I just received an email from Chapters. Here’s what I saw:

Wow. They are going to save me 99 cents! Generous!

Usually the savings are in the range of 25-30%. I’ve gotten used to that I guess. So when I see a 9% discount (that amounts to less than $1.00!!), I think it’s pathetic, and I’m sort of irked that I bothered to open their email. I wonder if I’ll be quick to open subsequent emails from Chapters…..

1) Throw a hissy fit about the actions of CARTOON CHARACTERS (a cheetah and a hare) in a television advertisement that supposedly represent your company, and your competitor.

2) Sue said competitor over the fact that their CARTOON ‘cheetah’ eats (and vomits) your CARTOON ‘hare’, claiming it’s dispareging and tarnishing your brand.

Rogers and its wireless company yesterday filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against BCE and its wireless arm, alleging the spot with the cheetah and other ads “disparage, denigrate, discredit, tarnish, diminish, and otherwise depreciate” its brand.

The ad is here.

I am confused. Is it the the barfing part that is disparaging and tarnishing to the brand? Would have it been ok if the chetah just beat the hare in an ‘honest’ race?

Note to Rogers: the ad depicts CARTOON CHARACTERS, man. Chill. Your lawsuit only serves to get more people to see the ad, reinforcing the ad’s message - that Bell beats Rogers. Can’t you beat the actions of cartoon characters with actual facts? That your service is faster and stronger? No? Then maybe the hissy fit / lawsuit is your best weapon afterall.

Me, I hate them both and would love to watch a full out bloody brawl. And I’m not talking CARTOON CHARACTERS anymore.

An article in Business Week lets us in on the agency pitch process at MINI USA:

The first deviation from the norm came when McDowell organized a “boot camp” for the four finalists: a weekend immersion into all things MINI at a Rye Brook (N.Y.) hotel. There was plenty of face time and driving but the agencies were also required to perform in front of one another as each tried to impress the client-to-be, an unheard-of concept in the notoriously competitive ad world. “You don’t expect the client in these situations to be creative…that’s what they want us for,” says Scott Goodson, president of Strawberry Frog, one of the four contenders.

First, each team had to introduce themselves and create interesting name tags on the spot. The team from New York-based Mother put pictures of their actual mothers on tags. Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners (BSSP) of Sausalito, Calif., in a nod to socially correct recycling and frugality, they riffed, reused plain name tags from a meeting the previous week.

Then each team took turns answering questions that tested improv skills. “If Arnold Schwarzenegger runs for President, who should be his running mate?” went one game question. (Strawberry Frog’s team was divided between Sylvester Stallone and Papa Smurf.)

They also were sent out into nasty rainy weather to drive MINI Coopers and go on a kind of scavenger hunt for ideas and props to be used for a scrapbook. The book would tell a MINI story that the agencies and the client would all review over cocktails.

Maybe I’m just no fun, but I don’t see how these improv, quick on your feet, ‘oh-la-la lets show our creativity in 20 seconds’ - type contests prove that you’ll be even mediocre (at best) at solving genuine business problems. They sort of take me back to frosh week, which was a great time when I was eighteen and drunk. Now I just feel sort of nauseous thinking about competing for gainful work in the same (metaphorical) way that wet t-shirt contests are won.

Granted, the idea of spending lots and lots of time (weeks even) with a prospective client / agency is awesome - to really get to know each other’s strengths and challenges - actually courting each other, versus the speed dating (1 hour pitch) process which is the norm. But could we all just grow up a bit? I know, I know, I am just no fun.