alexbogusky’s posterous

I was just so excited to have a review in LA Times that the fact that it was harsh didn’t really hurt my feelings much. To survive 20+ years in the advertising industry, my feelings dried up and blew away long ago. I do miss them. But without feelings in the way it was easy to appreciate how lucky I was to even get reviewed. Dan Neil isn’t the normal book reviewer or even advertising columnist but is instead the automotive columnist so he probably had to get special permission to review the book. But who knows. We were tough on the automotive industry in the book so perhaps that was the reason for the special assignment.

Ernest Lupinacci a founder of Anomaly and really brilliant creative wrote a rebuttal to the LAT letters section and he copied me. At this point it seems they have chosen not to run it so it’s social media to the rescue. Sometimes Ernest is so smart I have no idea what he’s saying. But he clearly still has feelings which is a beautiful thing. I’ve pasted it below.

Regarding Dan Neil's article "Ad guys' book is self-centered, half-baked" (Los Angeles Times, November 3, 2009), Mr. Neil implies that "perhaps Bogusky and Windsor never had an editor to challenge them on some of their most evident holes in their book." 

Having read Mr. Neil's column, I can't help but infer that he likewise operates untethered by any editorial guidance. And so, as he so magnanimously challenged Bogusky and Windsor on their collective point of view, I will now graciously attempt to challenge his. 

Granted, his assertion that "better products tend to sell better" would seem self-evident, but the real issue is what actually constitutes "better"? In the case of the stripped-down, web-friendly Flip video camera, that "better product" is exactly the sort of "better" product a legacy brand like Sony was incapable of designing - because Sony believes that they have the patent on making and marketing a "better" product. So suffice it to say, not all "better" products are created equal. 

The author's critique that consumers' would be ill-advised to design their own running shoes as they  "draw on esoteric fields of biomechanics and material science" is literally the very definition of "sophomoric." If Mr. Neil was even remotely aware of the realities of pre-fabrication and mass-customization, he might have noticed that it is possible for the average person to design their own home without holding a degree in architecture or engineering - since they are ultimately spec'ing the finished product by choosing from a set of pre-existing components. 

Of course, both of these points barely begin to approach Neil's egregious definition of marketing as merely the means to "...minimize the downside." 

Huh? 

I wonder if he were asked to define the purpose of the newspaper industry, if Mr. Neil wouldn't reply "What is journalism for if not to provide a place to run full-page newspaper ads in?" Marketing, Mr. Neil, is a means by which products and brands seek to differentiate themselves in the marketplace by contextualizing their quantitative and qualitative benefits. I'll attempt to show you what I mean using an example you might relate to: The New York Times' slogan is "All The News That's Fit To Print" - and whether that thought resonates with you or not,  I'm sure you'd agree that what "The Grey Lady" is attempting to communicate is that the quality of its product is superior, substantial, and thereby meaningful to the consumer. (Or perhaps, you would contend that the statement is somehow meant to "minimize the downside" of the reality that the Times is printed on paper that requires trees to be cut down?)

Lastly, Mr. Neil's very own estimation of what defines arrogance and naivete ironically and exquisitely exposes his own propensity to be arrogant and naive. I almost didn't believe my eyes when I read the sentence "It's far easier to craft marketing to fit the product than to craft product to fit somebody's idea of good marketing." Yes, of course it is far easier, but not necessarily smarter, or beneficial, or profitable. Don't take my word for it, just ask the city of Detroit. For decades it was in fact far easier to merely "craft marketing" that sought to sell poorly-designed, poorly-conceived automobiles to the consumer. And so, instead of doing what was necessary - spend money on retooling, and seeking new suppliers, and finding the money to "break open new paradigms" - the US Auto Manufacturers apparently followed your sage advice; they dug in their heels, held their breath, and arrogantly and naively watched an entire industry implode. 

Ernest Lupinacci