think, might be
more collaborative in some ways. On the other hand, clients are less likely to
engage an agency as a full-service partner. Indeed, sometimes it isn’t a
partnership at all. It’s not about sides anymore. The client-side/agency-side paradigm
becomes more like a customer/vender relationship.
Looking over those type-written pages, it is clear
that the business of advertising is changing quickly in some fundamental ways –
probably for the better.
