I just love this picture

I have two problems this weekend.

First I have to edit some stuff about horses.

Second, being forgetful and busy I haven't got round to it. So I asked a colleague to remind me.

He sent me the picture.

And the award for the most witless, moronic, embarrassing, up-its-own-arse e-mail goes to ...., well, try a firm that's gone broke

It would seem that there is a new marketing magic abroad.

It is called Depersonalisation.

There is an example at the top.

Let me explain.

Quite rightly nobody but me, my close relatives, friends and a few kindly folk in Help the Aged gives a hoot that in April I got another Lifetime Achievement Award - this time at the Caples in New York.

But anyone who marvels at the manifold stupidities of large corporations will enjoy the email that the Xerox company just sent me about this.

They never bothered to de-duplicate those who had won. But to experience the full richness of this appalling message you have to experience it.

Phoney, agency drivel to the last degree, right down to the politically correct black guy - yet they have a good offering. No wonder they just went broke.

Come to think of it, this email may be up for an award, because (incredibly) the Caples Awards - despite being named after the man who developed the art of testing to see what works are about "creativity" not results.

You have to click through to see the most ghastly, phoney part.

How we all got screwed – and who did the screwing

For some time I had heard people say Robert Peston of the BBC was an extremely irritating individual.

He did a programme early this week about the great European catastrophe, and I can  see what they meant.

As he strode about the ruins of Rome in an ill-fitting overcoat (why can't these buggers keep still?) he gave out a sort of spurious enthusiasm which did jar a lot. He combined this with the common habit among TV presenters of emphasising certain words for no good reason. But the strong temptation to switch off was more than offset by what he revealed about the mess we're in.

Many people have pointed out the flaws in the European experiment - that a common currency is a straight-jacket; that the various countries are almost uniquely ill-suited to be yoked together; that economic union can't work without political union and so on.

But for the first time he showed in simple language how the politicians deliberately sidelined the safeguards originally built into the Euro experiment.

To get more nations involved and make things look better than they were they relaxed or even removed the good housekeeping requirements. Countries were allowed to get into more debt than they should have; they were deluged with cheap money.

And who connived at concealing what was going on? The banks. They invented derivatives that enabled countries to hide how deeply in debt they were by delaying the need for payment - in effect taking the rubbish off the books for a few years.

Well, here we are. In the shit. The culprits are exactly who you thought they were.

The people who will pay are exactly who you thought they were. too. You and me.

This will get you better results - but don't throw the baby out ...

Years ago I did a banner ad to promote racehorse ownership which had a horse galloping across the screen pulling a message. Worked like a charm.

Anyone who knows anything about online advertising is aware that ads with things happening tend to work better than ads where nothing happens.

Large corporate clients tend to hate this sort of thing. Too vulgar. But I recall simply making the prices flash for a posh wine merchant boosted sales over 10%

Here is some more detailed research about the subject.

http://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/rich-display-and-video-ads-boost-purchase-intent-14282/

However, one bit of that article got my goat a little.

"The days of solely measuring online campaign success on a cost per click or lead-generation basis are fading, with these measures indicating engagement with the ad itself rather than its success in improving brand metrics."

All attempts to stamp out phrases like "brand metrics" are to be vigorously encouraged, because they usually indicate an attempt by an agency to avoid being measured on anything more concrete.

At the start of that magnificent all-purpose door-stop, "Commonsense Direct and Digital Marketing" I quoted David Ogilvy's mentor (yes, he had one).

"The only purpose of advertising is to sell. It has no other function worth mentioning" - Raymond Rubicam.

I once did a talk to the Marketing Society called, "The research said it would sell. So how come we went broke?"

So I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. Whilst measuring on pay per click is a waste of time, measuring on cost of leads, whilst not as good as measuring on cost per sale is better than things like "engagement with the ad". This nauseating expression should be swept into outer darkness, along with brand metrics, core values, mission, vision and almost any phrase including the word strategic - especially if it is a job title. If that title also incorporates the word officer, sudden death should occur.

P.S. If you want to know why ads don't work and how to create ones that do, I still have space at my copy seminar in Bristol a week from today.

I will start with an analysis of 21 ads and posters I saw yesterday. Only one was any good. The rest varied between vaguely OK, useless and pathetic. Many were incomprehensible, most were wasteful, in many the layout actively discouraged readership.

I cannot think of any industry in which so few people are utterly clueless about what they should be doing.

What an opportunity for anyone who does!

And judging by what's happening in Europe, this is a wise time to start doing better. A lot better.

My lost pornographic career. A little bouquet of obscenities - and what have I done with my life?

I just wrote to a friend asking why she seems to be forever having holidays in exotic places.

She replied with three words. “I have tits”.

Years ago when I was young and – relatively – handsome, I was asked to pose for pornographic photographs.

If the thought leaves you torn between nausea and disbelief, I quite understand. Read no further.

I had no objection to the idea in principle – I was quite flattered. But I felt I could never rise to the occasion and refused.

Which leads me to ask: have you been following the big debate about barring porn on the internet?

I bet this would be about as effective as banning prostitution, alcohol or drugs – i.e. create a wonderful new playground for criminals. Mexico is a good example of what happens.

The only research I have seen on the effects of porn suggested that it led to fewer sexual crimes. I can’t find the research - don’t think I downloaded it. But doesn’t it make sense? Porn is a substitute.

However, moodily reflecting on this lost career opportunity, I started listing matters far more obscene.

Children in one part of India starve whilst food is left to rot in another after a bumper harvest. The Children of the Lord in Africa run amok raping and slaughtering their own parents and it takes years and millions to bring the culprit to book. An Italian father jumps off a balcony with his two children – in despair.

On a lesser scale the man who led Aviva down and down is rewarded - with £1.75 million just to leave. And so on.

Yesterday I went through two magazines tearing out examples of appalling advertising to comment on.

How can I possibly be enraged by lousy ads? I have no sense of proportion.

What have I done with my life?