AdScammer Nina sent me this fucking hilarious video featuring Hughie, Dewey and Louie telling new employees of Draft/FCB exactly what they can look forward to. The three wankers go on and on about how it is a "new kind of agency." Howard talks about "Return on Ideas." Laurence talks about the fucking "Wheel." Wonder if he means the one he racks his "Friends" on in the fucking gym? Jonathan talks about how analytics leads to better creativity... Maybe he should call them "Rumbleytics." As is usual with their pathetic video creations, the words are out of synch with the three douchenozzles lips, which you can hardly hear, 'cos there's a heavy metal music track pounding away throughout. Probably from Howard's personal collection. Anyway, check it out quick. 'Cos based on previous experience, the minute they find out it's on AdScam, they'll take it down.
Welcome to Draft/FCB... Have a nice day!
They all looked incredibly uncomfortable and unrehearsed. Laurence looked like he was milking a cow there for a while. Did anybody say anything new? The hip jumpy editing distracted me.
Posted by: Auntie Christ | June 29, 2008 at 02:05 PM
It's the spring that unleashes creativity!
Posted by: #1 Fan | June 30, 2008 at 07:17 AM
Spring has sprung (and I wish I was well hung)
These guys look like they are in the noted proctologist "Dr. Stinkfinger's" waiting room. Any change or collectable bottle caps he finds, he splits fifty - fifty. Would YOU spend millions engaging the services of this dynamic crew?
Posted by: Studio Maven | June 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM
And if you don’t see the value of the spring, you’ll get bounced. It all evokes memories of this spring classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGp0hCxSg98
Posted by: Video Critic | June 30, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I didn't understand a goddamn word they said.
Posted by: Donnie | June 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Wella wella wella...."What are they fucking thinking?" Fairfax Cone (circa 6/30/08 @ 11:30AM). Can you say..."I'm a sellout baby"
Jonathan, are you French? The bald fuck in the middle, can you say whatsadickfor? Theres low and then theres lower than low...and now theres the Lithuanean Tanker...DRAFTFCB! Sheet, dey needs a coupla my biaches to gits der pucker'd phinxsters loosie. Ise might jest puts dem on de cover of dis months "Honkie Monthly". So sayith the Rev.
Posted by: The Reverend Al Sharpton | June 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM
VidCrit, you need a little love....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkYBJId7WZs
Rev Al, I smell a Twelve March coming on.
Posted by: Auntie Christ | June 30, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Twelve Man March, sorry...
Posted by: Auntie Christ | June 30, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Rev...
Fucking brilliant, as usual...
Cheers/George
Posted by: George Parker | June 30, 2008 at 08:02 PM
Hey guys, this is a video of 3 guys who are not professional presenters outlining their vision for the agency and its promise to clients.
Are any of the comments on this thread justified when you consider this?
I wish there were more attention placed on Real Advertising Issues such as turning the spotlight on agencies who compusively submit fake ads to awards shows.
Posted by: Kalen | June 30, 2008 at 08:47 PM
Kalen,
If you’re at the level of the individuals in this video, you’d better fucking be professional presenters.
That said, it’s also not a good idea to display the headline, “A New Breed Agency” when you’re best known for an ad featuring fucking lions. Just a thought.
Posted by: Video Critic | June 30, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Video Critic,
I disagree. A CEO does not necessarily need to be a professional presenter.
And professional presenters would truly make this video more fake than anything else that you all have said here.
And the funny thing is that I see a lot of companies doing what they have done in this video without as much criticism. Or recieing as much biased advice.
Commenting on their clothes, acting and what they say without substantiating claims do not reflect well on some of the people here.
Haven't we seen agencies who claim to do great work for their real clients but end up doing pro bono work for non-existent clients or scam work for existing clients who don't know they exist?
Why not go after them? The big boys in this industry?
Why go after a smaller outfit that wants to be different from them?
What's your problem with an agency whose officed worldwide is trying to preach accountability up front and center? Of course they might not succeed but the courage to try it should be commended.
Why trash an agency brand with a global network of offices and hardworking staff when you have an issue with just a few people at the top?
Ultimately, this video is about their vision for their agency and they have a right to articulate what their agency is about.
They have a right to their own opinion and vision.
Isn't this what American is all about?
I have been a fan of this blog for a few months now but I have never been comfortable with unwarranted attacks on certain agencies.
If these agencies screw up, you can criticise them but I fail to see how comments are helpful or objective to people who read them.
"... "Rumble" happening (No, not the Draft/FCB wanky type.)..."
But to screw an agency which simply stated their beliefs and their desire to achieve them, such attacks does not reflect well on those who made them. Or are you condemning them to failure regardless of their efforts to try to do so?
I don't agree with some religions but I don't attack them for what they are out in the open. Is this a wrong attitude to take.
I'll leave with you with what Voltaire said.
"I may not agree with what you say. But I will defend to the death, your right to say it."
This is still America, right? Just checking...
Posted by: Kalen | June 30, 2008 at 09:25 PM
I apologise for the long post and for not proof reading it before I posted it. Sorry.
Posted by: Kalen | June 30, 2008 at 09:27 PM
accountability? Draft? really? ask the people who used to work on Verizon.
and snake-handling is a religion to both avoid and make fun off...
Posted by: the lower depths | June 30, 2008 at 09:37 PM
lower depths, one quick question.
Did you manage to ask the rest of the Draftfcb people working on other accounts in the world whether they understand accountability as well?
Because the last time I checked, no one labels every German a Nazi simply because Hitler is a German.
Can we be a bit more objective here?
After all, isn't Adscam's stated objective of "being a well-intentioned rant" something we take at face value without criticising the author's dressing or writing style? I know I don't...
Sorry for posting so many times today.
I was content to be a lurker and an avid reader here becos posting online takes a lot energy from me becos I do not want to offend people...
Posted by: Kalen | June 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Sorry, I see a typo. The following paragraph should read as follows:
After all, isn't Adscam's stated objective of "being a well-intentioned rant" something we take at face value without criticising the author's dressing or writing style? I know I DO...
Posted by: Kalen | June 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Kalen,
The CEOs for ad agencies had better be professional presenters. And if they’re not, they’d better be smart enough to steer clear of video cameras. These clowns have consistently produced videos of themselves, so they clearly are comfortable with their camera-readiness.
Draftfcb is not a smaller shop. They are among the largest on Earth. They are among the big boys. These videos, however, make them look local.
There is no special courage in accountability. Accountability is the greens fees for advertising agencies today. The issue with Draftfcb is, everyone knows their definition of accountability is a smokescreen. A sham. A lie. This is coming from people who have worked—and continue to work—at Draftfcb.
No one is denying them their rights. We’re merely observing they look stupid exercising their rights. And we’re exercising our rights by speaking out, albeit online via keypads.
Finally, like “accountability,” one could argue there are different perceptions for terms like “well-intentioned rant.” Regular visitors recognize that well-intentioned means the author wishes the liars and criminals would change their ways. That’s pretty well-intentioned in my book.
Posted by: Video Critic | June 30, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Video Critic,
Your claim that CEOs need to be professional presenters need to be substantiated. I have seen many agency CEOs who are not.
Please also note that the video is not just about the CEO but the people involved who has a dream for the agency.
You may not agree with what they say but that does not mean you have carte blanche to criticise them from everything to their clothes and dressing when you may not be the target audience for this video.
I find subjective sweeping claims like this statement of yours hard to accept:
"Draftfcb is, everyone knows their definition of accountability is a smokescreen. A sham. A lie. This is coming from people who have worked—and continue to work—at Draftfcb."
Have you spoken to people from the Draftfcb agencies outside US? Or are you just using a few examples from the US offices to condemn every staff and every Draftfcb office?
Do you know whether the Draftfcb people outside US work hard every day because they will agree with their agency vision and try their best to be accountable to their clients and for their work?
Actually, I know many of these people work their butt off, not just talk their butt off. And many people within this network is genuinely nice hardworking and passionate people. Don't knock them before you get a chance to really know them.
Perhaps that's why Draftfcb do not engage in as much scam work, unpaid work or ghost ads than the true big boys in this industry. I'm not saying they don't scam at all but they don't have a supposed "fake floor" where fake ads are churned to win awards under fake pretenses.
Draftfcb is not as big as what you make it to be. As a worldwide network, it is among the smallest.
And many people at Draftfcb seriously do not see themselves as a big boy. They see themselves as underdogs and see the need to give a bit more to keep clients and win new ones. Hence, they need to stress on accountability as a way of differentiating themselves from the scam-driven big boys in the industry...
But you correctly pointed out one thing.
Draftfcb offices do seek to paint themselves as "LOCAL" to show they understand the needs of the local clients for effective advertising that pays dividends.
And from my knowledge, most offices do their best to live up to this. I'm not saying they have all succeeded but they are trying.
As a regular visitor, I understand the diffrenence between well-intentioned rants and not-so well intentioned rants.
So hopefully let's cling closer to the spirit of this blog, which is much more than just about being petty and mean-spirited.
Otherwise it would not attract a following.
Just my 5 cents worth. Thank you for your replies.
Posted by: Kalen | June 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Kalen,
Have you ever met Howard Draft or Jonathan Harries? I have. I will contend again that as an ECD, Harries had better fucking be a professional presenter. Ditto Howard. Howard is one of the biggest egomaniacal showboaters in the business.
Was the video addressing Draftfcb employees outside of the U.S.? I’m guessing not really. For starters, the video is in English with lousy American music. If the three stooges were addressing an international audience, they insulted the people by completely disregarding potential cultural differences.
I’m not condemning everyone in the company. I’m just saying Huey, Dewey and Louie are con men. As many of us here have repeatedly stated, the ground troops are not being attacked in these comments. I would challenge you to present proof that the three stooges are not con men. I double dare you.
You need to carefully read the individual comments, friend. Don’t paint us all in the way you’re accusing us of doing.
Cheers.
Posted by: Video Critic | July 01, 2008 at 12:01 AM
One more thing, Kalen. Your contention that Draftfcb employees view themselves as underdogs shows you are not familiar with the semi-new organization. The people from the former FCB agency never viewed themselves as underdogs. I will grant you, the former Draft employees likely hold underdog attitudes, as below-the-line direct marketing professionals tend to be viewed as the ugly stepchildren—and the workers ultimately adopt the role.
Posted by: Video Critic | July 01, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Hi Video Critic, thanks for the civil response. It makes it easier for me to reply to you.
I have met one of them from the video. Even then, I hesitate to pass judgement on anyone based solely on this 1.5 min video. It's too arbitrary that way and all of us have our good days and bad days when it comes to presentations.
You may be pitch perfect for all your presentations but I can't say the same for myself. I'm quite sure I'm not alone in saying that...
And I'm not concerned with calling any of them names because I don't see the point. There are bigger con men in bigger shops like a certain big boy with offices in NY and Asia that has made global ripples with their scam culture in the past 3 months. I noticed that their scam scandals were not covered in Adscam...
I really prefer to go after these real scammers instead because the way they do things really hurt this industry and mislead people about the merits of advertising.
But the people in this Draftfcb video are not hurting this industry by preaching the need for more accountability in the creative industry, which is sorely lacking.
By all means, hold them to their speech but there's no point being too personal in the way we comment on their dressing and delivery.
Shouldn't the message be far more important?
Preaching accountability as an agency ideal is not a bad thing and I suspect that I am receptive to such a message even if the speaker is balding, has a beer belly and is streaking down the street naked like Wil Ferrel in "Old School".
So what I'm asking you all is to consider what has been posted on the merits of the points made and whether it comes to an objective and useful discussion here. Nothing more.
On the way Draftfcb employees view themselves, I'm not sure if you are deeply acquainted with the overseas offices. As underdogs, I mean they recognise that they are not as big as many of the big boys overseas and they have to be a lot hungrier to achieve more success.
As for the poor cousin mentality with regards to direct marketing or below the line work, I can only comment that Draftfcb is SUPPOSED to be able to do mainstream advertising, direct marketing and online advertising under one roof.
Many FCB weren't happy with that as they may specialise in 1 or 2 mediums like print or TV. They may not be comfortable with the idea of conceptualising campaigns that also focuses on direct and interactive channels.
After all, how many agencies can boast of creatives that feel comfortable conceptualising across diverse channels? I know Crispin and Goodsby seem to be able to do such work for their big clients. More power to them.
Hopefully other agency people may be able to understand and take advantage of such thinking. I'm really prefer not to comment on ex-FCB people as they are no longer part of the new agency...
Thanks for reading my posts.
Posted by: Kalen | July 01, 2008 at 02:25 AM
o.k. kalen, we get it... you work for Daft. no typo there.
if, as you claim, you look at things objectively, very rare in our line of work although much claim is laid to that... you have to admit that:
A: it is vital, and borne out by most at that level, that the top people must be able to hold substantial ground when presenting. by the very nature of their jobs, they must be well-poised and polished to be able to speak to the heads of mutli-national corporations and sell them the snake oil.
B: the track record of Daft is certainly not one to envy or uphold and expose to the light. many agencies have mediocre tracks records made sweeter by spin. Daft's is one of the most notable because of Wal*MArt and the stream of losses and cutbacks and layoffs.
C: the pompous, overblown statement that Howard Draft will set up the new business model for agencies with this mutation of the same old model, was and still is, pure spin with no appreciable accountability and insulting to everyone else working everywhere else that their efforts are, in fact, worthless because he is smarter than the rest of them. arrogance at it's finest.
D: accountability, to be effective, needs to be applied to all. as Howard was seen as the main culprit in the Wal*Mart fiasco, why has he not stepped up and owned the debacle? or taken credit for the loss of revenue and clients? or any of the numerous things that have gone wrong with his shop that might be directly attributable to him and his directors (hand-picked, i might add)?
many agencies suffer from the same hubris and inability to change based on business model failure. Daft epitomizes, to many people, both workers within and observers without, what a new business dynamic should not be. it's that simple.
Howard keeps opening his mouth and putting his size 13's in. having the village idiot serve as president hasn't worked out well internationally, why would you think it would work at the boardroom level? yes, he's rich. so? is he a good person? does he exhibit care and intelligence in his corporate decisions with the welfare of those that work there foremost in his mind and the responsible growth of his company driving him?
many here and elsewhere don't see it and he's not doing a good job showing us.
Posted by: the lower depths | July 01, 2008 at 04:28 AM
oh yeah, spending time talking about submitting fake work is engaged in here from time to time, as is calling out the scammers in their excess, like Howard's Aston Martin escapades or Laurence's personal gym, but it's the rantings and policies of these frauds that seem to excite most of the readers here because we deal with it on a daily basis and it's good that someone (thank you, george) digs it up and holds it up to the light.
if, as you say, you are an avid reader, you've see that new shops, old shops, even helpless semi-dead shops and the most active hot shops have all fallen under the gaze here. so why the defence of Daft when soooo many others (my own included) have been the subject if rants?
that's why i believe you're in the employ, and whether speaking officially or from the heart, i would ask you to apply that same objectivity you ask of us to yourself.
you are dead right in that no one believes someone is a Nazi just because they're German. it's because they walk, talk and act like a facist that we believe them to be fascists.
Posted by: the lower depths | July 01, 2008 at 04:42 AM
Hmm, well I prefer to be judged on what I say here and I spend a lot of time networking with people from Draftfcb outside US.
But I do not work for Howard Draft.
The use "Daft" is a cheap shot on your part and it does not support your points nor reflect well on you.
I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your post for it has no bearing on the contents of the video, which is the subject of this thread.
So I'll stop here. Thanks for the reply.
Posted by: Kalen | July 01, 2008 at 04:44 AM
everyone else, sorry about the long rants....
LOL
Posted by: the lower depths | July 01, 2008 at 04:45 AM
Not sure how to respond to your second post except that the lack of accountability to clients and the fees they pay may have encouraged the real big boys to go rampant.
As long as such fake creatives make it harder for real work to win in award shows, it pains me to see people ignoring this issue by focusing on people who wants more accountability in the ideas we provide clients.
That's my main point.
Posted by: Kalen | July 01, 2008 at 04:47 AM
sorry, I forgot to type a few words. "Not sure how to respond to your second post except that the lack of accountability to clients and the fees they pay may have encouraged the real big boys to go rampant with their scam ads..."
Posted by: Kalen | July 01, 2008 at 04:48 AM
uh, kalen... weren't you the one that started steering the ship on Daft's accountability (no apologies here) and desire to make a good shop and shouldn't we take note of that, etc.
seemed to be off point but that's what i responded to. maybe you need to go back and read through your rants, long as they are?
to your point about fake creatives and fake ads:
two lions fucking.
Posted by: the lower depths | July 01, 2008 at 05:21 AM
Kalen, either you work for Draft overseas, or you're a vampire living here in the U.S. Nobody else would stay awake all night posting in defense of these guys. And you obviously haven't really been following this blog for long, because you'd see that every agency is fair game and that the poor indenture servant is never the target of the volley.
Accountability is the second coming in advertising, and is the drumbeat that Howard and Laurence PRESENTED to the heads of IPG when the merger was suggested. They must have done a hell of a PRESENTATION for IPG to put the Draft name before FCBs (and it's FCBs heritage that Howard should have been discussing, not the Draft Chicago office). By the way, they have a presentation coach on hand who helps them out with every large presentation, Town Hall meeting etc, so presentation skills are extremely important to this organization. Problem is, these three never partake. My "milking a cow" comment meant you're not supposed to make bizarre gestures with your hands, and that coach would have climbed all over that, IF they used her.
Let's talk accountability .... what do you think that accountability means to them? It means accountability to the bottom line and client dollars spent versus income generated, to be sure. But it also is supposed to mean accountablity to your client's culture and way of doing business -- corporate ethics if you will. Where's the accountability when you lose that account because of the effects of your own hubris and stupidity? "Thanks for the ride in the Aston and your lap Howard after that ridiculously expensive dinner, and thanks for the gifts that you know violate Walmart employee guidelines." Why WASN'T Howard held accountable to IPG and the shareholders for that? Well, the business went to another IPG agency, so the loss was in face only, and he got a free pass on that one.
But don't you think accountability also means some responsibility to your own troops, the people who spend years of their lives working for you to build a career, raise a family and make you and your clients wealthier? Where's that accountability when you fire them by leading them to think that they are packing their belongings because they are simply changing offices? What kind of human beings sit around discussing how best to do a mass firing, and this is the plan they think is most effective?
Yes, it's a business, but it's a business of people and communication. These guys don't know how to effectively communicate. It's either cliche or braggadocio. And they love to hear themselves talk -- why not put someone else in front of the camera once in awhile? They have plenty of experienced high level folks working there. If you really want to talk about the Wheel why not put the "Chief Insight Officer" on camera? That's the person who came up with it, afterall. There are many more high-level Creative Directors on hand, someone has to have a bit more charisma than Harries.
You say posters here should be focusing on bigger issues, like fake ads at Cannes. Don't you think that running TWO ships onto the ground and jettisoning hundreds of employees is a tad bigger issue than whether or not a liquor ad actually ran? It certainly matters to the families of those employees. Kids don't eat Lions or Golden Pencils or Caples plaques for dinner, afterall.
Posted by: Auntie Christ | July 01, 2008 at 06:18 AM
Kalen’s winding, verbose comments ultimately waste Internet time and space. His point is, well, pointless. He wonders why we are criticizing Huey, Dewey and Louie when there are ad scammers more deserving of examination. I say, why can’t we have both? This blog has held plenty of discussions on fake ads. And we’ve held plenty of conversations on con artists creating fake ad agencies under the guise of “a new breed agency.” Kalen, your point is heard and noted. Please refrain from another endless comment repeating your position again and again.
Posted by: Video Critic | July 01, 2008 at 07:34 AM
So are rumours about NY office becoming a pharma shop true? Lots people seem to think they could be.
Posted by: Pharminator | July 01, 2008 at 09:47 AM
Wella,wella, wella....Hey Kalen, is you Howard's lil' bitch? Best not lets Jonathan gits wind of it, cause he fancy his self as "De bitch of biches" for Howard. One mores thing......
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: The Reverend Al Sharpton | July 01, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Fuck ... This is getting really good... I have to do a post on it... First, a couple of drinks. Stand by.
Cheers/George
Posted by: George Parker | July 01, 2008 at 04:17 PM