A tale of loose underpants - or how to kill a great brand

I'll get back to the stuff on the left in a minute, but first I really must apologise for the utter banality of most of my marketing advice, as it seems to consist of a series of blinding glimpses of the obvious without nearly enough long words or references to social media.

However, since I often make the most fatuous mistakes myself (I committed an unforgivable sin a few weeks ago that I have long advised others against) maybe I should just carry on dishing out these platitudes.

So let's talk about what matters most.

Three weeks ago, stranded in Brooklyn, and too damn incompetent or idle to go to the laundrette, I went to Macy's to buy some underpants. I bought their own brand, and they are the worst-fitting, least- elasticated-where-they-should-be load of rubbish I've ever wasted money on. And one of the 5 T- shorts I bought to go with them ripped on first use.

I bet the big cheeses who run Macy's don't buy their own underwear. In fact I bet the big cheeses who run most large businesses don't use their own products or services, because (this is going to sound so sad) I also bought some underpants a few weeks ago from Marks and Spencer. They used to be famous for their underwear - but these were almost as bad as Macy's. So I guess Sir Stuart Rose, capo di tutti capi at M & S, doesn't buy his own stuff either.

Macy's are not doing too well. Nor are M & S. But in the US, Target are on a a roll. So after my failure at Macy's I went there and squandered a few dollars on their stuff. It fits perfectly. So I suspect the people who run Target do buy their own stuff. And after my failure at M & S (get a life, Drayton) I went to H & M and bought their. Also much better. And also, I suspect, because the people there deliver what they promise (cheap stuff that's value for money) and keep an eye on the store.

I guess you see where I'm going with this, but just to rub it all in, take French Connection. They're having their problems, and I think I can see why. No big secret. Their stuff is just not very well made for the money. Someone there clearly thinks the solution is one of the silliest advertising campaigns I've seen for a while, top left. It isn't.

Everyone spends a huge amount of time effort, syllables, powerpoint slides and all-round bullshit on marketing, and it is all a complete waste if you don't deliver something good and make sure you are doing so - in person.

Presenting the long-awaited inorgural issue of a brilliant new magazine

You're probably a bit fed up with gnawing your thumbs as your await the consequences of our farcical general election, so here it is.

Years ago I sent a memo to all my creative people reminding them of what they were up against, and quoted a series of headings largely culled from the front pages on women's mags.

To this day I gain great pleasure from the stuff they print, but none of them, not even Grazia, which is the best, quite reaches the matchless heights of thrilling new

OVERANALYZING magazine which takes journalism just that little bit further than it has ever been before.

Thank you, George Machun for sending me this. I shall not waste a second subscribing. Oh, and yes, "inorgural" is a deliberate mistake.

Pass the junk: a doubly poisoned chalice whoever wins

This little graph from the New York Times neatly explains that what the bankers were doing - passing on worthless junk we ended up paying for - is exactly what Europe's politicians are doing.

They are passing each other's toxic national debt round. That's one reason why whoever wins this election we will all lose. That is beside the fact that Mr. Brown has been spending 25% more than we are earning. From a fiscal point of view he is as guilty as the politicians who failed to rearm before world war, but unlike you and me, who will foot the bill, he will have a fat, index-linked pension as a reward.

Folly reigns everywhere, of course. I see The Pru, despite employing battalions of extortionately expensive advisers didn't do its homework before its planned takeover of AIA. I guess the advisers were too busy counting their fees to do their job.

Yet another demonstration of the fact that so many in financial services are as blindingly incompetent as they are obscenely overpaid. But a lucky escape, I suspect; most of these deals fail to create added value, being based on the idea that a) a deal is an easier road to profit than hard work; b) two culturally different organisations will fit in with each other; and c) won't it be fun when I have a bigger organisation to preside over?

A curse on specialists and their fatuous lingo...

Every day I walk past a rather grand building on the same street as my squalid office which is occupied by Tribal DDB and wonder how long they will carry on doing well. They obviously have some talented people, but what are they for?

This came to mind when, as a fond connoisseur of pretentious cliche I came upon this in Marketing magazine, which was discussing whether there was any future for digital agencies:

Dylan Williams, head of strategy at Mother, believes this is symptomatic of a watershed moment in the evolution of digital.

God, I hope he doesn't talk like that to his family, but it reminded me of something that great man Victor Ross once said which managed to belittle the tripe ad agency poseurs come out with about strategy:

"My idea of strategy is deciding where to go to lunch."

However, the article was interesting, as what Mr. Williams was talking about was that advertisers are now realising there is no good reason to go to specialist digital agencies.

As a matter of fact, it has never been clear to me why advertisers should rely so much on specialists. If you can convey ideas, know how to persuade and you take the trouble to study the various media, you should be able to work in all of them.

Your prospects do not adjust their emotions or motivations when they turn from the computer to watch the TV or pick up the paper or catch sight of a poster - any more than I do when I write this, rather than an ad or an email or draft a speech - with or without slides

Specialism is dangerous; and one good example dates back to the days when I first entered advertising. TV advertising had just arrived in the U.K. so all the agencies rushed to hire people who had film, rather than advertising experience.

It hardly ever worked. In the end the people who made the best commercials were advertising people like John Webster and Alan Parker. I worked with both of them for a while; Alan then went into films and did pretty well. I think he is now Lord Parker or something grand like that; John made more good commercials than anyone I can think of.

Incidentally, I was just about to put this up when I read another classic from an Aussie advertising mag:

It’s essential to script the customer scenarios for action that boost conversion rates. Beyond publishing content online, you need to focus on achieving your online goals, blend the push of the web with the pull of email, and track customer experiences across your multiple touch-points.

That reminds me. When he didn't like a piece of copy, Fairfax Cone would look at the writer and ask: "Would you say that to someone you know?"

Well, would you?

We really ARE all at sea

It is my profound conviction that you can put most if not all of the world's troubles down to sheer pig-ignorance.

This was brought home to me for the zillionth time when I watched (under extreme duress, because my partner said I should show an interest) the "debate" - or exchange of cliches - between Brown, Cameron and Clegg

But a good example of what we are up against is in the map, here, showing where CNN thinks Lisbon is. Some idiot there has arbitrarily towed one of my favourite cities into the middle of the Atlantic.

You would think an American news organisation would have some vague idea about the location of the city Christopher Columbus set sail from - but it seems not.

This reminded me of a long-ago conversation with the convivial Irish restaurateur Peter Langan, who told me the solution to the Northern Irish problem was to saw the province off, tow it into the middle of the Atlantic and turn it upside down.

Anyhow the great election gabfest I was forced to watch was even worse than I feared. The three bullshitters barely touched on the thing we are all going to suffer for over the next decade or so, which is the colossal debt Brown and Blair have run up. In fact all three of the candidates acted as if there was tons of lolly sloshing about to pay for their fancy promises. Barely a word about the greatest financial crisis of my lifetime.

Without quite being openly racist, the one thing they all seemed to agree about was that immigration is a bad thing. The facts - that immigrants generally do work locals won't and a big reason is Gordon Brown's insane tax structure which penalises people who might otherwise work - were barely touched upon.

Only one candidate mentioned that 80% of immigration comes from Europe, so there's sod all we can do about it. Nobody raised the question of whether we should be governed by an unelected bunch of Eurocrats; and no mention was made of the wholesale dishonesty in Westminster.

In the end, you were left deciding which of the three did the best impression of sincerity - as opposed to being sincere. I thought Clegg, but that's not the best way to pick the next prime minister.

Speaking of which, I promised two days ago to review the electoral guff that came though my letterbox. I fear you're all going to be a bit preoccupied next week over your least worst option, so I will do that after the results come out and you have all lost interest. Sorry, my timing is awful.

I will say one thing, though. The Lib Dem leaflet was by far the best, for a reason any knowledgeable marketer will recognise.

But that doesn't mean they are going to do as well as the polls suggest. I have a feeling voters might wonder whether people who have never been in government are right for the job. Then again, how could they do worse than the current set of crooks, bluffers and chancers? One reason, I suspect, why there is an exceptional number of don't knows in the polls is that we are all dismayed by the choices before us.