The equation for perfect advertising

A few months ago Wired ran an article on "the formula that killed Wall Street". It was about an equation (the Gaussian Copula formula) which our financial institutions used to bundle up risk and thereby identify the value of sub-prime mortgages. Self evidently it didn't work, or if you believe the formula's creator David X. Li, the formula was fine but just misused.

In the new(ish) field of behavioural economics there would be some kind of explanation for this. In fact, you could probably write another equation to explain how and why the first one stopped working so spectacularly. Can we then create some sort of formula that would allow us to create the perfect ad?

A friend of mine has small holiday cottage which we sometimes borrow during the summer. Amongst the holiday reading on the bookshelves is an ancient leather bound tome entitled 'How to advertise' from the 1930s. It contains many simple and straightforward formulas for creating adverts that, if followed to the letter, would guarantee success.

Much has of course moved on since then and the word 'formulaic' is often used to describe advertising we find dull and familiar. Rarely is formulaic used positively, especially when applied to the subject of creativity. But whilst there may not be formula, perhaps there is at least a definition of creativity we can agree on. My favourite is "A mental process involving the generation of new ideas, or new association between existing ideas. The result of this (divergent) thinking should be generally both original and appropriate".

It's can't be so hard to build this into a formula can it? In which case formulaic ideas are the best ones, and highly leveraged practitioners can bring the world of communications to its knees by misusing it in the pursuit of unsustainable growth. Sound familiar?

What advertising can learn from investment banking

I've no idea what the difference between ethics and morals is. Theologians I'm sure enjoy many a field day over the church wine but for a humble communications planner such arguments exist on a higher plane than I'm capable of reaching. They are by and large an inconsequential pile of BS too.

In the world of advertising, something vaguely approaching either a moral or ethical dilemma occurs when the best advice for the client diverges from what, on the face of it, is best for the agency. We are in a service industry, and a competitive one too, so like all servants we should serve to the best of our ability right? But also, as managers of our own independent commercial practices, we also need to focus on our own back yard. Often, the two are identical but just occassionally they diverge. More importantly, what then?

It struck me that much like investment banking the answer lies in whether you take a short or long term view. Our City friends nearly brought the world to financial Armageddon through relentless short termism and a similar story is beginning to emrge in the communications sector too.

In a downturn, it's all too easy to be paralysed by fear. Of lost opportunity, of lost growth and most of all of lost clients. So the impartial advice that deep down we all long to give risks being tainted by a heavy dose of realism on the part of considering what outcome suits us best.

In the long term, offering anything other than best advice is self defeating. If we don't give it you can bet your bottom dollar somebody else will. Eventually that will lead to clients questioning just who they want to go forward with. But that's way off in the future. Most of us have to manage in shorter time frames and that's where conflict occurs.

I can't see Alistair Darling imposing any rules and regulations on how we pay ourselves so perhaps the answer lies in how get paid by our clients. Structures that reflect how long things take to happen in the real world rather than the next bonus cycle surely will lead to more and better advice.

In the end, no one wins by giving the duplicitous advice. None more so than the individuals who feel so pressurised into giving it in the first place.