Disqus - Latest Comments for gdatomic

Re: 18 Pixar Shorts Ranked Worst to Best

Doug Garnett — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 22:52:02 -0000

These rankings are nearly opposite of the vote in my family where Boundin’ is particularly a disappointing short.

Would love to know what could have generated this list? Our list tends to have at the top Jack Jack Attack, For the Birds, Geri's Game, and Luxo because it started everything.

Re: Brice Marden’s Latest Breakthrough

Doug Garnett — Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:54 -0000

Sorry you’re not happy with honest evaluation of commentary on art and how far it has strayed from what matters. Guess it’s far easier to decide something entirely dismissive of these thoughts than think about them. Cheers...

Re: Brice Marden’s Latest Breakthrough

Doug Garnett — Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:19:38 -0000

Pollock painted a great deal prior to dripping paint and all of it included, um, lines. And, yes, dripped paint was primarily lines.

That said, I wasn’t referring to the mortality comments — because those are entirely ignorable statements found in these kind of write-ups. Didn’t even see them first read through. Why can’t we just allow art to be?

TS Eliot cautioned that interpretation of art is like arriving at an autopsy bringing body parts in your pockets.

Post Modern’s influence is that it has destroyed the art world’s understanding and respect for making and creation. Whether something today is “post modern” (which appears not even to be anything but rather the name of a failed philosophy movement) or not, all discussion of art suffers the left over debris of that sad era in the world around art making.

Re: Brice Marden’s Latest Breakthrough

Doug Garnett — Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:11:42 -0000

Obviously, from my other comments, I disagree. But was a bit surprised by your thought that the review is “deeply penetrating”. Seems superficial to me and buys too easily what the artist uses in their own marketing. To me, that’s something we need reviews to avoid.

Re: Brice Marden’s Latest Breakthrough

Doug Garnett — Mon, 25 Nov 2019 01:13:04 -0000

That anyone buys the idea that he mixes painting and drawing indicates they know nothing of how artworks are made...created. All artists mix drawing and painting which aren’t different things but the same thing with different applications of color.

The post modern movement, in fact, opposes in practice any awareness of creation of excellent work. In part, the movement which dominates contemporary art denies that it’s even important to make things well. This has led to celebration of mediocrity like this.

Re: Brice Marden’s Latest Breakthrough

Doug Garnett — Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:00:01 -0000

This is a lot of words to justify paintings which sell for a lot of money but aren’t very interesting. I particularly found the absurdity of “mixing drawing with painting” a discouraging comment on how lost awareness of creation has become. He paints lines as did deKooning, Pollock, Picasso, and every other painter in the history of western art.

Just because someone creates an arcane (tortured) story about a work doesn’t mean the work is important. Perhaps this is simply Bev Doolittle for a different culture. But it has the same result: artworks which are entirely safe in any environment and which you’ll never have a friend say “I dislike that”. Great artworks are not universally loved,

Re: If It Wasn’t Made as Art, Can a Curator Make It Art?

Doug Garnett — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 14:19:13 -0000

Appreciate your very thoughtful reply. And the additional depth your offer on the background. This relieves a number of my concerns.

There remains one major question for me - how is it that historical artifacts with emotional impact are declared to be art? They’ve always been important - as history museums show us and especially as museums about horrific tragedies like the Holocaust show us. But that these artifacts carry energy has been shown for thousands of years in artifacts like the bones of saints or from heroes ranging back into the dark ages.

Today, they are suddenly being declared to be “art” when gathered together. Seems to me a disservice to the thousands and thousands of dedicated, brilliant artists who are pursuing their own visions... Reminds me a bit of Curator taking over as DJ...where creation of music (and musician jobs) are replaced by the guy spinning disks of major labels.

All of which goes to the question in the title: If it wasn't made as art, can (or should) a curator be able to just declare it to be art? That's tricky. But in terms of taking historical artifacts and calling them art, I don't think it should be.

Again, really appreciate your thoughtful reply.

Re: If It Wasn’t Made as Art, Can a Curator Make It Art?

Doug Garnett — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 13:20:59 -0000

It's frustrating to watch curators build their careers by taking historical artifacts that reflect emotional moments in history to simply re-lable them art because they haven't been shown in the art world.

It's frustrating to hear what sounds like manipulating the mentally ill (I have a son with Autism so I know a bit about the kind of people he's talking about) in order to build a career on the backs of their work - and their unusual personalities. When is this predatory and when is it supportive? THAT's the very serious question that should be asked.

What's described here seems a tiny step away from reality TV producers who manipulate non-actors in order to tell whatever story the producers wants to tell.

What I read from this article (and i do not know Kushino to understand his personal motivations) is about the careerist necessities that drive such absurdity in today's world of art. The desperate search for something even more extreme than the last curator showed. The desperate need to take quirky outsiders and declare them to be insiders - perhaps destroying their lives in the process.

Kushino worries about mental patients being "forced" to draw or paint. But is that more about his approach to the art therapy he did with them or is it reflective of true concern? There so much careerism in this story that I'm simply not sure.

Re: Why Twitter?

Doug Garnett — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:08:05 -0000

So true...

Re: Why Twitter?

Doug Garnett — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:53:43 -0000

Appreciate all that Paula. And sorry about your bad Twitter experiences. I've not had those (except for one retail futurist who has banned my "say it straight" self from discussions :-)

I do keep watching LinkedIn... Just haven't found a good way in yet...for me. So much of making these programs work is personal...finding my way to get LinkedIn to work...

Re: Why Twitter?

Doug Garnett — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:43:14 -0000

I hear your thoughts and don't entirely disagree...yet also don't entirely agree.

In part, LinkedIn has proven a real bust. After a good start with a well developed group approach they simply ran away from the groups and left anyone who relied on them to shrug our shoulders and accept reality: Nothing online can be relied upon for longer than the next few weeks. (A simple Google algorithm change is enough to tank online revenues for small players if they are accidentally caught in the change. We are at the mercy of these online services.)

Today? Maybe it's better - but I haven't found as much progress from LinkedIn. I am especially pummeled with requests to connect that are purely predatory commerce and take away from its value for me.

But what about Twitter? I figure it's multiple things:

1. It's a ticker tape for news I'm interested in (retail, business, advertising, etc...). As such, don't expect too much but it's pretty effective for knowing what's going on.

2. I participate in a weekly chat among a group widely scattered in the world on issues of innovation. It's highly effective for this - and it's openness is a strength because many others can see and follow the chat without having to participate. It also leaves a solid record of that chat.

3. Through Twitter I have built and maintained relationships with people who would have been difficult to reach via LinkedIn. And I have found the kind of varied interests that innovation issues need - from artists to innovation practitioners.

Sad to hear you've had a troll problem. Using Twitter with some success does take a strategy for trolls - in my case I won't engage more than 1-2 additional comments. If there's no progress I simply check out. Fortunately, other people see the trolling and the troll always gets the short end of their comments.

For what it's worth, in my extensive use of social media for 10 years, I make the opposite choice - and pay some attention to LinkedIn while actively grooming Twitter.

Re: Satisfaction with US direction highest since 2005: Gallup

Doug Garnett — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:58:50 -0000

The article should have repeated the Gallup analysis - that the growth in satisfaction outpaces any change in Trump's approval. The result being that the satisfaction is primarily due to the recovering economy - which was initiated by President Obama and which benefits Trump.

Also interesting, the grumpy old white men are beginning to shift - but are shifting far faster than anything driven by Trump.

Re: The Ad Contrarian: Everybody Wants My Feedback

Doug Garnett — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 11:13:57 -0000

Amen. What’s scariest is what’s done with the data. First, marketers assume it has some degree of accuracy (which it doesn’t). Then they use it to attack employees. There’s nothing productive about this loop.

I’ve written three posts around the craziness I saw at Walgreens - not to pick on Walgreen’s (a store I like) but because it was a great example:

“Using Satisfaction Surveys to Create Unhappy Customers” https://atomicdirect.com/bl...

“At Walgreens, An Amazing Abuse of The Customer Satisfaction Survey” https://atomicdirect.com/bl...

WALGREENS, CAMPBELL’S LAW, AND DEMING: THE DARK SIDE OF CUSTOMER SURVEYS https://atomicdirect.com/bl...

Re: The Long And Short of Today’s Lengthy and Brief Ads | TalentZoo.com

Doug Garnett — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:49:54 -0000

We're in agreement. Yet I have suffered 25 years of traditional creative arrogance dissing what we do - and saying "ours would do so much better". Now we're seeing the results as they've been turned loose (results I've seen when agencies like Chiat/Day tried DRTV in the 1990s) - and the stuff is really dull and boring.

Will say I am trying to correct the misnomer that we "do DRTV". We've done a lot of work bought as DRTV media but most was used primarily to drive retail. (The Drill Doctor work was an infomercial.) Yet the term DRTV implies we use yell & sell approaches - or those incredibly dull (but pretty) corporate film based ads. We use neither.

Our work is product based - whether it's on TV or not. It's all wrapped up in the product and what it delivers to the consumer - in ways brand work never is. And what we especially do is drive demand for new and innovative products. Through the product we see and promote brand.

Of course this sounds a bit defensive. ;-) I believe all kinds of advertising have their role and need to be used at the right point for the marketing needs of the company. A lot of brand agencies would say that. But they also don't see the degree to which they dismiss anything they don't understand (like our product oriented work) and always start with a brand advertising approach.

Don't know if you saw Dave Trott's excellent piece about the lack of diversity of creative and people in the ad biz this week. It covered the same topic. I've just been on the receiving end of the arrogance and prejudice of that lack of diversity. :-)

Re: The Long And Short of Today’s Lengthy and Brief Ads | TalentZoo.com

Doug Garnett — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:01:29 -0000

Excellent point, Dan, about the boredom in those long ads. It's my experience that traditional creatives have felt constrained by 30 and 15 second lengths so they go crazy without the constraints. Unfortunately, they also don't have enough experience to know that consumers really only care about their conceptual messages for between 15 and 30 seconds.

So ad agencies are wasting longer length video by making it into very long brand ads that satisfy their creative desires. Instead, it works if they deliver messages that matter.

Consumers WILL pay attention to longer video if they get indications of a positive answer to: Will this be worth my time to watch?

Art or very long brand ads aren't worth their time. TV channels, YouTube videos, or their favorite websites are all far more interesting - there's no way brand advertising will EVERY deliver something that even competes. (In part, the consumer has existing relationships with characters and personalities on TV, YouTube or website. That takes time to develop.)

On the other hand, if they are hooked with the idea of a product, video of longer length that enlightens them about the product - even in very long lengths - IS worth their time.

How do we know? Our 30 minute show for the Drill Doctor drill bit sharpener pulled 1 ratings (not share - ratings) in local markets. We created a 15 minute in-store video about an outstanding saw from Festool and reports came back the shoppers were stopping and watching the whole thing. And viewing trends online show willingness to watch long video - especially among millennial. But not long brand ads.

Sadly, agency training creates exceptional brand ads - but that's where it stops. And a long brand ad is horrifically dull. (Even the great Lee Clow's 2 minute ad for Nissan was quite a yawner from a consumer point of view.)

What agencies need to learn is how to treat products seriously - how to find the kind of depth that consumers want for that product (it's different every time - 5 minute videos about traditional paper towels aren't going to cut it) AND how to construct compelling advertising that delivers what is worth their time.

You suggest "consumers don't have time to read our copy" but I'll respond that most copy isn't worth reading. It doesn't enlighten me. It doesn't explain. It doesn't captivate. It doesn't help me. It's just filler that is designed visually to support the art. (There are excellent exceptions). Why read any of that?

So I fully agree it's a mess out there. But the problem isn't with the idea of a longer video - it's with the idea that brand agencies know how to make effective use of the medium.

Re: The Management Myth - Magazine - The Atlantic

Doug Garnett — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:54:20 -0000

Thoroughly enjoyed this read. in fact, my degree may be in Math, but it was liberal arts math. When my compatriots left advance calc they took physics, organic chem, and engineering. I took research in English History, soviet science fiction, Russian, and played in the sax quartet. With that background, I started in aerospace, moved to supercomputing, and now own a mass market consumer goods ad agency.

That said, I did not like the dismissive writing toward the WAG. In fact, we need to return to effective use of the WAG as a part of business practice. Spreadsheets, big data, and a host of other obsessive/compulsive number crunching processes have turned into refining numbers forever and are a major problem for businesses.

In Aerospace, the WAG is an effective tool to keep things moving while you check out an idea. Planning vehicles that launch things into orbit or to outer planets are projects that can't afford to waste early time on precision...though they MUST achieve exceptionally accurate precision later. Best to commit that time when it's productive.

The beauty of labelling something a WAG is great (liberal arts) communication - calling it what it is - a guess. It gets even better if you also allow SWAG along with it - a "somewhat" wild assed guess.

Too bad the author encountered WAGs in a dysfunctional way. We need them back in fundamental business.

Re: Will Privacy Intrusions Kill The Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs?

Doug Garnett — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:53:46 -0000

Thanks for doing all this background. There certainly seems to be far more going on than we know. Here's two more for your list:

...I ordered something online from a small vendor once with my email based account. The receipt for the purchase showed up in Facebook Messenger as a direct message - without my ever approving anything. Turns out that Shopify offers that to their clients - and there's no opt-in on the part of the consumer. It's the LAST place I want commerce contacting me.

...Recently went to a physical therapist for a knee problem. Arranged the appointment by voice contact using my cell phone and only entered a vague "PT Appt" into my Google calendar. Saw the PT on Saturday. On Monday, Amazon sent me 'recommendations' for knee braces and other products that were specific to the problems I'd been seen for. WHO sold the data? Was it voice listening? Does that PT sell patient data to Amazon (I hear a lot more hospitals and doctors sell data than we know - legal despite HIPAA).

I fully agree: Advertisers have to be the ones to exercise controls. Doc Searls and Bob Hoffman have become fond of calling this "surveillance marketing" - seems an appropriate title.

As to your question about whether this incents someone to action... My experience is that it probably doesn't. But that doesn't matter. A marketer inside an advertiser gets a tremendous KPI boost which gives them kudos from the boss - all despite the fact the advertising doesn't achieve any serious short term impact AND puts their long term company health at risk. An example of the high risk of management by metrics that W. Edwards Deming was concerned about. Not management relying on metrics - but management where metrics drive the boat.

Re: When Right-Brained Creative Needs Left-Brained Justification | TalentZoo.com

Doug Garnett — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:06:08 -0000

Interesting post. Over my career I've become convinced that agencies need to get training in business fundamentals - not their own, but the fundamentals of client business. Certainly, when I founded my agency it was on the idea that advertising must deliver business result and be part of business strategy - not merely a creative strategy.

And what I've found is we're pretty unusual. At the same time, we rarely fight problems with explanation - because our work has already been defined by what matters to clients: their business challenges.

Certainly this would be a stretch for many creatives. And in that case, it's the role the account team should play - to ensure that client business needs connect with the creative strategy and be able to explain it.

That's not a role for creatives. It's critical they pour heart and soul into their work. But it's also critical that the client discuss it objectively, be free to say things that might concern a creative, and come to their own sense of how the work fits their business.

Unfortunately, in today's world, we expect creative teams to be the best defenders of their work and have reduced the AE role far below what it should be.

Re: The Ad Contrarian: Live TV Declines Bigly For 3rd Month

Doug Garnett — Tue, 16 May 2017 17:44:36 -0000

The other element to consider is whether those who are changing their viewing habits are the core of why TV is good advertising.

There seems to be no question that the fundamental core of those who cobble together their own programming without cable are mostly in the bottom quintile of TV viewers. They have always watched least, etc...

So the "time viewing" numbers matter somewhat, but not all viewers are equal.

My sense is eventually it'll level off at 10-15% of the population willing to watch only limited programming or willing fight the battle to put together a big viewlist out of the chaos of Netflix, Amazon, AppleTV, Hulu, and the other 25 subscriptions they'd need.

But these are also the ones who were least economically valuable for the advertiser (although they may have been psychologically important to the agency convincing the advertiser that 21 year olds are the core of their brand buyers).

Re: Jhabvala vs. Kiz: Does Trevor Siemian or Paxton Lynch benefit more from Tony Romo’s retirement?

Doug Garnett — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 12:55:15 -0000

That's really the nub of the question for me. I didn't see enough strong throws to be optimistic. If they are there, then giving him time to develop might work. My skepticism is merely that from the game time I saw with Lynch, I didn't see the potential. We shall see. Thanks for the reply.

Re: Jhabvala vs. Kiz: Does Trevor Siemian or Paxton Lynch benefit more from Tony Romo’s retirement?

Doug Garnett — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:12:07 -0000

It's incredible to me that mature sports writers seem to maintain unquestionable mystical faith in the "first round pick" - despite plenty of history showing how often first round picks flame out.

I look forward to the competition. But at this point, Lynch has shown nothing on the field that makes me think he should win the starting job. When Elway was a lad, we could excuse his youthful mistakes because he showed brilliant physical potential as he played. Lynch doesn't show that.

So why do these writers stick with their mysticism? What's funny is to realize their faith is not based in Paxton Lynch himself - but in the mystical value of the First Round Pick.

Re: 15 Things You Might Not Know About 'Nighthawks'

Doug Garnett — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:14:21 -0000

The Hemingway influence note is pretty thin. Every artist is "influenced" by a lot of things - most of them neither consciously nor as dominating influences.

And the "isolation of war" sure sounds like art historians desperately attempting to create something to write about.

I love Hopper's comment...because it's vagueness is probably the most accurate truth about it. Later, after people write tons about it, he says "unconsciously, probably"... Yeah. About that.

Because I respond to the warmth of the diner up against the coolness of the city. And the late night calm - which is attractive - in a city that's not chaotic and dirty.

Mostly, I think the art historians have freaked out because the painting taps such a chord with society... And rather than just say "isn't that excellent"... They have to explain it. Sheesh.

Re: The Ad Contrarian: Another Decade, Another Miracle

Doug Garnett — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:47:12 -0000

Love this post. And let's talk AI. Because the current hype about "AI" is merely Data re-packaged... We now know that 99 out of 100 data efforts find only tiny things - not big things. But to make it seem more important, they gave it a hypey new name... "Artificial Intelligence".

My expert in AI friends are laughing sadly. Because all the current hype about AI is actually only algorithms applied to data...there's nothing artificially intelligent about it. (But I suppose it is artificial.)

Re: Broncos Mailbag: What are the odds Denver lands Tony Romo?

Doug Garnett — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:58:09 -0000

Sure hope they fail to get Romo. What's so odd is how the Post seems to be anti-Siemian. Suppose it shouldn't really be a surprise. I remember how "pro Tebow" they were when the rest of us knew better.

Now they've shifted their beliefs to Lynch... Ignoring, somehow, how lackluster his play was. I remember Elway's first years. Lots of stumbles - but brilliance always showed through. I haven't seen that with Lynch yet.

Re: The Cost of Advertising Nationally Broken Down by Medium

Doug Garnett — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:05:42 -0000

Disappointed by your cost note about national TV advertising. That makes it sound outrageously expensive.

Hope in your 2017 numbers you can get to the more subtle truth: TV has a high cost of entry, but it's generally the single most cost effective way to reach a mass audience. By contrast, most digital offerings have very low cost of entry, but are generally more expensive (and far slower) to achieve the same result.

In fact, here's a useful AdAge article with this quote from Coke: CMO Marcos de Quintos reports in AdAge that Coca-Cola's data showed its investment "returning $2.13 for every dollar spent on TV, compared with $1.26 for digital." http://adage.com/article/gu...