Catharine Taylor kicks ASS!!!

Catharine Taylor of Adverganza has a brilliant post today about the shit that hit the fan at AdWeek last week. I posted about it in my usual foul mouthed manner, but Catharine really puts the fucking boot in, based on her time with the publication and the frustration she feels with the way it's been fucked up in the last few years. Read all the details on her post, I will merely add a couple of extra points based on my own experience. For ten years, I wrote a monthly column for an AdWeek publication that was originally called "Marketing Computers." This then transmogrified (what a great word!) into "Technology Marketing." This was then folded into "BrandWeek." My spies on the New York agency scene tell me this is about to fold into whatever the fuck they have left. I would assume the entire enterprise (if you can call it that) will eventually become digital and will continue to bleed money until Nielson takes it behind the woodshed and shoots the poor fucker in the head. Loved the Catharine bit about the BBDO wankers quote. Does this mean the Star Fucking Agency of the 20th Century will no longer have anyone to shill their neolithic work? Funny, when I first got into the business everyone in New York couldn't wait for the next issue of AdWeek. Adage was a parochial joke out of Chicago. Now, thanks to about to depart Scott Donaton, Jonah Bloom and Ken Wheaton, AdAge is the best Ad Mag on the fucking planet. Great content with real attitude. My money says AdWeek will no longer exist in two years. Digital, virtual or fucking ethereal!

.

Catharine certainly does!

Comments

[jen_chan, writer SureFireWealth.com]

Wow... I'm a little speechless. Actually, I just came back from Catharine Taylor's blog and read her own version of the whole Ad Week issue. She sure doesn't hesitate. This world could use more people like her (And interestingly enough, she also pointed me to another person whom she thought was much more vicious and direct). And your own post wasn't so weak either. I especially love the last bit, "My money says AdWeek will no longer exist in two years. Digital, virtual or fucking ethereal!"

Way to make a point.

[popgoestheweasel]

So from now on will it be caled "Ad,10.13 days"?

[popgoestheweasel]

So from now on will it be called "Ad,10.13 days"?

[kypar]

I can understand why Donaton, et al, is leaving Adage but you think Adage will hold up given their departures???

[Mick]

No one's addressing the fact that the on-line edition of Adweek sucks exponentially more than the print edition. Poorly reported, poorly written, with stories corrected and updated about every half hour because their minimum-wage, lazy reporters rely solely on "unnamed sources" ( a.k.a. dime droppers from BBDO), to hand deliver the news to them. The half decent reporters from Adweek are long, long gone. The ones that remain simply suck so bad, they cannot find work anywhere else. I like the suggestion that Lippert go to Adage -- that hack Garfield has long overstayed his welcome.

[the lower depths]

sort of like reading about what shoe cream Col. Klink prefers while the rest of the world is involved in the war, no?

[Mick]

Exactly. Just click on the "regional news" section and read about two-bit agencies winning two-bit accounts just because some two-bit reporter owes some dime-dropper a favor. Hideous.

[LAM]

Actually, Lippert and Garfield could nicely exist together at Ad Age - maybe even do a good "point/counterpoint" type of thing - Regardless of what you think of his specific opinion on an issue, Garfield does turn a phrase well as does Lippert resulting in that they both produce "interesting reads." Would hate to see Lippert lose out - she's very smart and a damn fine writer, too. As is Cathy Taylor...one of the best "phrase turners" in the business and a real loss to Adweek..They also lost people like Kathy Sampey who was a highly professional reporter and an asset to Adweek during her time there....

[LAM]

BTW: Cathy Taylor created and oversaw the successful Adweek blog, "Adfreak" - and the "Adfreak" name came from another since-departed reporter, Kathy Sampey....

[Tom Messner]

All I know is what I know and what I know is that over the years Ad Age grossly misreported facts about the agency I worked at, editorialized against that agency on one occasion and published toadying letters following the fatuous opinion piece, and extended such amateurish behavior to its sister publication, Crains, which studiously left the agency off a list of the top 25 billing ad agencies in New York at a time when it was 12th, thereby calling in to question its (the agency's) credibility at the time of a large new business presentation.
At the same time, Adweek never blew a report about the agency positive or negative, did a couple of profiles of the founders that were accurate and not adoring (one by Cathy Taylor, in fact, that almost made of the partners seem charming, another by Debbie Seaman that portrayed a startup agency peddling its wares), and later gave ample space to one of the partners to fulminate at will about everything from Deadwood and censorship to the evil growth of sans-serif reverse type.
At the moment, Ad Age's redeeming feature seems to be Garfield's column (one of the most underreported and therefore underrated books was Garfield's "And Now A Word From Me").
There is a difference between the advertising trade press and the trade press from other industries, a difference first identified by a reclusive ad man who has just found a client he totally respects, himself, as he does DR advertising for products of his own devising now. At any rate he said,
"The advertising trade press seems to be dedicated to the destruction of the trade."

[HighJive]

Perhaps we can also draw parallels between Adweek and the typical BDA. A big conglomerate comes in and buys the place, then proceeds to execute financially-based decisions that ultimately hurts the final product.

It wasn’t too long ago that Adweek rivaled—and in many areas surpassed—Ad Age. Definitely give credit to Ad Age for its forward thinking and progressive actions. But as even Taylor admits, Adweek is suffering for reasons that go far beyond the individual abilities of its past and present writers and editors. It’s likely many of them feel like the typical agency denizen, seemingly powerless to affect necessary change.

George pointed out the death spiral of Marketing Computers. Last year, Adweek parent company VNU pulled a similar deal with Marketing y Medios, the Hispanic Marketing publication. Looks like Adweek is next in line. Line of fire, that is.

[HighJive]

Just saw Tom Messner’s comments and felt obligated to add a few cents. Lost in the Adweek hating is the reality that it was a decent publication, with lots of redeeming qualities. Always viewed it as a Coke versus Pepsi scenario: Ad Age was Coke, the conservative leader (and even a dinosaur), while Adweek was the hip and edgy Pepsi. Like the actual Cola Wars, it seems that the leader ultimately regained its swagger.

On Messner’s charges that Ad Age fumbles the facts, he’s right. They just messed up a story involving GM’s consolidation of multicultural marketing partners that required a retraction (and of course, our own blog jumped all over the original story, which turned out to be wrong). In this digital age of immediate access, the news outlets like Ad Age are often moving forward without all the facts, leading to problems. Seems like we’ll all have to live with it, as we’re in an evolving society where technology (or the ability to do things) trumps content (or the ability to do thing right).

Not sure the advertising press’ dedication to the destruction of the trade is completely unique to our industry. TMZ is certainly trashing the entertainment industry, and making lots of money doing it. Also at the heart of it all is the fact that there’s so much to criticize about our industry. Sadly, it seems like there’s little positive news, as agencies and the work become increasingly parity/similar. The existence of George’s blog seems to confirm these contentions. Plus, the continued industry upheavals and downsizing is creating an angry mob of displaced/disgruntled adfolks. The water cooler griping is now online for the world to read. Again, George’s blog is evidence of the phenomenon.

Finally, completely disagree that Garfield is the only redeeming feature at Ad Age. The ad critic in a weekly publication seems outdated, given the immediacy of the Internet. Plus, Garfield’s notions are pretty old school—although that’s probably what makes him perfect (or at least relevant) to Ad Age’s core audience. But that’s just one blogger’s opinion.

[LAM]

Totally agree on the fact that Adweek has been FAR MORE accurate over the years in their reporting of the industry than Ad Age. In fact, I totally agree that Ad Age has been frequently rather cavalier with the facts where Adweek has been dead on with the facts.

[KJ]

As a former adweeker, I must say that this conversation is missing the point. Any discussion of Adweek's problems should begin and end with the leadership - and I'm not talking about Nielsen.

No self-respecting reporter--or person, for that matter--would put up with the kind of abuse meted out there on a daily basis. Plenty of magazines are owned by cost-conscious pencil pushers and still manage to put out good work. The problem at Adweek is that reporters are treated sorta like cattle, but dumber. For reporters to do a good job, they need to feel empowered and smart; Jonah does a great job of that at Adage. Meanwhile, the folks at Adweek are interrogated and belittled all day. What decent reporter would put up with that? This is why they can't hold on to good people, and the ones who do stay learn to produce boring, unadventurous copy so they don't get their asses handed to them for getting something wrong.

So yes, Adweek does an excellent job of getting the facts straight, and that's no small feat. But reading it is about as much fun as reading the nutritional contents on a packet of ketchup. Age may be kinda fluffy, but it's fun. And last I checked, nobody got into advertising to be bored to death.

[D.S. Gruntle]

As a former Adweek staffer, I can't agree with the previous poster enough. Adweek's leadership has fostered abuse upon abuse on (what's left of) the staff, until everyone there is thoroughly demoralized, bitter and despondent.

I do, however, take issue with previous poster's comments that the reporters there are lazy. Having worked there, I can honestly say that there is not a harder working bunch of reporters on the planet. The reason the reporters have to rely on "spoon-fed" tips is because the staff has been decimated by years of departures without any replacements. (And who in their right mind would take a job there anyway? The word is out. No one wants it.) The workload has simply gotten to be too much for the few people that are left to handle. They are not lazy, they're overworked, underpaid and abused beyond belief. A decent story can't get written because no one has the time, or any remaining self-respect, to pitch one.

As for regional coverage, the reason you're reading about "two-bit" agencies and "two-bit" accounts isn't because some reporter owes a dime-dropper. It's because the publication is only paying lip-service to what was once its bread-and-butter: regional coverage. Regional coverage is an afterthought at best. The stories on the regional section are not payback for decent tips (those stories would be much better, believe me. I've written them), they're warmed over press releases.

And Ad Age, while better, isn't a huge improvement. That publication has lost its share of talented, expert reporters over the past year. And they've gone for a tabloid approach that's cheeky, but disenfranchising as well. (Since when does a client "hand" an account to an agency after a legitimate, competitive pitch?) A better read, but not much so.

And Lippert far surpasses Garfield by any measure.

[Mick]

If those Adweek staffers you're defending had an ounce of self-respect or two ounces of actual talent, they would have quit long ago. Some of them have been pounding out the same drivel for well over 10 years. But they suck so bad, they can't find a job anywhere else. You cannot compare Adweek to Adage. Adweek has been on its last legs for about five years, and getting worse on a daily basis, while Adage is getting better. And if you worked at Adweek, you know how they get their information -- by sitting by the phone all day waiting for dime droppers to call from agencies like BBDO, then quoting them as "unnamed sources" as they disparage the competition. That's lazy reporting, plain and simple.

[bg]

When I need relevant takes on marketing/ad campaigns or the business in general now, I’ll trust blogs/comments by people in the trenches or creatives who are doing/have done the work, won the awards, etc.

[bg]

When I need relevant takes on marketing/ad campaigns or the business in general now, I’ll trust blogs/comments by people in the trenches or creatives who are doing/have done the work, won the awards, etc.

[Mick]

If those Adweek staffers you're defending had an ounce of self-respect or two ounces of actual talent, they would have quit long ago. Some of them have been pounding out the same drivel for well over 10 years. But they suck so bad, they can't find a job anywhere else. You cannot compare Adweek to Adage. Adweek has been on its last legs for about five years, and getting worse on a daily basis, while Adage is getting better. And if you worked at Adweek, you know how they get their information -- by sitting by the phone all day waiting for dime droppers to call from agencies like BBDO, then quoting them as "unnamed sources" as they disparage the competition. That's lazy reporting, plain and simple.

[LAM]

Ah, can we have a dose of reality here: "Those Adweek reporters" are amply qualified and on the whole, very good at their craft. Mick, what you might not be focusing on is the fact that business trade publications tend to pay more than the more "prestigious" magazines and newspapers and most people work to make a living and support their families so the $$ factor has to be a consideration. Also, the state of the periodical publishing buiness pretty much mirrors the state of our own business. In other words, most publications are running very lean and many reporters have been losing their jobs over the past several years. Couple that with the fact that there are some rather colorful people in our industry so at least if a reporter works at a trade in order to make a living wage, one would assume the good reporters would prefer to (and are selected to) cover one of the more interesting industry beats. Also, why not stay where you've developed sources and you have some kind of seniority, pension, accumulated vacation, etc. Nothing like being the "last hired/first fired" which goes on all the time in the periodical publishing business. It's not easy nor necessarily wise to "just pick up and change jobs" today nor has it been over the past several years. Adweek has always had and continues to have many talented, ethical, well-educated reporters who don't deserve such harsh criticism.