Inspirational Thought - Visible vs Relevant

One of the most interesting ad blogs belongs to one of the elder statesmen of British advertising, Dave Trott. A couple of weeks ago he was good enough to give up a day of his time to answer various questions from people on Scamp’s blog. But it’s his own blog, where he manages to find the time to put time some of the conversations and things he’s learned during his career that I particularly like.

What’s particularly good about Dave’s thinking is that it’s not only relevant to advertising, it’s just good solid advice on communications ideas.

In a recent post he recounted a conversation he’d had with Martin Boase, one of the three founders of legendary agency BMP, about what made them stand out. Boase’s answer was that the work of BMP made them stand out. A pretty stock response from someone in the ad business. However, Boase qualified this as follows (Trott’s comments in parenthesis):

“Some agencies could do work that was strategically sound, but creatively dull. (RELEVANT - INVISIBLE)

“On the other end of the scale, some agencies did work that was strategically unsound, but creatively exciting. (VISIBLE - IRRELEVANT)

“What made BMP different, was that we delivered work that was both strategically sound and creatively exciting. (RELEVANT and VISIBLE)”

Trott’s advice is that chances are most work is going to be pulled towards relevant - invisible by the client, planners and account men:

“Personally, as in most things, I defer to Bill Bernbach. He said, “If no one notices your advertising, everything else is academic.” So, given that, I would choose VISIBLE – IRRELEVANT. At least if people notice your advertising there’s a chance of something happening. If no one notices your advertising, there’s absolutely no chance of anything happening at all.”