If this were just a book, it would certainly be a swell one. I’ve known that since I read the first edition some time ago. And this 3rd edition is no different. Well, maybe a little different, but I’ll get to that anon. The main thing here is: This is not just a book. What Luke has managed to put together is a honest-to-God, USDA, bona fide, dyed in the wool “sorting hat.”
Seriously. I would argue (and when do I not, pray tell?) that anyone with any inclination whatsoever to pursue a career as an advertising writer or art director need only bury his or her nose in this book for a couple of days and it will become painfully apparent if he or she gets this ad-making stuff at all or ever will. In fact, I’d go so far as to say anyone involved in any aspect of the advertising business, agency or client side, not to mention anyone interested in the art of persuasive communication period would do well to read this book. If for no other reason than to determine which house he or she is leaning toward. (Since this is my column and I’m unabashedly biased, I’m claiming Gryffindor for all those devoted to extraordinary advertising. The rest of the riffraff can sort out for themselves whether they belong in Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff or Slytherin, but my hunch is the latter is going to need to build an addition.)
At any rate, that’s how valuable a book this is. Because it explains on no uncertain terms exactly how one goes about developing extraordinary (or “great” as he calls it) advertising and in so doing, why it would behoove any client or agency to bother. And it does it in a manner so simple even the stupid people who created those GEICO cavemen could understand it. (I know, many people, Luke included, like that stuff, but I don’t.) Really, and I hope he doesn’t take offense at this, for easy-to-follow, step-by-step instruction in the development of advertising, Luke is the Suze Orman of our craft. Now, if he could only write as engagingly and lucidly about how the Democrats should go about selecting a candidate to run for President, he’d have a brilliant future ahead of him in Washington.
Alas, he seems to be happy working down in Texas and periodically updating this bible of the business. And we should be happy he is. The “differences” I referred to earlier between this edition and the original are mostly minor edits and additions all of which serve the cause well. The two new chapters I’m a little less enthusiastic about, but heck, if I didn’t have a cavil or three hundred no one would believe I wrote this. (Or they’d think Luke has photographs of me demonstrating one of the only two Latin words familiar to most people today.)
In the first one, Chapter 6, he makes an impassioned case for the fact that Direct Response TV commercials “don’t have to suck” as he puts it. And he’s not wrong. It just seems like from what I continue see on TV, he and Sancho Panza might be better off finding another windmill to tilt at. But his points are still worth taking. In Chapter 8, the other new one, he makes a huge hullabaloo about something I don’t think is remotely new, that being the area of “integrated” advertising, in other words extending ideas out beyond the traditional media vehicles of print and broadcast Something that I’ve pointed out many times all great agencies, especially the smaller ones have been doing since time immemorial. But Luke seems hellbent on making it seem as if this entire notion was invented by one particular agency of recent vintage. An agency, which based on its track record to date for inventing and sustaining enduring, powerful brands, is still in my opinion all hat, no cattle. Or perhaps since it’s based in southern Florida, I should say all sunglasses and no thong. (But wait a second, how bad would that be?)
That said, the points made in this chapter certainly bear reading. And one statement in particular stands out in my mind–for both its significance and its modesty considering the source–when Lee Clow is quoted as saying Apple’s ubiquitous stores are “the best ads Apple’s ever done.” He is, of course, dead right. As are 99.999% of all the opinions, suggestions and guidance Luke offers in this book. In fact, the only way you could go wrong here is to mistakenly assume that insofar as this book presents itself as a bit of a primer, you probably already know everything in it.
Believe me, you don’t and neither do the rest of us.
I heard a story that, way back when, Nike made Wieden put an 800 number on a women’s print ad, so that people could order the product. The creatives pushed back, but eventually tucked the number away in a corner of the ad, hoping it wouldn’t get noticed. The story goes that the first ad broke and Nike got thousands of calls, not for clothes, but for reprints of the ad.
My point is, I feel like traditional branding and brand interaction were at opposite sides of the gym for a long time. And CPB, though they didn’t re-invent the wheel, brought the two a little closer.
Maybe it’s a petty point, but I think it changed some thinking for the better. I don’t think the agency did it while pooping on the principles of enduring and powerful branding either. Mini was not all hat. Neither was Truth or Method or some of those others. Not for me anyway.
I was an early reader of the gospel according to Luke. I think my version is the first edition.
Everything in it is fine - at least as far as it goes. It tells/shows copywriters and art directors the difference between bad/good work, and it challenges them to either go for the latter with everything they’ve got or else just not waste their time and energy by A.) trying to get a job in the business or B.) hoping they’ll ascend into advertising’s upper-most reaches.
The weakness of Luke’s book, in my opinion, is that it tips almost totally to the execution side of the ledger, perhaps even completely so, leaving readers woefully in the dark about coming up with good strategies, which is where success or failure is basically determined and always has been.
If copywriters and art directors don’t know the strategic side of the equation, they’re put in the position of interpreting someone else’s vision. Which is terrible, because if the vision is wrong and will result in rotten work no matter how well they execute it, all they’ll be doing is spinning their wheels in their cubicles.
All in all, when CWs and ADs run into bad strategies created by those who’ve made it their business to rule the roost strategically (clients, account people, account planners, creative directors), they need to argue persuasively and intelligently, with their argument(s) centered not only around the fatal flaws embedded in the strategy they were given to execute but also around their suggestions for making strategic alterations that’ll result in greater returns.
Arguing will piss everybody off. Ultimately, though, when CWs and ADs have proven their strategic thinking to be right more often than it is wrong, they’ll be given carte blanche to do what they think is right. Given raises and promotions, too.