« Denny’s cooks up more dinners, but don’t sell your stove just yet | Main | Agency folks: you haven't missed your 'Idol' moment »
JWT's 'Fast Company' story full of surprises
—Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
May 25, 2006 | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
You might have added the following: Most of JWT's revenue comes from stale packaged goods clients it inhertited when it was merged with Bates. Things like Halls, Listeriine, etc. Plus other stale brands like Rolex and Dominos. Not too much room for improvement there.
The main problem with JWT is that it, like Y&R, has no reason to exist. It's as if a bunch of random clients all wound up being serviced by a bunch of random people who sit in the same building. No consistency to the work, the atmosphere, the players.
But kudos to you for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Posted by: Alex Cross | May 25, 2006 2:24:54 PM
Hey, since when has Roberto Benigni been working for JWT?
Posted by: Thulsa Doom | May 25, 2006 2:29:29 PM
The only thing missing from that photograph are the clown shoes & the spinning bowties.
Posted by: Bobby Peru | May 25, 2006 4:28:33 PM
IT may be an old company but at least they are trying to change it as opposed to the other big agencies.
Posted by: realdeal | May 25, 2006 4:53:52 PM
I don't buy the "at least they are trying to change comment". If they were trying to change they wouldn't apply the same analog approach to changing themselves as they do to their tired creative product. You can't come up with new ideas if you ask and answer questions the same way you always have.
Posted by: Ex-JWTer | May 25, 2006 6:14:01 PM
let's be honest. it won't change. bbdo ny does some good work ... and some shit. mountain dew... cingular... instead of trying to turn around a massive ship - which ain't gonna happen - fire all the old guard account directors, fire all the crappy creatives, pay some money and get better people. then the work improves. and you win pitches.
Posted by: | May 25, 2006 8:30:16 PM
They've done that anonymous- fire everyone, hire new blood. The problem is simple: they don't have the corporate culture to be a billion dollar start-up. They have to service the old Warner Lambert packaged goods accounts or they'll walk. And if you're the sort of marketing manager who is looking for something fresh, you'll go to Crispin or Fallon or someplace that makes you look hip. Not JWT/NY. Like I said, JWT doesn't stand for anything. BBDO does. Ogilvy does. McCann does. And those shops all have pockets of very good work.
Posted by: Alex Cross | May 25, 2006 9:45:59 PM
I'm not a WPP employee. But I do believe that with the hiring of Bob Jeffrey and then Ryan and Montague, they put good people in place to improve things. Contrast this with WPP's other agencies--Y&R, which is basically dead in the water and Ogilvy which is living on the fumes of its past history. Five years from now JWT could be the healthiest of them all. As for the article, it's yet another example of a reporter not doing his homework.
Posted by: ming the merciless | May 25, 2006 11:34:04 PM
In Creative, it is always best to let your work speak, and let others talk about you. Self promotion like this is embarassing and shows no distance or self-awareness. JWT has not 'turned around' yet. Let Ty do one campaign that people on the street embrace, an ipod or something, let alone work that awards shows recognize. Just one, before you do this sort of cover. Clearly Ty is using this to hang on JWT's walls for the next time Sir Martin walks in. One thing that's clear about JWT: its about Ty. Not the work. If it were, he'd know they're not even close to acting this cocky. Okay, forget one campaign--one ad, Ty.
Posted by: tedryan | May 26, 2006 10:25:50 AM
The article makes up for the lack of notable work.
JetBlue is the closest they've come to anything noteworthy.
New & Improved creatives are working on Domino's, Rolex, Wheat Thins, Trident, Welch's, etc. and there's nothing to show for it. Certainly no improvement beyond the Campbell or Jordan or Patterson eras.
Posted by: | May 26, 2006 11:14:37 AM
Can anyone out there tell me what work Ty Montague is known for? Can anyone out there tell me what Ty Montague is all about?
Posted by: Linus Van Pelt | May 26, 2006 12:00:21 PM
Seems to me there's a parallel between the market importance of this story with that of the magazine... it's a 108 page issue with only 33 ad pages, including such leading advertisers as Copystar, The Penguin Press, the states of Iowa and Louisiana, environmental fundraisers like Oceana, NRDC & EarthChoice, and RightNow technologies.
The only name brand advertisers are Microsoft, MasterCard, Budweiser, Visa, eTrade and Capital One - better known as the buy-everything-and-anything-media-mavens...
besides, the "industry consultant" they quote is self-promotion-artist Andrew Jaffe -- if this isn't a puff piece driven by a publicist, I'll eat my Huggies.
Posted by: | May 26, 2006 12:11:09 PM
Ty Montagues most well known work has been his unrelenting
self promotion.
And silly PR photos that show him screaming & bellowing.
So 1980's.
Posted by: jack doe | May 26, 2006 12:40:37 PM
Linus (how's Lucy BTW? Dated her in the 80s); Ty is actually a very accomplished copywriter. He's won tons of awards and is pretty well-respected for his work over here. I agree that photo is ridiculous though.
Posted by: Bob | May 26, 2006 2:10:22 PM
The problem is not Montague, he is actually very smart. The problem is his ECDs who are, almost without exception, old school frat boys masquerading as new men (yes, not a woman amongst them) who think integration is a passing fad, and who's idea of a great web site is a sequence of large images or a place to show TV spots.
Posted by: The Admiral | May 26, 2006 3:50:09 PM
I have to take umbrage with “Anonymous” (Are you too shit scared to use your own name?) How dare He/She/It say “Certainly no improvement beyond the Campbell or Jordan or Patterson eras.” Campbell was a poseur who didn’t produce a single piece of memorable work in his three year tenure. That’s why he was fired the minute his contract ran out. Jordan was a hack. Patterson was good at the beginning, but for the last few years he was there he concentrated on his literary career… JWT has only had one great CD in the last twenty years… That was Bill Hamilton… Who was also the last great CD of O&M… Yes, he could be an asshole after one or two extra pops, but who isn’t? The thing about Bill was that he instinctively knew, and championed good work. Just ask anyone who ever worked with him. Look at the wonderful IBM, Merril Lynch, Kellogs and Qwest work before the hacks took over and fucked it up!And on the so called JWT win of the K+C business, it moved from O&M, so it’s all in the same “Poisoned Dwarf” fetid pot! You can read all the gory details on this on AdScam
Posted by: George Parker | May 26, 2006 4:57:47 PM
The ironic thing about the $200 Million "win" was that it was orchestrated by Hildie Newman - the so-called example of stuffiness and "old thinking" villified in the FC article. So clearly she was out working, while Ty and Rosemarie were doing a photo-op.
Posted by: | May 26, 2006 7:17:08 PM
Ty is known for his marriage to a top global creative headhunter. Wonder who got the commissions on 90% of his new hires? Hmmm.
Posted by: MarkW | May 26, 2006 9:34:47 PM
George Parker- you're getting all bent out of shape based on your probable misreading of a post. I took it as significant that "anonymous" did NOT mention Hamilton in his list of former JWT CDs who didn't do anything worthwhile creatively.
And while I'd have to agree with your assessment of Montague's predecessors (though Patterson was one of the most widely disliked CDs of his era) I'd also have to agree with Anonymous that I just don't see anything different happening on the old-school JWT brands these days.
Posted by: Alex Cross | May 27, 2006 10:50:31 AM
Update to George Parker: Just read your Adscam blog. Re-read that post that's got you in such a dither.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I did not in any way see it saying those guys were any good. I read "certainly no improvement beyond..." to imply that the work wasn't very good then and isn't very good now. (I mean seriously, do you think anyone would call the work JWT did under those 3 "good"???)
Posted by: Alex Cross | May 27, 2006 10:57:52 AM
In the photo-op department, the current leaders seem to be Ty and Mark Tuttsel of Burnett. Everywhere you look there are photos of these guys grinning like yacht monkeys.
Posted by: ming the merciless | May 27, 2006 11:31:41 AM
Ty Montague? Tireless self promoter?? Surely you're not talking about THIS Ty Montague? :
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/631/829/1600/TyMontague.jpg
Posted by: The Admiral's Mate | May 27, 2006 4:59:17 PM
It's easier to rip out some drywall and drop a few soundbites than it is to truly turn a tired old agency around. A pickle can never again be a cucumber, no matter what the people at "Fast Company" think.
Posted by: Jim Osterman | May 27, 2006 5:20:26 PM
To George Parker. Chill my friend.
Alex Cross pretty much summed it up. I did not include Hamilton on that list on purpose.
The others were listed because of their mediocrity. A level that has not been surpassed in any of the Montague-era work. Save maybe, possibly, Jet Blue.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2006 10:18:34 PM
Montague is one of those guys the press writes about far too much. But there are others: Tuttsel (who did nothing at Burnett and yet got elevated (or was it demoted) to one of those worldwide posts), Kathy Delaney (the very overrated ECD at a very overrated agency), Ron Berger (his speech at the 4AAAA'a was so ironic when you consider the holding company and the agency he works for) and Roy Spence (GSDM does some nice work, but they also create loads of crap).
Posted by: ming the merciless | May 28, 2006 6:42:12 PM
Mister Ming, don't forget the massive press given to Michael Patti when he took over Young & Rubicam and promptly lost Burger King, David Lubars, who other than managing to continue the ongoing Fed Ex work ahs not accomplished a 100th (in terms of creative quality) of what he was bragging about doing in the media last year.
Tuttsel, Montegue, Lubars, Berger and Spence...sounds like the name of a law firm for overpaid hacks.
Posted by: tom t tuttle | May 29, 2006 7:38:48 PM
I remember when I started in the ad business, many years ago, a wise older CD said to me that the problem with big agencies is they kept bringing in the wrong people: the skills and taste levels that made people successful at hot boutique shops rarely translated to big agency culture.
That was true back then, as agencies would bring in Chiat/Day wunderkinds, only to have them faily miserably trying to sell a hip campaign to P&G.
Ditto today with WK heroes.
Ads that win awards are, by and large, geared towards the hip late 20/early 30s blue state males who make up the award show judging committees.
This is rarely the target audience of big agency clients.
Hence the dilemma.
Posted by: Alex Cross | May 29, 2006 7:46:45 PM
Just goes to show ADWEEK isn't Gospel. Agency Report cards? What's up with that, isn't that pretty high school? So does this mean JWT on par with McCann now? As for Alex's comment above...I have a different opion. 'WK Heroes'? Isn't the ECD from WK? Those big agencies bring in 'heros' from creative hotshops because those people usually still have fire inside them. Granted, many of them can't do anything in such a political, layered environment as a big agency, but it looks like Montague is doing just fine.
Posted by: Dan | May 30, 2006 12:16:21 AM
Let's boil this down to what's important in this business - growth and creative vitality. How long will Sir Martin allow Bob J. to continue to operate a ship that shows neither (but through acquisition and 'sharing' with other WPP shops)? Everything else is downhill from this my friends.
Posted by: phree | May 30, 2006 5:27:00 PM
I applaud the overall attempt at changing a slowing sinking ship. However, the lingering issues at JWT stem from the total lack of execution of the "flat, fast and fun" mantra. Hiring a few new creatives and restricting raises until certain people leave is not the way to see through big, sweeping change. Once you move past the few lauded creative hires, most employees are still disgruntled and underpaid. Those who get the few opportunities at JWT become burnt out by the grindingly slow process of just simply getting anything done.
Posted by: Holden Lambert | May 30, 2006 6:41:42 PM
smoke and mirrors don't get you far in life.
Posted by: emperor's naked | May 31, 2006 2:07:14 AM
Bob, can you be more specific about Ty's copywriting achievements? I still don't know what creative work he is most identified with or any campaign he has helped shape. That goes for his time at BBH, Wieden + Kennedy in New York and now, JWT.
Posted by: Linus Van Pelt | May 31, 2006 10:35:20 AM
You sure are a cynical bunch. I'm a GCD at JWT, and I've been here for the old J Walter Thompson and for the new JWT. It ain't perfect, but it's a different place and attitude than three years ago, and it's one reason I still want to be here. It's easy to want to go to a shop that's already hot, but you never get to own that success. They already did it without you, so you can only be a "me too." Where's your guts? Why not be a part of difficult, uncharted change and be able to say you were a part of it? Maybe JWT makes the impossible happen, maybe not. But that will be up to the people here, and at the end of the day, energy and smart people are all any agency has. Lighten up.
Posted by: A Whitley | May 31, 2006 3:10:21 PM
One could argue that being a GCD in an Atlanta doesn't actually qualify YOU to be able to say you were part of the difficult and uncharted change happening in NYC.
Posted by: The Admiral's Bosun | May 31, 2006 3:46:41 PM
According to the number of resumes I've been seeing from people currently at JWT and desperate to leave, looks like a lot of your 'smart people' won't be there for much longer.
Posted by: William Fly | May 31, 2006 4:04:32 PM
GET OVER it people and go back to work. Doesn't anyone have anything better to do than shred people apart. At least have the decency to put your actual name up there.
Posted by: Fed Up | May 31, 2006 4:28:56 PM
Fed Up wants people to put up their real names?
Posted by: Fed Up With Fed Up | May 31, 2006 4:34:26 PM
Who said the changes were only in NY? Change is scary for many people, and sometimes they leave. Hopefully we'll have one or two people left. Anyway, sorry to interrupt your diatribe.
Posted by: A Whitley | May 31, 2006 5:00:22 PM
Don't worry, A. Whitley, I doubt we'll hear much more from them today, I'm sure all these posters don't work after 5 p.m. like we do in Atlanta, where we love our clients and support our agency's desire to change :o)
Posted by: J Adams | May 31, 2006 5:26:30 PM
wow...
with some minor edits, this same colloquy could have gone on in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s...
and since it's JWT they're talking about, the 1890s also........
to run counter to the prevailing culture at the moment, you would have to resist change and
argue for the status quo...
it may be more fun to do that actually...not necessarily more practical but possibly more interesting and brave...
Posted by: Tom Messner | May 31, 2006 7:56:15 PM
This business is such bullshit. It's filled with phony shamans, new media age gurus, meet the new boss same as the old bosses, and on and on.
Most of the creative directors are scrambling for PR. That's how they can sell the agency. They need a new spot that gets talked about.
New media? Integration?
It's the idea, stupid. Riswold is not so much in play, Nike went down.
Some great new ads. But really, not a lot. Youth! We need it to be young! Contemporary!
Not sure what advertising is anymore.
But they may be a good thing. It's whatever you make it out to be now. New pioneers go forth!
Clients - you do not need big agencies anymore. Most of them hire freelance, the account planners are some of fakes - and worse, boring.
You can save your big buck billings, open in house, and hire
anyone you want.
JWT the work is terrible. Jet Blue--customers talking about their experience in illustration.
To quote william goldman: "No one knows anything".
You guys need to be more street! More anger, please!
Posted by: Bored | Jun 1, 2006 9:18:21 AM
i think any agency would have jumped on the chance for a fast company cover if given the chance. let's be honest here. A lot of agencies are just mad b/c their faces are not up there. no matter what, people outside of the biz are just going to flip through the story and say "cool photos," they must be doing well. As for all the other crap, it's nit picking.
Posted by: amy p | Jun 1, 2006 10:00:26 AM
Messner is right on. As an ex-JWT'er myself, and one who is still in his early, less cynical years, sure I found the pre-montague years as way to hierarchical, designed to protect hacker egos and yeah, it was a place where elephants-turned-into-dinosaurs, but at least they're making a push. Nonetheless, JWT will always be JWT with all those grandfather accounts.
Nobody has a firm grasp on what lies ahead for the ad world. But let's face it: smart, fun ideas come from anyone (not just wanna be hip ECD's in their 40's ). Turning a product into a star is still what pays our bills.
As I read these bitter posts, it's quite evident why creativity has died. There's no fun, just bickering. Love what you do and put your heart into it and better work will come of it.
Leave your ego and Kobe jersey at home.
Posted by: GianniStecchino | Jun 1, 2006 5:21:12 PM
JWT/Atlanta?
It reminds me of that old classic "Adweak" headline "BBDO CD Surprised to Learn of Existence of LA Office."
And Gianni has it right- too many grandfather accounts that pay most of the bills. No real identity- what does JWT stand for? While Montague is making an admirable effort, I can't think of any instance when a big bad agency has been successfully reinvented.
Anyone?
Posted by: Alex Cross | Jun 1, 2006 9:31:16 PM
I could have been clearer. When I started in the business in 1968, Ron Rosenfeld--a major guy from DDB--went there at the unheard of salary of $100,000 to be CD. (This thematic may be elucidated for that new series Mad Men about the ad business in the 60s.) So more than any other agency, JWT always seemed to me to to want to re-invent itself. And it succeeded a couple of times, hence it lives whereas SSC&B, C&W, Lennon and Newell, Biow, Bates, Dancer Fitzgerald Sample, Benton and Bowles went the way of all flesh.
I think, a few years after Ron R., Bert Manning started one new regime. And then Patterson (Besides Patterson, other novelists who bopped through were Hal Friedman and Stu Woods)and a couple of other CDs before and after including Helayne Spivak who had to endure indecorous press treatment from one Chris Jones when she departed. So that's why I thought the conversation sounded like something I had heard a few times over the years about the place. There is even a good history of the mid-years of the agency when a husband-wife team, the Resors, ran the place. Recounted, I think, in the Martin Mayer book, Madison Avenue USA. Why am I jotting this down at 11:55 PM? I just finished second in an on-line poker tournament to gain entry to the World Series of Poker. Unfortunately, it was winner take all...and I am really pissed I didn't win.
Posted by: Tom Messner | Jun 1, 2006 11:57:43 PM
tom, let's be honest here. What have you done? Euro RSG whatever it is is nothing. You must've made some money on merges. And the agency you run doesn't really create ads.
Sorry, with all due respects, what is it you do besides writingreally inconsquential articles in adweek before you retire.
Can anyone tell me who is now the lee clow, the jaimie barrett, and the riswolds of today? What we have here is too many words, too much bs, not enough wow, that's a really great ad.
Posted by: lance | Jun 2, 2006 9:37:01 AM
AH, LANCE...what have I done?
I have made a better living than I should have given my low intelligence and natural laziness.
I have been retired (basically) since 1994.
Inconsequential columns are my metier; to be consequential, I would get sued.
In my career, I did two great campaigns, one from 1976 to 1978; the other from 1980-1982.
Two more than most; 20 fewer than folks for whom everything they touch is genius.
Posted by: Tom Messner | Jun 2, 2006 10:01:09 AM
Yeah...but....
What is this thing called "great?"
Is it "wow, that's a really great ad" and everyone around lance nods?
A couple of months ago, I mentioned to someone that a dog food print and TV campaign that Lee Clow just did was really great. The comment I got from someone who had spent years working with Lee (so he wasn't just being catty) was: "Nah it's not great. It's just that it is well-designed, coherently written, strategically sound, and hit an emotional nerve with you so you call it great. Great is rare. This is just good."
So how to establish criteria for greatness there being no .400 averages or 1.75 eras or
30 wins to establish, empirically and certainly, greatness.
Ok. Here are the criteria, all of which need to be filled for a piece of advertising to be called great.
1) It must succeed in the marketplace
2) It must be recognized as great by the industry with hard-to-come-by awards. Prior to 1980, one show gold; after 1980, one show gold plus gold lion at cannes
3) It must be recognized as great by people outside the ad industry. I.e., editorial (books and magazines, TV shows) or Museum panels, say MOMA or Museum of Broadcasting
4) It must be honest
5) It must be run by lance to test whether it is consequential
With these criteria established, I can go back to on-line poker where an 8 or better Omaha Hi-Lo Pot Limit tournament is about to start.
Posted by: Tom Messner | Jun 2, 2006 12:23:40 PM
These days it seems that it is easier for folks to offer criticism than it is praise or recognition.
If want to do you’re homework you’ll find that during his career, Tom Messner practically invented the telecom wars. He’s also one of the most passionate, hungry and idea driven men (who consequently, still manages to maintain a sense of humor about this business), that I’ve ever met.
Lance, I agree with you that today's superstars are few and far between...but the business is also different than it used to be and let's face it. There is a lot more pressure and factors at stake [where did the fun go?] and sometimes... we all find that can leave us a little bitter.
Posted by: Noelle | Jun 2, 2006 2:02:30 PM
tom, please accept my apologies. I did not do my homework.
Now that I have, please delete my words. I also admire your
e mail reaction to it. Cheers.
Posted by: lance | Jun 2, 2006 2:55:17 PM
