Sources, proof-points, facts and references - and how they get in the way of a good story

 

A few years back, I had a little whinge about the Mr Gradgrinds of the world. Specifically, the instance on backing everything up with “facts," taking up time I could usefully spend on telling a compelling story.  

It strikes me that there’s even more demand for all this today. Maybe it’s because of the epidemic of high-profile people doctoring their CV, or their Doctorate Thesis. Or because Mr “Fake News” is heading back to the White House, or the unstoppable rise of AI. But I do find it wearying in the extreme.

There are some amusing incidents along the way, though. I signed up to one of those freelancer platforms and was asked to produce (and upload) some questionnaire from the German Finanzamt about and confirming my freelancer status. I told the person who’d asked for it that yes, I believe I did fill something like that in, but it would have been in 2002. And it would have been on paper. And I would have sent it by post. And no, I wouldn’t have kept a copy as I didn’t have a photocopier in my home at the time (not many people did). 

They would just have to take my word for it - which, luckily, they did. I suspect the woman who asked wasn’t even born in 2002 and was embarassed and bewildered by the whole thing.

Taking my word for it. When I write a presentation, or an article, it’s the bird building a nest syndome. There are bits and pieces - from stuff recently read, things I’ve learned, things I just know, intuitively, from long experience etc. etc. I can’t remember the source or reference for each bit because it’s not important. What’s important is the finished nest, where everything fits together in a lovely integral whole and you think - ah, yes!

In the end, it’s a matter of trust. As a whole, I don’t tend to make stuff up, or twist facts and figures to suit my argument (well, not too much). Sources, references and “proof-points” do tend to trip up the reader in the flow of the story, and there's little way of including them elegantly without the article ending up like the aforementioned Doctorate Thesis.

On the other hand, with this kind of howler coming out from an outfit the size of Microsoft, maybe those Mr Gradgrinds do have a point? 

The Last Campaign

 

I’ve been reading Campaign for more years than the 30 on this anniversary issue from 1998. My  introduction to the British ad industry’s rag was in my first job, working in the market research department of Spillers Foods. 

The trade magazines were divvied up amongst the market research department to scour for articles of interest. The most senior and glamorous of us got Campaign, the middle-ranking execs got Marketing and Marketing Week, and yours truly, the trainee, got The Grocer. 

I loved Campaign - it presented a fabulous world of creativity, eccentricity, wit and wisdom that I couldn’t get enough of.

Once I started working at Saatchi, the magazine was still read avidly and woe-betide anyone that snatched the Group Account Director’s copy before they’d had a chance to look at it.

I’ve had a subscription to Campaign for the 20 years I’ve been freelancing. While it’s been useful to keep in touch with the UK ad scene, I have to say that my interest has waned. Concurrently, the price of the thing has rocketed, even though it has gone 100% digital, which should save costs, by my logic.

From 2021 to last year, the price of my subscription rocketed +172%, and a further price hike of over 50% came this year. 

Campaign still has a few good articles and thought pieces - and I tend to then look up the authors and stalk, sorry, follow them on LinkedIn. But I’m afraid much of it falls into the Reinventing the past category for me.

With those ludicrous price hikes, I’ve come to the conclusion that Campaign has lost its value in terms of being informative, useful or entertaining. Money that can be better spent.

And there seem to be one or two alternatives that won’t break the bank.

So, cheerio, Campaign. Nice knowing you.