Related Posts
Chief
DM me for WAS administrator role in IBM.
More Posts
Conversation Starter
Who's got the most fishbowl points?
I’m sick of living in NYC but can’t go anywhere.
Additional Posts in Advertising
Who's got the most fishbowl points?
It’s Friday who’s partying
Tom Bagot, RIP
If you’re white like me it’s so important to realize that we were raised in a society where institutionalized racism is normalized, and we were born with privilege. You can’t choose the color of your skin, but you can choose to put ego aside and reflect on why this isn’t happening to me, and be vocal about being anti-racist.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Meh brand with sexy work. However, recruiters seem to care a lot more about the big names and scope of the work. They like buzz phrases such as “big multinational campaign.” On the meh brands, no one sees your work. Somehow media spend makes work recognizable and gives the illusion that the work is good. Most recruiters have never been creatives, so they look for these things. If it were me as a hiring manager, I don’t give a shot about the name or the scope. I look for the thought behind the work.
2.
1 is too easy. when i teach ad classes, i forbid them from using any “sexy” or “cool” brands. i’d be more impressed with the same thing in someone’s book.
it’s all about the work. who cares about the client? (other than the budget you might get with it.)
2 every time. If you can’t create sexy work on a great brand, then what are you doing? Doing sexy work on a brand everyone else has written off is more impressive.
Recruiters don’t know the difference between the two of those choices. But the CDs and ECDs definitely look for the second option.
Making decent work for a brand known for being risky like Little Caesar’s or Nike is fine, but doing great work for a telecom or bank? That’s hard and proves you’re not just creative, but you’re persuasive.
I think, in theory, we all want to hire 2. But in reality, when I look at people that get hired, it’s often 1.
2 - take nothing & make it into everything = Wow.
2. Always. It shows you can think and come up with ideas. So many sexy brands rely on a proven formula that got them famous (I:e “sexy”). I don’t need to know that you can write an empowering montage spot for Nike (no offense to anyone who works on that account, I would trade places with you in a heartbeat). I want to know you can do something interesting for a BANK. Because if you can do that, you can do anything
I personally prefer 2.
But recruiters like 1. CDs like 2. This is the conundrum. In real life, many times 2 won’t get you past the stupid gatekeeper who only sees 1. So the CDs never get to see your work. The recruiting process is broken.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?