TypeHunting.
Lots & lots of vintage lettering specimens to lose yourself in this morning.
Unpaid internships: why employers need to DIY
When it comes to internships there are strong arguments on both sides. This post will only delve into one side of the debate, so fans of balance, look away.
I’m not alone in disagreeing with unpaid graduate internships. I believe them to be reserved for university students who are looking to get a taste of their chosen industry and build up their CV while they’re financially supported elsewhere.
When it comes to graduates, the horror stories of internships seem to have worsened over recent years. Take this story, for example, of an illustrator’s first internship out of university.
If only it ended there. Graduates, beware – a new level has been reached. A friend recently told me story about one of her professional heroes who asked her to intern for an internship. We’ll call her The Editor.
A well-known, respected figure in a competitive industry and with an enviable CV, The Editor took a leap into entrepreneurship and needed an intern to help with a new start-up business.
She wanted to intern several people over the space of two months before deciding on one lucky mug to carry on with internship for four months with no solid job prospects at the end. She offered only travel and lunch expenses – her clever plan was to end up with the smartest of the bunch and all of the profit.
Realistically, anyone with a backbone will have told her to jog on, and of the remaining candidates it’s fair to say the more capable ones will have found a job elsewhere. The Editor will inevitably be left with some spineless, mildly talented sod who can’t get any better offer than to work for free for months on end. In other words, not exactly the perfect candidate to help you start a new business venture.
Stories like this prove (to me at least) that unpaid graduate internships need to cease existing. Play the game unfairly and you’ll attract the wrong people, set a bad example, and release people back into the wild having perpetuated the myth that free labour is acceptable. If you can’t pay someone to help, do it yourself.
Are There Too Many Jobs In Advertising And Marketing?
I am of the belief that more simple and human a process is, the more likely you are to get to a brilliant solution. By 'human' I just mean things like informal, non-jargony chats about the problem and the work, people meeting face-to-face, having honest conversations, discussions, arguments, a laugh here and there.
But the simple part got me to thinking, the way agencies and marketing departments are set-up makes it far more difficult to come up with great stuff than it should be.
What do you need, from an agency point-of-view? Someone who understands the commercial side of what is trying to be achieved, someone with an understanding of the punter, someone who can come up with a way to attack the problem, someone with the skills to put in together well, and someone who can sell the solution.
In the current world of advertising agencies, all of these jobs have been split out, production-line style into separate jobs.
I don't think this is the simplest and best solution. I think advertising was, and is, better off, when fewer people get involved, and those skills above crossed over between them. Less baton-passing, and more attacking of the original business problem head-on.
I think a far better way is to have a commercially and strategically-minded account director, and a strategically-smart creative or creative team working on a problem. I think the planning process gets in the way of coming up with great ideas. It separates the problem from the solution.
This might come off as planner-bashing. But it isn't. I don't have a problem with the people who are planners - I've worked with some great ones, some really smart people. I just have a problem with the role that is planner, and its place in the process. Most of the really good planners I've worked with would have either made very good creatives, or very good account directors of the kind that I'd like to see more of.
What's happened is that separating-out the jobs has removed responsibility from the creatives - in a lot of agencies they don't have think strategically or be commercially-minded. They just paint the pretty pictures. This is part of the reason why a lot of advertising ends up being so facile, and part of reason why the role of creative is being diminished. And also, I think, part of the reason why the quality of advertising creatives is going down.
And the same has happened to account directors. They no longer need to be commercially and strategically smart, they just have to be good at making sure the client is happy (whatever that means).
It's the same on the client-side. All of these marketing roles that have been created look great on paper, but the jobs have become too fragmented. Where once an agency might have dealt with a commercial director, a sales director, or even directly with a CEO, now there are levels of people even within marketing departments.
What set-up do you think presents the best opportunity for the people in it to produce the best solution?
Senior responsible client – smart account director – smart creative people
or
CEO – Marketing director – marketing manager – brand manager – account director – account planner – creative team?
I'll nail my colours to the mast: I am firmly of the belief that cutting out all of the middle-men leads to better advertising.
But the simple part got me to thinking, the way agencies and marketing departments are set-up makes it far more difficult to come up with great stuff than it should be.
What do you need, from an agency point-of-view? Someone who understands the commercial side of what is trying to be achieved, someone with an understanding of the punter, someone who can come up with a way to attack the problem, someone with the skills to put in together well, and someone who can sell the solution.
In the current world of advertising agencies, all of these jobs have been split out, production-line style into separate jobs.
I don't think this is the simplest and best solution. I think advertising was, and is, better off, when fewer people get involved, and those skills above crossed over between them. Less baton-passing, and more attacking of the original business problem head-on.
I think a far better way is to have a commercially and strategically-minded account director, and a strategically-smart creative or creative team working on a problem. I think the planning process gets in the way of coming up with great ideas. It separates the problem from the solution.
This might come off as planner-bashing. But it isn't. I don't have a problem with the people who are planners - I've worked with some great ones, some really smart people. I just have a problem with the role that is planner, and its place in the process. Most of the really good planners I've worked with would have either made very good creatives, or very good account directors of the kind that I'd like to see more of.
What's happened is that separating-out the jobs has removed responsibility from the creatives - in a lot of agencies they don't have think strategically or be commercially-minded. They just paint the pretty pictures. This is part of the reason why a lot of advertising ends up being so facile, and part of reason why the role of creative is being diminished. And also, I think, part of the reason why the quality of advertising creatives is going down.
And the same has happened to account directors. They no longer need to be commercially and strategically smart, they just have to be good at making sure the client is happy (whatever that means).
It's the same on the client-side. All of these marketing roles that have been created look great on paper, but the jobs have become too fragmented. Where once an agency might have dealt with a commercial director, a sales director, or even directly with a CEO, now there are levels of people even within marketing departments.
What set-up do you think presents the best opportunity for the people in it to produce the best solution?
Senior responsible client – smart account director – smart creative people
or
CEO – Marketing director – marketing manager – brand manager – account director – account planner – creative team?
I'll nail my colours to the mast: I am firmly of the belief that cutting out all of the middle-men leads to better advertising.
Left a bit, a bit more... oh yeah. Bingo.
Mac Monkeys?
Studio Grunts?
Wacom Wankers?
Legends with Super Human Patience?
Whatever you call your Studio Designers; when the going gets tough (and your deadline approaches), the tough start hovering.
http://hoveringartdirectors.tumblr.com/
Studio Grunts?
Wacom Wankers?
Legends with Super Human Patience?
Whatever you call your Studio Designers; when the going gets tough (and your deadline approaches), the tough start hovering.
http://hoveringartdirectors.tumblr.com/
Friday Festival Of Fentimans
These are the latest ads in our print campaign for Fentimans, following on from this, this and this. The elements in each have been hand-printed on our vintage press, as we illustrated in this post. By the way, Friday is a great day to try your first Fentimans. You can see some of our other work for Fentimans here.
The Seal Of No Bullshit Approval
Our new (old) stamp arrived in the Sell! Towers this morning, refurbished and fitted with our new seal. It looks like this...
And it does this...
And it does this...
Delicious Gets a New Home
Our good friends Delicious Industries have just moved into their shiny new website. If you're into type and vintage design, you probably already read the Delicious blog - this has now been combined into the main studio website, as has their fantastic print and vintage design shop Art-O-Mart (great name) where you can buy all sorts of interesting print and design niceness. The site is extremely clean and slick, give it a proper look here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)