In recent years, people increasingly ask me what the most important habit or attribute is for success in the business world. I have given it a great deal of thought and have dismissed the platitudes such as hard work, doing something you love, and following the golden rule. All of these are vital and necessary. To me, however, there is something else. It is what I call Rule #1.
What is it? It is simply this—If you say that you are going to do something, do it. No exceptions. Early on in my life and career, I would not always follow through sometimes and would try and rationalize a missed deadline or a minor promise broken by saying that I was ungodly busy or too tired. It did not hurt me much but I hated it. So, about 30 years ago, I shifted gears forever. If I made someone a promise, I kept it. Sometimes it meant working until 9 pm or coming in for several hours on a Sunday, even though I knew a long nap would have done me a world of good.
Today, I am cautious about what I promise but, when I do, you can make book on it. Several years ago, I was talking with a client about the magazine world. He was waxing poetic over the quality of writing in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED. I agreed and told him that in the publication’s early days, they hired Ernest Hemingway to write a series on bullfighting. He was intrigued and I told him the Hemingway pieces were in a book that featured his work and that of other memorable articles from the magazine. I then said I would mail him a copy of the book.
The next day, I hurried to the post office at lunch and shipped the book to the client. As I returned to the office, I ran in to the account executive who attended the client meeting with me. I told her that the SPORTS ILLUSTRATED collection was winging its way to the client. She said, “You actually sent it? I thought you were just making conversation.” I must have been visibly annoyed as she said, “Did I say something wrong?” “Yes, you did” was my icy reply.
Interestingly, it continues to surprise me how people are surprised when you follow through on commitments, large or small. Over time, you begin to be viewed as a serious person. You are dependable which is a very soothing attribute in today’s world.
So, when young people ask me my #1 Rule, my answer is always the same. If you say that you will do something, do it!
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Nomadland
Very recently, I read NOMADLAND, Surviving America in the Twenty-First Century by Jessica Bruder (W.W. Norton and Company, 2017). It tells the story of increasingly large groups of people who have left or abandoned their homes and taken to living in their cars or RV’s. They are often getting on in years, are financially challenged and tend to move several times per year.
Now, these people are not whom you might think of at first blush. They are not the many thousands of people in their 60’s who buy Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) that they have paid six figures for and they take off across the continent to see North America close-up. Those folks often pay $100+ per night for a campsite, and in some rural areas, would save money staying at a hotel. The new Nomads have come to a difficult, painful and sad decision—the cost of maintaining a permanent residence is so onerous that they find that their only option is to find a used RV, refurbish it a bit and hit the road to look for seasonal work and a place where they can park or hide their vehicle for free.
The Nomads may serve as guides in the summer at national parks with the added perquisite of being able to park their RV within the facility safely and free of charge. Others gathered sugar beets in North Dakota which is physically exhausting work that pays a little above minimum wage. Finally, despite other jobs mentioned, a big employer is Amazon distribution centers where the Nomads, usually senior citizens work seasonally at an exhausting pace.
Rural areas are a magnet for these struggling seniors as they are far from highly concentrated population centers. Desert areas in Arizona, Texas and a few other locations are popular choices for these passing strangers. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, gather at Quartzsite, Arizona each winter and are welcomed by the locals. Needles, California also sees a lot of these individuals as well. Given their age and their “camping” far from cities and towns, the police tend not to hassle the Nomads. If they stay too long at a location, the police simply tend to “suggest” that they move on out of their jurisdiction.
Ms. Bruder is a very engaging writer and she spent parts of three years studying and, at times, living with the Nomads. The story is heart wrenching at times and beautifully written. There is the occasional gaping hole in the plot. Most of these people are not destitute. They collect transfer payments such as Social Security in many cases and, many work from time to time as mentioned. I listened with great interest when Ms. Bruder was interviewed on National Public Radio (NPR). When asked how many people were living this lifestyle, she replied thousand and thousands. Okay, but how many thousand? With some 327 million people living in America today, is this really a groundswell or a tiny group who are dealing with hard times in a unique way relevant to 2018? Many have Wi-Fi, write blogs and stay in touch with a wide range of acquaintances.
To me, this is simply a sign of the times. Unemployment is low and markets are stuttering a bit but remain at all time highs. Yet, as mentioned before in this space, nearly half of Americans have been left totally behind in the current strong economy. This small subset who may have worked and worked hard for 40+ years is reduced to living in aging vehicles and struggling to survive. Let us hope when the next inevitable downturn comes their numbers do not swell.
I recommend that you read NOMADLAND. Candidly, I wonder if these people truly exhausted all options before hitting the road. Some may be estranged from family members and others may want a last bit of true freedom. One last point. Ms. Bruder mentioned that at one time she returned home to Brooklyn and saw a few vehicles parked in an industrial area one night. She wondered if they were NOMADS. Last week, I drove by a Wal*Mart and saw two RVs parked in a corner of the lot. An elderly man stepped out of the vehicle looking down on his luck. Two days later, I drove by and they were both gone. Coincidence?
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Now, these people are not whom you might think of at first blush. They are not the many thousands of people in their 60’s who buy Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) that they have paid six figures for and they take off across the continent to see North America close-up. Those folks often pay $100+ per night for a campsite, and in some rural areas, would save money staying at a hotel. The new Nomads have come to a difficult, painful and sad decision—the cost of maintaining a permanent residence is so onerous that they find that their only option is to find a used RV, refurbish it a bit and hit the road to look for seasonal work and a place where they can park or hide their vehicle for free.
The Nomads may serve as guides in the summer at national parks with the added perquisite of being able to park their RV within the facility safely and free of charge. Others gathered sugar beets in North Dakota which is physically exhausting work that pays a little above minimum wage. Finally, despite other jobs mentioned, a big employer is Amazon distribution centers where the Nomads, usually senior citizens work seasonally at an exhausting pace.
Rural areas are a magnet for these struggling seniors as they are far from highly concentrated population centers. Desert areas in Arizona, Texas and a few other locations are popular choices for these passing strangers. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, gather at Quartzsite, Arizona each winter and are welcomed by the locals. Needles, California also sees a lot of these individuals as well. Given their age and their “camping” far from cities and towns, the police tend not to hassle the Nomads. If they stay too long at a location, the police simply tend to “suggest” that they move on out of their jurisdiction.
Ms. Bruder is a very engaging writer and she spent parts of three years studying and, at times, living with the Nomads. The story is heart wrenching at times and beautifully written. There is the occasional gaping hole in the plot. Most of these people are not destitute. They collect transfer payments such as Social Security in many cases and, many work from time to time as mentioned. I listened with great interest when Ms. Bruder was interviewed on National Public Radio (NPR). When asked how many people were living this lifestyle, she replied thousand and thousands. Okay, but how many thousand? With some 327 million people living in America today, is this really a groundswell or a tiny group who are dealing with hard times in a unique way relevant to 2018? Many have Wi-Fi, write blogs and stay in touch with a wide range of acquaintances.
To me, this is simply a sign of the times. Unemployment is low and markets are stuttering a bit but remain at all time highs. Yet, as mentioned before in this space, nearly half of Americans have been left totally behind in the current strong economy. This small subset who may have worked and worked hard for 40+ years is reduced to living in aging vehicles and struggling to survive. Let us hope when the next inevitable downturn comes their numbers do not swell.
I recommend that you read NOMADLAND. Candidly, I wonder if these people truly exhausted all options before hitting the road. Some may be estranged from family members and others may want a last bit of true freedom. One last point. Ms. Bruder mentioned that at one time she returned home to Brooklyn and saw a few vehicles parked in an industrial area one night. She wondered if they were NOMADS. Last week, I drove by a Wal*Mart and saw two RVs parked in a corner of the lot. An elderly man stepped out of the vehicle looking down on his luck. Two days later, I drove by and they were both gone. Coincidence?
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Income Inequality
A few weeks ago I put up a post entitled “Is It Really Social (In)Security? It, to my great surprise, generated more mail than any of the other 400 posts that I have published since starting Media Realism. Some called me a socialist and others an alarmist. I do not believe that I am either. Several, however, asked me to double back on the theme hinted at in the post and address the issue of Income Inequality in the United States.
I must confess to being a bit hesitant to write about this topic. It is very hard to thread the needle and not veer off into partisan politics or give social engineering suggestions when one covers such a hot button topic. I will do my best to limit the discussion to demographics and some financial data but at times will editorialize a bit.
Emanuel Saez, an economist at University of California, Berkeley monitors income and wealth disparity perhaps better than any academic in America. A couple of years back he calculated that income inequality was at a level not seen since 1928. Back then, the top 1% garnered 23.9% of the income and the bottom 90% some 50.7%. With the stock market run-up in the last few years, the number for the top 1% has to be higher than that now. How come? Easy. Only about half of all Americans have any stake in the equity markets. So, with every all time high we hit in the Dow or S&P 500, those on top by default have to be garnering a larger share of US wealth.
Internal Revenue Service data is not current as it takes a while to gather it all, paints the picture for 2015:
AGI* % of Returns % of all Taxes Paid Average Effective
Tax Rate**
$2 million + 0.1 20.4% 27.5%
$500k-2 million .8 17.9 26.8
$200-500k 3.6 20.6 19.4
$100-200k 12.3 21.7 12.7
$50-100k. 21.8. 14.1 9.2
$30-50k. 17.6 4.0 7.2
Under $30k 43.8. 1.4 4.9
* Adjusted Gross Income. It is Taxable Income after deductions
**Pew Research Center projections based on Internal Revenue Service Data
I would bet that you have probably never seen anything quite like the above table. The first question might be if the top tax bracket were 39% in 2015, how come those making over $2 million only averaged 27.5% as an effective tax rate? Well, much of their income in a given year can be from capital gains (sale of long term stocks or real estate) and a handful benefited from carried interest which treats short term gains as long term. The rich can and do hire clever lawyers and accountants to arrange their affairs in a way to minimize tax exposure. There is nothing illegal about it; they simply have the means to do it.
I have avoided all terms such as upper class and upper middle class on purpose. Someone living in Youngstown, Ohio or rural Arkansas with an income of $100-200k would be doing great and a family in Manhattan, San Francisco, or the DC suburbs would be middle class at best with twice that income. So where you live is a great driver of lifestyle and purchasing power.
Make no mistake. If you have a free society, there will ALWAYS be some level of income inequality. Some people are smarter, work harder or simply are luckier than others. Others were in the right place at the right time and benefited from their industry taking off like a rocket. So, the Marxian dreams of a truly egalitarian society are just that—a dream.
Yet, today, things seem to be getting increasingly polarized. As noted in the Social Security post, the Federal Reserve reports that some 40+% of Americans do not have the liquidity to cover a $400 repair bill or an emergency room visit. Telling someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and sometimes payday loan to payday loan to maximize their 401k contribution is an absurd fiction. Horatio Alger’s young heroes may have pulled themselves up with energy and ingenuity in early 20th century America but they did not have to cope with the 21st century millstone—student loan debt. Also, artificial intelligence, robotics and advanced software will cut the need for labor substantially over the next few decades. The top 10% will benefit as they own the means of production. Job training can help alleviate some of the problems but will you truly need as many workers as we have today?
Solutions? Soak the rich, some say. Well, a re-writing of the tax code to require those making over $2 million annually to pay 35%+ regardless of loopholes would make people feel good but you can see in the table above that there are not all that many of them. So, making a dent in the budget deficit simply would not happen. Expand transfer payments and entitlements? Would help smooth things out a bit but our deficits are huge already. Tax people earning more than $100k somewhat more? That would help but might not be politically viable as virtually all of those citizens vote.
Over the long haul, I have some concerns about the inequality trend. Will it cause social instability if it continues to accelerate? Separately, what about personal responsibility? When does a person have to take full responsibility for where they are in life? 21, 35, never?
Things seem to be eroding. Since 1790,when rough data was first gathered here in the USA, each succeeding generation made more money than their parents. Now, Deutsche Bank projects that only 50% of children will earn more that their parents. Amazingly, it is also true of low income people. The American Dream seems to be evaporating.
The late comedian, satirist and social critic George Carlin put it this way—“The reason they call it The American Dream is that you have to be asleep to believe it.”
I will have more about this topic and related issues in future posts.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
I must confess to being a bit hesitant to write about this topic. It is very hard to thread the needle and not veer off into partisan politics or give social engineering suggestions when one covers such a hot button topic. I will do my best to limit the discussion to demographics and some financial data but at times will editorialize a bit.
Emanuel Saez, an economist at University of California, Berkeley monitors income and wealth disparity perhaps better than any academic in America. A couple of years back he calculated that income inequality was at a level not seen since 1928. Back then, the top 1% garnered 23.9% of the income and the bottom 90% some 50.7%. With the stock market run-up in the last few years, the number for the top 1% has to be higher than that now. How come? Easy. Only about half of all Americans have any stake in the equity markets. So, with every all time high we hit in the Dow or S&P 500, those on top by default have to be garnering a larger share of US wealth.
Internal Revenue Service data is not current as it takes a while to gather it all, paints the picture for 2015:
AGI* % of Returns % of all Taxes Paid Average Effective
Tax Rate**
$2 million + 0.1 20.4% 27.5%
$500k-2 million .8 17.9 26.8
$200-500k 3.6 20.6 19.4
$100-200k 12.3 21.7 12.7
$50-100k. 21.8. 14.1 9.2
$30-50k. 17.6 4.0 7.2
Under $30k 43.8. 1.4 4.9
* Adjusted Gross Income. It is Taxable Income after deductions
**Pew Research Center projections based on Internal Revenue Service Data
I would bet that you have probably never seen anything quite like the above table. The first question might be if the top tax bracket were 39% in 2015, how come those making over $2 million only averaged 27.5% as an effective tax rate? Well, much of their income in a given year can be from capital gains (sale of long term stocks or real estate) and a handful benefited from carried interest which treats short term gains as long term. The rich can and do hire clever lawyers and accountants to arrange their affairs in a way to minimize tax exposure. There is nothing illegal about it; they simply have the means to do it.
I have avoided all terms such as upper class and upper middle class on purpose. Someone living in Youngstown, Ohio or rural Arkansas with an income of $100-200k would be doing great and a family in Manhattan, San Francisco, or the DC suburbs would be middle class at best with twice that income. So where you live is a great driver of lifestyle and purchasing power.
Make no mistake. If you have a free society, there will ALWAYS be some level of income inequality. Some people are smarter, work harder or simply are luckier than others. Others were in the right place at the right time and benefited from their industry taking off like a rocket. So, the Marxian dreams of a truly egalitarian society are just that—a dream.
Yet, today, things seem to be getting increasingly polarized. As noted in the Social Security post, the Federal Reserve reports that some 40+% of Americans do not have the liquidity to cover a $400 repair bill or an emergency room visit. Telling someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and sometimes payday loan to payday loan to maximize their 401k contribution is an absurd fiction. Horatio Alger’s young heroes may have pulled themselves up with energy and ingenuity in early 20th century America but they did not have to cope with the 21st century millstone—student loan debt. Also, artificial intelligence, robotics and advanced software will cut the need for labor substantially over the next few decades. The top 10% will benefit as they own the means of production. Job training can help alleviate some of the problems but will you truly need as many workers as we have today?
Solutions? Soak the rich, some say. Well, a re-writing of the tax code to require those making over $2 million annually to pay 35%+ regardless of loopholes would make people feel good but you can see in the table above that there are not all that many of them. So, making a dent in the budget deficit simply would not happen. Expand transfer payments and entitlements? Would help smooth things out a bit but our deficits are huge already. Tax people earning more than $100k somewhat more? That would help but might not be politically viable as virtually all of those citizens vote.
Over the long haul, I have some concerns about the inequality trend. Will it cause social instability if it continues to accelerate? Separately, what about personal responsibility? When does a person have to take full responsibility for where they are in life? 21, 35, never?
Things seem to be eroding. Since 1790,when rough data was first gathered here in the USA, each succeeding generation made more money than their parents. Now, Deutsche Bank projects that only 50% of children will earn more that their parents. Amazingly, it is also true of low income people. The American Dream seems to be evaporating.
The late comedian, satirist and social critic George Carlin put it this way—“The reason they call it The American Dream is that you have to be asleep to believe it.”
I will have more about this topic and related issues in future posts.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Is It Really Social (In) Security?
In my endless updating of demographic data, I stumbled across some social security figures this past week.
According to government data, the average recipient receives $1,404 per month. Okay, what is the big deal? Well, other data they published, admittedly a few years old, really got my attention. Consider the following:
—Some 19.7% of recipients obtain 100% of their annual income from Social Security (S.S.)
—33.4% derive 90%+ of their income from S.S.
—61.1% receive 50%+ of their income from S.S.
I knew that Social Security was a lifeline for many seniors but I found these numbers pretty jarring.
At the same time, most of you have heard or read that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has projected that Social Security will go in to serious deficit mode in 2034. No, the Cassandras are wrong when they say the system will be totally broke. What they do say, however, is that benefits will have to be cut 24-25% unless significant changes are made in the funding meaning some combination of higher eligibility age, means testing for the affluent, or higher Social Security taxes for those with generous incomes.
Sadly, we have known about this for years but politicians do nothing. Certainly, they will act at some point but the measures may have to be really draconian if they wait until the deficit is right on top of us.
Amazingly, some people say do nothing. I read an article a few years ago by a mean spirited columnist who suggested that if we did nothing people would learn to save on their own. At the time I dismissed it as the work of a crackpot, but on a plane in August, I fell in to conversation with a fellow who said the same thing. When I asked about the pain that it would cause millions, he shrugged and said, “that is their problem.” I countered that not many 85 year olds can find steady work, but he would not budge. So, I gently (I thought) brought up the much quoted stats that over 40% of Americans cannot afford a $400 car repair bill or an emergency room visit.* So, how can millions fund a comfortable retirement when they lead a hand to mouth existence now? He got red in the face and called me a “pathetic bleeding heart liberal.” That was a first for me! :)
I would project that 90% of you reading this are in great shape for retirement. Yet if something is not done, the three stunning statistics at the top of this page will get even worse. And, video services will thrive as millions more than today will not be able to afford any other entertainment but “TV” in their retirement years.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
*Source--Federal Reserve Board--Economic Well Being of U.S. Households, 2018
According to government data, the average recipient receives $1,404 per month. Okay, what is the big deal? Well, other data they published, admittedly a few years old, really got my attention. Consider the following:
—Some 19.7% of recipients obtain 100% of their annual income from Social Security (S.S.)
—33.4% derive 90%+ of their income from S.S.
—61.1% receive 50%+ of their income from S.S.
I knew that Social Security was a lifeline for many seniors but I found these numbers pretty jarring.
At the same time, most of you have heard or read that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has projected that Social Security will go in to serious deficit mode in 2034. No, the Cassandras are wrong when they say the system will be totally broke. What they do say, however, is that benefits will have to be cut 24-25% unless significant changes are made in the funding meaning some combination of higher eligibility age, means testing for the affluent, or higher Social Security taxes for those with generous incomes.
Sadly, we have known about this for years but politicians do nothing. Certainly, they will act at some point but the measures may have to be really draconian if they wait until the deficit is right on top of us.
Amazingly, some people say do nothing. I read an article a few years ago by a mean spirited columnist who suggested that if we did nothing people would learn to save on their own. At the time I dismissed it as the work of a crackpot, but on a plane in August, I fell in to conversation with a fellow who said the same thing. When I asked about the pain that it would cause millions, he shrugged and said, “that is their problem.” I countered that not many 85 year olds can find steady work, but he would not budge. So, I gently (I thought) brought up the much quoted stats that over 40% of Americans cannot afford a $400 car repair bill or an emergency room visit.* So, how can millions fund a comfortable retirement when they lead a hand to mouth existence now? He got red in the face and called me a “pathetic bleeding heart liberal.” That was a first for me! :)
I would project that 90% of you reading this are in great shape for retirement. Yet if something is not done, the three stunning statistics at the top of this page will get even worse. And, video services will thrive as millions more than today will not be able to afford any other entertainment but “TV” in their retirement years.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
*Source--Federal Reserve Board--Economic Well Being of U.S. Households, 2018
Saturday, September 22, 2018
The Rise of In House Advertising Agencies
On August 27th, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “In house agencies on rise as advertisers seek services closer to home”. I found it interesting and mildly surprising. Three MR readers coincidentally e-mailed me the link and asked that I cover the topic. Hence this post.
Over the years, In house advertising agencies did not have the greatest reputations. Generally, they were formed as a means for the parent company (the advertiser) to save money. Agency people were often their worst enemy. Clients came to believe that agency staffers were arrogant and charged too much for their services. They also flaunted their high incomes. Many is the time that I arrived with a creative or management rep at a client meeting in one of their Mercedes or Jaquars. The client would sometimes say something to me afterwards. They felt that the agency team was rubbing their affluence in their faces. Agency people also often talked of their fabulous vacations to marketing people client side who were struggling financially. It did not play well and, years later, when I ran in to former clients, it has often been a topic of conversation. So, many felt that a move inside would save a boatload of money and the work would be almost as good.
On the negative side, there was a stigma for many regarding working at an in house shop. The conventional wisdom was that there was little turnover and a true ad pro would want the fast pace of traditional agency life and enjoy pursing new business plus working on a variety of type of businesses. Many of my peers said in house was great for collateral material or grinding out coupons or Free Standing Inserts but fresh thinking had to come from the sharpies at ad agencies. If you worked on only one piece of business or category, you would get stale.
Things appear to be changing and in more ways that the splendid Wall Street Journal piece discussed.
I hunted up some people who I knew casually who worked at in house shops. A few former colleagues put me on to some others. Here are some comments from people currently working in house:
—“We went in house several years ago. It was a good decision. We move quickly (no waiting for our big shop to get a work starter wending its way through the creative department), save money, and our people know the brand. Our company is the brand. Amazingly, some agencies do not get this.”
—“Friends made fun of me when I went to a large in house shop. Well, the staff is professional and the hours are great. Sure, I work late every now and then but I only went in on two weekends last year. No new business to pitch so we focus on our assignments and are really good at time management.”
—“I am a single Mom and the benefits at my huge company dwarf that of any agency that I worked at. The health care package and 401k is so much better than my agency experience. Also, twice I was let go when my shop lost a big account. I was told that I did nothing wrong but they had to cut expenses. I do not have to worry here about what you often refer to as ‘the leaky barrel’ of agency/client relationships. It is not totally secure but better than I have ever known.”
—“The stigma of working in house is lifting. I like the better hours and benefits plus the salary is comparable to ad agency levels. We are nimble here and there are far fewer levels of review. Also, we do not suffer under an egotistical creative chief who hates ideas that were not his.”
—“Ad agencies do not get it. As a total percentage of marketing spending, advertising continues to decline here. Also, we deal directly with Google, Facebook, and lately, Amazon for our on line advertising needs. The reps are young, smart, state of the art, and, AND THEY LISTEN! I see us using a free lancer or two in a few years for theme lines or a new set of eyes but we will not need an outside agency much longer.”
—“As we move to digital, we deal with the FANGs sans Netflix. What pros!”
Agencies are not going to disappear. Yet, in an era when accountability continues to become more prominent and measurement metrics improve, the trend of a movement toward in house shops seems likely to continue.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may write to him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.
Over the years, In house advertising agencies did not have the greatest reputations. Generally, they were formed as a means for the parent company (the advertiser) to save money. Agency people were often their worst enemy. Clients came to believe that agency staffers were arrogant and charged too much for their services. They also flaunted their high incomes. Many is the time that I arrived with a creative or management rep at a client meeting in one of their Mercedes or Jaquars. The client would sometimes say something to me afterwards. They felt that the agency team was rubbing their affluence in their faces. Agency people also often talked of their fabulous vacations to marketing people client side who were struggling financially. It did not play well and, years later, when I ran in to former clients, it has often been a topic of conversation. So, many felt that a move inside would save a boatload of money and the work would be almost as good.
On the negative side, there was a stigma for many regarding working at an in house shop. The conventional wisdom was that there was little turnover and a true ad pro would want the fast pace of traditional agency life and enjoy pursing new business plus working on a variety of type of businesses. Many of my peers said in house was great for collateral material or grinding out coupons or Free Standing Inserts but fresh thinking had to come from the sharpies at ad agencies. If you worked on only one piece of business or category, you would get stale.
Things appear to be changing and in more ways that the splendid Wall Street Journal piece discussed.
I hunted up some people who I knew casually who worked at in house shops. A few former colleagues put me on to some others. Here are some comments from people currently working in house:
—“We went in house several years ago. It was a good decision. We move quickly (no waiting for our big shop to get a work starter wending its way through the creative department), save money, and our people know the brand. Our company is the brand. Amazingly, some agencies do not get this.”
—“Friends made fun of me when I went to a large in house shop. Well, the staff is professional and the hours are great. Sure, I work late every now and then but I only went in on two weekends last year. No new business to pitch so we focus on our assignments and are really good at time management.”
—“I am a single Mom and the benefits at my huge company dwarf that of any agency that I worked at. The health care package and 401k is so much better than my agency experience. Also, twice I was let go when my shop lost a big account. I was told that I did nothing wrong but they had to cut expenses. I do not have to worry here about what you often refer to as ‘the leaky barrel’ of agency/client relationships. It is not totally secure but better than I have ever known.”
—“The stigma of working in house is lifting. I like the better hours and benefits plus the salary is comparable to ad agency levels. We are nimble here and there are far fewer levels of review. Also, we do not suffer under an egotistical creative chief who hates ideas that were not his.”
—“Ad agencies do not get it. As a total percentage of marketing spending, advertising continues to decline here. Also, we deal directly with Google, Facebook, and lately, Amazon for our on line advertising needs. The reps are young, smart, state of the art, and, AND THEY LISTEN! I see us using a free lancer or two in a few years for theme lines or a new set of eyes but we will not need an outside agency much longer.”
—“As we move to digital, we deal with the FANGs sans Netflix. What pros!”
Agencies are not going to disappear. Yet, in an era when accountability continues to become more prominent and measurement metrics improve, the trend of a movement toward in house shops seems likely to continue.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may write to him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.
Monday, September 17, 2018
The Allure of New TV
Last week, many of us in the media world were surprised but pleased by the launch of a unique venture—New TV. It is the brainchild of two powerful executives—Meg Whitman, the outgoing chair of Hewlett-Packard and Jeff Katzenberg, a founder of Dreamworks and the former head of Disney’s movie studios. They raised over a billion dollars for the launch and did it very quickly with an amazing array of businesses providing seed money including Disney, NBC Universal, Alibaba, Facebook, Viacom and in the financial world, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.
Right now, Ms. Whitman and Mr. Katzenberg are projecting a Christmas, 2019 launch. The service will provide “on the go mobile viewing” with much newly created content being about 12 minutes per episode for New TV series. You may ask why would people want to watch on their phones. Well, currently, the average person spends four hours per day on their mobile device and approximately one hour per day is with video content.
In terms of technology, they are are projecting an improvement in quality and also will be ready when the move to 5G occurs in a couple of years. When I bounced this idea off a number of people in recent days, there was a very sharp demographic divide. My contemporaries seemed to be skeptical of people watching series video on their phones although two mentioned that the new Apple phones will have larger screens. Those whom I canvassed in their 20’s were much more enthusiastic and some liked the idea of briefer episodes.
So, once again, conventional media is threatened. These two executives have a wonderful track record and are unusually well connected in both creative and financial circles. I am VERY curious to learn what they plan to charge for the service. How much will people be willing to fork out for “New TV”? Remember, many of us doubted people who be willing to pay for music but that has been proven to be totally wrong.
What do you think? I would love to hear from you.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Right now, Ms. Whitman and Mr. Katzenberg are projecting a Christmas, 2019 launch. The service will provide “on the go mobile viewing” with much newly created content being about 12 minutes per episode for New TV series. You may ask why would people want to watch on their phones. Well, currently, the average person spends four hours per day on their mobile device and approximately one hour per day is with video content.
In terms of technology, they are are projecting an improvement in quality and also will be ready when the move to 5G occurs in a couple of years. When I bounced this idea off a number of people in recent days, there was a very sharp demographic divide. My contemporaries seemed to be skeptical of people watching series video on their phones although two mentioned that the new Apple phones will have larger screens. Those whom I canvassed in their 20’s were much more enthusiastic and some liked the idea of briefer episodes.
So, once again, conventional media is threatened. These two executives have a wonderful track record and are unusually well connected in both creative and financial circles. I am VERY curious to learn what they plan to charge for the service. How much will people be willing to fork out for “New TV”? Remember, many of us doubted people who be willing to pay for music but that has been proven to be totally wrong.
What do you think? I would love to hear from you.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Monday, September 3, 2018
The Silver Bullet For Start-Ups?
Over the years, I have always watched the trajectory of start-up businesses very closely. As you all realize, most new products and most new businesses fail with businesses generally closing up shop within about three years. So, I have done some digging and asked countless people what they thought was the reason that some businesses succeeded while most did not.
The answers centered almost exclusively around five variables:
1) The Leadership or Management Team
2) The Big Idea for the business
3) The Business Model
4) How well financed the business was
5) The Timing of the Launch
Consistently, I have found that most businesses fail due to inadequate financing. Most brands of large companies fail due to poor marketing or tough competition. Finding why businesses succeeded was a great deal harder to smoke out than dissecting failures. When it came to tech, my highly limited sample came in hard on the attribute of timing. For service companies, most said the team of principals and how careful their subsequent hires made all the difference. Surprisingly, few said the basic idea for the business was a major factor. Almost to a person, they said that often a company evolved and the original idea either went away or became transformed in to something else as the business rolled out. Re the Business Model, one observer said “When a company succeeds, the analysts tout the business model. That is certainly part of the mix but I see it as secondary to the team and timing.” Others made similar comments.
What about funding? We have all heard Fred Alger's famous comment that “there is no such thing as an over-funded company.” So true. A few mentioned funding as vital if you had a somewhat rocky start but none saw it as the touchstone for brand success.
So what was the winner? To my surprise, Timing was the clear winner. More than one mentioned the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Their attitude was that no matter how good your product or service was, we were in the worst downturn since 1933 and people were afraid to spend or try something new. Unemployment soared by 250% and if you could keep you head down and also your job, you felt good. Branching out in to something new was not on the agenda during that very troubled period.
I was skeptical and then thought about it a bit. Then, watching TED talks, I found that my contacts had a strong ally. Bill Gross, the start-up maven, not the bond king, gave a brief talk entitled, “The Single Biggest Reason Startups Make It” and he came down heavily on the side of Timing as a major indicator (the You Tube link is https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_the_single_biggest_reason_why_startups_succeed).
Clearly, I do not agree with all that Gross says. In the six and one half minute video, he discusses the 200+ firms that he has helped launch and discusses which attributes worked. Also, he makes a leap of faith and discusses other that he did not have a hands on relationship with personally. He may be implying a mathematical precision that really is not there as how can you really smoke out the contribution of Idea vs. Team vs. Business Model vs. Funding vs. Timing. He does make some cogent arguments, however and it is well worth a brief view. The example of Air BnB struggling at first as people did not want strangers in their homes dissipated in the Great Recession as people needed money very badly was dead on.
If one relies too much on timing, then you are saying that luck may place an outsized role in the success of a venture. Yet between the comments that I received plus the Bill Gross video, I am rethinking this question. Any opinions?
Should you wish to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.
The answers centered almost exclusively around five variables:
1) The Leadership or Management Team
2) The Big Idea for the business
3) The Business Model
4) How well financed the business was
5) The Timing of the Launch
Consistently, I have found that most businesses fail due to inadequate financing. Most brands of large companies fail due to poor marketing or tough competition. Finding why businesses succeeded was a great deal harder to smoke out than dissecting failures. When it came to tech, my highly limited sample came in hard on the attribute of timing. For service companies, most said the team of principals and how careful their subsequent hires made all the difference. Surprisingly, few said the basic idea for the business was a major factor. Almost to a person, they said that often a company evolved and the original idea either went away or became transformed in to something else as the business rolled out. Re the Business Model, one observer said “When a company succeeds, the analysts tout the business model. That is certainly part of the mix but I see it as secondary to the team and timing.” Others made similar comments.
What about funding? We have all heard Fred Alger's famous comment that “there is no such thing as an over-funded company.” So true. A few mentioned funding as vital if you had a somewhat rocky start but none saw it as the touchstone for brand success.
So what was the winner? To my surprise, Timing was the clear winner. More than one mentioned the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Their attitude was that no matter how good your product or service was, we were in the worst downturn since 1933 and people were afraid to spend or try something new. Unemployment soared by 250% and if you could keep you head down and also your job, you felt good. Branching out in to something new was not on the agenda during that very troubled period.
I was skeptical and then thought about it a bit. Then, watching TED talks, I found that my contacts had a strong ally. Bill Gross, the start-up maven, not the bond king, gave a brief talk entitled, “The Single Biggest Reason Startups Make It” and he came down heavily on the side of Timing as a major indicator (the You Tube link is https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gross_the_single_biggest_reason_why_startups_succeed).
Clearly, I do not agree with all that Gross says. In the six and one half minute video, he discusses the 200+ firms that he has helped launch and discusses which attributes worked. Also, he makes a leap of faith and discusses other that he did not have a hands on relationship with personally. He may be implying a mathematical precision that really is not there as how can you really smoke out the contribution of Idea vs. Team vs. Business Model vs. Funding vs. Timing. He does make some cogent arguments, however and it is well worth a brief view. The example of Air BnB struggling at first as people did not want strangers in their homes dissipated in the Great Recession as people needed money very badly was dead on.
If one relies too much on timing, then you are saying that luck may place an outsized role in the success of a venture. Yet between the comments that I received plus the Bill Gross video, I am rethinking this question. Any opinions?
Should you wish to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
