Chapter 1: Overture — ‘Let us march against Philip’

“I do not regard advertising as entertainment or an art form, but as a medium of information.”

This is the first line in David Ogilvy’s second book Ogilvy on Advertising and it’s also as far as I was able to read the first time I picked up the book. My inability to go on was not due to my probable reading disorder or lack of attention span, but rather, I had to close the book after reading this line because I fell into one of those moments of pure bliss that you feel when you hear exactly what you need to hear at exactly the right moment. There is nothing like the moment when someone articulates how you feel far better than you could ever have expressed yourself. In fact, while trying to make it through the first chapter, this sensation happened to me so many times that I had to strategically plan actually sitting and reading the damn book. This may all sound melodramatic, but when you are a self-admitted advertising fanatic, reading the words of THE father of advertising, things DO get melodramatic.

The experience of reading an ad man’s words is completely different than reading the words of any other author. Ogilvy is so clearly a copywriter at heart. Each sentence feels as if it could be followed by a mic drop or be a featured headline for just about any product. Ogilvy practically writes in the form of kitschy headline. He grasped that every word can be impactful 30 years before Vine popularized this idea of SHORT short-form content. In an age when six second videos don’t necessarily indicate a millennial’s lack of attention span, but rather a youthful understanding that every second is precious and that storytelling can be about succinct, pure quality, Ogilvy’s quotes are full of punch and are an inspiration in both form and meaning.

Before digging in, allow me to explain this project. I plan to blog my way through reading Ogilvy on Advertising. Here is a curiosity worth exploring: When so much of the media industry — and therefore society — has changed so quickly, how can it be that Ogilvy’s statements and theories still ring true? You read his “ism”s and cannot help but wonder how is it that Ogilvy died less than a year after Google was founded and yet he seems to understand the essence of modern-day media?

My nasty habit of judging books by their first pages was assuaged after reading this paragraph:

“This is not a book for readers who think they already know all there is to be known about advertising. It is for young hopefuls — and veterans who are still in search of ways to improve their batting average at the cash register.”

Ogilvy wrote this book for me. And no, I do not mean this in a destiny and fate manner, but I mean that Ogilvy genuinely loved and believed in his work and wished to pass that on to those who want to learn. And I want to learn from those who want to teach.

Other than my friends being sick of my media theory fangirling, ultimately, it is for the following reason that I’d like to publicly explore Ogilvy’s words. And who better to help me express this reason than Ogilvy himself.

“Does old age disqualify me from writing about advertising in today’s world? Or could it be that perspective helps a man to separate the eternal verities of advertising from its passing fads?”

The fact that Ogilvy does not state the latter as fact and leaves the reader questioning his legitimacy is such a brilliant insight into Ogilvy’s mind that the only response that I am left with is my own millennial-born profound mantra of being unable “to even.”

And then he goes on.

“So far, there has been only one change that can be called major: television has emerged as the most potent medium for selling most products.”

I nearly screamed after reading this. There is so much I NEED TO TELL OGILVY. SO much he hasn’t seen. SO many of his opinions that I crave. If only he could see that the digital age has disrupted advertising so much that it has almost pushed television into obscurity. I want to dig Ogilvy up, shake him around, and sit him in front of Facebook, YouTube, Netflix, virtual reality, and every other element of new media that technology has allowed to completely and totally redefine the way that society functions. I want to scream “BUT, DAVID, I DON’T EVEN WATCH TV.”

Ogilvy had NO idea what was coming. He was never able to apply his brilliance and insight into the technological innovations of modern day. And this brings me back to quotation #1. Is this all as disruptive as I think it is? New media changes so quickly — What even is a fad? What is here to stay? Does the word ‘fad’ even indicate the same thing now as it did when Ogilvy chose the word in that first quote?

There is so much that he would have to say about today’s media. I cannot help but relate these thoughts to my love-hate relationship with Marshall McLuhan, also a father, but of media theory. McLuhan could not have conceived half of the current technology that exists and yet his predictions are so on point that if he didn’t write so goddamn esoterically then I could probably swap his writings with an Adweek article and not be able to tell the difference.

My point is this: I want to utilize David Ogilvy’s brilliance and experience to dig through modern media and advertising. For me, using the past to predict the future is a bit daunting, however, I want to use the past to dissect the present. Trends come and go, but if there is anyone who has done his fair share of searching for influential and lasting change, it is Ogilvy.

A note to keep in mind: I refuse to put words into a dead man’s mouth. I will share direct quotes from Ogilvy rather than paraphrase for fear of smearing brilliance with 22 year-old inexperience. I do not think this is lazy writing, but those who see it that way are just as entitled to their own opinion as I am.

I don’t have a particular format in mind for these posts. I expect as a whole this writing exercise will alter my perception of blogging, advertising, and Ogilvy himself. I do not want to limit this development to a set form, but I know that I would like to end each post with a few quotations. I encourage anyone interested in the book to read it yourself, but consider these quotes the Sparknotes of notable Ogilvy-ism’s.

On creativity:

“When I write an advertisement, I don’t want you to find it ‘creative.’ I want you to find it so interesting that you buy the product. When Aeschines spoke, they said, ‘How well he speaks.’ But when Demosthenes spoke, they said, ‘Let us march against Philip.’”

Ogilvy’s disdain for the word ‘creative’ makes me almost laugh out loud. He outwardly despises the buzzwords that so many in the advertising industry praise. But it is important to remember that it is not the concept Ogilvy rejects, however, he steers away from the idea that creativity is the be-all, end-all. To denounce the art of advertising to being original and “thinking outside the box” is to take an industry and make it only attainable to the eccentric and outward thinkers. Advertising is about relating. It is the essence of the human condition and the crave to connect. As Ogilvy put it in that first line of his book, ultimately, it is about information.

On fad/bad advertising:

“There have always been noisy lunatics on the fringes of the advertising business. Their stock-in-trade includes ethnic humor, eccentric art direction, contempt for research, and their self-proclaimed genius. They are seldom found out, because they gravitate to the kind of clients who, bamboozled by their rhetoric, do not hold them responsible for sales results. Their campaigns find favor at cocktail parties in New York, San Francisco and London but are taken less seriously in Chicago.”

Ogilvy’s vast experience enabled him to tread through all the trends and fads and uncover what really mattered. I think that this is one of the more difficult elements of advertising since it is easy to lose sight of a goal and take an easy road.

I read Ogilvy’s words regarding ‘noisy lunatics’ and wonder what harsh statement he would make about clickbait or misleading banner ads. The many lazy digital campaigns that exist today are reflective of the current state of the big-money advertising world and their clients who just don’t get it. I’d like to think that Ogilvy would have a few choice words for these campaigns.

On advertising history:

“There have been other changes [to the industry] and I shall describe them, but their significance has been exaggerated by pundits in search of trendy labels. For example, the concept of brand images which I popularized in 1953, was not really new; Claude Hopkins had described it 20 years before. The so-called Creative Revolution, usually ascribed to Bill Bernbach and myself in the fifties, could equally well have been ascribed to N.W. Ayer and Young & Rubicam in the thirties.”

If you have not studied Ogilvy or are unfamiliar with his work, you may not realize his effect on the industry. Ogilvy embodies advertising history and therefore it would be disastrous to overlook his mastery. Ogilvy fostered the expressions that we associate with modern concepts. Here, he mentions ‘brand images’ — a phrase that is perhaps one of the biggest buzzwords with my self-branding obsessed peers. It’s clear from this excerpt that the history of advertising is complex, and phrases that are popular now shouldn’t always be taken at face value given their rich histories.

On conclusions:

“If you think it is a lousy book, you should have seen it before my partner Joel Raphaelson did his best to de-louse it. Bless you, Joel.”

And just like that, Ogilvy ends his appeal with a measured moment of self-deprecating humor. He is clearly a master of words and yet his closing remarks are a humble declaration of thanks. Parting with gratitude, D is classy AF.